DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE ... - Toronto

geotechnics

construction materials testing

90 scarsdale road telephone: (905) 474-5265

toronto, ontario fax: (416) 444-3179

M3B 2R7 e-mail: [email protected]

Report Ref. No. 18-020

March 26, 2018

Prepared For:

City of Toronto

Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division

Toronto City Hall

8th Floor East, 100 Queen Street West

Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

Prepared By:

Alston Associates

A division of Terrapex Environmental Ltd.

Distribution:

Digital Copy - City of Toronto

DRAFT

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE

STABILITY ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS

1300 ISLINGTON AVENUE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

alston associates Reference 18-020

A division of Terrapex Environmental Ltd. DRAFT March 26, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

TOM RILEY PARK PARKING LOT, 1300 ISLINGTON AVENUE, TORONTO

CITY OF TORONTO

i

CONTENTS

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

2 FIELDWORK ......................................................................................................................................... 1

3 LABORATORY TESTS ............................................................................................................................ 2

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

4.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................................................... 2

4.2 Asphaltic Concrete ............................................................................................................................... 3

4.3 Fill Material ............................................................................................................................................. 3

4.4 Native Soils ............................................................................................................................................. 3

4.4.1 Sandy Silt ................................................................................................................................... 3

4.4.2 Clayey Silt (Till) .......................................................................................................................... 4

4.5 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 4

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

5.1 Excavation.............................................................................................................................................. 5

5.2 Groundwater Control ............................................................................................................................ 5

5.3 Reuse of On-site Excavated Soil as a Compacted Backfill .............................................................. 6

5.4 Lighting System Foundations ................................................................................................................ 6

5.5 Retaining Wall ........................................................................................................................................ 7

5.6 Pavement Design .................................................................................................................................. 7

5.7 Earthquake Design Parameters ........................................................................................................... 9

5.8 Lateral Earth Pressure ............................................................................................................................ 9

5.9 Chemical Characterization of Subsurface Soil ................................................................................ 11

6 STABILITY ASSESSMENT OF CREEK BANK ........................................................................................ 12

6.1 Stable Slope Allowance ...................................................................................................................... 13

6.2 Toe Erosion Allowance ........................................................................................................................ 13

6.3 Erosion Access Allowance ................................................................................................................. 14

6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 14

7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT .................................................................................................................. 14





CITY OF TORONTO

ii

APPENDICES .

APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOG SHEETS

APPENDIX D LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX E CERTIFICATE OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES

APPENDIX F SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS





CITY OF TORONTO

1

1 INTRODUCTION

Alston Associates (AA) has been retained by the Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division of the City of Toronto

(City) to carry out a geotechnical investigation and slope stability assessment for the proposed parking lot

reconstruction at Tom Riley Park, located at 1300 Islington Avenue in Toronto, Ontario. Authorization to

proceed with this study was given by Ms. Karina Fortunatova of the City.

We understand that it is proposed to reconstruct the parking lot at the above referenced park with new

asphalt pavement, poured concrete curbs, lighting system, retaining wall with guard rails, and a pedestrian

access pathway.

The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, to

determine the engineering properties of the various soil deposits underlying the site, and to provide

geotechnical engineering recommendations pertaining to the proposed parking lot reconstruction. This

investigation report will also address the stability of the west bank of Mimico Creek located to the east of the

parking lot.

This report presents the results of the investigation performed in accordance with the general terms of

reference outlined above and is intended for the guidance of the client and the design architects or

engineers only. It is assumed that the design will be in accordance with the applicable standards.

2 F IELDWORK

The fieldwork for this investigation was carried out on March 13, 2018. It consisted of six (6) boreholes,

advanced by a drilling contractor commissioned by AA. The locations of the boreholes were chosen by the

project Landscape Architect, Cosburn Nauboris Ltd., to provide subsurface information at the proposed

locations of the lighting system and retaining wall, and are shown on the Borehole Location Plan enclosed in

Appendix B.

The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 4.3 to 5.0 m below ground surface (mbgs). The ground

surface elevations at the borehole locations were established using the site Topographic Survey Plan

prepared by J. H. Gelbloom Surveying Limited dated July 21, 2017.

Standard penetration tests were carried out in the course of advancing the boreholes to take representative

soil samples and to measure penetration index values (N-values) to characterize the condition of the various

soil materials. The number of blows of the striking hammer required to drive the split spoon sampler to 300 mm

depth was recorded and these are presented on the logs as penetration index values. Results of SPT are

shown on the borehole log sheets in Appendix C of this report.

Groundwater level observations were made in the boreholes upon completion of each of their

advancement. The results of the groundwater measurements are discussed in Section 4.5 of this report.

The fieldwork for this project was carried out under the supervision of an experienced geotechnical

technician from this office who laid out the positions of the boreholes in the field; arranged locates of buried





CITY OF TORONTO

2

services; effected the drilling, sampling and in situ testing; observed groundwater conditions; and prepared

field borehole log sheets.

3 LABORATORY TESTS

The soil samples recovered from the split spoon sampler were properly sealed, labelled, and brought to our

laboratory. They were visually classified and water content tests were conducted on all soil samples retained

from Boreholes 1, 4, and 5. The results of the classification, water contents, and Standard Penetration Tests

are presented on the borehole logs sheets attached in Appendix C of this report.

Grain-size analyses were carried out on one (1) fill soil and one (1) native soil sample. The results of these tests

are presented as Figures D-1 and D-2 in Appendix D.

In addition, six (6) soil samples were submitted to an analytical laboratory for chemical analyses for Metals &

Inorganic parameters, pH and soluble sulphate. The results of these tests are enclosed in Appendix E;

discussed in Section 5.9 of this report.

4 S I TE AND SUBSURFACE CONDIT IONS

Full details of the subsurface and groundwater conditions at the site are given on the borehole Log sheets

attached in Appendix C of this report.

The following paragraphs present a description of the site and a commentary on the engineering properties

of the various soil materials contacted in the boreholes.

It should be noted that the boundaries of soil types indicated on the borehole logs are inferred from non-

continuous soil sampling and observations made during drilling. These boundaries are intended to reflect

transition zones for the purpose of geotechnical design, and therefore, should not be construed as exact

planes of geological change.

4.1 Site Descript ion

The site consists of the parking lot for Tom Riley Park which has the municipal address 1300 Islington Avenue in

the City of Toronto, Ontario. It is bounded by the park’s baseball diamond to the south, high-rise residential

developments to the west, and the Mimico Creek to the east and north. It has an irregular shape;

approximately 120 m long and 20 to 65 m wide.

The site consists of an asphalt paved parking lot. Two (2) pedestrian bridges at the north and south limits of

the site connect the parking lot to the Etobicoke Lawn Bowling Club and Etobicoke Collegiate Institute. The

Mimico Creek runs in a north-south direction along the eastern limit of the site.

The ground surface at the site grades down from the north to the south. The ground surface elevations at the





CITY OF TORONTO

3

borehole locations range from 116.8 to 118.0 m.

4.2 Asphalt ic Concrete

Asphaltic concrete is present in all boreholes. The thickness of the asphaltic concrete in Boreholes 1 to 5;

located within the parking area is approximately 100 mm. The thickness of the asphaltic concrete in Borehole

6 on the pedestrian path is approximately 25 mm.

The asphaltic concrete at Boreholes 2 and 3 is underlain by granular base material consisting of moist, black

gravelly sand; 150 and 100 mm in depth, respectively. The granular base underlying the asphaltic concrete

along the pedestrian path in Borehole 6 has an approximate thickness of 200 mm and consists of brown

gravelly sand. Granular base is not present under the asphaltic concrete at Boreholes 1, 4 and 5.

SPT carried out in the granular base materials indicate a very loose to loose compactness condition.

4.3 Fi l l Material

Fill material is present in all boreholes; below the granular base in Boreholes 2, 3, and 6, and below the

asphaltic concrete in the remaining boreholes. It consists of variable sand and silt with some clay to clayey

and trace gravel to gravelly and clayey silt with trace to some sand and trace gravel. The fill also contains

organic matter such as topsoil pockets, rootlets, and wood pieces.

The fill material extends to depths ranging from 1.8 to 2.6 mbgs. It is brown, dark brown, and dark grey in

colour and moist to wet in appearance. The water content of the fill soil samples retained from Boreholes 1,

4, and 5 range from 9 to 29% by weight

SPT carried out in the fill material measured N-values ranging from 0 to 20; indicating a very loose to compact

compactness condition or very soft to firm consistency; generally being loose or firm.

Sieve and hydrometer grain size analysis was carried out on one representative sample obtained from

Borehole 3 at 0.5 mbgs (Sample 1B). The test results are enclosed in Appendix D as Figure D-1 and reveal that

the material is comprised of 4% gravel, 45% sand, 38% silt, and 13% clay.

Based on the grain size analysis results, the Coefficient of Permeability (k) of the silt soil is estimated to be

1.4x10-5 cm/sec; low relative permeability.

4.4 Native Soi ls

The soil stratum below the fill material is the native soil consisting of sandy silt and clayey silt.

4 .4 .1 Sandy S i l t

A deposit of sandy silt with traces of clay and gravel is present below the fill material in all boreholes. It extends

to the explored depth of Boreholes 1 to 5, and to 3.2 mbgs in Borehole 6. The sandy silt unit is grey in colour

and changes from moist to wet in appearance approximately 3.0 mbgs. The water content of the sandy silt





CITY OF TORONTO

4

samples retained from Boreholes 1, 4, and 5 ranges from 16 to 35% by weight.

SPT carried out in the sandy silt unit has N-values ranging from 22 to 51, indicating a compact to very dense

compactness condition; generally being dense.

Sieve and hydrometer grain size analysis was carried out on one representative sample obtained from

Borehole BH1 at 3.0 mbgs (Sample 5). The test results are enclosed in Appendix D as Figure D-2 and reveals

that the material is comprised of 32% sand, 63% silt, and 5% clay.

Based on the grain size analysis results, the Coefficient of Permeability (k) of the silt soil is estimated to be

5.5x10-4 cm/sec; medium relative permeability.

4 .4 .2 Clayey S i l t (T i l l )

A deposit of clayey silt till with traces of sand and gravel is present below the sandy silt in Boreholes 6. This till

is a glacial deposit and consists of a random mixture of soil particles ranging from clay to gravel, with the silt

and clay being the predominant fractions. It extends to the explored depth of the borehole; 5.0 mbgs. It is

grey in colour and moist in appearance.

SPT carried out in the clayey silt till unit has N-values of 28 and 42; indicating a very stiff to hard consistency.

4.5 Groundwater

Groundwater level and cave-in of the unlined side walls of the boreholes were measured during the course

of the borehole drilling and upon completion of the boreholes. The groundwater measurements are shown

on the individual borehole logs and summarized in the following table.

Borehole No. Groundwater Depth (mbgs) Cave-in Level (mbgs)

1 3.0 3.4

2 3.0 4.0

3 3.0 3.4

4 3.0 3.4

5 3.0 3.7

6 0.9 Open

Based on our field observations, it is anticipated that the long term groundwater level is situated within the

native sandy silt; approximately 2.5 to 3.0 mbgs.

It should be noted that groundwater levels are subject to seasonal fluctuations. A higher groundwater level

condition will likely develop in the spring and following significant rainfall events.





CITY OF TORONTO

5

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following discussions and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from the boreholes

advanced at the site by AA and are intended for use by the client and design architects and engineers only.

We understand that the proposed parking lot reconstruction will include new asphalt pavement, poured

concrete curbs, lighting system, retaining wall with guard rails, and a pedestrian access pathway. It is

anticipated that site re-grading will not be required.

Contractors bidding on this project or conducting work associated with this project should make their own

interpretation of the factual data and/or carry out their own investigations.

5.1 Excavation

Based on the borehole findings, excavations for foundations and utilities are not expected to pose any

difficulty. Excavation of the soils at this site can be carried out with hydraulic excavators.

All excavation work must be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

With respect to the OHSA, the fill soil and the native sandy silt above the water table are expected to conform

to Type 3 soils. The native sandy silt below the water table are classified as Type 4 soil.

For excavations through multiple soil types, the side slope geometry is governed by the soil with the highest

number designation. Excavation side-slopes should not be unduly left exposed to inclement weather.

Excavation slopes consisting of sandy soils will be prone to gullying in periods of wet weather, unless the slopes

are properly sheeted with tarpaulins.

Temporary excavations for slopes in Type 3 soil should not exceed 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. In the event

very loose and/or soft soils are encountered at shallow depths or within zones of persistent seepage, it will be

necessary to flatten the side slopes as necessary to achieve stable conditions. Slopes of sidewalls of

excavations in Type 4 soil should not exceed 3.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical.

Where workers must enter excavations extending deeper than 1.2 m below grade, the excavation side-walls

must be suitably sloped and/or braced in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and

Regulations for Construction Projects.

It should be noted that the clayey silt till is a glacial deposit; a non-sorted sediment and therefore may contain

boulders. Provisions must be made in the excavation and foundation installation contracts for the removal

of possible boulders.

5.2 Groundwater Control

Based on observations made during the drilling of the boreholes and close examination of the soil samples

extracted from the boreholes, the groundwater table is anticipated to be situated at 2.5 to 3.0 mbgs.

The soils encountered in the boreholes possess low to medium permeability coefficients. Excavations for

reconstruction of the pavement of the proposed parking lot is not anticipated to extend into the groundwater





CITY OF TORONTO

6

table. Excavations made for construction of the foundations for the proposed light poles may extend into

the groundwater table. It is anticipated that adequate control of groundwater can be achieved with filtered

sump pumps positioned in the base of excavations.

Surface water should be directed away from open excavations.

5.3 Reuse of On-si te Excavated Soi l as a Compacted Backfi l l

The fill soils present at the site contain variable proportions of organic material which are not considered

suitable for reuse at the site.

On-site excavated inorganic in situ fill or native soils are considered suitable for reuse as backfill material

provided their water content is within 2% of their optimum water contents (OWC) as determined by Standard

Proctor test, and the materials are effectively compacted with a sheepsfoot compactor for cohesive soils or

a smooth drum compactor for non-cohesive soils.

The moisture content of the soils and the lift thickness for compaction must be properly controlled during the

backfilling. Measured water content within the fill material ranges from approximately 9 to 29%; at or above

the material’s OWC. Measured water content within the native sandy silt soil ranges from approximately 16

to 35%. These water contents are on the wet side of the material’s OWC.

5.4 Light ing System Foundations

We understand that the proposed parking lot improvements will include a new lighting system. Boreholes 1

to 5 are situated at the locations of the proposed light poles.

The borehole findings reveal that soft to firm and loose fill materials extend to depths ranging from 1.8 to 2.6

mbgs which are underlain by native compact to dense sandy silt. The groundwater table is situated at depths

ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 mbgs.

It is anticipated that the axial compression and lateral (wind) loads on the light poles would be fairly small.

Based on the depth of the fill material and presence of the groundwater table, caisson foundations are

unlikely to be feasible. Based on the above, and the limited number of light poles proposed for the site, the

light poles may be supported on conventional shallow spread footing foundations cast on the surface of the

native sandy silt soil.

Foundation concrete should be poured immediately following the exposure of the bearing soils. Alternatively,

a 50 mm thick concrete mud mat may be poured on the foundation subgrade to prevent disturbance of the

bearing soils.

Spread footings founded on the native sandy silt can be designed for a net geotechnical bearing resistance

at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 150 kPa, and a factored geotechnical bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit

States (ULS) of 225 kPa for vertical and centric loads. The estimated total settlement of footings designed

using the recommended SLS bearing resistance is less than 25 mm.





CITY OF TORONTO

7

Overturning resistance must be considered where the structures are subjected to wind forces. These forces

will be resisted by the dead weight of the foundation and the overlying soil. For design purposes, the unit

weight of the concrete may be taken as 24.5 kN/m3 and the unit weight of granular fill (OPSS Granular B, Type

1) placed and compacted on top of footings may be taken as 21.0 kN/m3.

Rainwater or groundwater seepage entering the foundation excavations must be pumped away (not

allowed to pond). The foundation subgrade soils should be protected from freezing, inundation, and

equipment traffic at all times. If unstable subgrade conditions develop, AA should be contacted in order to

assess the conditions and make appropriate recommendations.

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

footing bases and concrete must be provided.

5.5 Retaining Wall

We understand that it is proposed to construct a new retaining wall in place of the existing timber retaining

wall in the vicinity of Borehole 6. The borehole reveals that very soft to firm clayey silt fill material extends to

approximately 1.8 mbgs.

A perched groundwater condition is present in the fill material; groundwater being measured upon

completion of drilling Borehole 6 at 0.9 mbgs. It is anticipated that groundwater encountered during

excavation for the foundation of the proposed retaining wall can be controlled with filtered sump pumps

positioned at the base of the excavation.

In order to provide adequate protection to the foundation soil from freezing temperatures, the foundation of

the wall should be positioned at a minimum depth of 1.2 m below grade. The retaining wall may be founded

on the compact to dense native sandy silt soil or engineered fill compacted to 98% SPMDD.

The laterial earth pressures and soil parameters prescribed in Section 5.8 of this report may be adopted for

the foundation wall design.

5.6 Pavement Design

Based on the existing topography of the site and the presumption that there will be no significant changes

made to existing grades, it is anticipated that the sub-grade material for the pavement will be comprised

of the in situ fill soil.

Given the consistency, frost susceptibility and drainage characteristics of the subgrade soils, the pavement

design presented below is recommended.





CITY OF TORONTO

8

Recommended Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Structure Design

(Minimum Component Thicknesses)

Pavement Layer Compaction Requirements Parking Area Pedestrian Pathway

Surface Course Asphaltic

Concrete 97% Marshall Density 40 mm Hot-Laid HL3 50 mm Hot-Laid HL3

Binder Course Asphaltic

Concrete 97% Marshall Density 40 mm Hot-Laid HL8 -

Granular Base 100% SPMDD*

150 mm compacted

depth

Granular A

150 mm compacted

depth

Granular A

Granular Subbase 100% SPMDD*

250 mm compacted

depth

Granular B Type I

-

* Standard Proctor maximum Dry Density (ASTM-D698)

The subgrade surface must be compacted to at least 98% of SPMDD and proof rolled with heavy rubber-tired

equipment under the supervision of Geotechnical personnel. The granular base and subbase materials

should be compacted to a minimum of 100% SPMDD.

The long-term performance of the proposed parking and pedestrian pathway pavement structures is highly

dependent upon the subgrade support conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be

maintained to ensure that uniform subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved as much as

practically possible when fill is placed and that the subgrade is not disturbed and weakened after it is

exposed.

Control of surface water is a significant factor in achieving good pavement life. Grading adjacent to the

pavement area must be designed so that water is not allowed to pond adjacent to the outside edges of the

pavement or curb. In addition, the need for adequate drainage cannot be over-emphasized. The subgrade

must be free of depressions and sloped (preferably at a minimum gradient of three percent) to provide

effective drainage toward subgrade drains. Sub-drains are recommended to intercept excess subsurface

moisture at the curb lines and catch basins. The invert of sub-drains should be maintained at least 0.3 m

below subgrade level.

Additional comments on the construction of pavement areas are as follows:

The subgrade should be properly shaped and sloped as required, and then proof-rolled. Loose/soft

or spongy subgrade areas should be sub-excavated and replaced with suitable approved material

compacted to at least 98% of SPMDD.

Where new fill is needed to replace disturbed portions of the subgrade, excavated inorganic soils or

similar clean imported fill materials may be used, provided their moisture content is maintained within

2 % of the soil’s optimum moisture content. All fill must be placed and compacted to not less than

98% of SPMDD.





CITY OF TORONTO

9

The most severe loading conditions on pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during

construction during wet and un-drained conditions. Consequently, special provisions such as

restricted lanes, half-loads during paving etc., may be required, especially if construction is carried

out during unfavourable weather.

For fine-grained soils, as encountered at the site, the degree of compaction specification alone

cannot ensure distress free subgrade. Proof-rolling must be carried out and witnessed by AA

personnel for final recommendations of sub-base thicknesses.

In the event that pavement construction takes place in the spring thaw, the late fall, or following

periods of significant rainfall, it should be anticipated that an increase in thickness of the granular sub-

base layer will be required to compensate for reduced subgrade strength.

5.7 Earthquake Design Parameters

The 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC) stipulates the methodology for earthquake design analysis, as set out

in Subsection 4.1.8.7. The determination of the type of analysis is predicated on the importance of the

structure, the spectral response acceleration and the site classification.

The parameters for determination of the Site Classification for Seismic Site Response are set out in Table

4.1.8.4.A of the 2012 OBC. The classification is based on the determination of the average shear wave

velocity in the top 30 metres of the site stratigraphy, where shear wave velocity (vs) measurements have been

taken. In the absence of such measurements, the classification is estimated on the basis of empirical analysis

of undrained shear strength or penetration resistance. The applicable penetration resistance is that which

has been corrected to a rod energy efficiency of 60% of the theoretical maximum or the (N60) value.

Based on the borehole information, the subsurface stratigraphy generally comprises asphaltic concrete

underlain by a layer of fill, followed by native compact to very dense sandy silt and very stiff to hard clayey

silt till. Based on the above, the site designation for seismic analysis is Class D (“Stiff soil”) according to Table

4.1.8.4.A from the quoted code.

The site specific 5% damped spectral acceleration coefficients, and the peak ground acceleration factors

are provided in the 2012 Ontario Building Code - Supplementary Standards SB-1 (September 14, 2012), Table

1.2, location Toronto, Ontario.

5.8 Lateral Earth Pressure

Parameters used in the determination of earth pressure acting on temporary shoring walls are defined below.





CITY OF TORONTO

10

Soil Parameters

Parameter Definition Units

Φ’ angle of internal friction degrees

γ bulk unit weight of soil kN/m3

Ka active earth pressure coefficient (Rankine) dimensionless

Ko at-rest earth pressure coefficient (Rankine) dimensionless

Kp passive earth pressure coefficient (Rankine) dimensionless

The appropriate un-factored values for use in the design of structures subject to unbalanced earth pressures

at this site are tabulated as follows:

Soil Parameter Values

Soil Parameter

Φ’ γ Ka Kp

In Situ Fill Material 28° 19 0.36 2.77

Sandy Silt 32° 19 0.31 3.25

Clayey Silt Till 32° 20 0.31 3.25

Granular A1 36° 22 0.26 3.85

Granular B Type I1 34° 21 0.28 3.54

Notes:

1. Compacted to a minimum of 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.

2. Passive and sliding resistance within the zone subject to frost action (i.e. within 1.2 m below finished grade) should be

disregarded in the lateral resistance computations.

3. Temporary and/or permanent surcharges at the ground surface should be considered in accordance with the applicable soil

mechanics methods.

The design earth pressures in compacted backfill should be augmented with the dynamic effects of the

compaction efforts, which typically are taken as a uniform 12 kPa pressure over the entire depth below grade

where the calculated earth pressure based on the above earth pressure factors is less than 12 kPa.

Walls subject to unbalanced earth pressures must be designed to resist a pressure that can be calculated

based on the following formula:

P = K ( h + q)

Where P = lateral pressure in kPa acting at a depth h (m) below ground surface

K = applicable lateral earth pressure coefficient

= bulk unit weight of backfill (kN/m3)

q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)

This equation assumes that free-draining backfill and positive drainage is provided to ensure that there is no

hydrostatic pressure acting in conjunction with the earth pressure.





CITY OF TORONTO

11

Resistance to sliding of earth retaining structures is developed by friction between the base of the footing

and the soil. This friction (R) depends on the normal load on the soil contact (N) and the frictional resistance

of the soil (tan Φ’) expressed as: R = N tan Φ’. This is an ultimate resistance value and does not contain a

factor of safety.

5.9 Chemical Characterizat ion of Subsurface Soi l

One (1) native soil sample from Boreholes 3 (Sample 5; 3.0 mbgs), and one (1) fill soil sample obtained from

Borehole 2 (Sample 1B; 0.3 mbgs) were submitted to AGAT Laboratories for pH index test and water-soluble

sulphate content to determine the potential of attacking the subsurface concrete.

The test results revealed that the pH index of the soil samples range between 7.37 and 7.80; indicating a slight

alkalinity.

The water-soluble sulphate content of the soil samples are 0.0024% and 0.0046%. The concentration of water-

soluble sulphate content of the tested samples is below the CSA Standard of 0.1% water-soluble sulphate

(Table 12 of CSA A23.1, Requirements for Concrete Subjected to Sulphate Attack). Special concrete mixes

against sulphate attack is therefore not required for the sub-surface concrete of the proposed buildings.

In addition, five (5) fill soil samples retained from Boreholes 1; Sample 1, Borehole 2; Sample 1B, Borehole 3;

Sample 2, Borehole 5; Sample 1, and Borehole 5; Sample 2 were submitted for analysis for metallic and

inorganic parameters.

The Certificate of Analysis provided by the analytical chemical testing laboratory is contained in Appendix E

of this report.

A review of the chemical test results indicates that the samples tested for the selected general and inorganic

parameters met the criteria given in MOE Table 1 (Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards) with the

exception of Electrical Conductivity (“EC”), and Sodium Absorption Ratio (“SAR”). The EC of 3 of the 5 samples

and the SAR of all 5 samples exceeded the Table 1 Standard.

The test results also reveal that the SAR of all four samples, and the EC of all three samples retained from BH2

also exceed their respective MOE Table 2 (potable groundwater) and Table 3 (non-potable groundwater)

criteria for both Residential and Industrial/Commercial sites.

EC and SAR are physical characteristics of soil and are not chemical contaminants. High EC and SAR are not

a concern with respect to human occupation of the site. They are included in the MOE Standard for

protection of Plant growth.

It should be noted that there are no criteria values for subsurface soils (soil located below a depth of 1.5 m

below grade) for EC and SAR, since plant roots do not extend below a depth of 1.5 m below grade.

High values of EC and SAR are generally the result of salt usage in the winter for de-icing, and occur in the

near surface soils under majority of pavements at most industrial, commercial and residential properties.





CITY OF TORONTO

12

6 STABIL I TY ASSESSME NT OF CREEK BANK

The condition of the creek bank within the property was inspected on March 13, 2018.

The west bank of Mimico Creek abuts the east boundary of the site. It approximates 170 m in length; the full

length of the site. It is aligned with light vegetation and some trees. Many of the trees along the creek bank

are not vertical and lean towards the creek.

The topographic survey drawing prepared by J.H. Gelbloom Surveying Limited reveals that the Top of Bank

has elevations ranging from approximately 117.4 m at the north property boundary to 115.2 m at the south

property boundary. Using the contour elevations as shown on the survey drawing, the bottom of the creek

elevation ranges from approximately 114.0 to 114.5 m. The height of the creek bank ranges from

approximately 1.7 to 2.6 m. The bankfull width of the creek is approximately 13 to 15 m.

The creek bank has a gradient ranging from approximately 45 to 75º (to the horizontal).

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Natural Hazards Policies provides general guidelines for the

determination of erosion setback for new developments adjacent to the crest of steep slopes (shoreline bluffs,

river valleys, ravines). The 100 year Erosion Limit (also known as the Erosion Hazard Limit) is defined as a

horizontal line located near the crest of steep slopes which limits the proximity of any new developments to

natural hazard areas. The erosion hazard limit (or setback) is determined from the following three (3) setback

allowances, measured from the slope toe towards the slope crest:

Stable Slope Allowance (stability component of setback)

Toe Erosion Allowance (erosion component of setback)

Erosion Access Allowance

The sum of the stable slope allowance, toe erosion allowance and erosion access allowance is the Long Term

Stable Top of Slope Line (LTSTSL).

The stable slope allowance for the subject slopes will be determined by analytical methods to derive the

stable slope inclination and the setback distance that is required from the top of slope. For land development

and planning, a minimum Factor of Safety of 1.5 is required for engineering design of slopes for stability. This

safety factor is used to determine the stability component of the Long Term Stable Top of Slope Line for the

subject slope.

The toe erosion allowance is applicable to slopes situated within 15 m distance from a water course.

The erosion access allowance is to ensure that there is enough safety zone along the top of a slope for people

and vehicles to enter or exit an area during an emergency. However, this allowance may extend into

development area provided that the area is not built upon. The erosion access allowance is typically in the

range of 6 to 10 m.





CITY OF TORONTO

13

6.1 Stable Slope Al lowance

Soil strength parameters used in the slope stability analyses were based on the results of the in situ Standard

Penetration Test, together with an assessment on the soil type using the results of the grain size analyses.

Boreholes 2 and 4 were put down near the crest of the creek bank to generate soil profiles at four sections

for the analysis. The borehole findings revealed that fill material comprises the entirety of the slope. The

ground water level was determined based on the creek level, and groundwater observations in the

boreholes.

Based on the field tests and laboratory test results, the following soil properties were utilized in the slope

stability analyses:

Soil Type Unit Weight (kN/m³) Cohesion (kPa) Angle of Internal Friction (degrees)

Fill Material 19 0 28

Silt 19 0 32

A Slope Stability Analysis was carried out on four (4) cross sections using the GEO5 Slope Stability (Version 18)

software package. The program calculates the minimum factor of safety for moment equilibrium assuming

circular failure surfaces. The Bishop method employing effective stress was used to calculate the minimum

factor of safety against circular failure.

The locations of the 4 cross sections are presented on the Borehole Location Plan in Appendix B.

TRCA stipulates that the minimum factor of safety of 1.5 is required against sliding to consider a slope stable.

A stability setback is required for slopes that do not satisfy the criterion.

The findings of the stability analyses and required stable slope setbacks at the 4 sections and analysed are

summarized in the table below; the analyses in Appendix F.

Cross Section Location along Creek Bank Factor of Safety

Stable Slope Setback from

Crest

(m)

1 North 0.96 4.2

2 Center-North 0.69 4.9

3 Center-South 1.37 1.2

4 South 1.36 3.7

6.2 Toe Erosion Al lowance

The slope inspection undertaken by AA revealed that a shallow watercourse, approximately 100 to 300 mm

in depth, flows along the creek in a north to south direction. Evidence of active erosion of the toe of the bank





CITY OF TORONTO

14

was observed. The soil exposed at the toe of the creek bank is silt and topsoil.

The toe erosion allowance for a silt material with active erosion is 8 to 15 m according to the Understanding

Nature Hazards publication prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Erosion control measures

(ie. rip rap bank fortification) may be carried out, if accepted by TRCA, to arrest the active toe erosion and

to protect the existing parking area.

6.3 Erosion Access Al lowance

An Erosion Access Allowance should not be necessary as the slope can be accessed in the event of an

emergency utilizing the existing asphalt pavement.

6.4 Conclusion

A Stable Slope Allowance ranging from 1.2 to 4.9 m measured from the crest of the slope is required for the

subject creek bank and is presented on the Borehole Location Plan in Appendix B.

The Toe Erosion Allowance would not be required provided that erosion control measures are permitted by

TRCA and are implemented to fortify the creek bank. In the absence of erosion control measures, a Toe

Erosion Allowance of 10 m would be recommended in addition to the Stable Slope Allowance.

The Erosion Access Allowance should not be required.

7 L IMITATIONS OF REPORT

The Limitations of Report, as quoted in Appendix ‘A’, are an integral part of this report.

Yours respectfully

alston associates

A division of Terrapex Environmental Ltd.

Kellen Campbell Vic Nersesian, P. Eng.

Project Manager Vice President, Geotechnical Services





CITY OF TORONTO

APPENDIX A LIMITATIONS OF REPORT





CITY OF TORONTO

l imitations of report

The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on information determined at the inspection

locations. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes may differ from those

encountered at the test hole locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction which

could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the soil investigation.

The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text, and

then only if constructed substantially in accordance with details of alignment and elevations stated in the

report. Since all details of the design may not be known to us, in our analysis certain assumptions had to be

made as set out in this report. The actual conditions may, however, vary from those assumed, in which case

changes and modifications may be required to our recommendations.

This report was prepared for City of Toronto by Alston Associates. The material in it reflects Alston Associates

judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a Third Party

makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions which the Third Party may make based on it, are the sole

responsibility of such Third Parties.

We recommend, therefore, that we be retained during the final design stage to review the design drawings

and to verify that they are consistent with our recommendations or the assumptions made in our analysis. We

recommend also that we be retained during construction to confirm that the subsurface conditions

throughout the site do not deviate materially from those encountered in the test holes. In cases where these

recommendations are not followed, the company’s responsibility is limited to accurately interpreting the

conditions encountered at the test holes, only.

The comments given in this report on potential construction problems and possible methods are intended for

the guidance of the design engineer, only. The number of inspection locations may not be sufficient to

determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. The contractors bidding on this

project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual

information presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their

work.





CITY OF TORONTO

APPENDIX B BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN





CITY OF TORONTO

APPENDIX C BOREHOLE LOG SHEETS

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

117.5

117

116.5

116

115.5

115

114.5

114

113.5

100 mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

FILLcompact to loose, moist, brown

sand and siltsome clay

trace gravel to gravelly

wet, greySANDY SILT

trace claytrace gravel

compact

-----

dense

END OF BOREHOLE

20

13

8

15

28

42

9

20

29

3

21

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

20

13

8

15

28

42

Borehole cave-in at 3.35m and groundwatermeasured at 3.05 mbelow ground surface oncompletion.

CLIENT: City of Toronto, Capital Projects METHOD: Augering and Split Spoon Sampling

BH No.: 1PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation and Slope PROJECT ENGINEER: VN ELEV. (m) 117.5

LOCATION: 1300 ISlington Avenue, Toronto NORTHING: EASTING: PROJECT NO.: 18-020

SAMPLE TYPE AUGER DRIVEN CORING DYNAMIC CONE SHELBY SPLIT SPOON

LOGGED BY: KC DRILLING DATE: March 13, 2018

REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(m

) Shear Strength(kPa)

N-Value(Blows/300mm)

20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) We

llC

on

stru

ctio

n

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

117

116.5

116

115.5

115

114.5

114

113.5

113

112.5

100 mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE150 mm black gravelly sand

FILLloose to compact

moist, brownsand and silt

some claytrace gravel to gravelly

moist

-----

wet

dense, greySANDY SILT


END OF BOREHOLE

7

8

13

34

35

41

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

13

34

35

41







REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(m



20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) We

llC

on

stru

ctio

n

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

117

116.5

116

115.5

115

114.5

114

113.5

113

100 mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE100 mm black gravelly sand

FILLsoft, moist to wet

brown, dark brown, and dark greyclayey silttrace sandtrace gravel

some organics

moist

-----dense, greySANDY SILT


wet

END OF BOREHOLE

9

3

9

51

22

30

1A

1B

2

3A

3B

4

5

6

9

3

9

51

22

30







REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(m



20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) We

llC

on

stru

ctio

n

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

116.5

116

115.5

115

114.5

114

113.5

113


FILLloose, moist, brown to dark grey

sand and silttrace clay to clayey

trace gravel to gravelly

dense, wet, greySANDY SILT


END OF BOREHOLE

7

6

11

8

33

42

15

18

10

9

20

20

16

1

2

3

4A

4B

5

6

7

6

11

8

33

42







REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(m



20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) We

llC

on

stru

ctio

n

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

118

117.5

117

116.5

116

115.5

115

114.5

114


FILLcompact, moist, brown

sand and siltsome clay

some gravel

FILLsoft, moist, grey

clayey silttrace sand

with organics

wet, greySANDY SILT


compact

-----

dense

END OF BOREHOLE

14

19

3

14

27

31

9

10

27

35

21

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

14

19

3

14

27

31







REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(m



20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) We

llC

on

stru

ctio

n

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

116.5

116

115.5

115

114.5

114

113.5

113

112.5

112

25 mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE200 mm brown gravelly sand

FILLvery soft to firm

moist to wet, brownclayey silt

some sand, trace gravelwood pieces

dense, wet, greySANDY SILT


very stiff to hardmoist, grey

CLAYEY SILTtrace sand, trace gravel

(TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE

0

5

34

40

28

42

1

2

3A

3B

4

5A

5B

6

0

5

34

40

28

42

Borehole open andgroundwater measuredat 0.91 m below groundsurface on completion.






REVIEWED BY: VN

GWL(m)

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

SOILDESCRIPTION

DE

PT

H (

m)

EL

EV

AT

ION

(m



20 40 60 80

40 80 120 160

WaterContent

(%)

PL W.C. LL

20 40 60 80 SA

MP

LE

NO

.

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

SP

T(N

) We

llC

on

stru

ctio

n

REMARKS

Page 1 of 1





CITY OF TORONTO

APPENDIX D LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Tested By: VP Checked By: DM

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Sample Number: BH3, Sample 1B

Alston Associates

Geotechnical Division of Terrapex Figure

0.4936 0.1002 0.0716 0.0259 0.0037

SAND and SILT, some clay, trace gravel

18-020 City of Toronto, Capital Projects

D-1

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 0 4 3 10 32 38 13

80

56

40

28

20

14

10

5 2.5

1.2

5

0.6

3

0.3

15

0.1

6

0.0

75

Grain Size Distribution Report

Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Assessment

Tested By: VP Checked By: DM

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

Material Description USCS AASHTO

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Sample Number: BH1, Sample 5

Alston Associates

Geotechnical Division of Terrapex Figure

0.0928 0.0683 0.0613 0.0476 0.0308 0.0235 1.42 2.91

SANDY SILT, trace clay

18-020 City of Toronto, Capital Projects

D-2

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OA

RS

ER

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0 0 0 0 0 32 63 5

80

56

40

28

20

14

10

5 2.5

1.2

5

0.6

3

0.3

15

0.1

6

0.0

75

Grain Size Distribution Report

Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Assessment





CITY OF TORONTO

APPENDIX E CERTIFICATE OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES

CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES90 SCARSDALE RDTORONTO, ON M3B2R7 (905) 474-5265

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Mike Muneswar, BSc (Chem), Senior Inorganic AnalystSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 8

Mar 23, 2018

VERSION*: 1

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

18T320727AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: VIC NERSESIAN

PROJECT: 18-020

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 8

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

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

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

Member of:

*NOTES

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

BH2/1BBH1/1 BH3/2 BH4/1 BH5/2SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSoil Soil SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-03-132018-03-13 2018-03-13 2018-03-132018-03-13DATE SAMPLED:

9132379 9132381 9132382 9132383 9132384G / S RDLUnitParameter

<0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8Antimony 0.81.3µg/g

3 3 2 3 3Arsenic 118µg/g

48 48 64 49 33Barium 2220µg/g

<0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5Beryllium 0.52.5µg/g

5 6 <5 5 5Boron 536µg/g

0.30 0.47 0.78 0.52 0.10Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.10NAµg/g

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Cadmium 0.51.2µg/g

12 13 14 12 10Chromium 270µg/g

5.8 6.1 7.4 5.8 5.7Cobalt 0.521µg/g

16 15 14 12 21Copper 192µg/g

13 14 7 10 6Lead 1120µg/g

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Molybdenum 0.52µg/g

10 11 13 11 10Nickel 182µg/g

<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4Selenium 0.41.5µg/g

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2Silver 0.20.5µg/g

<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4Thallium 0.41µg/g

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Uranium 0.52.5µg/g

18 20 22 19 19Vanadium 186µg/g

42 41 38 34 30Zinc 5290µg/g

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2Chromium VI 0.20.66µg/g

<0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040Cyanide 0.0400.051µg/g

<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Mercury 0.100.27µg/g

0.458 2.52 2.58 0.903 0.507Electrical Conductivity 0.0050.57mS/cm

6.24 41.7 36.3 13.9 12.4Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA2.4NA

7.68 7.80 7.35 7.37 7.59pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property UseGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.

9132379-9132384 EC & SAR were determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil). pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract prepared at 2:1 ratio.

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

DATE RECEIVED: 2018-03-15

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: VIC NERSESIANCLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T320727

DATE REPORTED: 2018-03-23

PROJECT: 18-020

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

SAMPLED BY:SAMPLING SITE:




CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 8

BH3/5SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-03-13DATE SAMPLED:

9132385G / S RDLUnitParameter

7.63pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard

9132385 pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract obtained from 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts extraction fluid:1 part wet soil).







PROJECT: 18-020

O. Reg. 153(511) - ORPs (Soil) - pH







BH2/1B BH3/5SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2018-03-132018-03-13DATE SAMPLED:

9132381 RDL 9132385G / S RDLUnitParameter

46 2 24Sulphate (2:1) 8µg/g

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard

9132381 Sulphate was determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil). Elevated RDL indicates the degree of sample dilution prior to the analysis in order to keep analytes within the calibration range of the instrument and to reduce matrix interference.

9132385 Sulphate was determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil).







PROJECT: 18-020

Sulphate (Soil)







9132379 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Sodium Adsorption Ratio 2.4 6.24BH1/1 NA

9132381 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.57 2.52BH2/1B mS/cm

9132381 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Sodium Adsorption Ratio 2.4 41.7BH2/1B NA

9132382 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.57 2.58BH3/2 mS/cm


9132383 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.57 0.903BH4/1 mS/cm




Guideline Violation



PROJECT: 18-020

SAMPLEID GUIDELINE ANALYSIS PACKAGE PARAMETER GUIDEVALUE RESULTSAMPLE TITLE UNIT




GUIDELINE VIOLATION (V1) Page 5 of 8

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

Antimony 9132379 9132379 <0.8 <0.8 NA < 0.8 111% 70% 130% 103% 80% 120% 84% 70% 130%

Arsenic 9132379 9132379 3 3 NA < 1 111% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 110% 70% 130%

Barium 9132379 9132379 48 48 0.0% < 2 105% 70% 130% 105% 80% 120% 112% 70% 130%

Beryllium 9132379 9132379 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 118% 70% 130% 116% 80% 120% 120% 70% 130%

Boron

9132379 9132379 5 6 NA < 5 81% 70% 130% 104% 80% 120% 96% 70% 130%

Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 9132379 9132379 0.30 0.34 NA < 0.10 111% 60% 140% 100% 70% 130% 98% 60% 140%

Cadmium 9132379 9132379 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 100% 70% 130% 101% 80% 120% 105% 70% 130%

Chromium 9132379 9132379 12 12 0.0% < 2 95% 70% 130% 105% 80% 120% 105% 70% 130%

Cobalt 9132379 9132379 5.8 5.7 1.7% < 0.5 111% 70% 130% 113% 80% 120% 119% 70% 130%

Copper

9132379 9132379 16 16 0.0% < 1 93% 70% 130% 105% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Lead 9132379 9132379 13 14 7.4% < 1 105% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Molybdenum 9132379 9132379 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 97% 70% 130% 104% 80% 120% 108% 70% 130%

Nickel 9132379 9132379 10 10 0.0% < 1 100% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 100% 70% 130%

Selenium 9132379 9132379 <0.4 <0.4 NA < 0.4 112% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 105% 70% 130%

Silver

9132379 9132379 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 78% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 80% 70% 130%

Thallium 9132379 9132379 <0.4 <0.4 NA < 0.4 101% 70% 130% 94% 80% 120% 93% 70% 130%

Uranium 9132379 9132379 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 99% 70% 130% 95% 80% 120% 103% 70% 130%

Vanadium 9132379 9132379 18 20 10.5% < 1 106% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%

Zinc 9132379 9132379 42 41 2.4% < 5 97% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 118% 70% 130%

Chromium VI

9132383 9132383 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 101% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%

Cyanide 9132384 9132384 <0.040 <0.040 NA < 0.040 97% 70% 130% 108% 80% 120% 107% 70% 130%

Mercury 9132379 9132379 <0.10 <0.10 NA < 0.10 98% 70% 130% 94% 80% 120% 98% 70% 130%

Electrical Conductivity 9132379 9132379 0.458 0.464 1.3% < 0.005 99% 90% 110% NA NA

Sodium Adsorption Ratio 9132379 9132379 6.24 6.15 1.5% NA NA NA NA

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction

9132384 9132384 7.59 7.64 0.7% NA 101% 80% 120% NA NA

Sulphate (Soil)

Sulphate (2:1) 9135735 39 41 5.0% < 2 98% 70% 130% 104% 70% 130% 97% 70% 130%

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

Certified By:


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

PROJECT: 18-020

Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Mar 23, 2018 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank




QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 6 of 8

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

Soil Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICP/OES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TECHNICON AUTO ANALYZER

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

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

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

ICP/OES

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

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

Sulphate (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:


Method Summary


CLIENT NAME: ALSTON ASSOCIATES

PROJECT: 18-020

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER




METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 7 of 8





CITY OF TORONTO

APPENDIX F SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS CROSS SECTIONS

KCAA Cross Section 1

1[GEO5 - Slope Stability | version 5.2016.61.0 | hardware key 8221 / 1 | Alston Associates Inc | Copyright © 2018 Fine spol. s r.o. All Rights Reserved | www.finesoftware.eu]

Slope stability analysisInput dataProjectTask :Customer :Author :Date :Project ID :Project number :

AA Cross Section 1City of TorontoKC3/20/20181300 Islington Avenue, Toronto18-020

SettingsStandard - safety factorsStability analysisEarthquake analysis :Verification methodology :

StandardSafety factors (ASD)

Safety factorsPermanent design situation

Safety factor : SFs = 1.50 [–]

Interface

No. Interface location Coordinates of interface points [m]x z x z x z

1

2

6.0013.6415.56

6.00

117.25116.50115.00

114.56

10.7914.4316.23

16.23

117.20116.00114.50

114.50

12.8314.9121.00

117.00115.50114.50

Soil parameters - effective stress state

No. Name Patternjef[°]

cef[kPa]

g

[kN/m3]

1

2

Loose to Compact Sandy Silt Fill

Dense Silt Native

28.00

32.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

19.00



Soil parameters - uplift

No. Name Patterngsat

[kN/m3]gs

[kN/m3]n[–]

1

2


Dense Silt Native

19.00

19.00

Soil parametersLoose to Compact Sandy Silt FillUnit weight :Stress-state :Angle of internal friction :Cohesion of soil :Saturated unit weight :

geffectivejefcefgsat

=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3

Dense Silt NativeUnit weight :Stress-state :Angle of internal friction :Cohesion of soil :Saturated unit weight :


=

===

19.00

32.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3

Assigning and surfaces

No. Surface position Coordinates of surface points [m]x z x z

Assignedsoil

1

2

16.2314.9113.6410.796.00

6.0021.0016.23

114.50115.50116.50117.20114.56

114.56112.50114.50

15.5614.4312.836.00

6.0021.00

115.00116.00117.00117.25

112.50114.50

Loose to Compact SandySilt Fill

Dense Silt Native

WaterWater type : GWT



No. GWT location Coordinates of GWT points [m]x z x z x z

1

6.00 114.50 16.19 114.50 21.00 114.50

Tensile crackTensile crack not input.EarthquakeEarthquake not included.Settings of the stage of constructionDesign situation : permanent

Results (Stage of construction 1)Analysis 1Circular slip surface

Slip surface parameters

Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

16.77119.20

4.87

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-63.6915.18

[°][°]

Analysis of the slip surface without optimization.Slope stability verification (Bishop)Sum of active forces :Sum of passive forces :Sliding moment :Resisting moment :

Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

28.0026.87

136.34130.86

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m

Factor of safety = 0.96 < 1.50Slope stability NOT ACCEPTABLE



Name : Analysis Stage - analysis : 1 - 16.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

112.

50

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

117.

25



Analysis 2Circular slip surface


Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

16.85126.4412.09

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-40.309.03

[°][°]


Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

55.2884.12

668.331017.01

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m

Factor of safety = 1.52 > 1.50Slope stability ACCEPTABLE




7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

112.

50

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

117.

25









Interface


1

2

6.0013.6214.6621.00

6.00

116.86116.00114.50114.00

114.25

9.1313.9015.52

15.52

116.90115.50114.26

114.26

13.4114.2016.47

116.50115.00114.00



cef[kPa]

g

[kN/m3]

1

2


Dense Silt Native

28.00

32.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

19.00





[kN/m3]gs

[kN/m3]n[–]

1

2


Dense Silt Native

19.00

19.00



=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



=

===

19.00

32.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



Assignedsoil

1

2

15.5214.2013.629.136.00

6.0021.0016.47

114.26115.00116.00116.90114.25

114.25112.00114.00

14.6613.9013.416.00

6.0021.0015.52

114.50115.50116.50116.86

112.00114.00114.26


Dense Silt Native





1

6.0021.00

114.25113.95

15.38 114.25 16.47 113.95




Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

16.23117.67

3.70

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-72.657.30

[°][°]


Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

18.6212.9368.8847.84

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m





7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

112.

00

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

116.

90





Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

16.58127.5213.56

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-38.364.40

[°][°]


Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

57.2086.49

775.651172.75

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m





7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

112.

00

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

116.

90









Interface


1

2

11.0017.0417.53

11.00

116.62115.50114.30

114.30

13.5217.2523.00

17.53

116.50115.00114.30

114.30

15.4117.46

116.00114.50



cef[kPa]

g

[kN/m3]

1

2


Dense Silt Native

28.00

32.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

19.00





[kN/m3]gs

[kN/m3]n[–]

1

2


Dense Silt Native

19.00

19.00



=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



=

===

19.00

32.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



Assignedsoil

1

2

17.5317.2515.4111.00

11.0023.0017.53

114.30115.00116.00116.62

114.30112.30114.30

17.4617.0413.5211.00

11.0023.00

114.50115.50116.50114.30

112.30114.30


Dense Silt Native





1

11.00 114.30 23.00 114.30




Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

18.81121.51

7.50

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-48.2415.99

[°][°]


Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

31.4142.95

235.55322.11

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m





12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

112.

30

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

116.

62





Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

19.30124.5010.53

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-41.0114.38

[°][°]


Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

35.6655.13

375.45580.47

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m





12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

112.

30

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

116.

62









Interface


1

2

10.0016.3922.00

10.00

116.49115.00114.10

114.10

13.7716.84

17.18

116.00114.50

114.10

15.9417.18

115.50114.10



cef[kPa]

g

[kN/m3]

1

2


Dense Silt Native

28.00

32.00

0.00

0.00

19.00

19.00





[kN/m3]gs

[kN/m3]n[–]

1

2


Dense Silt Native

19.00

19.00



=

===

19.00

28.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



=

===

19.00

32.000.00

19.00

kN/m3

°kPakN/m3



Assignedsoil

1

2

17.1816.3913.7710.00

10.0022.0017.18

114.10115.00116.00114.10

114.10112.10114.10

16.8415.9410.00

10.0022.00

114.50115.50116.49

112.10114.10


Dense Silt Native





1

10.00 114.10 22.00 114.10




Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

18.36121.72

7.83

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-44.2913.30

[°][°]


Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

25.1234.21

196.72267.88

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m





11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

112.

10

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

116.

49





Center :

Radius :

x =z =R =

18.77124.2310.37

[m][m][m]

Angles :a1 =a2 =

-39.3112.35

[°][°]


Fa =Fp =Ma =Mp =

27.7242.04

287.47435.94

kN/mkN/mkNm/mkNm/m





11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

112.

10

113.

00

114.

00

115.

00

116.

00

116.

49

DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE ... - Toronto

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE ... - Toronto