SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD.

SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. 130 LANCING DRIVE, HAMILTON, ONTARIO L8W 3A1 PHONE (905) 318-7440 FAX (905) 318-7455

E-MAIL: [email protected] WEB SITE: www.soil-mat.on.ca

Soils • Concrete • Asphalt • Forensic Investigations • Environmental Audits

PROJECT NO.: SM134969-G May 30, 2013 ALLEN & CHUI ARCHITECTS INC. 443 Eastchester Avenue St. Catharines, Ontario L2M 6S2

Attention: Mr. Michael Allen

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & SLOPE STUDY

PROPOSED 2-STOREY MEDICAL BUILDING 2203 NIAGARA STONE ROAD, BURLINGTON, ONTARIO

Dear Mr. Allen, Further to your authorisation to proceed we have completed our geotechnical investigation and slope assessment of the above noted property. The field investigation, slope stability analysis and reporting were undertaken in general accordance with our proposal provided by email on January 22, 2013. Our comments and recommendations based on our field observations and analyses are presented in the following paragraphs. 1. INTRODUCTION We understand that the project will involve the construction of a 2-storey medical building with a single basement level, located at 2203 Niagara Stone Road in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. The purpose of this geotechnical investigation work was to determine subsurface soils information at a number of borehole locations and to provide our comments and recommendations with respect to the design and construction of foundations and related earthworks for the proposed new structure from a geotechnical point of view. It is noted that the described scope of work is not intended to specifically address any environmental aspects of the site. With the subject property within the jurisdiction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservations Authority [NPCA], it is necessary to obtain approval from the NPCA for the proposed construction. As such the geotechnical investigation scope included a detailed slope stability assessment to establish the existing stability and long-term top of stable slope. The slope assessment work has been conducted in general accordance with the guideline policies of the NPCA, with respect to the Top of Stable Slope and minimum Factors of Safety given the encountered subsurface soil conditions.

PROJECT NO.: SM 134969-G GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & SLOPE STUDY

2203 NIAGARA STONE ROADNIAGARA-ON THE LAKE, ONTARIO

of 14

2. PROCEDURE A total of nine [9] sampled boreholes were advanced at the locations illustrated in the attached Drawing No. 1, Borehole Location Plan. The borings were put down uncased using solid stem continuous flight auger equipment on March 1, 2013 under the direction and supervision of a staff member of SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD. The boreholes were advanced using a track-mounted drill rig to auger refusal on assumed bedrock at depths ranging from 3.4 to 6.3 metres. All boreholes were backfilled in accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 upon completion of drilling. Representative samples of the subsoils were recovered from the borings at selected depth intervals using split barrel sampling equipment driven in accordance with the requirements of the ASTM test specification D1586, Standard Penetration Resistance Testing. After undergoing a general field examination, the soil samples were preserved and transported to the SOIL-MAT laboratory for visual, tactile, and olfactory classifications. Routine moisture content tests were performed on all soil samples recovered from the borings. The boreholes were located in the field by a representative of SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS. The ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were referenced to a site-specific geodetic benchmark described as the top of the existing manhole cover located along the southern edge of Niagara Stone Road, as indicated on Drawing No. 1, Borehole Location Plan. This benchmark was noted to have an elevation of 83.67 meters, as seen on the survey plan provided. Details of the conditions encountered in the boreholes, together with the results of the field and laboratory tests, are presented in Borehole Log Nos. 1 to 9, inclusive, following the text of this report. It is noted that the boundaries of soil types indicated on the borehole logs are inferred from non-continuous soil sampling and observations made during drilling. These boundaries are intended to reflect transition zones for the purpose of geotechnical design and therefore should not be construed as the exact planes of geological change. In addition, the measurement of two slope profiles, roughly perpendicular to the creek, was conducted during the fieldwork. The location of the slope profiles are illustrated in the attached Drawing No. 1, Borehole Location Plan. The slope profiles were measured from two points; A and B, referenced from the end post of the metal guard rail at the northwest corner of the property. The slope profiles are illustrated in the attached Drawing Nos. 2 and 3 [Profile A-A and Profile B-B].



of 14

3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject property is located at 2203 Niagara Stone Road in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. The site is bounded to the north by Niagara Stone Road, to the east and south by undeveloped agricultural land, and to the west by Two Mile Creek. The site is generally covered with short grass and scrub vegetation, with mature trees along the south, east and west perimeter of the property. The site is roughly 1 to 2 metres above the level of the adjacent road, and is relatively flat over most of the property. The topography slopes down at the property limits, most notably to the west sloping down roughly 4 metres to Two Mile Creek. The subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations are summarized as follows: Topsoil A veneer of topsoil approximately 50 to 75 millimeters thick was encountered in Borehole Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 7, and 9. It should be noted that the term ‘topsoil’ has been used strictly from a geotechnical point of view, and does not reflect its nutrient content or ability to support plant life. Gravel A thin layer of coarse Gravel approximately 50 millimetres thick was encountered at the surface in the area of Borehole Nos. 5 and 6. Silty Clay/Clayey Silt Fill A Silty Clay/Clayey Silt fill was encountered beneath the topsoil/Gravel layer at all borehole locations. The fill is brown and grey, with a trace to some fine to medium Sand and Gravel, with occasional organic staining, and occasional construction/building material debris. The fill is generally firm to stiff in consistency, with variable soft and very stiff layers encountered in the boreholes. The condition of the fill suggests it was placed with some, though limited and variable, compaction effort. The depth of fill ranged from approximately 3 to 4.5 metres in the boreholes, and roughly 4 to 4.5 metres within the area of the proposed building. Borehole No. 1 was terminated within the fill deposit at a depth of approximately 3.4 metres after encountering an “unknown obstruction”, possible a large cobble. Evidently a significant depth of fill was placed across the site at some time in the past. The details of the timing, source, placement methodology, or any monitoring of the fill works are not known. However, a brief ‘desktop’ review of available aerial and satellite images indicate an appreciable change in the site appearance from late 2002 to early 2006, with construction equipment present in early 2006. Since 2006 the site appears to have been vacant.



of 14

Silty Clay The fill deposit transitions to native Silty Clay in all of the boreholes, with the exception of Borehole No. 1, at depths of approximately 3 to 4.5 metres. The cohesive soil is generally brown to grey, with traces of fine Gravel and shale fragments, and stiff to very stiff in consistency. Borehole No. 2 was terminated in the Silty Clay deposit at a depth of 3.4 metres. Queenston Shale Queenston Shale bedrock was encountered beneath the fill deposit in Borehole Nos. 3 to 9. The Queenston Shale bedrock is red, highly weathered in the upper levels such that it exhibits the properties of a hard soil, and becomes sounder with depth. The following table outlines the approximate depths and elevations at which bedrock was encountered.

Borehole No. Bedrock Depth

(m) Bedrock Elevation

(m) 3 6 79.8 4 5.3 80.3 5 4.4 80.4 6 5.2 80.0 7 5.3 80.2 8 4.8 80.4 9 4.4 80.3

Groundwater Observations Groundwater was encountered in Borehole Nos. 3 to 9, inclusive, at the completion of drilling, at the approximate depths and elevation summarized in the table below. It should be noted that given the relatively low permeability of the Silty Clay soils, insufficient time would have passed for the groundwater level to stabilise.

Borehole No. Depth (m) Elevation (m)1 Dry - 2 Dry - 3 3.0 82.68 4 3.3 82.30 5 3.0 81.80 6 3.0 82.22 7 3.3 82.16 8 2.3 82.87 9 2.7 81.97



of 14

4. SLOPE CONDITIONS AND STABILITY ASSESSMENT The slope along the western limit of the property adjacent to Two Mile Creek was examined. The subject slope is surfaced with young trees and scrub vegetation. There was no evidence of bowing or tilting trees, scarring, tension cracking, previous sliding, or seepage along the length of the examined slope. The measured slope profiles indicate the slope to be approximately 3 metres high. Profile A-A shows the slope to be at an inclination of approximately 3.8H to 1V in the upper portion, 2.3H to 1V in the lower portion, steepening to 1.2H to 1V at the toe, with an overall inclination of approximately 2.6H to 1V. Profile B-B shows the slope to be approximately 2.6H to 1V in the upper portion and 3.4H to 1V in the lower portion, with an overall inclination of 2.7H to 1V. There is a slight ‘hump’ noted at the crest of the slope in Profile B-B, likely associated with the fill material placed over the site. Borehole Nos. 8 and 9 were advanced close the subject slope encountering fill to depths of approximately 4.4 to 4.8 metres. As noted above there is a significant deposit of fill present across the site. It would appear that some or the majority of the present slope down to Two Mile Creek is composed of fill. As with all slopes, there is a reduction in surficial shearing resistance attributed to the effects of freezing and thawing, wetting and drying, burrowing animals, etc. With time, the surface of the slope will degenerate and tend to reach equilibrium within its stress and ambient environment, including vegetative cover. However, this degeneration of the slope angle is a very slow process, as is evident by the observed stable condition of the existing slope. Typically slopes at an inclination of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical are considered to be inherently stable in the long-term. While this can sometimes be flatter for fill slopes, in this case the relatively firm to stiff consistency of the fill material would be consistent with a stable slope inclination on the order of 3H to 1V. A preliminary stability analysis of the subject slope was performed with a computerized modeling program [SLOPE/W 2007] utilising multiple methods of analysis [Ordinary, Bishop, Janbu], considering multiple failure planes, and groundwater conditions. The full height of the slope was considered as Silty Clay fill, based on the conditions encountered in Borehole Nos. 8 and 9. The assigned soil parameters for the Silty Clay Fill were taken as: Friction angle, φ = 26o cohesion, c = 2 kPa Unit weight, γ = 18.0 kN/m3



of 14

The stability results yielded a factor of safety of the existing slope on the order of 1.69 to 1.76 for Profile A-A and 1.68 to 1.99 for Profile B-B. Where the global stability of the existing slope is considered with respect to failure planes extending uphill of the crest of the slope and approaching the long-term top of stable slope, the calculated factor of safety is on the order of 2.04 to 2.21 for Profile A-A and 2.05 to 2.35 for Profile B-B. Representative sample output for the stability analyses are attached to the end of this report. Table 7.2 of the Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes [Ministry of Natural Resources] lists a Design Minimum Factor of Safety of between 1.3 and 1.5 for ‘Active’ land use properties [habitable or unoccupied structures near slope]. The calculated Minimum Factor of Safety for the global stability of the existing slope is above to well above this range. As such the existing slope is considered to be stable in the short and long-term for the existing and proposed land use. Nevertheless, as the slope is evidently man-made fill, with the placement conditions unknown, some ongoing shallow settlements/movements should be anticipated. TOP OF STABLE SLOPE The top of stable slope is generally determined by the application of an erosion allowance at the toe and a stable slope inclination through the slope. In this case the condition of Two Mile Creek, with relatively slow flow and box culvert road crossing immediately downstream of the subject slope, as well as the fill deposit, a conservative erosion allowance of 4 meters has been applied. Further, given the nature of the existing fill material, a conservative stable slope allowance of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical has been considered. Applying both the erosion and stable slope allowances yields the estimated location of the long-term top of stable slope, as illustrated on the attached profiles and location plan drawing. The top of stable slope is noted to be approximately 25 metres ‘downhill’ from the start of Profile A-A and approximately 14 metres ‘downhill’ from the start of Profile B-B. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Based on our assessment of the subject slope, the proposed parking lot may be constructed up to the established Top of Stable Slope location. Typically a setback allowance from the Top of Stable Slope would be applied for any structures. In this case the proposed location of the commercial building would provide for a significant setback distance from the Top of Stable Slope. It is noted that the proposed site plan allows for ready access to the slope via the proposed parking lot area in the case that repair work was necessary, and so any setback requirement could be reasonably reduced or eliminated for the parking lot.



of 14

It should also be considered that the existing slope is fill, with the placement methodology, compaction control, etc. unknown. As such it may be reasonable to reconstruct the slope as part of the site development work. This could be readily accomplished by removing and recompacting the existing fill over the face of the slope to 98 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. If necessary a geogrid material could be utilized to further increase the stability of the slope. This would also allow for the ready provision of new (more suitable) vegetation over the slope to further improve the stability of the slope versus shallow near surface movements. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed commercial building and parking lot. 1. The building foundations should be at sufficient depth to extend below a line drawn up from the toe of the slope at 3 Horizontal to 1 Vertical. In this fashion load transfer from the footings to the slope would be minimised or eliminated, thus limiting any impact on the stability of the slope. The distance of the proposed building from the slope is such that this requirement will be inherently satisfied.

2. Heavy construction equipment, such as excavators, should not come any closer to the slope than the Top of Stable Slope.

3. Excavated soil or other fill may not be placed near or over the crest of the slope.

4. Any drainage, and/or surface runoff should be directed away from the slope. Or towards the slope in a controlled fashion, such as sheet flow through well established grass or vegetation, so as to not alter the natural drainage over the slope or create concentrated flows onto the slope.

5. The addition of vegetation on the slope is encouraged to further improve/maintain the stability of the slope. The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority should be contacted to discuss appropriate species for such vegetation. 5. FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS As noted above Silty Clay Fill was identified to depths of approximately 4 to 4.5 metres within the area of the proposed building. This fill material is considered as an uncontrolled fill mass and so would not be adequate to support foundations for the proposed structure. Foundations must extend through the fill deposit to bearing within the competent very stiff native Silty Clay of hard weathered Shale bedrock.



of 14

Given the depths of fill it may be feasible to support the structure on spread footings within the native Silty Clay using a factored Ultimate Limit State [ULS] value of 300 kPa [~6,000 psf], and a Serviceability Limit State [SLS] value of 200 kPa [~4,000 psf]. The use of ‘trench footings’ could be employed the extended the footings from the basement level through the remaining fill into the native Silty Clay, with excavations through the fill likely remaining open in the short term. The trench footings should be approximately 300 millimetres wider than the design footing width, extend to the native Silty Clay, with the base free of loose or disturbed material, and backfilled to the ‘design’ founding level using ‘lean mix’ [~5 MPa] concrete. Alternatively the structure may be supported on short caissons, extending through any fill materials to the competent Queenston Shale Bedrock, located approximately 5 to 6 metres below the existing grade. Caissons founded on the competent Queenston Shale can be designed using a factored Ultimate Limit State [ULS] of 500 kPa [~10,000 psf]. The allowable bearing stress at Serviceability Limit State [SLS] should be limited to 350 kPa [~7,000 psf], based on the total and differential settlements not exceeding 25 and 20 millimetres, respectively. Given the nature of the overburden fill materials, the contractor should be prepared to use a temporary steel liner to avoid the intrusion of fill materials during drilling. It is noted that the SLS value represents the Serviceability Limit State, which is governed by the tolerable deflection [settlement] based on the proposed building type, using unfactored load combinations. The ULS value represents the Ultimate Limit State and is intended to reflect an upper limit of the available bearing capacity of the founding soils in terms of geotechnical design, using factored load combinations. There is no direct relationship between ULS and SLS, rather they are a function of the soil type and the tolerable deflections for serviceability, respectively. The above dissertation assumes a typical building. Evidently, the bearing capacity values would be lower for very settlement sensitive structures and larger for more flexible buildings. With foundations designed as outlined above and as required by the Building Code, and with careful attention paid to construction detail, total and differential settlements should be well within normally tolerated limits of 25 and 20 millimetres, respectively, for the type of building and occupancy expected. It is imperative that a soils engineer be retained from this office to provide geotechnical engineering services during the excavation and foundation construction phases of the project. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts and recommendations of this report and to allow changes to be made in the event that subsurface conditions differ from the conditions identified at the Borehole locations.



of 14

6. SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The structure shall be designed according to Section 4.1.8 of the Ontario Building Code, Ontario Regulation 350/06. Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered in this investigation the applicable Site Classification for the seismic design is Site Class C – Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock, based on the average soil characteristics for the site. The seismic data, from Supplementary Standard SB-1 of the Ontario Building Code, for the Niagara Falls area are as follows.

Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA 0.34 0.170 0.060 0.019 0.250

7. FLOOR SLAB AND PERMANENT DRAINAGE The basement floor slab may be constructed using conventional slab-on-grade techniques on a prepared subgrade. However, given the anticipated depth of the basement floor slab and the variable quality of the existing fill materials, the need for supplementary support and/or ground improvement methods may need to be employed. This could include excavating a depth of perhaps 0.6 metres below the basement floor and replacing it with well compacted material meeting Ontario Provincial Standard Specification [OPSS] Granular ‘B’ specifications, to provide a firm and stable base, with near uniform support conditions beneath the floor slab. A moisture barrier will be required under the floor slabs to act as a capillary break. A recommended moisture barrier consists of at least 200 millimetres of well-compacted 20 millimetre clear crushed stone. At a minimum the moisture barrier material should contain no more than 10 percent of material passing the No. 4 sieve. Where ‘non-damp’ floor slabs are required, as for instance under sheet vinyl floor coverings, etc., extra efforts will be required to damp proof the floor slab, as with the additional provisions of a heavy ‘poly’ sheet, damp proofing sprays/membranes, drainage board products, etc. Where ‘poly’ sheets are used care should be taken to prevent puncturing and tearing and/or sufficiently heavy gauge sheeting specified. Alternatively a proprietary product, such as Delta-MS Underslab or WR Meadows membrane, may be considered in lieu of the ‘poly’ sheets.



of 14

Curing of the slab-on-grade must be carefully specified to ensure that slab curl is minimised. This is especially critical during the hot summer months of the year when the surface of the slab tends to dry out quickly while high moisture conditions in the moisture barrier or water trapped on top of any ‘poly’ sheet at the saw cut joints and cracks, and at the edges of the slabs, maintains the underside of the slab in a moist condition. It is also important that the concrete mix design provide a limiting water/cement ratio and total cement content, which will mitigate moisture related problems with low permeance floor coverings, such as debonding of vinyl and ceramic tile. It is equally important that excess free water not be added to the concrete during its placement as this could increase the potential for shrinkage cracking and curling of the slab. All basement walls should be suitably damp-proofed/water-proofed, including the provision of a dimple board type material against the foundation walls to promote drainage to the perimeter weeping tile system. A permanent perimeter drainage tile system must be provided around the structure to prevent the buildup of water under the slab-on-grade and against the foundation walls. The perimeter drainage systems should consist of 150 mm diameter perforated pipe, surrounded with 200 millimetres of 20 millimetres clear stone, and the clear stone in turn encased by a heavy filter geotextile product. The suppliers of the filter geotextile should be consulted as to the type best suited for this project. The enclosed Drawing No. 4 shows a schematic of the typical requirements for slab-on-grade construction. This office should examine the installation of the drainage system. Even a small break in the filtering materials could result in loss of fines into the drains with attendant performance difficulties, including settlements of the ground surface. The exterior grade around the structure should be sloped away from the structure to prevent the ponding of water against the foundation walls. 8. EXCAVATIONS It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed basement level and site services will extend to depths of up to about 3 to 4 metres below the existing grade, into the fill materials encountered at the borehole locations. Excavations through the Silty Clay Fill should remain stable for the short construction period at slopes of 45 degrees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all excavations must comply with the current Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. Excavation slopes steeper than those required in the Safety Act must be supported or a trench box must be provided, and a senior geotechnical engineer from this office should monitor the work



of 14

As noted above groundwater infiltration into the open boreholes was noted at depths of approximately 3 metres. Some infiltration of groundwater into open excavations should be anticipated, however it should be possible to adequately control such infiltration using conventional construction dewatering techniques, such as pumping from sumps in the base of the excavation. Depending on weather conditions during construction, the level of the adjacent creek it may be necessary to employ additional pumping. The base of excavations within the Silty Clay fill should generally be stable with respect to the installation of services, though the use of additional bedding or ballast stone may be locally required. Within the building area, as noted above, it will be prudent to sub-excavate and replace up to about 0.6 metres of the existing fill material in order to provide adequate support for the basement slab on grade. The use of OPSS Granular ‘B’ fill material in this regard would address any localized areas of instability. 9. BACKFILL CONSIDERATIONS The majority of excavated soil will consist of the fill materials encountered in the boreholes, as described above. Select portions of the fill material may be considered use an engineered fill, trench backfill, etc., provided that the material is free or organics and organic staining, other deleterious materials and that its moisture can be controlled to within 3 percent of its standard Proctor optimum moisture content. It is noted that the fill soils encountered are generally not free draining and should not be used where this characteristic is necessary. It is also noted that the cohesive soil will present difficulties in achieving effective compaction where access with compaction equipment is restricted. The fills material encountered is generally considered to be near to slightly ‘dry’ of its standard Proctor optimum moisture content. Moisture conditioning may be required depending upon the weather conditions at the time of construction. The use of free draining, well-graded granular material, such as an OPSS Granular ‘B’, Type II (crushed bedrock), is recommended for backfill against foundation walls or to raise the interior grade to the design subgrade level. This material is more readily compacted in restricted access areas, and generally presents a more positive support condition for interior floor slabs and exterior concrete sidewalks. We note that where fill material is placed near or slightly above its optimum moisture content, the potential for long term settlements due to the ingress of groundwater and collapse of the fill structure is reduced. Correspondingly, the shear strength of the ‘wet’ backfill material is also lowered, thereby reducing its ability to support construction traffic and therefore impacting roadway construction. If the soil is well dry of its optimum value,



of 14

it will appear to be very strong when compacted, but will tend to settle with time as the moisture content in the fill increases to equilibrium condition. The Silty Clay soil may require high compaction energy to achieve acceptable densities if the moisture content is not close to its standard Proctor optimum value. It is therefore very important that the placement moisture content of the backfill soils be within 3 percent of its standard Proctor optimum moisture content during placement and compaction to minimise long term subsidence [settlement] of the fill mass. Any imported fill required in service trenches or to raise the subgrade elevation should have its moisture content within 3 per cent of its optimum moisture content and meet the necessary environmental guidelines. A representative of SOIL-MAT should be present on-site during the backfilling and compaction operations to confirm the uniform compaction of the backfill material to project specification requirements. Close supervision is prudent in areas that are not readily accessible to compaction equipment, for instance near the end of compaction 'runs'. All structural fill should be compacted to 100 per cent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density [SPMDD]. Backfill within service trenches, areas to be paved, etc., should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its SPMDD and to 100 percent of its SPMDD in the upper 1 metre below the design subgrade level. A method should be developed to assess compaction efficiency employing the on-site compaction equipment and backfill materials during construction. 10. PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS All areas to be paved must be cleared of all topsoil and unsuitable materials and the exposed subgrade proofrolled with 3 to 4 passes of a loaded tandem-axle truck in the presence of a representative of SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD., immediately prior to the placement of the sub-base material. Any areas of distress revealed by this or other means should be subexcavated and replaced with suitable backfill material. Where the subgrade condition is poorer it may be necessary to implement more aggressive stabilisation methods, such as the use of coarse aggregate [50mm clear stone, ‘rip rap’ stone, black rock, etc.] ‘punched’ into the soft areas. It may also be prudent to consider the provision of a heavy geofabric over the subgrade to act as a separator between the subgrade and granular base materials. In such case it is recommended that a non-woven product be specified. The need for sub-excavations of softened subgrade materials will be reduced if construction is undertaken during dry periods of the year and careful attention is paid to compaction operations. As noted above the on-site soils are sensitive to disturbance and moisture and may present difficulty for roadway construction during ‘wet’ periods of the year. Should pavement construction be undertaken during ‘wet’ periods of the year it should be anticipated that greater stabilisation efforts will be required and/or additional depth of OPSS Granular ‘B’, Type II sub-base course material may be required.



of 14

Good drainage provisions will optimise the long-term performance of the pavement structure. The subgrade must be properly crowned and shaped to promote drainage to the subdrain system. Subdrains should be installed to intercept excess subsurface water and to prevent softening of the subgrade material. Surface water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the outer limits of the paved areas. The most severe loading conditions on the subgrade typically occur during the course of construction, therefore precautionary measures may have to be taken to ensure that the subgrade is not unduly disturbed by construction traffic. SOIL-MAT should be given the opportunity to review the final pavement structure design and subdrain scheme prior to construction to ensure that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report.

TABLE A

RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT STRUCTURES

* SPMDD denotes Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, ASTM-D698. The suggested pavement structures outlined in Table A are based on subgrade parameters estimated on the basis of visual and tactile examinations of the on-site soils and past experience. The outlined pavement structure may be expected to have an approximate ten-year life, assuming that regular maintenance is performed. Should a more detailed pavement structure design be required, site specific traffic information would be needed, together with detailed laboratory testing of the subgrade soils. To minimise segregation of the finished asphalt mat, the asphalt temperature must be maintained uniform throughout the mat during placement and compaction. All too often, significant temperature gradients exist in the delivered and placed asphalt with the cooler portions of the mat resisting compaction and presenting a honeycomb surface.

LAYER DESCRIPTION

COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS

LIGHT DUTY SECTIONS

HEAVY DUTY [TRUCK ROUTE]

Asphaltic Concrete Wearing course OPSS HL 3 or HL 3A

97 percent Marshall

65 millimetres 40 millimetres

Binder Course OPSS HL 8

97 percent Marshall

65 millimetres

Base Course OPSS Granular ‘A’

100% SPMDD 150 millimetres 150 millimetres

Sub-base Course OPSS Granular ‘B’, Type II

100% SPMDD 200 millimetres 350 millimetres

LEGENDBH-# Borehole

Engineers & Consultants Ltd.Soil-MatCLIENT

DRAWING TITLE

Borehole Location PlanPROJECT No. SM 134969-G

NOTES:

DATE March 2013N.T.S.SCALE

CHECKEDDRAWNFILENAME

MB

PROJECT TITLE

134969 Borehole Location Plan.kcw

DRAWING No. 1

Geotechnical Investigation2203 Niagara Stone Rd.

Niagara-on-the Lake, Ontario

IS

ACK Architects

TBMTemporary Benchmark

TBM

BH-#1

BH-#2

BH-#4

BH-#7

BH-#5

BH-#6

BH-#3

BH-#9

BH-#8

N

2. Borehole locations are approximate.

3. Soil samples will be discarded after 3 months unless directed otherwise by client.

4. Base image from Survey Plan by Mathews, Cameron Heywood - Kerry T. Howe Surveying Ltd

1. This drawing should be read in conjunction with Soil-Mat Engineers & Consultants Ltd. report number SM 134969-G

[Top of manhole to the north of site, elevation of 83.67 meters from survey plan.]

7m

16m

A

B

20m

A

B

25m

Top of Stable Slope

End post of metal gaurd rail

14m

1SM 134969

Proposed Pharmacy Building

2203 Niagara Stone Rd., NOTL, ON

ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

85.55

82.20

Ground SurfaceTopsoil

Approximately 75 millimeters of topsoil.

Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown and grey, trace to some sand and gravel, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, firm to soft.

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

3,4,3

1,2,2

0,1,2

4,30

7

4

3

60

20 40 60 80blows/300mm

Standard Penetration Test

10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content

Solid-Stem AugerMar. 1, 2013150mm

Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown

Log of Borehole No.Project No:

Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::

Drill Method:Drill Date:Hole Size:Drill Contractor:

Datum:

Checked by:Sheet: 1 of 1

Field Logged by:SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD.130 Lancing Drive, Hamilton, ON L8W 3A1Phone: (905) 318-7440 Fax: (905) 318-7455e-mail: [email protected]

SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE

Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:

1. Borehole was advanced using solid stem auger equipment on March 1, 2013 to termination at a depth of 3.4 metres. Boring was terminated due to the presence of an unknown obstruction.

2. Borehole was recorded as 'dry'' upon completion of drilling and backfilled as per Ontario Regulation 903.

3. Soil samples will be discarded after 3 months unless otherwise directed by our client.

2SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

85.81

82.91

82.30


Approximately 65 millimeters over

Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown, trace to some sand and gravel, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, firm to stiff

Silty ClayReddish brown, traces of fine gravel, very stiff

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

2,4,6

1,2,3

3,4,5

4,11,15

10

5

9

26

1.5

3.0

4.25

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:

1. Borehole was advanced using solid stem auger equipment on March 1, 2013 to termination at a depth of 3.35 metres. Boring was terminate prior to a depth of 3.5 meters due to the presence of an unknown obstruction

2. Borehole was recorded as 'dry'' upon completion of drilling and backfilled as per Ontario Regulation 903.


3SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

85.68

81.68

79.78

79.38



Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown to grey, trace to some sand and gravel, elevated gravel content in upper level, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, firm to stiff.


Queenston Shale

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

10,13,9

5,4,3

1,2,4

1,2,9

3,7,11

50/2"

22

7

6

11

18

100

1.75

1.5

2.5

2.25

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:

1. Borehole was advanced using solid stem auger equipment on March 1, 2013 to refusal at a depth of 6.3 metres.

2. Borehole was recorded as 'wet' at a depth of 3.0 meters upon completion of drilling and backfilled as per Ontario Regulation 903.


4SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

85.60

81.60

80.30

79.81



Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown to grey, trace to some sand and gravel, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, stiff to soft


Queenston Shale

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

3,4,5

2,4,5

1,2,3

0,1,2

1,6,9

25,30,50/6"

9

9

5

3

15

80

2.5

1.5

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:

1. Borehole was advanced using solid stem auger equipment on March 1, 2013 to termination at a depth of 5.8 metres.



5SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

84.80

81.05

80.40

80.00

Ground SurfaceGravel


Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown to grey, trace to some sand and gravel, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, stiff to soft.

Silty ClayBrown to reddish brown, traces of fine gravel

Queenston Shale

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

5,6,7

4,5,6

2,2,2

37,50/3"

6,6,6 12

13

11

4

100

2.0

1.0

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:




6SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

85.22

80.72

80.0279.77

Ground SurfaceGravel


Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown to grey, trace to some sand and gravel, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, stiff to soft.

Silty ClayGrey, traces of fine gravel, very stiff

Queenston Shale

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8,5,8

2,4,7

1,4,4

2,3,4

0,1,1

2,5,12

50/4"

13

11

8

7

2

17

100

3.25

2.75

1.5

1.25

0.5

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:




7SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

85.46

80.96

80.2180.01



Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown to grey, weathered, traces of sand, elevated gravel content in upper level, occasional organic staining, firm to very stiff

Silty ClayGrey, traces of fine gravel, very stiff

Queenston Shale

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

4,8,15

1,2,3

1,2,5

2,2,4

0,2,2

4,9,7

50/1"

23

5

7

6

4

16

100

1.75

1.0

1.25

2.0

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:




8SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

85.17

81.17

80.3780.17



Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown to grey, trace to some sand and gravel, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, firm to stiff

Silty ClayGreyish brown, traces of fine gravel

Queenston Shale

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

5,7,6

1,3,3

3,5,4

2,4,4

0,12,50

13

6

9

8

62

1.5

1.75

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:

1. Borehole was advanced using solid stem auger equipment on March 1, 2013 to termination at a depth of 5.0 metres.



9SM 134969



ACK Architects

See Drawing No. 1

Ian Shaw, P. Eng.

84.67

80.87

80.27

79.67



Silty Clay/Clayey Silt FillBrown to grey, trace to some sand and gravel, occasional organic staining, occasional construction debris, firm to soft

Silty ClayGrey, traces of fine gravel

Queenston Shale

End of Borehole

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

10,7,11

2,4,5

18,9,8

1,1,1

50/1"

18

9

17

2

100

2.5

1.0

20 40 60 80blows/300mm


10 20 30 40w%

Moisture Content


Elite Drilling

Temporary Benchmark

ISMike Brown


Project:

Location:

Client:

Borehole Location:

Project Manager:

: ::


Datum:




Dep

th

0 0ft m

2

2

4

4

6

6

8

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Ele

vatio

n [m

]

Sym

bol

Description

Wel

l Dat

a

Type

Num

ber

Blo

w C

ount

s

Blo

ws/

300m

m

Rec

over

y

PP

(kgf

/cm

2)

U.W

t.(kN

/m3)

NOTES:




Project No.: SM 134969-G DRAWING No. 2

55.00

60.00

65.00

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

100.00

105.00

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Elev

atio

n [m

]

Distance [m]

Slope Profile Section A-A2203 Niagara Stone Road

Niagara on the Lake, Ontario

Top Slope: 3.8H to 1VMiddle Slope: 2.3H to 1VBottom Slope: 1.2H to 1VOverall Slope: 2.6H:1V

3.8:1

Top of Stable Slope

BH8

ErosionAllowance

4m

Stable Slope Allowance(3.0H to 1V)

2.3:11.2:1

Project No.: SM 134969-G DRAWING No. 3

60.00

65.00

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

100.00

105.00

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Elev

atio

n [m

]

Distance [m]

Slope Profile Section B-B2203 Niagara Stone Road

Niagara on the Lake, Ontario

Top Slope: 2.6H to 1VBottom Slope: 3.4H to 1VOverall Slope: 2.7H to 1V

2.6:1

3.4:1

Top of Stable Slope

BH9

ErosionAllowance

4m

Stable Slope Allowance(3.0H to 1V)

1.693

Name: Queenston Shale

Name: Silty Clay Fill Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³Cohesion: 2 kPaPhi: 26 °

2203 Niagara Stone Rd., NOTL Profile A-A'

Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

1.764




Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

2.206




Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

2.037




Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

1.678


2203 Niagara Stone Rd., NOTL Profile B-B'


Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

1.995




Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

2.045




Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

2.348




Distance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Ele

vatio

n

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

101

103

105

107

109

111

113

115

DRAWING No. 4Soil-MatTypical Design Requirements

Drainage and Backfill for Basement Walls

Project No.:

Date:

SM 134969-G

May 2013

FOOTING

GROUND SURFACE

NOT TO SCALEpour flush with original undisturbed soil

SUBGRADEcompetent natural soilor well compacted fill

sloped away from wall

FLOOR SLAB

MOISTURE BARRIERMinimum 200mm clear crushed stone,well compacted.

CLEAR STONE20mm clear stone, minimum 150mm top and sides of drain, encased in heavy geofabric.

SUBSURFACE WALLSuitably water proofed, 'dimple' board, etc.

SELECT COMPACTED BACKFILLFree of organic, frozen, very wet, or otherwise unsuitable soil. Free draining granularmaterial, such as OPSS Granular B (Type II) preferred. Compacted to 95% Standard Proctor density if no surface settlement can be tolerated.

IMPERMEABLE BACKFILL SEAL

Soil-Mat Engineers & Consultants Ltd.

Well compacted clay, silty clay, or equivalent. If original soil is granular, omit seal and compact upper 600mm. If pavement adjacent to building, bring Granular 'B' to surface and compact upper 1 metre to 100% Standard Proctor density.

VAPOUR BARRIERWhere 'non damp' floors are required,provide heavy 'poly' sheeting or othermembrane material.

PERIMETER DRAINGeofabric encased 150mm (min.) diameter weeping tile or pipe equivalent, leading to positive sump or outlet. Invert at least 150mm below undersideof floor slab.

LIMIT OF EXCAVATIONAs required by OccupationalHealth and Safety Act.

SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD.

Documents

Transcript of SOIL-MAT ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD.