REPORT: T020548-A1

REPORT: T020548-A1 Brigil Construction Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation - Tower B Highway 174 and Trim Road Orleans, Ontario

August 13, 2013

Ottawa, August 13, 2013 Mr. Michel Gagnon Brigil Construction 500 Boulevard Greber Gatineau, Quebec J8T 7W3 Subject: Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation

(T020548-A1) Tower B, Highway 174 and Trim Road Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Mr. Gagnon: In accordance with your recent instructions, Inspec-Sol Inc. (Inspec-Sol) has carried out an update of the report previously submitted and is entitled a Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation for the above-mentioned site. It is considered preliminary until design drawings are further advanced and interaction with the client’s designers is completed. Such interaction may result in further investigation requirements. We thank you for having retained Inspec-Sol for technical and professional services and we hope to have the privilege of serving you again in the future. The Inspec-Sol team is committed to exceeding the expectations of its clients. Do not hesitate to contact us for any further information. Best regards. INSPEC-SOL INC.

Joseph B. Bennett, P. Eng. Vice-President JBB/vl

BRIGIL CONSTRUCTION

TOWER B

HIGHWAY 174 AND TRIM ROAD ORLEANS, ONTARIO

Date : August 13, 2013 Our Ref. : T020548-A1

BRIGIL CONSTRUCTION 500 Boulevard Greber

Gatineau, Quebec J8T 7W3

Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation Tower B

Highway 174 and Trim Road Ottawa, Ontario

O/Ref. : T020548-A1 August 13, 2013

Prepared by :

Joseph B. Bennett, P. Eng.

Approved by :

Renato Pasqualoni, P. Eng.

Distribution : Mr. Gagnon, Brigil Construction (Copy by e-mail: [email protected] and by mail) (In duplicate)

Respect for the environment and the preservation of our natural resources are priorities for Inspec-Sol Inc. With this in mind, we print our documents double-sided on 50 % recycled paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................2

3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION..................................................................................2

3.1 FIELD PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................2

4.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS...............................................................................................3

5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS..................................................................................3

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................4

6.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ..........................................................................................4 6.2 SITE PREPARATION & DRAINAGE..................................................................................5 6.3 FOUNDATIONS .............................................................................................................6

6.3.1 Pile Foundations .................................................................................................7 6.3.2 Footings..............................................................................................................8

6.4 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................9 6.5 FLOOR SLABS..............................................................................................................9 6.6 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS .....................................................................................10 6.7 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES.....................................................................................10

6.7.1 Static Conditions...............................................................................................11 6.7.2 Dynamic Conditions..........................................................................................11

6.8 BUILDING BACKFILL ...................................................................................................12 6.8.1 Engineered Fill..................................................................................................12 6.8.2 Exterior Foundation Wall Backfill ......................................................................13

6.9 FLOOR SLABS............................................................................................................14 6.10 UNDERGROUND SERVICES .....................................................................................14

6.10.1 Bedding and Cover ...........................................................................................14 6.10.2 Service Trench Backfill .....................................................................................15

6.11 PAVEMENT SECTIONS ............................................................................................16 6.8 EXCAVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER............................................................................17

7.0 CONSTRUCTION FIELD REVIEW.............................................................................18

8.0 LIMITATION OF THE INVESTIGATION.....................................................................19

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

Tables Table I: Groundwater Levels Pg. 4

Table II: Recommended Pavement Structures Pg. 16

Drawings Site Location Map Dwg. No. T020548-A1-1

Borehole Location Plan Dwg. No. T020548-A1-2

Earth Pressure On Basement Walls Dwg. No. T020548-A1-3

Enclosures Borehole Logs Enclosures No.1 – 3

Appendix A Notes on Borehole and Test Pits

Geotechnical Investigation; Tower B; Hwy 417 and Trim Road, Ottawa ON 1 Ref. No. : T020548-A1 August 13, 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Inspec-Sol Inc. (Inspec-Sol) was retained by Brigil Construction to undertake a Geotechnical

investigation for a proposed highrise development to be located at Highway 174 and Trim

Road, in the Town of Cumberland, Ontario. A Site location map is attached (Dwg. No.

T020548-A1). The authorization to proceed with the work was provided by Mr. Michel

Gagnon, acting as the representative for Brigil Construction.

The development Site is a vacant property, located on the north side of Highway 174 and to

the east of Trim Road. The Site is located on a flat plateau, which slopes downward to the

Ottawa River at its northern boundary. The proposed development consists of many multi-

story towers of which one (Tower A) is already constructed and occupied.

The proposed development, named as Tower B, will be located immediately adjacent to the

east of Tower A and will include a 15-storey high rise apartment building with two basement

levels. The basement will be to accommodate an underground parking garage that is

planned to have a larger footprint than the tower portion of the building.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation completed in 2008 was to:

i) Determine the subsoil and groundwater conditions at three borehole locations;

ii) Review the subsoil and bedrock data, including that available from previous

investigations performed at the Site by Fondex Ontario Ltd. (Reference No. F2166,

F2739);

ii) Determine the soil profile depth to bedrock; or 30 m maximum;

iv) Provide recommendations for the design of the foundations; and

v) Comment on the geotechnical considerations relating to the design and construction

of this project.

The following report has been prepared to address the above noted terms of reference, with

the understanding that the design of the project will be carried out in accordance with all

applicable codes and standards. Any changes to the project described will require a review

by Inspec-Sol.

2 Geotechnical Investigation; Tower B; Hwy 417 and Trim Road, Ottawa Ontario Ref. No. : T020548-A1 August 13, 2013

2.0 Site Description

The investigated site is located to the east of Phase I (Tower A) within the greater property that

is known as Petrie’s Landing. Tower A was constructed and is operating as a residential

highrise. The site was a flat grassed field with a gentle slope to the north where it abuts the

slope embankment that grades down to the Ottawa River. The adjacent construction of Tower

A has deposited some soil stockpiles on the site for Tower B. Access to the site is from the

North Service Road that intersects Trim Road just north of Highway 174.

The location of the Site is shown on the Site Location Map, Dwg. No. T020548-A1-1.

3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

3.1 Field Procedures

The site work consisted of drilling a series of three (3) boreholes, one (1) to 12 m and two (2) to

bedrock. The holes were then surveyed into location and elevations were taken for ground

level relative to a geodetic benchmark. Monitoring wells were installed in the boreholes and

were monitored for water level. A hydraulic conductivity test was undertaken to provide

information regarding volume of groundwater. The scope of the field program was established

by Inspec-Sol.

The locations of the boreholes are shown on the enclosed Borehole Location Plan, Drawing

No. T020548-A1-2, while a complete description of the stratigraphy encountered at each test

location, is presented on the Borehole Logs, Enclosure Nos. 1 to 3.

The boreholes were carried out by means of an auger-equipped drill rig, mounted on an all-

terrain track vehicle, which was able to secure soil samples at regular intervals with a 50 mm

diameter standard split-spoon sampler.

Sampling procedures were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D-1586,

which provides the penetration resistance ("N-Value") of the soils. In-situ vane shear tests

were also performed for the most part because of the cohesive soils.

Additional information regarding the procedures of in-situ testing, as well as information

concerning the borehole logs, may be found in the Notes for Borehole Logs, Appendix ‘A’. All

recovered soil samples were returned to our laboratory for confirmation evaluation for

presentation purposes in this report. Laboratory testing was carried out on selected samples to


determine moisture content, as well as Atterberg Limits. These samples will be stored for a

three-month period, unless otherwise directed.

Ground surface elevations were taken at the test locations and were related to a site

benchmark, which was the floor slab of the Tower A site and had an elevation of 56.84 m. The

fieldwork was executed over the period of October 9 when the drilling was started and water

levels were recorded up to November 21, 2008 under the supervision of members of our

technical staff.

4.0 Subsoil Conditions

The subsoil at the Site, generally, consists of a 200 mm thick layer of topsoil overlying a

deposit of silty clay, which extends to down to bedrock found at a depth of about 25 to 26 m.

The silty clay has a very stiff, brown and desiccated crust extending to a depth of about 2.5

to 3 m, below ground surface. Below the stiff crust the clay weakens slightly and becomes

stiff, grey and wet to about 8m below which the deposit becomes stiffer. The silty clay was

found to be overlying bedrock.

The bedrock at the Site area is grey limestone of the Ottawa Formation. The depth to

bedrock, as determined based on rock coring, ranged from approximately 25 m to 26 m.

The subsoil and groundwater conditions encountered in each borehole are described in

detail on the borehole logs, Enclosures No. 1 to No. 3, inclusive.

5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

The groundwater level was based on measurements within the borehole monitor wells. The

water levels were found to be near 1 m to 2 m below existing grades.


TABLE I: GROUNDWATER LEVELS

Depth (elev.)

Date Date

Borehole

ID

Oct 31/08 Nov 20/08

BH1 1.7

(52.4)

1.5

(52.6)

BH2 0.8

(53.7)

0.7

(53.8)

BH3 1.9

(53.4

1.0

(54.3)

The groundwater levels will fluctuate seasonally and will be at the highest level during the

spring thaw. We suggest that for design purposes the high water table be considered to be

near the ground surface.

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Description of Project

It is understood that the proposed structure will consist of a 15-story tower with two levels of

basement level to be used for underground parking. The footprint of the parking garage will be

larger than the footprint for the tower. The floor slab will consist of a lightly loaded slab-on-

grade constructed at the lowest level.

It is important that the surrounding grades be kept within 0.75 m of the existing ground surface

levels. If higher grade changes are required then Inspec-Sol must be informed as grade raises

can lead to consolidation of the soils. If this occurs near pile foundations then negative skin

friction may result leading to higher pile capacity requirements. Also, shallow foundations may

also be subjected to intolerable settlements. These concerns of settlement caused by the

increased loading on the underlying soils require further engineering studies to assess the

degree of settlement and possible engineering solutions.

It is important that stockpiling of soils near the existing or near the new building basement walls

once they are constructed not be allowed since the loading and consolidation settlement

caused by the stockpiles may affect the existing or new building performance


Based upon the borehole results the following comments and recommendations are offered for

the foundations and floor slabs of the proposed structure.

6.2 Site Preparation & Drainage

The excavation of up to two basement levels or approximately 6 m below existing grades must

be carried out with care and diligence by all parties involved. Groundwater levels are near 2 m

below grade and while the soils are considered to have a low permeability, infiltration should be

anticipated. The seepage water require adequate handling so as minimize interference with

construction.

The subsoils encountered across the site are sensitive to disturbance by water, mechanical

equipment, etc. Therefore, earth-moving operations will have to be carried out in a manner to

avoid excessive remoulding of the subsoil. This is especially true for the subgrade at the

second basement level. We recommend that the construction methodology and the

construction costing should allow for a working mat of granular material, to be placed in the

excavation base to assist in supporting construction equipment. The design of the mat should

be presented by and the performance is the responsibility of the contractor. The owners

design team should specify that the excavation subgrade must ensure support for the

permanent slab on grade or pavement structure in the basement.

This granular pad may need to use special placement techniques to allow minimization of

disturbance and weakening of the subgrade soils. This granular pad should be in-place prior to

pile driving and bulk excavation of foundation elements.

The granular pad may be constructed by placing a geotextile and granular material following

this placement, heavy construction equipment should be minimized in size as much as

possible, and should be kept off the working mat as much as possible.

The thickness of the working mat should be coordinated with the depth of underfloor services

to minimize areas of penetration of the geotextile by the service trench excavation.

The ground surface grading of the remainder of the site around the perimeter of the basement

should be carried out as late as possible in the construction period to minimize the damage to

subgrade soils in the access roads and parking areas. An adequate ditching and pumping

system should be installed in order to collect any surface run-off.


Soils and groundwater should be handled, transported and disposed of in an environmentally

suitable manner, meeting current environmental legislation.

The side slopes of the excavation should be able to be open cut sloped excavations. The

actual slopes should be verified by the contractor and a geotechnical consultant to ensure

their stablility. The slopes should be protected from weathering with tarps. The slopes may

require maintenance and backsloping over the life of the construction period, if erosion or

undercutting occurs. The alternative to open cut slopes is engineered shoring systems.

The west side of the excavation, where it will be near the existing building, must not

undermine any existing shallow and spread footings. If footings will exist at different levels

then the options to consider are (1) the existing footings can be underpinned; or (2) a

positive, stiff shoring system can be installed to support the footings and soils along this side.

The permanent foundation wall will need to be designed to support the lateral load

component from these footings. In this case also, the design and construction must prevent

a change in moisture conditions along this side that may lead to drying out and shrinkage of

the soils that would lead to settlement of footings. It may be necessary to waterproof the wall

and delete the perimeter drainage along this side.

The alternative is to create a smaller footprint in the second basement level by shifting the

lower foundation level to the east.

Inspec-Sol should be retained to review design and construction details for this area, to

ensure all geotechnical issues are addressed.

It is also important to consider in construction scheduling that piling options be completed

first prior to any loads being imposed on shallow and spread footings that will be newly

constructed. In addition, the contractors must ensure that piling operations are completed in

a manner to minimize vibrations and potential impact of vibrations to the existing Tower A

foundation systems. A vibration and monitoring plan should be submitted by the contractor

to the owner for the review by the design team.

6.3 Foundations

Based on the subsoil data, it is recommended that the proposed highrise building be

supported on end bearing piles, similar to Tower A.


The new building codes require buildings to be designed using limit states design values of

ultimate limit states (ULS) and serviceability limit states (SLS).

6.3.1 Pile Foundations

With the high column loads associated with this project, it will be necessary to support the

building structure on the bedrock, using piles. It is anticipated that concrete filled steel tube

piles will provide the most cost effective piling support system for this project. Steel tube

piles, having a diameter of 244 mm, typically carry loads in the order of 1200 kN per pile as

the SLS or allowable value. Because the piles are being driving to bedrock, which virtually

results in Nil settlements, the Ultimate Limit States resistant value may equivalent to the

structural capacity of the pile.

For estimating purposes, it is suggested that pile refusal be considered to occur within the

bedrock formation, which is indicated on the borehole logs which occurs near depths of 25 to

26 m approximately or elevation 29.3 m to 29.8 m approximately.

It is recommended that Pile Driving Analysis (PDA) be performed at the start of pile driving to

confirm the refusal criteria established for this project. Additional testing will be required as

the pile driving progresses. PDA testing is recommended for the initial 10% and then at

intervals for at least every 100 piles and/or at 50% completion unless problems with piling

are encountered, in which case additional testing may be required.

Re-striking of the piles is recommended at the start of piling, to ensure that pile capacities

are being maintained. Subject to satisfactory results, re-striking of piles is envisaged to be

carried out on a random basis, unless their capacity is suspect, or unless previously driven

piles have moved during the placement of adjacent piles. The initial PDA testing should

confirm the re-striking requirements.

Pile uplift capacity

The uplift capacity of for earthquake design purposes may be based upon rock anchors

drilled and anchored into bedrock or based on factored capacities at ultimate limit states and

capacities at serviceability limit states of the pile friction within the soil.

Qf = Wp + As Cadf

where;

Qf = factored uplift capacity

Wp = buoyant weight of pile


As = surface area of pile

Cadf = Fc x Cu

Fc = factor for footings and piles (i.e., 0.5)

Cu = undrained shear strength of the silty clay and silty clay till is

assumed to be 50 kPa, based on the field data.

Qf = Wp + As x 0.5 x 50

Qf = Wp + 25 As

In estimating the effects of a pile group for uplift resistance, the lesser of the sum of the

surface area of the individual piles and the surface area of the enclosed soil mass should be

used.

If rock anchors are to be considered then further investigation will be required to further

examine the rock quality and the design concept.

6.3.2 Footings

Minor structural elements can be supported on footings bearing on undisturbed clay. The

bearing value of the clay will depend on the founding level of the footings as well as their size

and shape. Below a depth of 3 m the bearing value of the clay may be 120 kPa at SLS and

300 kPa at ULS but the size of foundations must be reviewed to assess settlement

estimates. Footings, which are founded within the brown desiccated crust, can be designed

with a higher bearing value, which should be determined on a case specific basis.

The estimated total settlement of footings designed using the recommended bearing values

is less than 25 mm. The settlement of pile foundations will be due mainly to elastic

compression. Therefore, the differential settlement between the different support systems

must be considered in the design of the structure.

Exterior footings and those in unheated areas of the building should be provided with a

minimum of 1.5 m of earth cover, or its equivalent in insulation for frost protection. Isolated

foundations for signage, lighting and canopies require 1.8 m of earth cover for frost

protection.


6.4 Earthquake Considerations

The clay has a very stiff desiccated crust extending to a depth of 3 m below which level it

becomes firm to stiff. Buildings and their foundations must be designed to resist a minimum

lateral earthquake force as defined by the Ontario Building Code, 2006. The site

classification for seismic site response was determined using the shear strength profile of the

clay and the limestone bedrock in accordance with commentary ‘J’ sentence 4.1.8.4 (3). The

average normalized shear strength for 30 m depth below the second level basement was

determined to exceed 100 kPa. Therefore, the Site Class is ‘C’. The calculations of Site

Class are provided below.

Liquefaction is not considered to be possible with the cohesive soil existing at the Site.

As per Commentary J of the Ontario Building Code based upon the following formula:

Su = total soil oveburden depth………

∑ layer thickness

Cu of layer

144

1000

11

150

5

100

9

75

3

60

230

Su

6.5 Floor Slabs

Slab-on-grade construction of the floor is anticipated at this Site.

Floor slabs may be designed as conventional slab-on-grade but will require field verification

by visual reviews during construction. Preparation of the area would require preparation of

the subgrade followed immediately by placement of filter cloth and covered with the granular

working mat. It is recommended that the floor slab be poured on a minimum of 200 mm of

Granular ‘A’ levelling layer.

It is recommended that vapour barriers be incorporated beneath the slab if floor coverings /

finishes of impermeable or low permeable type and / or where adhesive products are used.

The contractors must account for the impact of such on concrete placement and curing of the

slab. If the lowest basement level is used for car parking then this may not be required.


Floor toppings may be impacted by curing and moisture conditions of the concrete. Floor

finish manufacturer’s specifications and requirements should be consulted.

The slabs should be free floating, and should not be tied into the foundation walls or grade

beams. The placement of construction and control joints in the concrete should be in

accordance with generally accepted practice.

6.6 Drainage Considerations

Under floor drains and perimeter drains are considered necessary for this structure since the

lowest basement level will be penetrating approximately 4 to 5 m below the water table. The

soils are considered a low permeable soil. Hydraulic testing completed in the wells on site

show that the soil permeability range is in the order of 10-6cm/sec to 10-7cm/sec. Therefore,

normal sized sump pits are envisaged for this project.

As described earlier, the west side adjacent to the existing parking garage structure should

not have perimeter drainage in order to prevent dewatering of the clay below the existing

footings of the parking garage structure.

6.7 Lateral Earth Pressures

Basement walls with soil backfill are to be considered as retaining walls and should be

designed to withstand lateral earth pressures. The bedrock is typically self supporting and

does not impact loads onto basement walls. If granular materials are placed between soil

and poured concrete walls then the walls should be designed for lateral pressures resulting

from the following sources:

Unit weight of the backfilled soil;

Temporary and permanent vertical loads on the completed ground surface; and

Lateral loads due to backfill compaction equipment.

If walls are poured directly against bedrock than the peak soil pressure is recommended to

be extended down to the bottom of the wall to result in a trapezoid pressure distribution.


6.7.1 Static Conditions

Under static conditions, the lateral active earth pressure acting on basement walls that are

restrained at the top are recommended to be estimated using a earth pressure coefficient of

K = 0.50, and no hydrostatic pressure distribution. This is based on the assumption that

there is a perimeter drainage system installed at the base of the wall to prevent the build-up

of hydrostatic pressure. The configuration of the earth pressure diagram is shown on the

drawing Earth Pressure on Basement Walls in Appendix E

6.7.2 Dynamic Conditions

For a seismic event, the Mononobe-Okabe equations, shown in Section 24.9 of CFEM-2006

are recommended. In these formulas, there are both geotechnical and geometric

components. The geotechnical parameters of imported granular backfill will be the following:

Unit Weight of Soil – 20.5 kN/m3 (assumes a weeping tile system is installed);

Internal Friction Angle - 35º;

kh = (PGA) - PGA is 0.42 for this area; and

kv = typically a range of 2/3 x kh to 1/3 kh is considered but a value closer to 2/3 x kh is

recommended.

The total active thrust under seismic loading (Pae) is recommended to be expressed as

follows:

Pae = ½ Kaeγ H2 x (1- kv)

This includes both the active pressures under static (Pa) as well as the increased force due to

seismic or simply as follows:

Pa = ½ Kγ H2

Therefore, the seismic force (Pe) is simply the difference between the Pae and Pa, or:

Pe = Pae – Pa


The active force under static conditions is assumed to act at a point of (0.3 x H) above the

base and the seismic force is assumed to act near (0.6 x H) above the base, where H is the

height of the wall. Therefore the point of applying Pae may be calculated from the following:

h = [(0.33Hx Pa) + ( 0.6H x Pe)]/ Pae

In reducing the above formula for this site, we recommend values of Kae x (1-kv) = 0.7 and

K = 0.31. This condition applies for open cut excavations and granular backfill behind the

walls, assuming there is a weeping tile system and that walls are treated as being restrained.

6.8 Building Backfill

The placement and compaction of the materials that will support the floor slabs, or pavement

must be treated as Engineered Fill. Compaction equipment must be of size and distance

away to prevent damage to the walls during the time of placement.

6.8.1 Engineered Fill

The fill operations for Engineered Fill must satisfy the following criteria.

Engineered Fill must be placed under the continuous supervision of the Geotechnical

Engineer. Prior to placing any Engineered Fill, all unsuitable fill materials must be

removed, and the subgrade proof rolled, and approved. Any deficient areas should

be repaired;

Prior to the placement of Engineered Fill, the source or borrow areas for the

Engineered Fill must be evaluated for its suitability. Samples of proposed fill material

must be provided to the Geotechnical Engineer and tested in the geotechnical

laboratory for Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) and grain size, prior

to approval of the material for use as Engineered Fill. The Engineered Fill must

consist of environmentally suitable soils (as per industry standard procedures of

federal or provincial guidelines/regulations), free of organics and other deleterious

material (building debris such as wood, bricks, metal, and the like), compactable, and

of suitable moisture content so that it is within -2% to +0.5% of the Optimum Moisture

as determined by the Standard Proctor test. Imported granular soils meeting the

requirements of Granular ‘A’, Granular ‘B’ Type I or Type II OPSS 1010 criteria would

be suitable;


The Engineered Fill must be placed in maximum loose lift thicknesses of 0.2 m. Each

lift of Engineered Fill must be compacted with a heavy roller to 100% SPMDD;

Field density tests must be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer, on each lift of

Engineered Fill. Any Engineered Fill, which is tested and found to not meet the

specifications, shall be either removed or reworked and retested; and

6.8.2 Exterior Foundation Wall Backfill

The backfill placed against the foundation walls should be free draining granular materials

meeting the grading requirements of OPSS 1010 for Granular ‘B’ Type I specifications up to

within 0.3 m of the ground surface. The upper 0.3 m should be a low permeable soil to

reduce surface water infiltration. Foundation backfill should be placed and compacted as

outlined below.

Free-draining granular backfill should be used for the foundation wall;

Backfill should not be placed in a frozen condition, or place on a frozen subgrade;

Backfill should be placed and compacted in uniform lift thickness compatible with the

selected construction equipment, but not thicker than 0.2 m. Backfill should be

placed uniformly on both sides of the foundation walls to avoid build-up of unbalanced

lateral pressures;

At exterior flush door openings the underside of sidewalks should be insulated, or the

sidewalk should be placed on frost walls to prevent heaving. Granular backfill should

be used and extended laterally beneath the entire area of the entrance slab. The

entrance slab should slope away from he building;

For backfill that would underlie paved areas, sidewalks or exterior slabs-on-grade,

each lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 98% of its SPMDD;

For backfill on the building exterior that would underlie landscaped areas, each lift

should be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of its SPMDD;

In areas on the building exterior where an asphalt or concrete pavement will not be

present adjacent to the foundation wall, the upper 0.3 m of the exterior foundation

wall backfill should be a low permeable soil to reduce surface water infiltration; and

Exterior grades should be sloped away from the foundation wall, and roof drainage

downspouts should be placed so that water flows away from the foundation wall.


6.9 Floor Slabs

Conventional slab-on-grade construction is considered suitable for the proposed building.

Preparation of the subgrade would include removal of overburden materials to expose the

bedrock. Any local weakened areas should be excavated and replaced with suitable fill and

compacted. Field verification should be carried out by geotechnical personnel during

construction. Backfill around interior footings should be an OPSS Granular A compacted to

100% SPMDD.

A capillary moisture barrier consisting of a layer of either 19 mm clear stone or Granular ‘A’

at least 200 mm thick should underlie the slabs. This layer should be compacted to 100% of

its SPMDD and placed on approved subgrade surfaces.

If floor coverings are to be used, vapour barriers are also recommended to be incorporated

beneath the slab. Floor toppings may be impacted by curing and moisture conditions of the

concrete. Floor finish manufacturer’s specifications and requirements should be consulted

and procedures outlined in the specifications should be followed.

The slabs should be free floating, and should not be tied into the foundation walls. The

placement of construction and control joints in the concrete should be in accordance with

generally accepted practice.

It is expected that the interior backfill at the second basement level will be the granular

working mat discussed in the earlier section. If there are additional local excavations

following the foundation installation, (i.e. pile caps, perimeter grade beams, etc), then the

backfill should be a granular material meeting the grading requirements of OPSS 1010 for

Granular ‘B’ Type 1 material. The placement and compaction of this material must be done

with small equipment, thin lifts and methods so as not to disturb the sensitive clay subgrade.

6.10 Underground Services

6.10.1 Bedding and Cover

The following are recommendations for service trench bedding and cover materials that may

be associated with the development.

Bedding for buried utilities should be OPSS Granular ‘A’, and placed in accordance

with City of Ottawa specifications;


Use of clear 19 mm stone is not recommended for use as bedding. The voids in the

stone may result in a low gradient water flow and infiltration of fines from the

surrounding soils and cover materials, causing settlement and loss of support to

pipes and structures;

The cover material should be a sand material or Granular ‘A’ and the dimensions

should comply with City of Ottawa standards;

The bedding material and cover materials should be compacted as per City of Ottawa

standards and to at least 95% of its SPMDD; and

Compaction equipment should be used in such a way that the utility pipes are not

damaged during construction.

6.10.2 Service Trench Backfill

Backfill above the cover for buried utilities should be in accordance with the following

recommendations:

For service trenches under pavement areas, the backfill should be placed and

compacted in uniform thickness compatible with the selected compaction equipment

and not thicker than 200 mm. Each lift should be compacted to a minimum of 95%

SPMDD;

The backfill placed in the upper 300 mm below a pavement subgrade elevation

should be compacted to a minimum of 100% SPMDD;

To reduce the potential for differential settlement and frost heave, the selected backfill

materials should reasonably match the existing soil profile within the frost penetration

zone (1.5 m below finished grade) except that fill with organic matter should not be

re-used in trenches. Alternatively, if imported backfill, including granular materials,

are used then the excavation sides should have frost tapers as per OPSD 800 series

which essentially indicates that there should be a backslope of 10:1 (H:V) from the

bedding grade to the finished grade;

If the native excavated soils are used as backfill, this material should be protected

from moisture increases during construction. The native excavated soils may should

be assessed and approved by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement; and

Excavated soils that are too wet (i.e. greater than 5% above the optimum moisture

content based upon a Standard Proctor Test) will become problematic to compact

and may not perform properly during construction period. If such conditions occur,

the options include drying of the soils; compacting and leaving the area untraveled for


a period of time; importation of more suitable material; or a combination of above and

the use of geotextiles at the base and possibly additional layers within the pavement

structure’s granular base courses. The appropriate measures will need to be

discussed during construction period and be such to achieve adequate performance

from the pavement structure.

6.11 Pavement Sections

In order to prepare the site for the pavement area, it is necessary that the area be stripped of

topsoil, root-mat, and any fill soils or other deleterious materials to expose bedrock or

competent subgrade soil. The exposed bedrock must be evaluated by qualified geotechnical

personnel prior to placement of granular materials, to ensure the rock subgrade with soil

infilling is suitable for support of the pavement structure. The evaluation of the subgrade

may be conducted by proof rolling with a heavily loaded truck or a heavy pneumatic roller,

monitored by a geotechnical engineer or technologist. Any areas where rutting or

appreciable deflection is noted should be sub-excavated and replaced with suitable fill. The

fill should be compacted to at least 95% of its SPMDD.

The pavement sections described in Table 4 below are general recommendations and for

areas subjected to parking lot and heavy truck traffic. Alternative designs would require

additional testing and analysis.

TABLE 4: Recommended Pavement Structure

Pavement Layer Minimum Thickness Heavy Duty (Access Roads)

HL3 Asphalt 50 mm 40 mm

HL8 Asphalt n/r 40 mm

Granular ‘A’ Base Course 150 mm 150 mm

Granular ‘B’, Type II Sub-Base Course

300 mm 450 mm

In order to accommodate the recommended thicknesses, designers will need to review

grades and determine where stripping or filling is necessary. Pavement materials and

workmanship should conform to the appropriate OPSS.


Drainage of the pavement layers is important. The subgrade surface and each layer of the

pavement section should be provided with a suitable cross fall (approximately 2%) to prevent

water from ponding on the pavement surface and beneath the pavement layers. Surface

runoff should be directed to storm sewers, or allowed to flow into ditches.

Sufficient field-testing should be carried out during construction to assess compaction of

each lift of the pavement layers. This should be accompanied by laboratory testing of the

granular and asphalt materials. All granular base course materials should be compacted to

100% of its SPMDD.

Annual or regular maintenance will be required to achieve maximum life expectancy.

Generally, the asphalt pavement maintenance will involve crack sealing and repair of local

distress.

It should be noted that the pavement sections described within this report represent end-use

conditions only, which includes light vehicular traffic and occasional garbage or service

trucks. It may be necessary that these sections be temporarily over-built during the

construction phase to withstand larger construction loadings such as loaded dump trucks or

concrete trucks.

6.8 Excavations and Groundwater

The groundwater table is subject to seasonal fluctuations and is expected to be located at a

shallow depth during the spring thaw. The amount of water expected to enter the footing

excavations is not expected to be great and may be readily controlled with a conventional

sump and pump dewatering system.

A lean concrete working mat is recommended on all freshly excavated footing excavations,

pile caps and grade beams. This is recommended, in order to prevent soil disturbance by

worker traffic and to provide proper support of reinforcing steel in these structural elements.

A smooth edge bucket is recommended for footing excavations.

The native silty clay soils encountered within the expected excavation depth are considered

to be classified as Type 3 soils, as defined by the OHSA Regulations for Construction.

All excavations should be completed and maintained in accordance with the Occupational

Health and Safety Act (OHSA) requirements.


7.0 CONSTRUCTION FIELD REVIEW

The recommendations provided in this report are based on an adequate level of construction

monitoring being conducted during construction phase of the proposed building. Inspec-Sol

requests to be retained to review the drawings and specifications, once complete, to verify

that the recommendations within this report have been adhered to, and to look for other

geotechnical problems. Due to the nature of the proposed development, an adequate level of

construction monitoring is considered to be as follows:

Prior to construction of footings, the exposed foundation subgrade should be

examined by a Geotechnical Engineer or a qualified Technologist acting under the

supervision of a Geotechnical Engineer, to assess whether the subgrade conditions

correspond to those encountered in the boreholes, and the recommendations

provided in this report have been implemented;

A qualified Technologist acting under the supervision of a Geotechnical Engineer

should monitor placement of Engineered Fill underlying footings and floor slabs on a

full time basis;

Backfilling operations should be conducted in the presence of a qualified

Technologist on a part time basis, to ensure that proper material is employed and

specified compaction is achieved;

Placement of concrete FOR FOUNDATIONS should be periodically tested to ensure

that job specifications are being achieved;

Piling operations should be monitored on a full time basis by a qualified Technologist

to verify locations, verticality, and to ensure that the refusal criteria is being achieved;

Pile Driving Analysis (PDA) should be performed at the start of pile driving to confirm

the refusal criteria established for this project;

Rock anchor installation, if utilized, should be monitored by a qualified technologist on

a full-time basis to ensure that holes remain clean, and to verify that specified bond

lengths are achieved; and

A program of proof and performance testing should be carried out on all anchors to

ensure that they achieve the specified design capacity.


8.0 LIMITATION OF THE INVESTIGATION

This report is intended solely for Brigl or other party explicitly identified in this report, and is

prohibited for use by others without Inspec-Sol’s prior written consent. This report is

considered Inspec-Sol’s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of

Inspec-Sol. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the

Client and recipient’s sole risk, without liability to Inspec-Sol. Client shall defend, indemnify

and hold Inspec-Sol harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client’s

unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate

entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices.

The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding

of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based

on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were

performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by

members of Geotechnical Engineering professions currently practicing under similar

conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or

representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which a third

party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the

responsibility of such third parties.

All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a

geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are

based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined

at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the

drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, Inspec-Sol will not be liable

for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the

final design.

By issuing this report, Inspec-Sol is the Geotechnical Engineer of record. It is recommended

that Inspec-Sol be retained during construction of all foundations and during earthwork

operations to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed

during our study. The intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered

during construction are consistent with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge

developed as part of our study is correctly carried forward to the construction phases.


It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site

and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the three (3)

borehole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at these test locations may

vary at other locations. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the three (3)

test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test

locations and conditions may become apparent during construction, which could not be

detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be

encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be

notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed

conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in

this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said

conditions by Inspec-Sol is completed.

JBB/vl

Drawings

◆ Site Location Map Dwg. No. T020548-A1-1

◆ Borehole Location Plan Dwg. No. T020548-A1-2

◆ Earth Pressure on Basement Walls Dwg. No. T020548-A1-3

0 800 1200m400

SOURCE: FUGAWI - CANADA MAPS, ONTARIO

SITE

SITE LOCATION PLAN

PETRIE'S LANDING - PHASE 2BRIGIL CONSTRUCTION

ORLEANS, ONTARIO

T020548-A1(RPT001)GN-OT002 AUG 12/2013

T H E

H I G H W A Y

K I N G 'S

STREET NO. 1

50.00

50.00

47.50

50.0

0 47.5

0

50.00

47.5

0

45.00

45.00

47.50

NORTH SERVICE ROAD

45.00

42.50

REGIONAL ROAD No. 174

47.50

N O. 1 7

45.00

50.00

47.50 50.00

45.00

50.00 47.5

0

50.00

47.50

45.00

42.50

42.50

42.5042.50

45.00

9

7

AIR SHAFT W/GRATING (PH 1)

3

5y P

ON

DIN

G E

LEV

=49.

65 (3

33m

)

PO

ND

B

OTT

OM

PO

ND

BO

TTO

M

PR

OP

OS

ED

PO

ND

O/HO/H

O/HO/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

UP

GW

UP

GW

UP

GW

UP

O/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

UP

O/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

O/H

GW

UP

FIR

E R

OU

TE

BIKERACK

BIKERACK

H/C

H/C

H/C

H/C

ONE WAY

ON

E W

AY

ON

E W

AY

PHASE 5

FUTURE RETIREMENT HOME

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

VV V V

VV

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

(DC)

(DC)

V

VV

VV

VV

VV

VV

V

V

VV

V

V

V

V

118

V V V V

V

V

V

V V VV V V V

H/CH/C

V

ON

E W

AY

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

V V V V

FIRE ROUTE1

15

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

130

131

V V

132

113

114

H/C

H/C

(DC)

LOADING

AIR SHAFT W/GRATING (PH 2)

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Local Benchmark on FireHydrant (Top of Spindle)Elevation=53.49

TOWER'A'

PHASE 1

TOWER'B'

PHASE 2

TOWER'C'

PHASE 3TOWER

'D'PHASE 4

BH3

BH2BH1EXISTING AREA ALREADYCONSTRUCTED

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN


ORLEANS, ONTARIO

T020548-A1(RPT001)GN-OT001 AUG 12/2013

0 40 60m20

LEGEND

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

BOREHOLE LOCATIONBH2

SOURCE: 1304 - A0-01 Overall Site Plan-Oct-15-08.dwg, RODERICK LAHEY ARCHITECT INC.

SKETCH OF EARTH PRESSURE ON BASEMENT WALL

THE EARTH PRESSURE ACTING ON RETAINING WALLS CAN BE CALCULATED USING THE FOLLOWING EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM.

H

q

H/2

H/3

Pq = Ka q H

Pa = ½ Ka H²

KaqKa H

BA

SE

ME

NT

WA

LL

ASSUME

Ka = 0.35 WHERE SOME SLIGHT MOVEMENT IS PERMISSIBLE.

Ka = 0.5 WHERE NO MOVEMENT IS TOLERATED.

= 20 kN/m³ FOR FREE DRAINING GRANNULAR BACKFILL.

q = THE VALUE OF ANY SURCHARGE LOADING WHICH MAYACT ON THE GROUND SURFACE ADJACENT TO THE WALL.

WITH THE ABOVE DIAGRAM, IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED THAT AN EFFECTIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEMHAS BEEN INSTALLED, AND THERE IS NO BUILD UP OF HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE.

H = HEIGHT OF RETAINED SOIL (m).

EARTH PRESSURE ON BASEMENT WALL


ORLEANS, ONTARIO

T020548-A1(RPT001)GN-OT003 AUG 12/2013

Enclosures

◆ Enclosures No. 1 - 3

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,brownish grey, hard, moist

SILTY CLAY- trace sand, traceoxidation, brownish grey, verystiff, moist

SILTY CLAY- grey, stiff, wet

SILTY CLAY- grey, very stiff,wet

51.11

48.98

45.02

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

GS9

GS10

GS11

GS12

GS13

GS14

GS15

GS16

GS17

Bentonite

Screen

WL 1.78

3.66

4.274.57

7.62

8.08

71

88

88

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

8

11

11

7

5

6

5

55.21Ele

vatio

n(m

)

Str

atig

raph

yCHECKED BY: J.Bennett

DATE (START): October 9, 2008

Page: 1

STRATIGRAPHY

of 2

LEGEND

ENCLOSURE No.: 1

OV

C

DESCRIPTION OFSOIL AND BEDROCK

SCALE SAMPLE DATA

SCALE FOR TEST RESULTS

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90meters

CLIENT: Brigil Construction

BOREHOLE LOG

50kPa 100kPa 150kPa 200kPa

ELEVATION: 54.16 m

PROJECT: Petrie's Landing - Phase II

LOCATION: Cumberland, Ontario

DATE (FINISH): October 9, 2008

ppm

DepthBGS

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

BOREHOLE No.: BH-1

54.16

NOTES:

REFERENCE No.: T020548-A1

DESCRIBED BY: B.Beveridge

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

T02

0548

-A1-

BH

(OC

T-0

9-08

).G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 8

/13/

13

Sta

te

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r Cu Shear Strength based on Field Vane

GS Grab Sample

ODEX

Cu Shear Strength based on Lab Vane

Shear Strength based onPocket Penetrometer

N Penetration Index based onDynamic Cone sample

N Penetration Index based onSplit Spoon sample

Atterberg limits (%)

ST Shelby Tube

SS Split Spoon

S Sensitivity Value of Soil

Water content (%) Water Level

RC Rock Core

MONITORWELL

%

Rec

over

y

N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x / R

QD

S=6.3

S=6.61

S=5.77

S=5.6

S=6.22

S=3.53

S=5.33

S=6.67

S=3.76

SILTY CLAY- grey, stiff, wet

SILTY CLAY- grey, very stiff,wet

SILTY CLAY- trace dissolvedorganics, very stiff, wet

LIMESTONE- grey, slightlyweathered, medium hard, closeshale partingsLIMESTONE- grey, slightlyweathered, medium hard, closeshale partings

LIMESTONE- grey, slightlyweathered, medium hard, closeshale partings

End of Borehole

35.11

33.59

30.54

29.27

28.18

26.65

25.13

GS18

GS19

GS20

GS21

BOREHOLE

ClayCuttings

29.03

91

73

72

Ele

vatio

n(m

)

Str

atig

raph



Page: 2

STRATIGRAPHY

of 2

LEGEND

ENCLOSURE No.: 1

OV

C


SCALE SAMPLE DATA


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90meters


BOREHOLE LOG


ELEVATION: 54.16 m




ppm

DepthBGS

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

35.0

36.0

BOREHOLE No.: BH-1

54.16

NOTES:



BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

T02

0548

-A1-

BH

(OC

T-0

9-08

).G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 8

/13/

13

Sta

te

Typ

e an

dN

umbe


GS Grab Sample

ODEX






ST Shelby Tube

SS Split Spoon



RC Rock Core

MONITORWELL

%

Rec

over

y

N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x / R

QD

S=2.85

S=6.25

S=5

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,trace oxidation, greenish grey,hard, moistSILTY CLAY- trace organics,trace oxidation, trace sand,greenish grey, hard, moistSILTY CLAY- trace oxidation,trace sand, greenish grey, verystiff, moistSILTY CLAY- trace silt layers,trace oxidation, trace sand,greenish grey, very stiff, moistSILTY CLAY- trace silt layers,trace organics, trace oxidation,greenish grey, stiff, moistSILTY CLAY- trace organics,grey. stiff, wet

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,trace silt seams, grey, stiff, wetSILTY CLAY- trace organics,grey, stiff, wet

End of Borehole

53.70

52.94

52.17

50.65

49.89

47.60

46.84

42.27

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

SS8

SS9

SS10

SS11

SS12

ST-1

SS13

ST-2

SS14

BOREHOLE

ClayCuttings

Bentonite

Silica SandScreen

Silica Sand

WL 0.77

3.964.27

7.627.92

12.19

53

96

92

100

100

100

100

100

100

75

100

100

100

100

11

13

12

8

4

3

55.31Ele

vatio

n(m

)

Str

atig

raph



Page: 1

STRATIGRAPHY

of 1

LEGEND

ENCLOSURE No.: 2

OV

C


SCALE SAMPLE DATA


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90meters


BOREHOLE LOG


ELEVATION: 54.46 m




ppm

DepthBGS

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

BOREHOLE No.: BH-2

54.46

NOTES:



BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

T02

0548

-A1-

BH

(OC

T-0

9-08

).G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 8

/13/

13

Sta

te

Typ

e an

dN

umbe


GS Grab Sample

ODEX






ST Shelby Tube

SS Split Spoon



RC Rock Core

MONITORWELL

%

Rec

over

y

N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x / R

QD

S=5.33

S=6.18

S=8.5

S=3.44

S=7.34

S=6.6

TOPSOIL- some organics,black, wet, very soft,SILTY CLAY- trace organics,brownish grey, hard, moist

SILTY CLAY- trace oxidation,brownish grey, very stiff, moistSILTY CLAY- trace oxidation,brownish grey, stiff, moistSILTY CLAY- trace oxidation,grey, stiff, wet

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,trace silt, stiff, wetSILTY CLAY- trace oxidation,trace organics, grey, stiff, wet

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,trace silt, grey, stiff, wet

SILT CLAY- trace organics,trace silt, grey, very stiff, wet

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,grey, stiff, wet

54.59

53.06

52.30

51.54

48.49

47.73

46.21

44.68

43.16

SS0

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

GS7

GS8

GS9

GS10

GS11

GS12

GS13

GS14

ST-1

GS15

ClayCuttings

Bentonite

Silica SandScreen

WL 1.89

3.66

4.27

7.627.92

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

12

8

4

2

1

2

56.32Ele

vatio

n(m

)

Str

atig

raph



Page: 1

STRATIGRAPHY

of 2

LEGEND

ENCLOSURE No.: 3

OV

C


SCALE SAMPLE DATA


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90meters


BOREHOLE LOG


ELEVATION: 55.35 m




ppm

DepthBGS

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

BOREHOLE No.: BH-3

55.35

NOTES:



BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

T02

0548

-A1-

BH

(OC

T-0

9-08

).G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 8

/13/

13

Sta

te

Typ

e an

dN

umbe


GS Grab Sample

ODEX






ST Shelby Tube

SS Split Spoon



RC Rock Core

MONITORWELL

%

Rec

over

y

N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x / R

QD

S=16.67

S=8.4

S=9.2

S=6.36

S=5.87

S=10.8

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,grey, very stiff, wet

SILTY CLAY- trace organics,grey, stiff, wet

LIMESTONE- grey, slightyweathered, medium hard, close,shale partings



End of Borehole

37.06

30.97

29.80

28.50

26.98

25.45

GS16

GS17

GS18

RC19

RC20

RC21

BOREHOLE

Silica Sand

29.90

100

100

50

63

95

87

60

73

79

Ele

vatio

n(m

)

Str

atig

raph



Page: 2

STRATIGRAPHY

of 2

LEGEND

ENCLOSURE No.: 3

OV

C


SCALE SAMPLE DATA


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90meters


BOREHOLE LOG


ELEVATION: 55.35 m




ppm

DepthBGS

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

35.0

36.0

BOREHOLE No.: BH-3

55.35

NOTES:



BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

T02

0548

-A1-

BH

(OC

T-0

9-08

).G

PJ

INS

PE

C_S

OL.

GD

T 8

/13/

13

Sta

te

Typ

e an

dN

umbe


GS Grab Sample

ODEX






ST Shelby Tube

SS Split Spoon



RC Rock Core

MONITORWELL

%

Rec

over

y

N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x / R

QD

S=3.52

Appendix A

◆ Notes on Borehole and Test Pits

REPORT: T020548-A1

Documents

Transcript of REPORT: T020548-A1