FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN REPORT

APPENDIX J

Geotechnical Report

103, 2010 Winston Park Drive, Oakville, ON L6H 5R7 T: 905 829 8666 F: 905 829 1166 thurber.ca

PRELIMINARY

FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN REPORT

ROAD CROSSING OF HIGHWAY 404

BETWEEN MAJOR MACKENZIE DRIVE AND ELGIN MILLS ROAD

INCLUDING THE HIGHWAY 404 UNDERPASS STRUCTURE AND ROUGE RIVER BRIDGE

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL / CITY OF MARKHAM

Geocres Number: 30M14-468

Report to

WSP

Thurber Engineering Ltd. 2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 103 Oakville, Ontario L6H 5R7 Phone: (905) 829 8666 Fax: (905) 829 1166 December 5, 2017 File: 11414

Client: WSP Date: December 5, 2017 File No. 11414

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1 FACTUAL INFORMATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 1

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION AND FIELD TESTING ........................................................ 2

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................... 3

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................. 4

5.1 Pavement Structure ........................................................................................... 4

5.2 Topsoil ............................................................................................................... 4

5.3 Fill ...................................................................................................................... 4

5.4 Silty Clay ........................................................................................................... 4

5.5 Clayey Silt and Sand Till .................................................................................... 5

5.6 Silt and Sand Layers.......................................................................................... 6

5.7 Groundwater Levels........................................................................................... 6

6.0 MISCELLANEOUS ................................................................................................. 7

PART 2: ENGINEERING DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 8

8.0 HIGHWAY 404 UNDERPASS STRUCTURE .......................................................... 8

8.1 Spread Footings on Native Soil ......................................................................... 9

8.2 Spread Footings on Engineered Fill ................................................................. 10

8.3 Driven Steel H-Pile Foundations ...................................................................... 10

8.4 Drilled Shafts (Caissons) ................................................................................. 11

8.5 Recommended Foundation.............................................................................. 12

9.0 ROUGE RIVER BRIDGE ...................................................................................... 12

9.1 Spread Footings on Native Soil ....................................................................... 12

9.2 Spread Footings on Engineered Fill ................................................................. 13

9.3 Driven Steel H-Pile Foundations ...................................................................... 13

9.4 Drilled Shafts (Caissons) ................................................................................. 14

9.5 Recommended Foundation.............................................................................. 14

Client: WSP Date: December 5, 2017 File No. 11414

10.0 FROST COVER .................................................................................................... 14

11.0 ABUTMENT BACKFILL AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ............................ 14

12.0 APPROACH EMBANKMENTS ............................................................................. 16

13.0 EXCAVATION AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL ............................................... 16

14.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN ........................................................................................... 16

15.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING ........................................................ 17

16.0 CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS ............................................................................ 18

17.0 SCOPE OF DETAILED INVESTIGATION ............................................................. 18

18.0 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................ 19

Appendices

Appendix A Record of Borehole Sheets Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C Site Photographs Appendix D Borehole Locations and Soil Strata Drawing Appendix E Laboratory Certificate of Analysis

Client: WSP Date: December 5, 2017 File No. 11414 Page 1 of 19 E file: H:\10000+\11414 Road Crossing of Highway 404\Reports & Memos\Hwy 404 Crossing Prelim FIDR FINAL.doc

PRELIMINARY






PART 1: FACTUAL INFORMATION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the factual findings obtained from a preliminary foundation investigation

conducted for the proposed road crossing of Highway 404 between Major Mackenzie Drive and

Elgin Mills Road in the Regional Municipality of York.

The proposed crossing will connect Leslie Street in the Town of Richmond Hill to Woodbine

Avenue in the City of Markham. The section of the crossing addressed in the current

investigation extends easterly from the east terminus of Performance Drive over the Rouge

River and Highway 404, to Markland Street. A new bridge will be required over the Rouge River

and an underpass structure will be constructed over Highway 404.

The purpose of the investigation was to explore the subsurface conditions along the alignment

of the new roadway, bridge and underpass structure and, based on the data obtained, to

provide borehole logs, borehole location plans, stratigraphic profiles, and a written description of

the subsurface conditions at the site.

Thurber carried out the investigation as a sub-consultant to WSP who are conducting a Class

Environmental Assessment Study for York Region.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The crossing site extends from commercial/light industrial lands currently under development to

the west of Highway 404 to new residential subdivisions east of Highway 404. Highway 404 at

the crossing location presently comprises a six lane rural section with a depressed grass

median, and includes a northbound acceleration lane from the Major Mackenzie Drive

interchange to the south. The highway appears to be situated in a slight cut of about 1 to 2 m

below original grade.


The Rouge River crossing is located approximately 150 m to the west of Highway 404. The river

flows southerly at the base of a treed ravine approximately 6 m deep and over 60 m wide. The

lands bordering the highway and creek ravine are generally cleared and level.

Photographs of the site are provided in Appendix C.

The site is located within the physiographic region known as the Peel Plain. The surficial

geology generally consists of a discontinuous layer of glaciolacustrine clay or sand overlying

clayey silt to sandy silt till which forms the south slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Bedrock

consists of shale and interbedded limestone of the Georgian Bay Formation, and is expected to

lie at a depth of about 115 m at the site.

3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION AND FIELD TESTING

The site investigation was carried out during the period June 15 to 28, 2017 and consisted of six

boreholes drilled to depths of 4.7 to 15.7 m along the proposed crossing alignment. The

borehole designations and depths are summarized in Table 3.1. The approximate locations of

the boreholes are shown on the Borehole Locations and Soil Strata Drawing provided in

Appendix D.

Table 3.1 – Borehole Designations and Depths

Structure Borehole No. Borehole Depth (m)

Roadway 17-01 4.9

Rouge River Bridge, West Abutment 17-02 12.8

Hwy 404 Underpass, Pier 17-06 15.7

Hwy 404, Underpass, East Abutment 17-07 11.3

Hwy 404 Underpass, East Approach 17-08 9.4

Roadway 17-09 4.7

Boreholes programmed for the area between the Rouge River and Highway 404 (Boreholes

17-03 to 17-05) could not be drilled as permission to enter the private lands was not received at

the time of the fieldwork.

All borehole locations were cleared of utilities prior to commencement of drilling. The boreholes

were repositioned as necessary in consideration of surface features, underground utilities, and

site access. Street occupancy permits, an MTO Encroachment Permit, and permission to enter

private lands were obtained.


Solid stem augers were used to advance the boreholes in the overburden, and soil samples

were obtained at selected intervals using a split spoon sampler in conjunction with Standard

Penetration Testing (SPT).

The drilling and sampling operations were supervised on a full time basis by a member of

Thurber’s technical staff. The supervisor logged the boreholes and processed the recovered soil

samples for transport to Thurber’s laboratory for further examination and testing.

Groundwater conditions in the open boreholes were observed throughout the drilling operations.

Standpipe piezometers (25 mm diameter) were installed and enclosed in filter sand in selected

boreholes to permit groundwater level monitoring. The details of the piezometers are shown in

Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 – Piezometer Details

Borehole Piezometer Tip Slotted Screen

Length (m) Depth (m) Elevation (m)

17-02 9.4 210.4 3.0

17-07 10.7 209.4 3.0

The boreholes in which no piezometers were installed were backfilled with bentonite and

cuttings to the ground surface in general accordance with MOE Regulation 903.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

All recovered soil samples were subjected to Visual Identification (VI) and to natural moisture

content determination. The results of this testing are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets in

Appendix A. Selected samples were subjected to gradation analysis and Atterberg Limits

testing. The results of this testing program are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets and on

the laboratory test result figures attached in Appendix B.

Representative samples of the soils obtained from the boreholes were submitted to AGAT

Laboratories, an independent Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (CALA)

accredited laboratory, for analysis of selected parameters (pH, metals and inorganics) in

accordance with O.Reg. 511/09 to assess the environmental quality. The results are provided

on the Certificates of Analysis in Appendix E.


5.0 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Reference should be made to the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix A. Details of the

encountered soil stratigraphy are presented in Appendix A and on the “Borehole Locations and

Soil Strata” drawings in Appendix D. An overall description of the stratigraphy is given in the

following paragraphs. However, the factual data presented in the Record of Borehole Sheets

governs any interpretation of the site conditions.

In general terms, the subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the boreholes consists of a

pavement structure, topsoil layer, clayey silt fill layer, and/or silty clay unit overlying a clayey silt

and sand till deposit containing silt and sand layers.

More detailed descriptions of the individual strata are presented below.

5.1 Pavement Structure

Asphalt pavement was encountered in Borehole 17-06 drilled on the paved median shoulder of

Highway 404 and in Borehole 17-09 drilled on Markland Street. The pavement structures

consisted of 100 to 125 mm of asphalt overlying dense granular material extending to 0.7 m

depth. Moisture contents of 2 to 3% were measured in the granular material.

5.2 Topsoil

A topsoil layer was encountered at the ground surface in Boreholes 17-02, 17-07 and 17-08.

The thickness of the topsoil layer was 75 mm. The topsoil thickness may vary between and

beyond the borehole locations.

5.3 Fill

A layer of dark brown clayey silt fill was encountered at the ground surface in Borehole 17-01.

An SPT ‘N’ value of 12 blows/0.3 m was recorded in the fill, indicating a stiff consistency. A

moisture content of 16% was measured in the fill. The lower boundary of the fill was

encountered at 0.7 m depth.

5.4 Silty Clay

Silty clay was encountered below the topsoil in Boreholes 17-02, 17-07 and 17-08, and below

the pavement structure in Borehole 17-09. The clay contained trace to some sand, trace gravel,

and some organics. The clay layer was 0.6 to 0.7 m thick, with a lower boundary at depths of

0.7 to 1.4 m (Elev. 219.5 to 217.2).


SPT ‘N’ values of 7 to 13 blows/0.3 m were obtained in the clay layer, indicating a firm to stiff

consistency. Measured moisture contents ranged from 10 to 21%.

5.5 Clayey Silt and Sand Till

A till deposit comprising clayey silt and sand with trace gravel, locally grading to sand and silt

with some gravel, was encountered below the surficial materials in all boreholes. The boreholes

(except Borehole 17-01) were terminated in the till deposits at depths of 4.7 to 15.7 m (Elev.

213.9 to 202.1), however the till was interbedded with layers of silt and sand, described below.

SPT ‘N’ values recorded in the till deposit to a depth of about 2 m typically ranged from 18 to 37

blows/0.3 m of penetration, indicating a compact to dense condition. Below this depth, the ‘N’

values ranged from 54 blows/0.3 m to 50 blows/0.1 m, indicating a very dense condition.

Measured moisture contents varied between 8 and 20%.

The results of grain size distribution analyses carried out on selected samples of the till are

presented on the Record of Borehole Sheets included in Appendix A and on Figure B1 in

Appendix B. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are summarized below:

Soil Particle Percentage (%)

Gravel 0 to 15

Sand 35 to 43

Silt 30 to 42

Clay 7 to 22

The results of Atterberg Limits testing are presented on Figure B4 in Appendix B, and

summarized below:

Plasticity Index 16 to 24

Liquid Limit 6 to 11

The results of the Atterberg Limits testing indicate the layer to be of slight to low plasticity with a

group symbol of CL-ML to CL.

Glacial till inherently contains cobbles and boulders, and these should be anticipated during

construction.


5.6 Silt and Sand Layers

Cohesionless deposits varying in composition from silt with some clay to silty gravelly sand were

encountered at various depths within the glacial till material. Where fully penetrated, these

layers ranged in thickness from 1.1 to 3.1 m, locally 7.6 m in Borehole 17-02. Borehole 17-01

was terminated in sand at 4.9 m depth.

SPT ‘N’ values recorded in the silts and sands varied from 26 blows/0.3 m to 59 blows/0.125 m,

indicating a compact to very dense relative density. An ‘N’ value of 7 blows/0.3 m recorded at

9.4 m depth in Borehole 17-06 is believed to reflect hydraulic disturbance during sampling.

Measured moisture contents in the sand ranged from about 9 to 19%.

The results of grain size distribution tests carried out on silt and sand samples are shown on

Figures B2 and B3 included in Appendix B and also summarized below:

Silt/Sand Gravelly Sand

Gravel (%) 0 to 3 33

Sand (%) 19 to 76 46

Silt (%) 19 to 71 21

Clay (%) 2 to 10

5.7 Groundwater Levels

Groundwater conditions were observed in the boreholes during and upon completion of drilling,

and water levels in the piezometers were subsequently recorded. The groundwater depths and

elevations observed in the open boreholes and measured in the piezometers after drilling are

summarized in the following table.

Table 5.1 - Recorded Groundwater Depths and Elevations

Borehole Date Water Level (m)

Remark Depth Elevation

17-02 Aug 11, 2017 7.2 212.6 In piezometer

17-06 Jun 18, 2017 3.0 214.8 Upon completion

17-07 Jun 15, 2017 Aug 11, 2017

6.1 4.9

214.0 215.2

Upon completion In piezometer




The groundwater levels above are short-term readings and seasonal fluctuations of the

groundwater level are to be expected. In particular, the groundwater levels may be at a higher

elevation after periods of significant or prolonged precipitation.

6.0 MISCELLANEOUS

Thurber Engineering positioned the boreholes in the field using a hand-held GPS unit, with

consideration of site features and access limitations. The co-ordinates and ground elevations at

the borehole locations were subsequently determined from plan drawings and ground surface

profiles provided by WSP.

DBW Drilling Limited of Ajax, Ontario supplied and operated the drilling and sampling equipment

for the field program.

Full time supervision of the field activities was carried out by Mr. Omar Ali and Mr. Thomas Fox

of Thurber Engineering. Overall supervision of the field program, including obtaining utility

clearances, was performed by Mr. Stephane Loranger and Mr. Murray Anderson of Thurber.

Interpretation of the field data and preparation of the report were performed by Mr. Murray

Anderson, P.Eng. The report was reviewed by Dr. P.K. Chatterji, P.Eng., a Designated Principal

Contact for MTO Foundations Projects.

Thurber Engineering Ltd.

Murray R. Anderson, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Dr. P.K. Chatterji, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Review Principal


PRELIMINARY






PART 2: ENGINEERING DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 GENERAL

This section of the report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and

construction of the roadway crossing and structure foundations. The recommendations are

based on the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered during the preliminary

investigation. The soil conditions may vary between and beyond the borehole locations.

Additional investigation will be required during the detailed design stage to supplement the

subsurface information and confirm the preliminary recommendations.

The discussion and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information

provided by WSP and on the factual data obtained in the course of the investigation.

The interpretation and recommendations are intended for the use of the design consultant and

York Region, and shall not be relied upon by any other parties including the construction

contractor, or used for any purposes other than development of the project design. Comments

on construction methodology and equipment, where presented, are provided only to highlight

those aspects that could affect the design of the project. Contractors must make their own

assessment of the factual information presented in Part 1 of the report, and the implications on

equipment selection, construction methodology, and scheduling.

8.0 HIGHWAY 404 UNDERPASS STRUCTURE

Based on the preliminary General Arrangement drawing, a two span underpass structure is

planned to carry the new road crossing over Highway 404. Finished road grades at the structure

abutments will be near Elev. 225.3, and road grades on Highway 404 are near Elev. 218.0.

In general terms, the subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the underpass location consists of

a surficial pavement structure, topsoil layer and/or silty clay layer, underlain by a deep deposit of


clayey silt and sand till with interbedded layers of silt and sand. The till deposit is typically dense

to very dense, locally compact within the upper 2.0 m. The groundwater level was measured at

4.9 m depth (Elev. 215.2) in a piezometer.

Based on the subsurface conditions at the site, consideration was given to supporting the

structures using spread footings on native soil or engineered fill, driven steel H-piles, and drilled

shafts (caissons).

Preliminary design parameters for viable alternatives are presented in the following sections. A

preliminary recommendation regarding the foundation scheme preferred from a foundations

perspective is presented based on the subsurface conditions identified at the site.

8.1 Spread Footings on Native Soil

The dense to very dense native soils on site are considered suitable for support of spread

footings to carry the underpass structure. Preliminary design of spread footings constructed on

the dense to very dense clayey silt and sand till should be based on the following geotechnical

resistances:

Table 8.1 – Recommended Geotechnical Resistances for Spread Footing Design

Foundation Unit

Borehole Highest

Founding Level

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS

(kPa)

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at SLS

(kPa)

Pier 17-06 216.4 600 400

East Abutment

17-07 217.8 600 400

The geotechnical resistances at SLS are based on an estimated settlement not exceeding

25 mm. This settlement should be essentially complete by the end of construction.

The resistance values are for a minimum 2 m wide footing subjected to vertical, concentric

loads. Where eccentric or inclined loads are applied, the resistance values used in design must

be reduced in accordance with the CHBDC Clauses 6.10.2 to 6.10.4.

The lateral resistance developed along the base of concrete footings founded on the till may be

computed using an ultimate friction coefficient of 0.45.

All footings should be provided with a minimum of 1.4 m of earth cover over the footing base as

protection against frost action.


8.2 Spread Footings on Engineered Fill

Construction of spread footings on engineered fill placed over the compact to very dense silt

and sand till may be considered for the abutments. Use of engineered fill at the pier is not

recommended in view of the additional depth of excavation required for fill construction and the

spatial constraints within the median of the existing highway.

The underside of the engineered fill pad should extend down to the compact undisturbed till

encountered at 0.7 m depth (Elev. 219.4) at the east abutment (Borehole 17-07). The

engineered fill must consist of OPSS Granular “A” placed in 150 mm lifts and compacted to

100% of its SPMDD at ±2% of optimum moisture content.

Provided a minimum footing width of 2 m is maintained, a footing bearing on the engineered fill

may be designed for a concentric, vertical geotechnical resistance of 900 kPa at factored ULS

and a geotechnical reaction of 350 kPa at factored SLS. The engineered fill pad should be at

least 2.0 m thick at the east abutment to achieve these resistance values.

The resistance values are for vertical, concentric loads. Where eccentric or inclined loads are

applied, the resistance used in design must be reduced in accordance with the CHBDC Clauses

6.10.2 to 6.10.4.

For footings designed on the basis of the geotechnical resistance values given above, total

settlement under a footing is not expected to exceed 25 mm. Differential settlements are not

expected to exceed 20 mm across the width of the structure.

The lateral resistance of the footings founded on engineered fill may be computed using an

unfactored friction coefficient of 0.6.

8.3 Driven Steel H-Pile Foundations

The soil conditions at the site are considered to be suitable for the use of steel H-piles driven

into the very dense silt and sand till deposit. The axial geotechnical resistances recommended

for preliminary design, assuming a steel HP 310x110 pile section driven to a depth in the order

of 12 to 15 m, are as follows:

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS = 1,400 kN

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at SLS = 1,200 kN

Very dense native soils were encountered in the upper 5 m of the boreholes. Predrilling may be

required to penetrate the very dense soils and provide an adequate length of pile.


Pile tip protection should be provided for driven H-piles at this site to minimize damage while

driving within very dense till containing cobbles and boulders.

As the underlying soils consist primarily of dense to very dense till deposits, downdrag on the

piles is not an issue at this site.

The use of H-piles at the abutments allows for the design of an integral abutment structure. The

ground conditions at this site are considered suitable for an integral abutment design. To

provide the required flexibility in the piles, the upper 3 m of the piles should be surrounded by a

600 mm diameter CSP filled with sand as specified by the integral abutment design procedures.

8.4 Drilled Shafts (Caissons)

The use of augered caissons founded in the dense to very dense native till deposits may be

considered. It must be noted however that caisson installation will extend through cohesionless

silt and sand layers within the till, potentially below the groundwater table. A temporary liner will

be required to support the caisson sidewalls in the cohesionless deposits, and further measures

such as the use of drilling mud and/or tremie concrete may be required where caissons extend

below the water level.

The axial geotechnical resistances recommended for preliminary design of augered caissons of

selected diameters and base levels are presented in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2 – Recommended Axial Resistances for Preliminary Caisson Design

Foundation Unit

Caisson Diameter (m)

Caisson Base Elevation

Factored Axial Resistance at ULS

(kN)

Factored Axial Resistance at SLS

(kN)

Pier

0.9 211.0 1,000 700

206.5 2,300 1,750

1.5 211.0 2,000 1,400

206.5 5,000 3,600

East Abutment 0.9 213.5 1,500 1,000

1.5 213.5 3,500 2,400

The preferred base elevations and recommended axial resistances will need to be reviewed and

modified subject to additional investigation during detailed design.

Downdrag on the caisson is not considered to be an issue at this site.


8.5 Recommended Foundation

From a geotechnical perspective, the preferred foundation option to support the underpass

structure comprises steel H-piles driven into the very dense native silt and sand till underlying

the site. The use of H-piles also enables integral abutment design. The use of spread footings

may be preferred at the pier.

9.0 ROUGE RIVER BRIDGE

Based on the preliminary General Arrangement drawing, a single span bridge is planned to

carry the new road crossing over the Rouge River. Finished road grades on the structure will be

near Elev. 220.6 at the west abutment and Elev. 221.7 at the east abutment. The river channel

invert is near Elev. 213.0.

In general terms, the subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the west abutment location

consists of a surficial topsoil layer and silty clay layer, underlain by clayey silt and sand till,

overlying a relatively thick layer of silty sand, and further sandy silt till. The native deposits are

dense to very dense. The groundwater level was measured at 7.2 m depth (Elev. 212.6) in a

piezometer.

Based on the subsurface conditions at the site, consideration was given to supporting the

structures using spread footings on native soil or engineered fill, driven steel H-piles, and drilled

shafts (caissons).

Preliminary design parameters for viable alternatives are presented in the following sections. A

preliminary recommendation regarding the foundation scheme preferred from a foundations

perspective is presented based on the subsurface conditions identified at the site.

9.1 Spread Footings on Native Soil

The dense to very dense native soils on site are considered suitable for support of spread

footings to carry the bridge. Preliminary design of spread footings constructed on the dense to

very dense clayey silt and sand till should be based on the following geotechnical resistances:

Table 9.1 – Recommended Geotechnical Resistances for Spread Footing Design

Foundation Unit

Borehole Highest

Founding Level

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS

(kPa)

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at SLS

(kPa)

West Abutment

17-02 218.5 600 400


The geotechnical resistances at SLS are based on an estimated settlement not exceeding

25 mm. This settlement should be essentially complete by the end of construction.

The resistance values are for a minimum 2 m wide footing subjected to vertical, concentric

loads. Where eccentric or inclined loads are applied, the resistance values used in design must

be reduced in accordance with the CHBDC Clauses 6.10.2 to 6.10.4.

The lateral resistance developed along the base of concrete footings founded on the till may be

computed using an ultimate friction coefficient of 0.45.

All footings should be provided with a minimum of 1.4 m of earth cover over the footing base as

protection against frost action.

9.2 Spread Footings on Engineered Fill

Considering the presence of dense to very dense soils near the ground surface, construction of

engineered fill to support spread footings is not considered to be warranted at this site.

9.3 Driven Steel H-Pile Foundations

The soil conditions at the site are considered to be suitable for the use of steel H-piles driven

into the very dense silt and sand till deposit. The axial geotechnical resistances recommended

for preliminary design, assuming a steel HP 310x110 or 310x132 pile section driven to a depth

in the order of 12 to 15 m, are as follows:

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS = 1,400 kN

Factored Geotechnical Resistance at SLS = 1,200 kN

Very dense native soils were encountered within the upper 5 m of the borehole. Predrilling may

be required to penetrate the very dense soils and provide an adequate length of pile.

Pile tip protection should be provided for driven H-piles at this site to minimize damage while

driving within very dense till containing cobbles and boulders.

As the underlying soils consist primarily of dense to very dense till deposits, downdrag on the

piles is not an issue at this site.

The use of H-piles at the abutments allows for the design of an integral abutment structure. The

ground conditions at this site are considered suitable for an integral abutment design. To


provide the required flexibility in the piles, the upper 3 m of the piles should be surrounded by a

600 mm diameter CSP filled with sand as specified by the integral abutment design procedures.

9.4 Drilled Shafts (Caissons)

Considering the presence of a thick deposit of cohesionless silty sand extending below the

groundwater table, the use of augered caissons is not recommended at this site. Caisson

installation would require a temporary liner to support the caisson sidewalls in the cohesionless

deposits, and further measures such as the use of drilling mud and/or tremie concrete would be

required to maintain stability at the base of the caisson.

9.5 Recommended Foundation

From a geotechnical perspective, the preferred foundation option to support the bridge structure

comprises steel H-piles driven into the very dense native silt and sand till underlying the site.

The use of H-piles also enables integral abutment design. The use of spread footings could also

be considered.

10.0 FROST COVER

The depth of frost penetration at this site is 1.4 m. The base of footings or pile caps must be

provided with a minimum of 1.4 m of earth cover as protection against frost action.

11.0 ABUTMENT BACKFILL AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

Backfill to the abutments should consist of free-draining granular material conforming to OPS

Granular A or B Type II specifications. The granular material should be placed to the extents

shown in OPSD 803.010.

Heavy compaction equipment should not be used adjacent to the abutment walls. Compaction

should be carried out in accordance with OPSS 501.

Earth pressures acting on the structure may be assumed to impose a triangular distribution

governed by the characteristics of the backfill. For a fully drained condition, the pressures

should be computed in accordance with the CHBDC but generally are given by the expression:

p = K (h + q)

Where: p = horizontal earth pressure on the wall at depth h (kPa)

K = earth pressure coefficient (see table below)


= unit weight of retained soil (see table below)

h = depth below top of fill where pressure is computed (m)

q = value of any surcharge (kPa)

The earth pressure coefficients are dependent on the material used as backfill. Recommended

unfactored values are shown in Table 11.1. The at-rest coefficients should be employed for

restrained walls. Active pressures should be used for any wingwalls or unrestrained walls.

Table 11.1 – Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients

Loading Condition

Earth Pressure Coefficient (K)

OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type II

= 35, = 22.8 kN/m3

OPSS Granular B Type I

= 32, = 21.2 kN/m3

Horizontal Backfill

Sloping Backfill (2H:1V)

Horizontal Backfill

Sloping Backfill (2H:1V)

Active (Unrestrained Wall) 0.27 0.39* 0.31 0.47*

At-rest (Restrained Wall) 0.43 - 0.47 -

Passive 3.7 - 3.3 -

* For wing walls.

The parameters in the table correspond to full mobilization of active and passive earth

pressures, and require certain relative movements between the wall and adjacent soil to

produce these conditions. The values to be used in design can be assessed from Figure C6.16

of the Commentary to the CHBDC.

In accordance with Clause 6.12.3 of the CHBDC, a compaction surcharge should be added.

The magnitude should be 12 kPa at the top of fill and decreasing to 0 kPa at a depth of 2.0 m

for Granular B Type I or 1.7 m for Granular A or Granular B Type II.

The use of a material with a high friction angle and low active pressure coefficient (e.g.

Granular A, Granular B Type II) is generally preferred as it results in lower earth pressures

acting on the wall. In the case of integral abutments, material with a lower passive pressure

coefficient (e.g. Granular B, Type I) might be preferred as it results in lower forces acting on the

ballast wall as the wall moves towards the soil mass.

The design of the abutment walls must incorporate measures such as a subdrain and/or weep

holes to permit drainage of the backfill and avoid the potential build-up of hydrostatic pressures

behind the walls.


12.0 APPROACH EMBANKMENTS

The approach embankments will be in the order of 5.5 m high at the Highway 404 underpass

structure and east abutment of the Rouge River bridge, and 1.5 m at the west bridge abutment.

The full height of the abutment foreslopes will be near 8.0 m. The foundation soil below the

embankments generally consist of dense to very dense silt and sand till.

Embankments with standard side slope inclinations of 2H:1V are expected to be stable. Mid-

height berms comprising 2 m wide benches must be incorporated along the length of

embankments with heights exceeding 8 m in earth fill. Settlement of the embankment

foundations is expected to be less than 25 mm and should not be an issue.

Embankment construction should be carried out in accordance with OPSS.PROV 206. Materials

used to construct the embankments should comprise granular materials or Select Subgrade

Material (SSM) in compliance with OPSS.PROV 1010, earth borrow as per OPSS 212, or on-

site inorganic materials subject to geotechnical approval. Earth fill embankment slopes must be

provided with erosion protection in accordance with OPSS.PROV 804.

13.0 EXCAVATION AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL

All excavation must be carried out in accordance with OPSS 902 and the Occupational Health

and Safety Act (OHSA). For the purposes of assessing excavation slope requirements in

compliance with the OHSA, the fill and upper firm to stiff silty clay layers are classified as Type 3

soils. The underlying dense to very dense till is classified as Type 2 soil.

Where temporary excavations cannot be constructed with inclined slopes due to space

limitations, roadway protection should be provided in accordance with OPSS 539 and designed

for Performance Level 2. A possible system includes soldier piles and timber lagging.

It is anticipated that the construction excavations will not extend below the groundwater table.

Diversion of surface runoff from the excavation and pumping from carefully constructed, filtered

sumps should be adequate to control water entering excavations during construction.

14.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN

The projected traffic volume for the new four-lane crossing road is 17,110 AADT in 2041, with a

truck volume of 2%.

In general, the pavement subgrade is expected to comprise native clayey silt and sand till or

engineered fill placed to form the new approach embankments. Based on the preliminary


borehole data, the projected traffic volumes, and assuming adequate subgrade drainage, the

following preliminary pavement design is recommended for the new crossing road:

HL1 50 mm

HDBC 90 mm

OPSS Granular A Base 150 mm

OPSS Granular B Type II Subbase 400 mm

Subgrade preparation for pavement construction should include stripping of all existing topsoil,

organic or compressible material and any excessively soft/loose soils. The exposed subgrade

should be compacted and proofrolled with a heavy roller and examined to identify any areas of

unstable subgrade. Any soft/wet areas identified should be subexcavated and replaced with

approved material within 2% of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 98% of

SPMDD.

The top of the compacted subgrade should be graded smooth with a minimum crossfall of 3%

towards side ditches or subdrains. Continuity of drainage should be maintained at transitions

from existing pavement to new pavement. The pavement granular layers should daylight into

ditches or alternatively subdrains should be included at each edge of the pavement.

15.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

To provide a preliminary assessment of the environmental quality of the soils along the corridor,

samples recovered from the boreholes were submitted to AGAT Laboratories Limited for

analysis of selected parameters outlined in Ontario Regulation 153/04 (as amended by O.Reg.

511/09). The sample locations and material types are summarized in Table 15.1.

Table 15.1 – Samples Selected for Environmental Testing

Borehole Sample No. Depth (m) Material

17-01 SS 2 0.8 – 1.4 Silt and sand till



17-08 SS 1 0.8 – 1.4 Silty clay

The results of the analyses are provided on the Certificates of Analysis in Appendix E. The

results were compared to Table 2 (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable


Ground Water Condition) of O.Reg. 153. The concentrations of all parameters measured in the

samples meet the criteria established in Table 2 of the Regulation.

Based on the available subsurface information and the analytical results of selected samples,

excess soil from the project may be reused on-site for general fill purposes or exported to a

receiving site accepting earth fill.

Due to the inherent variability of subsurface conditions, additional testing will be required during

detailed design to confirm the quality of excess excavated soils and requirements for on-site

reuse or off-site disposal.

16.0 CONSTRUCTION CONCERNS

Potential construction concerns include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Cobbles and boulders may be encountered within the till deposits during foundation

excavation and/or installation of driven piles.

Pre-augering may be required to advance driven piles through the very dense till

deposits encountered within the upper 5 m of the native till deposits.

If caisson are employed, temporary steel liners and measures such as the use of drilling

mud and/or placement of concrete using tremie methods may be required to support the

caisson sidewalls and avoid hydraulic disturbance and heave at the caisson base.

17.0 SCOPE OF DETAILED INVESTIGATION

Further subsurface investigation, analysis and design should be carried out during detail design

to confirm the subsoil conditions at the location of the structure foundation elements and

approaches. Of note, access to the locations of the east abutment of the Rouge River bridge

and the west abutment of the Highway 404 underpass structure was not available during the

current investigation. Boreholes should be drilled at these locations, and additional boreholes

should be drilled at the other foundation units, to complete the detailed Foundation Investigation

in accordance with MTO requirements.

Additional investigation should be carried out along the remainder of the roadway corridor to

confirm the subsurface conditions to be encountered as well as the existing roadway pavement

thicknesses to be incorporated into the new roadway. Further pavement investigation will also


be required along Highway 404 if temporary detouring of traffic onto the shoulder pavements is

required during pier construction.

18.0 CLOSURE

Engineering analysis and preparation of the preliminary geotechnical report were carried out by

Mr. Murray Anderson, P.Eng. The report was reviewed by Dr. P.K. Chatterji, P.Eng., a

Designated Principal Contact for MTO Foundations Projects.

Thurber Engineering Ltd.

Murray R. Anderson, P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Dr. P.K. Chatterji, P.Eng. Review Principal

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS

1. STANDARD OF CARE

This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering or environmental consulting practices in the applicable jurisdiction. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made.

2. COMPLETE REPORT

All documents, records, data and files, whether electronic or otherwise, generated as part of this assignment are a part of the Report, which is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Thurber by the Client, communications between Thurber and the Client, and any other reports, proposals or documents prepared by Thurber for the Client relative to the specific site described herein, all of which together constitute the Report.

IN ORDER TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN, REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT. THURBER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY ANY PARTY OF PORTIONS OF THE REPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE WHOLE REPORT.

3. BASIS OF REPORT

The Report has been prepared for the specific site, development, design objectives and purposes that were described to Thurber by the Client. The applicability and reliability of any of the findings, recommendations, suggestions, or opinions expressed in the Report, subject to the limitations provided herein, are only valid to the extent that the Report expressly addresses proposed development, design objectives and purposes, and then only to the extent that there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the said descriptions provided to Thurber, unless Thurber is specifically requested by the Client to review and revise the Report in light of such alteration or variation.

4. USE OF THE REPORT

The information and opinions expressed in the Report, or any document forming part of the Report, are for the sole benefit of the Client. NO OTHER PARTY MAY USE OR RELY UPON THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF WITHOUT THURBER’S WRITTEN CONSENT AND SUCH USE SHALL BE ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THURBER MAY EXPRESSLY APPROVE. Ownership in and copyright for the contents of the Report belong to Thurber. Any use which a third party makes of the Report, is the sole responsibility of such third party. Thurber accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages suffered by any third party resulting from use of the Report without Thurber’s express written permission.

5. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT

a) Nature and Exactness of Soil and Contaminant Description: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, geological units, contaminant materials and quantities have been based on investigations performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1. Classification and identification of these factors are judgmental in nature. Comprehensive sampling and testing programs implemented with the appropriate equipment by experienced personnel may fail to locate some conditions. All investigations utilizing the standards of Paragraph 1 will involve an inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected and all documents or records summarizing such investigations will be based on assumptions of what exists between the actual points sampled. Actual conditions may vary significantly between the points investigated and the Client and all other persons making use of such documents or records with our express written consent should be aware of this risk and the Report is delivered subject to the express condition that such risk is accepted by the Client and such other persons. Some conditions are subject to change over time and those making use of the Report should be aware of this possibility and understand that the Report only presents the conditions at the sampled points at the time of sampling. If special concerns exist, or the Client has special considerations or requirements, the Client should disclose them so that additional or special investigations may be undertaken which would not otherwise be within the scope of investigations made for the purposes of the Report.

b) Reliance on Provided Information: The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report have been prepared on the basis of conditions in evidence at the time of site inspections and on the basis of information provided to Thurber. Thurber has relied in good faith upon representations, information and instructions provided by the Client and others concerning the site. Accordingly, Thurber does not accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the Report as a result of misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations, or fraudulent acts of the Client or other persons providing information relied on by Thurber. Thurber is entitled to rely on such representations, information and instructions and is not required to carry out investigations to determine the truth or accuracy of such representations, information and instructions.

c) Design Services: The Report may form part of design and construction documents for information purposes even though it may have been issued prior to final design being completed. Thurber should be retained to review final design, project plans and related documents prior to construction to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of the Report. Any differences that may exist between the Report’s recommendations and the final design detailed in the contract documents should be reported to Thurber immediately so that Thurber can address potential conflicts.

d) Construction Services: During construction Thurber should be retained to provide field reviews. Field reviews consist of performing sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions in order to confirm and document that the site conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of the report. Adequate field reviews are necessary for Thurber to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities.

6. RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting projects often have the potential to encounter pollutants or hazardous substances and the potential to cause the escape, release or dispersal of those substances. Thurber shall have no liability to the Client under any circumstances, for the escape, release or dispersal of pollutants or hazardous substances, unless such pollutants or hazardous substances have been specifically and accurately identified to Thurber by the Client prior to the commencement of Thurber’s professional services.

7. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENTS OF CLIENT

The information, interpretations and conclusions in the Report are based on Thurber’s interpretation of conditions revealed through limited investigation conducted within a defined scope of services. Thurber does not accept responsibility for independent conclusions, interpretations, interpolations and/or decisions of the Client, or others who may come into possession of the Report, or any part thereof, which may be based on information contained in the Report. This restriction of liability includes but is not limited to decisions made to develop, purchase or sell land.

HKH/LG_Dec 2014

Appendix A

Record of Borehole Sheets

SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES 1. TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS

CLASSIFICATION PARTICLE SIZE VISUAL IDENTIFICATION Boulders Greater than 200mm same Cobbles 75 to 200mm same Gravel 4.75 to 75mm 5 to 75mm Sand 0.075 to 4.75mm Not visible particles to 5mm Silt 0.002 to 0.075mm Non-plastic particles, not visible to

the naked eye Clay Less than 0.002mm Plastic particles, not visible to the naked eye

2. COARSE GRAIN SOIL DESCRIPTION (50% greater than 0.075mm) TERMINOLOGY PROPORTION Trace or Occasional Less than 10% Some 10 to 20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20 to 35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) 35 to 50% 3. TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY (COHESIVE SOILS ONLY) DESCRIPTIVE TERM UNDRAINED SHEAR APPROXIMATE SPT(1) ‘N’ STRENGTH (kPa) VALUE

Very Soft 12 or less Less than 2 Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15 Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30 Hard Greater than 200 Greater than 30

NOTE: Hierarchy of Soil Strength Prediction 1) Laboratory Triaxial Testing 2) Field Insitu Vane Testing 3) Laboratory Vane Testing 4) SPT value 5) Pocket Penetrometer

4. TERMS DESCRIBING DENSITY (COHESIONLESS SOILS ONLY) DESCRIPTIVE TERM SPT “N” VALUE Very Loose Less than 4 Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense Greater than 50 5. LEGEND FOR RECORDS OF BOREHOLES

SYMBOLS AND SS Split Spoon Sample WS Wash Sample AS Auger (Grab) Sample ABBREVIATIONS TW Thin Wall Shelby Tube Sample TP Thin Wall Piston Sample

FOR PH Sampler Advanced by Hydraulic Pressure PM Sampler Advanced by Manual Pressure SAMPLE TYPE WH Sampler Advanced by Self Static Weight RC Rock Core SC Soil Core Undisturbed Shear Strength

Sensitivity = ---------------------------------- Remoulded Shear Strength

Water Level Cpen Shear Strength Determination by Pocket Penetrometer

(1) SPT ‘N’ Value Standard Penetration Test ‘N’ Value – refers to the number of blows from a 63.5kg hammer free falling a

height of 0.76m to advance a standard 50 mm outside diameter split spoon sampler for 0.3 m depth into undisturbed ground. (2) DCPT Dynamic Cone Penetration Test – Continuous penetration of a 50 mm outside diameter, 60 conical

steel point attached to “A” size rods driven by a 63.5 kg hammer free falling a height of 0.76 m. The resistance to cone penetration is the number of hammer blows required for each 0.3 m advance of the conical point into undisturbed ground.

UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION

GROUPMAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION

GRAVEL

GW Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or

no fines.

AND

GRAVELLY

GP Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little

or no fines.

COARSE SOILS GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.

GRAINED GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.

SOILS

SAND AND

SW Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no

fines.

SANDY

SOILS

SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no

fines.

SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.

SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.

ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or

clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity.

FINE

SILTS AND

CLAYS

CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly

clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.

(WL < 30%).

GRAINED

SOILS

WL < 50% CI Inorganic clays of medium plasticity, silty clays.

(30% < WL < 50%).

OL Organic silts and organic silty-clays of low plasticity.

SILTS AND

MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine

sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.

CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.

WL > 50% OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic

silts.

HIGHLY

ORGANIC

SOILS

Pt Peat and other highly organic soils.

CLAY SHALE

SANDSTONE

SILTSTONE

CLAYSTONE

COAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12

4

18

76

100/

0.275

59/

0.125

Clayey SILT, trace sand, trace gravel,trace roots, occasional cobblesStiffDark BrownMoist(FILL)

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravel,occasional cobblesFirm to HardBrownMoist(TILL)

SAND, trace gravel, oxide stainsVery DenseBrownMoist

END OF BOREHOLE AT 4.9m.BOREHOLE DRY UPONCOMPLETION.BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHCUTTINGS TO SURFACE.

0.7

4.1

4.9

219.0

215.6

214.8

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

219.70.0

GROUND SURFACE

N 4 860 808.7 E 629 701.9

2017.06.28 - 2017.06.28

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

1 OF 1

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION

&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%) STRAIN AT FAILURE

METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

TF

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM

WATER CONTENT (%) (%)

GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

20 40 60 80 100

SHEAR STRENGTH kPaw P w w

UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

219

218

217

216

215

RECORD OF BOREHOLE No 17-01

W.P.

NU

MB

ER

: Numbers refer toSensitivity

SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

NATURAL

20 40 60

Ministry ofTransportation

Ontario

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

10

32

46

100/

0.125

100/

0.225

101

89

33

40

TOPSOIL: (75mm)

Silty CLAY, trace sand, trace gravel,some organics and rootsStiffBrownMoist

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelDense to Very DenseBrownMoist(TILL)

Silty SAND, trace gravelVery Dense to DenseLight BrownMoist to Wet

Sampler wet at6.7m.

0.1

0.7

4.1

219.1

215.7

0

2

40

68

42

25

18

5

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

219.80.0

GROUND SURFACE

N 4 860 859.6 E 629 787.1

2017.06.15 - 2017.06.28

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

1 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION

&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA/TF

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

219

218

217

216

215

214

213

212

211

210


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

Continued Next Page

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

10

11

SS

SS

56

91

Sandy SILT, trace gravelVery DenseGreyMoist to Wet(TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE AT 12.8m.Well installation consists of 25mmdiameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe with a3.05m slotted screen.

11.7

12.8

208.1

207.0

WATER LEVEL READINGSDATE DEPTH(m) ELEV.(m)

2017.08.11 7.2 212.6

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

N 4 860 859.6 E 629 787.1

2017.06.15 - 2017.06.28

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

2 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION

Continued From Previous Page

&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA/TF

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

209

208

207


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

39

55

100/

0.225

68

73

37

54

100/

0.275

7

ASPHALT: (125mm)

Sandy GRAVEL, some siltDenseGreyMoist(FILL)

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelVery DenseGreyMoist(TILL)

SILT, some clay, some sandDenseGreyWet

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelVery DenseGreyWet(TILL)

SAND, some silt, trace gravelLooseGreyWet

0.1

0.7

4.1

5.6

8.7

217.1

213.7

212.2

209.1

4

0

3

42

19

76

32

71

19

22

10

2

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

217.80.0

GROUND SURFACE

N 4 860 891.7 E 630 024.8

2017.06.18 - 2017.06.18

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

1 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION

&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

217

216

215

214

213

212

211

210

209

208


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

Continued Next Page

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

10

11

12

13

SS

SS

SS

SS

110/

0.275

100/

0.200

50/

0.100

100/

0.275

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelVery DenseGreyWet to Moist(TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE AT 15.7m.WATER LEVEL AT 3.0m UPONCOMPLETION.BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHBENTONITE HOLEPLUG ANDCUTTINGS, WITH COLD PATCHASPHALT AT SURFACE.

10.2

15.7

207.6

202.1

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

N 4 860 891.7 E 630 024.8

2017.06.18 - 2017.06.18

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

2 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION


&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

207

206

205

204

203


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

10

22

22

37

60

98

50/

0.100

50/

0.125

87

TOPSOIL: (75mm)

Silty CLAY, trace sand, trace gravel,some organicsStiffDark BrownMoist

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelCompact to Very DenseBrownMoist(TILL)

SILT, some clayVery DenseBrownMoist

Silty SANDVery DenseGreyWet

SAND and SILT, some gravel, traceclayVery DenseGreyWet(TILL)

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelVery DenseGreyMoist(TILL)

0.1

0.7

4.1

4.9

5.6

7.2

219.4

216.0

215.2

214.5

212.9

5

15

42

41

35

37

18

7

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

220.10.0

GROUND SURFACE

N 4 860 895.9 E 630 059.6

2017.06.15 - 2017.06.15

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

1 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION

&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

220

219

218

217

216

215

214

213

212

211


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

Continued Next Page

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

10 SS 100

END OF BOREHOLE AT 11.3m.WATER LEVEL AT 6.1m UPONCOMPLETION.Piezometer installation consists of25mm diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipewith a 3.0m slotted screen.

11.3

208.8

2 35 41 22

WATER LEVEL READINGSDATE DEPTH(m) ELEV.(m)

2017.08.11 4.9 215.2

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

N 4 860 895.9 E 630 059.6

2017.06.15 - 2017.06.15

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

2 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION


&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

210

209


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

7

20

21

60

68

65

26

72

50/

0.100

TOPSOIL: (75mm)

Silty CLAY, trace sand, trace gravel,some organics, rootsFirmBrownMoist

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelCompact to Very DenseBrownMoist(TILL)

SAND, some siltCompactGreyish BrownWet

Gravelly SAND, siltyVery DenseGreyWet

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelHardGreyWet(TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE AT 9.4m.WATER LEVEL AT 6.1m UPONCOMPLETION.

0.1

0.7

5.6

7.2

8.7

9.4

219.5

214.6

213.0

211.5

210.8

7

33

43

46

30 20

21(SI+CL)

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

220.20.0

GROUND SURFACE

N 4 860 897.8 E 630 074.4

2017.06.15 - 2017.06.15

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

1 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION

&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

220

219

218

217

216

215

214

213

212

211


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

Continued Next Page

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHBENTONITE HOLEPLUG ANDCUTTINGS TO SURFACE.

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

N 4 860 897.8 E 630 074.4

2017.06.15 - 2017.06.15

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

2 OF 2

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION


&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

40

13

24

54

72

50/

0.125

ASPHALT: (100mm)

Gravelly SAND, some siltDenseGreyMoist(FILL)

Silty CLAY, some sand, trace gravelStiffBrownMoist

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelCompactBrownMoist(TILL)

SILT and SANDVery DenseBrownWet

Clayey SILT and SAND, trace gravelVery DenseBrownWet to Moist(TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE AT 4.7m.WATER LEVEL AT 3.0m.BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHBENTONITE HOLEPLUG ANDCUTTINGS, THEN ASPHALT TOSURFACE.

0.1

0.7

1.4

3.0

4.1

4.7

217.9

217.2

215.6

214.5

213.9

0 44 51 5

ON

TM

T4S

MT

O-1

1414

.GP

J 2

017T

EM

PLA

TE

(MT

O).

GD

T 8

/25/

17

218.60.0

GROUND SURFACE

N 4 860 926.0 E 630 251.7

2017.06.15 - 2017.06.15

MOISTURE

CONTENT

LIQUID

LIMIT

404

Geodetic

HWY

1 OF 1

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

FIELD VANE

COMPILED BY

DEPTH

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

Solid Stem Augers

CHECKED BY

320

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

kN/m 3

REMARKS

DESCRIPTION

&

QUICK TRIAXIAL

LOCATION

BOREHOLE TYPE

DATE

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


METRIC

ST

RA

T P

LOT

L

ORIGINATED BY

"N"

VA

LUE

S

SA SI

3,

OA

AN

MRA

SOIL PROFILE

DATUM


GRELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE


20 40 60 80 100


UNCONFINEDTY

PE

PLASTIC

LIMIT

10515

218

217

216

215

214


W.P.

NU

MB

ER


SAMPLES

ELEV

CL

NATURAL

20 40 60


Ontario

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

ELEV. (m)

3040 10

COARSEFINECOARSE

LEGEND

16 8

FINE GRAINED

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SYMBOL

17-0217-0617-0717-0717-0717-08

Size of openings, inches

1.11.82.66.4

11.01.8

3/8"3 6"4 4 1/4"3"1 1/2"1"1/2" 3/4"100 50

BOREHOLE DEPTH (m)

U.S.S. Sieve size, meshes/inch

SAND GRAVEL

MEDIUMFINESILT and CLAYCOBBLE

SIZE

60200

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

Clayey Silt and Sand Till

218.7216.0217.5213.7209.1218.4

GR

AIN

SIZ

E D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

- T

HU

RB

ER

MT

O-1

141

4.G

PJ

8/2

5/1

7

Date

Chkd.

Prep'd MFA

MRAW.P.

August 2017

FIGURE B1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

ELEV. (m)

3040 10

COARSEFINECOARSE

LEGEND

16 8

FINE GRAINED


SYMBOL

17-0217-0617-0617-09


7.94.99.43.3

3/8"3 6"4 4 1/4"3"1 1/2"1"1/2" 3/4"100 50

BOREHOLE DEPTH (m)


SAND GRAVEL


SIZE

60200

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

Sand to Silt

211.9212.9208.4215.3

GR

AIN

SIZ

E D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

- T

HU

RB

ER

MT

O-1

141

4.G

PJ

8/2

5/1

7

Date

Chkd.

Prep'd MFA

MRAW.P.

August 2017

FIGURE B2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

ELEV. (m)

3040 10

COARSEFINECOARSE

LEGEND

16 8

FINE GRAINED


SYMBOL

17-08


7.9

3/8"3 6"4 4 1/4"3"1 1/2"1"1/2" 3/4"100 50

BOREHOLE DEPTH (m)


SAND GRAVEL


SIZE

60200

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

Gravelly Sand

212.3

GR

AIN

SIZ

E D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

- T

HU

RB

ER

MT

O-1

141

4.G

PJ

8/2

5/1

7

Date

Chkd.

Prep'd MFA

MRAW.P.

August 2017

FIGURE B3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

CL

CL-ML

ML

CL

CI

OL

MI-OI

CH

MH-OH

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

Clayey Silt and Sand Till

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

LEGEND

17-0217-0717-0717-08

BOREHOLE

ELEV. (m)DEPTH (m)SYMBOL

1.12.6

11.01.8

218.7217.5209.1218.4

TH

UR

BA

LT M

TO

-11

414.

GP

J 8

/25

/17

Date

Chkd.

Prep'd MFA

MRAW.P.

August 2017

FIGURE B4

Appendix C

Site Photographs

Photograph 1 – Looking east at east terminus of Performance Drive

Photograph 2 – Location of west abutment of Rouge River bridge

Photograph 3 – Location of east abutment of Rouge River bridge

Photograph 4 – Location of west abutment of Highway 404 overpass

Photograph 5 – Looking west from location of east abutment of Highway 404 overpass

Photograph 6 – Looking east towards Markland Street

Appendix D

Borehole Locations and Soil Strata Drawing

30M14-468

Appendix E

Laboratory Certificate of Analysis

CLIENT NAME: THURBER ENGINEERING LTDSUITE 103, 2010 WINSTON PARK DRIVEOAKVILLE, ON L6H5R7 (905) 829-8666

5835 COOPERS AVENUE

MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Amanjot Bhela, Inorganic CoordinatorSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 4

Aug 16, 2017

VERSION*: 1

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

17T235719AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Murray Anderson

PROJECT: Hwy 404 Crossing 11414

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 4

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

BH17-06 SS2BH17-01 SS2 BH17-07 SS3 BH17-08 SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSoil SoilSAMPLE TYPE:

2017-06-18 2017-06-15 2017-06-152017-06-28DATE SAMPLED:

8632532 8632539 8632540 8632541G / S RDLUnitParameter

<0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8Antimony 0.850µg/g

3 2 2 3Arsenic 118µg/g

87 55 38 144Barium 2670µg/g

0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.9Beryllium 0.510µg/g

6 <5 <5 7Boron 5120µg/g

0.25 <0.10 <0.10 0.24Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.102µg/g

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Cadmium 0.51.9µg/g

17 10 10 31Chromium 2160µg/g

7.2 4.5 5.0 13.1Cobalt 0.5100µg/g

15 9 10 27Copper 1300µg/g

9 4 5 10Lead 1120µg/g

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Molybdenum 0.540µg/g

14 8 9 25Nickel 1340µg/g

<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4Selenium 0.45.5µg/g

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2Silver 0.250µg/g

<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4Thallium 0.43.3µg/g

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6Uranium 0.533µg/g

27 16 18 45Vanadium 186µg/g

50 25 25 63Zinc 5340µg/g

<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2Chromium VI 0.210µg/g

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

<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Mercury 0.1020µg/g

0.174 0.521 0.105 0.177Electrical Conductivity 0.0051.4mS/cm

0.377 5.09 0.435 0.386Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA12NA

7.71 8.14 7.89 7.34pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use - Medium and Fine Textured SoilsGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.

8632532-8632541 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.Please note that samples were received and analyzed past hold time for Electrical Conductivity, Cyanide, Chromium VI, pH and Mercury analyses.

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

DATE RECEIVED: 2017-07-07

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Murray AndersonCLIENT NAME: THURBER ENGINEERING LTD

AGAT WORK ORDER: 17T235719

DATE REPORTED: 2017-08-16


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

SAMPLED BY:TF/OA/GASAMPLING SITE:Markham

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 4

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

Antimony 8628798 <0.8 <0.8 NA < 0.8 107% 70% 130% 91% 80% 120% 86% 70% 130%

Arsenic 8628798 5 5 0.0% < 1 108% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%

Barium 8628798 65 66 1.5% < 2 95% 70% 130% 87% 80% 120% 83% 70% 130%

Beryllium 8628798 0.6 0.6 NA < 0.5 93% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%

Boron

8628798 8 9 NA < 5 71% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 8631584 0.24 0.24 NA < 0.10 105% 60% 140% 99% 70% 130% 97% 60% 140%

Cadmium 8628798 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 105% 70% 130% 94% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

Chromium 8628798 17 17 0.0% < 2 86% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 85% 70% 130%

Cobalt 8628798 10.3 10.2 1.0% < 0.5 98% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%

Copper

8628798 25 24 4.1% < 1 96% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

Lead 8628798 12 11 8.7% < 1 96% 70% 130% 92% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%

Molybdenum 8628798 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 106% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%

Nickel 8628798 21 21 0.0% < 1 101% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%

Selenium 8628798 <0.4 <0.4 NA < 0.4 106% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%

Silver

8628798 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 94% 70% 130% 94% 80% 120% 95% 70% 130%

Thallium 8628798 <0.4 <0.4 NA < 0.4 88% 70% 130% 90% 80% 120% 86% 70% 130%

Uranium 8628798 0.6 0.6 NA < 0.5 89% 70% 130% 92% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%

Vanadium 8628798 25 25 0.0% < 1 96% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%

Zinc 8628798 91 71 24.7% < 5 99% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 110% 70% 130%

Chromium VI

8632532 8632532 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 99% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 103% 70% 130%

Cyanide 8626597 <0.040 <0.040 NA < 0.040 92% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%

Mercury 8628798 <0.10 <0.10 NA < 0.10 98% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%

Electrical Conductivity 8633102 0.226 0.229 1.3% < 0.005 96% 90% 110% NA NA

Sodium Adsorption Ratio 8633102 0.869 0.901 3.6% NA NA NA NA

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction

8632540 8632540 7.89 7.88 0.1% NA 101% 80% 120% NA NA

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:Markham SAMPLED BY:TF/OA/GA


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: THURBER ENGINEERING LTD


Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Aug 16, 2017 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 3 of 4

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


SAMPLING SITE:Markham SAMPLED BY:TF/OA/GA


Method Summary


CLIENT NAME: THURBER ENGINEERING LTD


AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 4 of 4

FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN REPORT

Documents

Transcript of FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN REPORT