1524337 final rpt-001

July 2015

REPORT ON

Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Greystone Multi-Storey Building Oblates Property - Phase 1 175 Main Street Ottawa, Ontario

REP

OR

T

Report Number: 1524337

Distribution:

6 copies - 175 Main Street Regional Inc.

1 copy - Cunliffe & Associates

1 copy - Golder Associates Ltd.

Submitted to:175 Main Street Regional Inc. 1737 Woodward Drive North Ottawa, Ontario K2C 0P9

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GREYSTONE BUILDING

July 2015 Report No. 1524337 i

Table of Contents

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

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE ........................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Existing Fill/Topsoil .............................................................................................................................................. 5

4.3 Clay, Silty Clay and Clayey Silt ........................................................................................................................... 5

4.4 Silty Sand, Sand and Sandy Silt .......................................................................................................................... 6

4.5 Glacial Till ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

4.6 Auger Refusal and Bedrock ................................................................................................................................ 7

4.7 Groundwater and Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ................................................................................................ 7

5.0 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.2 Basement Design – Drained Versus Water-Tight ................................................................................................ 8

5.3 Excavations ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

5.4 Excavation Shoring ........................................................................................................................................... 10

5.4.1 Shoring Options ........................................................................................................................................... 10

5.4.2 Ground Movements ..................................................................................................................................... 12

5.5 Groundwater Management ................................................................................................................................ 12

5.5.1 Numerical Modeling ..................................................................................................................................... 13

5.5.2 Estimates of Groundwater Taking and Radius of Influence ......................................................................... 14

5.6 Foundations ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.6.1 Pile Foundations .......................................................................................................................................... 15

5.6.1.1 Axial Resistance ....................................................................................................................................... 15

5.6.1.2 Resistance to Lateral Loading .................................................................................................................. 17

5.6.2 Raft Foundations ......................................................................................................................................... 19

5.6.3 Frost Protection ........................................................................................................................................... 21

5.6.4 Seismic Design ............................................................................................................................................ 22

5.6.5 Basement Floor Slab ................................................................................................................................... 22


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 ii

5.6.6 Foundation Wall Backfill .............................................................................................................................. 23

5.6.6.1 Open Cut Excavations .............................................................................................................................. 23

5.6.6.2 Shored Excavations ................................................................................................................................. 23

5.6.6.3 Lateral Earth Pressures ............................................................................................................................ 24

5.7 Groundwater Management Considerations ....................................................................................................... 25

5.7.1 Permit to Take Water ................................................................................................................................... 25

5.7.2 Impacts due to Dewatering .......................................................................................................................... 26

5.8 Corrosion and Cement Type ............................................................................................................................. 26

6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 27

7.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Important Information and Limitations of This Report

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Plan

Figure 2 – Consolidation Test Results

Figures 3 – Grain Size Distributions

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Method of Soil Classification Abbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits List of Symbols Lithological and Geotechnical Rock Description Terminology Record of Borehole Sheets

APPENDIX B

Record of Borehole Sheet and Consolidation Test Results Previous Investigation by Golder Associates Ltd.

APPENDIX C

Results of Hydraulic Conductivity Testing

APPENDIX D

Results of Vertical Seismic Profile Testing

APPENDIX E

Results of Chemical Analysis EXOVA Environmental Ontario Report No. 1504272


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the proposed ‘Greystone’ multi-storey

building within Phase 1 of the Oblates property development to be located at 175 Main Street in Ottawa, Ontario.

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to determine the general soil, bedrock, and groundwater

conditions across the site. Based on an interpretation of the factual information obtained, along with existing

data available for the site, engineering guidelines are provided on the geotechnical design aspects of the

project, including construction considerations which could affect design decisions.

The reader is referred to the “Important Information and Limitations of This Report”, which follows the text but

forms an integral part of this document.



2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE Plans are being prepared for a proposed ‘Greystone’ multi-storey building, within Phase 1 of Oblates property

development to be located at 175 Main Street in Ottawa, Ontario (see Site Plan, Figure 1).

The building will be located east of Main Street, adjacent to St-Paul University. The site is currently an open field

with a tree line along the western edge.

Golder Associates completed a previous geotechnical investigation on the Oblates property for the Draft Plan of

Subdivision Application to the City of Ottawa. The results of that investigation were provided in a report titled

“Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Development, Oblates Property, 175 Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario”, dated

December 2014 (Report No. 14-1122-0005-5100). That investigation included one borehole within the footprint of

the proposed building addressed by the current report.

It is understood that the proposed building will consist of a 9-storey condominium with two underground

parking levels, measuring about 30 metres in width and 50 metres in length. In addition, a 2-storey annex,

also with two underground parking levels and measuring about 11 meters by 18 metres in plan, is proposed at

the north end of the building, which will form a connection to the future Phase 2 of this structure.

Based on the existing subsurface information, the subsurface conditions on the site are expected to consist of

surficial fill overlying a thick deposit of sensitive silty clay. The silty clay is underlain by a layer of silty sand,

which is in turn underlain by a deposit of glacial till. The bedrock surface is expected to be at about 25 to

30 metres depth below the ground surface and to consist of Billings Formation shale.



3.0 PROCEDURE The field work for the current investigation was carried out between February 26 and March 9, 2015. At that

time, 5 boreholes (numbered 15-1 to 15-5) were advanced within the proposed building footprint as described below

and as shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 1:

One borehole (numbered 15-1) was advanced to about 8.1 metres depth within the 2-storey annex portion of

the condominium.

Four boreholes (numbered 15-2 to 15-5, inclusive) were advanced within the 9-storey portion of the building.

Boreholes 15-2 and 15-5 were advanced within the overburden to depths of about 27.7 and 26.4 metres,

respectively, below the existing ground surface. Boreholes 15-3 and 15-4 were advanced through the

overburden to depths of about 31.1 and 30.7 metres, respectively, below the existing ground surface, at

which depth practical refusal to augering was encountered. Borehole 15-3 was then extended approximately

5.5 metres further, into the bedrock.

All of the boreholes were advanced using a track-mounted continuous flight hollow-stem auger drill rig, supplied

and operated by Marathon Drilling Company Ltd. of Ottawa, Ontario.

Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were carried out in the boreholes at regular intervals of depth and samples of

the soils encountered were recovered using split spoon sampling equipment. In situ vane testing was carried

out where possible in the cohesive deposits to determine the undrained shear strength of these soils.

In addition, six relatively undisturbed 73 millimetre diameter thin walled Shelby tube samples of the silty clay

were obtained from selected boreholes using a fixed piston sampler.

Once refusal was encountered at borehole 15-3, it was advanced further into the bedrock using HQ sized rotary

diamond drilling techniques. The core was then sequentially packed into core boxes.

Multi-level groundwater monitoring devices were sealed into borehole 15-4 to allow subsequent measurement of

the groundwater level at the site as well as to evaluate the vertical hydraulic gradient (with a standpipe installed

in the clay deposit and a monitoring well installed in the underlying sand). The groundwater levels in these

devices as well as the similar existing multi-level devices in previous borehole 14-212 were measured on March

20, 2015. Hydraulic conductivity testing was also carried out in the deeper monitoring wells installed in

boreholes 15-4 and 14-212 on March 20, 2015.

A 76 mm diameter PVC casing was grouted for the full advancement depth (i.e., through the overburden and into

the bedrock) at borehole 15-3 for subsequent Vertical Seismic Profile testing.

The field work was supervised by a member of our engineering staff who located the boreholes, directed the

drilling operations and in-situ testing, as well as logged the boreholes and samples.

Upon completion of the drilling operations, samples of soil and bedrock were transported to our laboratory for

further examination by the project engineer and for laboratory testing. The laboratory testing included natural

water content determinations, Atterberg limit tests, grain size distribution tests, and oedometer consolidation

testing.

Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) testing was carried out in borehole 15-3 on March 13, 2015, following the

completion of the drilling program, in order to determine the seismic Site Class for the site.



A soil sample from borehole 15-3 was submitted to EXOVA Environmental Ontario Ltd. for basic chemical

analysis related to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and corrosion of buried ferrous

elements.

The borehole locations were selected, picketed, and surveyed in the field by Golder Associates Ltd.

The borehole locations and elevations were surveyed using a Trimble R8 Global Positioning System (GPS) unit.

The elevations are referenced to Geodetic datum.



4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

Information on the subsurface conditions is provided as follows:

The Record of Borehole Sheets for the current investigation is provided in Appendix A.

The Record of Borehole sheet and consolidation test results from the previous borehole advanced in the building footprint are provided in Appendix B.

The results of the hydraulic conductivity testing are provided in Appendix C.

The results of the VSP testing are summarized in a memorandum provided in Appendix D.

The results of basic chemical analysis (for sulphate attack and corrosivity assessment) carried out on a soil sample from borehole 15-3 are provided in Appendix E.

Oedometer consolidation test results from the current investigation are provided on Figure 2.

Grain size distribution testing results are provided on Figure 3.

The subsurface conditions on this site generally consist of a layer of topsoil/fill, overlying a thick deposit of sensitive silty clay, extending to about 9 to 12 metres depth. The clay deposit is underlain by a layer of silty sand. Glacial till exists below depths of about 20 to 26 metres. Bedrock was also encountered below the glacial till at about 31 metres depth (i.e., about elevation 34 metres).

The following sections present a more detailed overview of the subsurface conditions on this site. For this discussion, emphasis is placed on the boreholes put down for the current geotechnical investigation. However, reference is also made to the results of borehole 14-212 from the previous investigation carried out on the site from Golder report number 14-1122-0005-5100, which is located in the middle of the building footprint.

4.2 Existing Fill/Topsoil

About 1.2 to 1.5 metres of fill were encountered at ground surface. The upper 0.1 to 0.2 metres of the fill consist of topsoil. The fill beneath the topsoil consists of a heterogeneous mixture of sand, silt, and clay.

4.3 Clay, Silty Clay and Clayey Silt

The fill is underlain by a thick deposit of clay, silty clay and clayey silt (hereafter referred to as silty clay). The upper portion of the deposit is generally grey brown in colour (i.e., weathered) and extends to depths between about 3.1 and 4.0 metres below the existing ground surface. SPTs carried out within the deposit range from “weight of hammer” to 10 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicating a firm to very stiff consistency.

The results of two Atterberg limit test carried out on samples of the grey brown silty clay gave plasticity index values of about 12 and 15 percent and liquid limit values of about 29 and 32 percent, indicating soil of low to intermediate plasticity. The measured water contents of the grey brown deposit range from approximately 29 to 42 percent.

The silty clay below the upper weathered portion is grey in color. The lower grey silty clay was proven to a depth of about 8.1 metres at borehole 15-1 and fully penetrated to depths between about 9.3 and 11.6 metres (i.e., elevations 53.5 to 56.0 metres). The results of in situ vane testing in the deposit measured undrained shear strength values ranging from about 48 to greater than 96 kilopascals, but more typically in the range of 67 to greater than 96 kilopascals, indicating a stiff to very stiff consistency, with the shear strength generally increasing with depth.



The results of Atterberg limit testing carried out on samples of the lower silty clay deposit gave plasticity index

values of about 15 to 30 percent and liquid limit values of about 34 to 54 percent, indicating a soil of generally

intermediate to high plasticity. The measured water content of the unweathered silty clay ranges from about

29 to 54 percent.

Oedometer consolidation testing was carried out on one Shelby tube sample from the lower grey silty clay

deposit at borehole 15-5 as well as from borehole 14-212. The results of this testing are provided on Figure 2

as well as in Appendix B and are also summarized below.

Borehole/Sample Number

Sample Depth/Elevation

(m)

o (kPa)

P (kPa)

Cc Cr eo OCR

15-5 / 4 6.5 / 58.7 110 315 0.53 0.011 1.20 2.9

14-212 / 7 4.8 / 60.3 80 290 0.48 0.010 1.08 3.6

Notes:

4.4 Silty Sand, Sand and Sandy Silt A layer of silty sand, sand and sandy silt (hereafter referred to as silty sand) was encountered beneath the silty clay at depths between about 9.3 and 11.6 metres (i.e., elevations 53.5 to 56.0 metres) at all of the boreholes with the exception of 15-1 where it was not encountered within the advancement depth. The sandy layer extends to depths between about 20.1 and 26.0 metres (i.e., elevations 39.1 to 45.0 metres). SPTs carried out within the deposit gave N values ranging from 3 to greater than 100 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, but more typically in the range of 20 to 45 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicating a generally compact to dense state of packing.

The measured natural water contents of several samples of the material range from about 20 to 26 percent. The results of grain size distribution carried out on samples of the sandy deposit are provided on Figure 3.

4.5 Glacial Till

The silty sand is underlain by a deposit of glacial till. The glacial till was encountered at depths of between about 20.1 to 26.0 metres below the existing ground surface (i.e., elevations 39.1 to 45.0 metres) at all of the borehole locations, with the exception of borehole 15-1 where it was not encountered within the advancement depth. The glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, cobbles, and boulders in a matrix of sandy silt. SPTs carried out within the glacial till gave N values ranging from about 24 to 89 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicating a compact to very dense state of packing. Diamond drilling techniques were required to core through cobbles and boulders in the glacial till at borehole 15-3.

The measured natural water contents of two samples of the glacial till were about 8 and 9 percent.

o - Initial effective stress P - Apparent preconsolidation pressure Cc - Compression index Cr - Recompression index eo - Initial void ratio OCR - Overconsolidation Ratio



4.6 Auger Refusal and Bedrock Practical refusal to augering was encountered at depths of about 31.1 and 30.7 metres below the existing

ground surface (i.e., elevations 34.1 and 34.4 metres) at boreholes 15-3 and 15-4, respectively. Auger refusal

could indicate cobbles or boulders within the glacial till or, more likely, the bedrock surface.

Bedrock was encountered/proven beneath the glacial till at a depth of about 31.1 metres at borehole 15-3,

where it was cored to a depth of about 36.6 metres below the existing ground surface.

The bedrock consists of fresh, laminated to thinly bedded, black, fine grained shale. The Rock Quality

Designation (RQD) values measured in the bedrock core generally ranged from 61 to 100 percent, indicating a

fair to excellent quality rock (and the lower RQD values are limited to only the upper metre of bedrock).

4.7 Groundwater and Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Groundwater level monitoring devices were installed in borehole 15-4 as well as previous borehole 14-212.

The groundwater levels were measured and in situ hydraulic conductivity testing was carried out (in the wells

installed in the silty sand) on March 20, 2015. The results of the hydraulic conductivity testing are provided in

Appendix C.

The following table summarizes the measured groundwater levels and hydraulic conductivities.

Borehole Number

Ground Surface

Elevation (metres)

Strata

Groundwater Level Hydraulic

Conductivity (m/s) Date

Depth (metres below ground

surface)

Elevation (metres)

14-212A 65.14

Silty Sand 25-Aug-14 9-Sep-14 20-Mar-15

7.06 7.18 7.71

58.08 57.96 57.43

7 x 10-4

14-212B Silty Clay 25-Aug-14 20-Mar-15

2.73 2.12

62.41 63.02

-

15-4A 65.12

Silty Sand 20-Mar-15 7.86 57.26 1 x 10-5

15-4B Silty Clay 20-Mar-15 5.50 59.63 -

These results indicate a downward hydraulic gradient from the silty clay to the glacial till.

It should be noted that groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally. Higher groundwater levels are

expected during wet periods of the year, such as spring and fall.



5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 General This section of the report provides engineering guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the proposed

‘Greystone’ multi-storey building, based on our interpretation of the borehole information and project

requirements. Reference should be made to the “Important Information and Limitations of This Report”, which

follows the text but forms part of this document.

The following guidelines are provided on the basis that the multi-storey building will be designed in accordance

with Part 4 of the 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC).

5.2 Basement Design – Drained Versus Water-Tight It is not known if the basement levels will be designed to be of drained or water-tight construction. The following

should be considered in making that decision:

The ability of the building’s drainage system to handle the predicted long-term groundwater inflow into the

drainage system.

The ability of the existing or proposed sewer system to accept the volume of pumped groundwater.

Once a decision has been made on the type of basement construction, some of the design guidelines provided

in this report may need to be revisited. For example, if it is decided to construct the basement to be water-tight:

The basement floor would have to consist of a structural concrete slab and would have to be designed to be

integral with the foundation walls (i.e., to form a raft foundation).

The basement floor slab and foundation walls would have to be designed to resist hydro-static groundwater

pressure.

The structure would have to be designed to resist the buoyant forces, which may require rock anchors.

It should, however, be noted that, even if water-tight construction is selected, groundwater inflow would still be

an issue during construction.

As discussed in following sections of the report, it is anticipated that the structure can and will be designed to

have ‘drained’ below-grade levels. The following guidelines in this report have been provided on that basis.

5.3 Excavations It is understood that the proposed 9-storey condominium building and 2-storey annex will include 2 basement

levels with a finished floor elevation at about 64.62 metres and a founding level at about elevation 56.31

(i.e., about 9 metres below the existing ground surface).

The existing ground surface on the site is at about elevation 65.2 metres. Therefore, based on the proposed

finished floor elevation, the grade around the building will be cut down by about 0.6 metres.

The excavations for the basement levels will be made through a thin layer of surficial fill and then into the firm to

very stiff silty clay. The deepest parts of the excavation may potentially extend into the underlying silty sand layer.



No unusual problems are anticipated with excavating the overburden using conventional hydraulic excavating

equipment. Where the excavations are carried out in the sensitive silty clay, it is suggested that the excavation

equipment be fitted with a smooth bladed bucket (i.e., no teeth), to limit disturbance of the subgrade.

The existing fill and silty clay deposits in the area of the proposed building would generally be classified as Type

3 soils in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) and therefore open cut side slopes

would need to be cut back at an inclination no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V). The underlying

silty sand layer, if not first dewatered, would be classified as a Type 4 soil and side slopes of 3H:1V would be

required. For slopes which are unsupported in the longer term, and might experience freeze-thaw cycles, flatter

side slope inclinations could be required.

However, given that the excavation depth for the basement levels is about 9 metres, it is not considered

practical/feasible for unsupported excavation side slopes to be used, particularly given the constraint of the

property line on the west side of the building. Therefore, it is expected that excavation support using a shoring

system will be required. Guidelines on excavation shoring are provided in Section 5.4 of this report.

For the expected depth of excavation, there would be an adequate factor of safety against basal instability

(i.e., against shearing of the soil beneath the excavation/shoring, due to the weight of the retained soil).

The construction of the basement excavation would extend into the lower portion of the silty clay deposit and

potentially into the underlying more permeable silty sandy layer. The groundwater level in the sandy layer was

measured at about 7 metres depth, which is about 2 metres above the excavation level. There is therefore the

potential for basal heaving of the floor of the excavation; i.e., the factor of safety between the piezometric

pressure in the silty sand versus the weight of the overlying silty clay would be low. Heaving of the excavation

floor could disturb the subgrade soils (making them untrafficable and unsuitable for the support of the structure

foundations), lead to a rapid increase in the rate of groundwater inflow, destabilize the shoring (if toe support in

the subgrade soils is part of the shoring design), as well as make compaction of materials and the placement of

concrete not feasible.

It also appears that the sandy layer in some locations extends to a locally higher level (e.g., borehole 15-5), and

that the excavation in these area may actually reach the silty sand. Where that is the case, the saturated silty sand

would be highly sensitive to subgrade disturbance from construction traffic and vibrations. The groundwater inflow

to the excavation would also likely disturb the silty sand (i.e., ‘piping’ of the soil could occur).

The resulting disturbance from basal heaving, construction traffic directly on the silty sand, or from groundwater

inflow would result in increased settlements of foundations that were subsequently supported on the subgrade

soils (if, for example, a raft foundation system is selected). These settlements would be unpredictable in

magnitude and likely highly differential.

It should therefore be planned to depressurize the silty sand layer in advance of excavation and for the duration

of the construction.

Given that, in some locations, the sand layer may be exposed at founding level, it is recommended that the

groundwater level be lowered to about 2 metres below excavation subgrade level, to thereby provide a

sufficient thickness of ‘drier’ sandy soil to protect the deeper saturated soil from disturbance due to

construction traffic and vibrations.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 10

One option which would commonly be used to depressurize the silty sand would be to use passive relief wells,

drilled through the excavation floor and into the underlying silty sand, which would allow groundwater to

discharge from the sand layer and into the excavation, where it would be removed by pumping from sumps.

However, it is considered that this arrangement may not be practical or sufficiently effective given the significant

depth of this excavation. And the groundwater level would only be lowered to the excavation floor level, and not

to 2 metres below that level as recommended. It is therefore considered that the piezometric level would

probably be more effectively lowered in advance of excavation by pumping from several wells drilled into the

silty sand layer at locations around the excavation. Pumping for some period of time in advance of excavation

would be required, such that the groundwater level would always be lower than the excavation floor level, as

excavation progresses.

As discussed subsequently in Section 5.5 of this report, hydrogeologic analyses have been carried out to

assess the extent of the surrounding groundwater level lowering (i.e., drawdown) that could be caused by the

dewatering program, and the potential for that groundwater level lowering to induce settlements of nearby

structures supported on the silty clay. The results of those analyses indicate that, for the anticipated duration of

the construction, significant settlements are not anticipated of nearby structures. However, the assistance of a

structural engineer will be required to inventory nearby structures and evaluated their foundation loading, before

this assessment can be confirmed.

A Permit-To-Take-Water (PTTW) from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) will be

required for the anticipated rate of pumping. The dewatering specifications should alert the contractor as to the

restrictions on the pumping rate and the dewatering duration included in the PTTW. The application for the

PTTW will require a more thorough evaluation of the potential impacts on nearby structures due to the

groundwater level lowering.

If the inventory of nearby structures and more detailed assessment required for the PTTW application were to

indicate possible impacts on nearby structures, the installation of sheeting or some other form of hydraulic cut-

off, installed through the sandy layer to reach the surface of the glacial till, could be considered as an option to

reduce surrounding groundwater level lowering. However, the silty sand layer is generally compact to dense

and therefore the driving of sheeting through the sandy layer might be difficult. The silty sand layer also extends

to considerable depth (i.e., up to 26 metres within the building footprint).

However, based on the available information, it is not expected that such measures will be required.

5.4 Excavation Shoring 5.4.1 Shoring Options

As discussed in Section 5.3, the excavation will extend up to about 9 metres below the existing ground surface.

Therefore, shoring of the side slopes will be required for at least parts of the building excavation due to its depth

and also due to its proximity to the adjacent property (i.e., St-Paul University). It is expected that shoring within

the native soils can be achieved using conventional techniques (e.g., soldier pile and lagging, sheet piling, etc.).

The excavation contractor should be made responsible for the detailed design of the shoring. However, the

following general guidelines on possible concepts for the shoring are provided to assist with development

planning.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 11

The shoring method(s) chosen to support the excavation sides must take into account: the soil stratigraphy, the

groundwater conditions, the methods adopted to manage the groundwater, the permissible ground movements

associated with the excavation and construction of the shoring system, and potential impacts on adjacent

structures and utilities.

In general, there are three basic shoring methods that are commonly used in local construction practice:

Steel soldier piles and timber lagging;

Driven steel sheet piles; and,

Continuous concrete (secant pile or diaphragm) walls.

These three options are listed in order of generally increasing cost, stiffness and ability to resist ground

movements, and by ability to cut-off groundwater inflow to the excavation.

It is considered that either steel soldier piles and timber lagging or driven streel sheet piling would be suitable for

this site. However, soldier piles and timber lagging would only be suitable if the groundwater level in the sand

layer has first been lowered below the level of the floor of the excavation, as is recommended. Continuous

concrete shoring, although suitable, is not considered necessary.

For all of the above systems, some form of lateral support to the wall is required for excavation depths greater

than about 3 metres, which is the case for this site. Lateral restraint could be provided by means of tie-backs

consisting of soil anchors or grouted bedrock anchors. The significant depth of the bedrock on this site would

make rock anchors for tie-backs long and costly; consequently earth anchors could be considered (though not

commonly used in Ottawa). The feasibility of using tie-backs will also depend on the presence/proximity of

existing adjacent utilities, which could be important for the west side of the building excavation adjacent to

St- Paul University. The installation of tie-backs could also interfere with the construction of the future Phase 2

of this building, particularly if piled foundations are used.

Alternatively, interior struts could be considered, connected either to the opposite side of the excavation

(if not too distant) or to raker piles and/or footings within the excavation. However, internal struts could interfere

with the construction of the foundations and superstructure.

It is understood that a particular issue for this site will be to avoid encroachment into the Critical Root Zone

(CRZ) of the existing mature trees on this site that are to be retained. It could, in that case, be necessary to

keep the shoring as close to the finished foundation wall as possible. Some possible measures to achieve that

objective would be as follows:

The tie-back, brace, and waler spacings could be selected in order to limit the depth/width of the waler

beam, since the dimensions of the waler beam would control, in part, the required separation between the

shoring and the foundation wall.

Alternatively, the shoring could potentially be used as the formwork for the foundation wall, although this

could result in increased construction costs.

The final selection of the type of temporary shoring system, and the method of lateral restraint, should be

entirely the choice/responsibility of the contractor.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 12

The contractor should be required to submit the shoring system design, including details on the design

lateral earth pressures, expected movements, and a monitoring plan, for review prior to the start of shoring

construction.

Stockpiling of soil beside the excavations should be avoided; the weight of the stockpiled soil could lead to

overstressing of the shoring system.

5.4.2 Ground Movements

Some unavoidable inward horizontal deformation and vertical settlement of the adjacent ground may occur as a

result of excavation, installation of the shoring and deflection of the ground support system (including bending of

the walls and compression of the struts). The ground movements induced could affect the performance of surface

structures or underground utilities adjacent to the excavation (or buildings, if any were located in close proximity).

The resulting ground settlement will depend on the selected shoring alternative. As a preliminary guideline,

typical settlements behind sheet pile or soldier pile and lagging shoring are anticipated to be less than about

0.3 percent of the excavation depth, provided that good construction practices are used (e.g., that supports are

installed as soon as the support level is reached), and that voids are not left behind the lagging. This guideline

would suggest less than about 30 millimetres of ground settlement could occur for the building excavation.

Significant settlements (due to shoring deformation) are also typically limited to a zone within a horizontal

distance of about one to two times the excavation depth. This settlement could therefore impact the St-Paul’s

University campus ring road that connects the parking lots adjacent to the west side of the proposed building.

This assessment is also based on the use of tie-backs for lateral support. Larger deformations could occur for

other forms of lateral support, particularly if rakers are used.

The construction documents should not specify the specific shoring system that should be used, but rather

the permissible deflection level (i.e., ‘Performance Level’) should be specified, in accordance with Ontario

Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 539. With the above design approach, it is considered that

Performance Level 2 would be specified.

However, the above guidelines are only preliminary and are provided only to assist the owner’s designers in

carrying out an initial assessment of the expected settlements and the potential impacts of these settlements.

A more detailed assessment of the expected settlements should be undertaken by the contractor.

A preconstruction survey should be carried out if there are any potential adjacent structures, utilities, or

pavements that may be affected by ground settlements. This survey should be carried out prior to the

commencement of excavation. The magnitude of ground movements adjacent to the excavation should be

monitored throughout the construction period. The expected levels of deformation should be established by the

contractor and alert levels should be set at which the designers should review the deformation and consider

modifications to the design and/or construction procedures.

5.5 Groundwater Management It is understood that the proposed Greystone building will include 2 basement levels with a founding level at

about elevation 56.3 (i.e., about 9 metres below the existing ground surface). The groundwater level in the

area of the excavation is as high as 63.0 metres elevation in the silty clay and 58.1 metres elevation in the

underlying silty sand (which reflects the downward hydraulic gradient). Therefore, as discussed previously,


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 13

the basement excavation would extend below the groundwater level, and groundwater management would be

required. The majority of groundwater inflow into the excavation would be from the underlying permeable silty

sand materials due to the relatively low permeability of the silty clay and the higher permeability of the silty sand.

As discussed in Section 5.3, there is the potential for basal heaving of the floor of the excavation due to the

piezometric pressure in the sand acting upon the overlying silty clay. Therefore, in order to prevent basal

heave, the silty sand layer should be depressurized in advance of excavation and until the basement levels

are completed.

If the structure is to be designed to have ‘drained’ below-grade levels, then a drainage system will need to be

constructed, which will need to convey permanent groundwater inflows.

Hydrogeologic analyses have therefore been carried out for both the ‘construction’ condition and the ‘permanent’

drainage condition.

5.5.1 Numerical Modeling

A simplified finite difference groundwater flow model was constructed using the USGS MODFLOW code

(interfaced using Visual MODFLOW Version 2013.1) to estimate the rate of groundwater extraction and the

extent of groundwater drawdown associated with both construction of the proposed Greystone building and

operation of the permanent foundation drainage system. This parametric model was used as an approximate

representation of the site conditions incorporating simplified material properties and boundary conditions to

simulate hydrogeological interactions between the geological units and the underground workings.

The numerical groundwater flow model was constructed using a three-dimensional grid that was specified over

an area of 800 metres in the east-west direction and 800 metres in the north-south direction, with the proposed

excavation located central-east to the domain. The finite-difference grid was developed with variable

discretization (0.5 metres to 20 metres in the horizontal direction, and 1 metre in the vertical direction).

Based on site borehole data, the hydrostratigraphic system was conceptualized as a layer of silty clay

underlain by a layer of silty sand. A uniform material was specified throughout the model to represent the silty

clay from the top of the model to a depth of 8 metres. This unit was underlain in the model by a 14 m thick unit

representing the silty sand. Both units were defined based on flat-lying contact surfaces.

The hydraulic conductivity specified in the model for the silty sand materials was based on the results of

hydraulic conductivity testing conducted in the vicinity of the excavation footprint at borehole 15-4 (1 x 10-3

cm/s). The hydraulic conductivity assigned to the silty clay (1 x 10-7 cm/s) unit is based on previous

hydrogeological testing by Golder Associates of the same deposit at locations nearby the site. It should be

noted that the vertical hydraulic conductivity was specified to equal the horizontal hydraulic conductivity for all

hydrostratigraphic units.

Constant head boundaries were specified within the silty clay layers, on the perimeter of the model domain, to

represent the Rideau Canal at an elevation of 63.0 metres and the Rideau River at an elevation of 58 metres.

Constant head boundaries were also specified at 58.0 metres and 57.5 metres within the silty sand layer

underlying the Rideau Canal and Rideau River, respectively. Surface recharge was applied at a rate of

40 millimetres per year, representing an approximation of the infiltration to the groundwater table.

These boundary conditions were chosen in order to produce a hydraulic head of 60.0 metres elevation in the

silty clay and 58.1 metres elevation in the silty sand layer in the vicinity of the proposed excavation.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 14

For the construction dewatering scenario, the specified drain elevation was set at approximately 2 metres below

the proposed founding level of the building while the specified drain elevation was set approximately equal to

the founding elevation for the post-construction scenario.

5.5.2 Estimates of Groundwater Taking and Radius of Influence

A steady state simulation was run to provide estimates of drawdown, to assess steady state groundwater

extraction, and to estimate the radius of influence associated with the proposed construction dewatering and

post-construction drainage condition. A 12 month transient simulation was also completed to assess short term

(instantaneous) dewatering during the initial construction.

Based on the results of the numerical groundwater flow model, the simulated steady-state rate of groundwater

extraction during construction was approximately 120,000 Litres per day (L/day), representing the long-term rate of

groundwater dewatering required to lower the groundwater level in the silty sand layer to 2 metres below the

proposed footing of the building. Based on the transient simulation, short-term construction dewatering at a rate of

up to 520,000 L/day may be required to achieve the initial groundwater dewatering in a timely fashion. The post-

construction steady-state flow rate to the foundation drains is estimated to be 1,500 L/day if the silty clay layer

below the foundation is continuous and is not penetrated during construction, and as high as 60,000 L/day if the

underlying silty sand is hydraulically connected to the foundation drains (which is likely to be the case).

The simulated radius of influence of the water taking (for a 1 metre of drawdown in the bottom 1 metre of the

silty clay) during the construction phase was determined by the modelling to be approximately 75 metres.

The radius of influences associated with the post-construction permanent foundation drainage was simulated to

be as high as 30 metres, when the underlying silty sand is hydraulically connected to the foundation drains.

Further discussion of the potential impacts of this surrounding groundwater level lowering is provided in Section

5.7.2 of this report.

5.6 Foundations As discussed previously, the subsurface conditions at this site consist of topsoil/fill underlain by a thick deposit

of sensitive silty clay, overlying a sandy layer, followed by glacial till. The bedrock surface is at about 31 metres

depth below the existing ground surface (i.e., about elevation 34 metres).

It is considered that there are two feasible and practical foundations systems for this building:

Driven end-bearing steel piles; or

Raft foundations.

Rock-socketed cast-in-place concrete caissons might also be technically feasible for this site; however this

foundation system might be significantly more expensive.

Given the height of the building and the likely associated loading, spread footing foundations are not considered

feasible for the building.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 15

5.6.1 Pile Foundations

A piled foundation system could be used to transfer the foundation loads through the silty clay, silty sand and

glacial till to more competent bearing at depth (i.e., down to the bedrock surface).

A suitable pile type would be concrete filled steel pipe piles (driven closed-ended) or H-piles, with the piles

end-bearing on bedrock. For this site, the piles would be driven to practical refusal on the bedrock surface

which appears to be at an elevation of about 34 metres (i.e., 22 metres from the underside of the foundations).

If a lesser pile resistance would be acceptable, the piles could also potentially be founded in the glacial till.

A minimum 0.6 metre thick granular working mat should be provided for pile driving equipment to protect the

silty clay subgrade.

5.6.1.1 Axial Resistance

As one possible design example, the Ultimate Limit States (ULS) factored structural resistance of a 245-millimetre diameter steel pipe pile with a wall thickness of 9 millimetres may be taken as 1,500 kilonewtons. The ULS factored geotechnical resistance of the pile should equal or exceed the structural resistance if the piles are driven to the bedrock, and are installed using an appropriate set criteria and using a hammer of sufficient energy. Note: The pile capacity/size to be used in the design may also be controlled by the dynamic testing program (see later discussion in this section).

For piles end-bearing on or within bedrock, Serviceability Limit States (SLS) conditions generally do not govern the design since the stresses required to induce 25 millimetre of movement (i.e., the typical SLS criteria) exceed those at ULS. Accordingly, the post-construction settlement of structural elements which derive their support from piles bearing on bedrock should be negligible.

Pipe piles should be equipped with a base plate having a thickness of at least 20 millimetres to limit damage to the pile tip during driving.

The piles should be driven no closer than three pile widths/diameters centre to centre.

The pile termination or set criteria will be dependent on the pile driving hammer type, helmet, selected pile, and length of pile; the criteria must therefore be established at the time of construction and after the piling equipment is known. All of these factors must be taken into consideration in establishing the driving criteria to ensure that the piles will have adequate capacity, but are also not overdriven and damaged. In this regard, it is a generally accepted practice to reduce the hammer energy after abrupt peaking is met on the bedrock surface, and then to gradually increase the energy over a series of blows to seat the pile.

Relaxation of the piles following the initial set could result from several processes, including:

Softening of the shale bedrock into which the piles are driven;

The dissipation of negative excess pore water pressures in the overburden material above the bedrock surface; and,

The driving of adjacent piles.

Provision should therefore be made for restriking all of the piles at least once to confirm the design set and/or

the permanence of the set and to check for upward displacement due to driving adjacent piles. Piles that do not

meet the design set criteria on the first restrike should receive additional restriking until the design set is met.

All restriking should be performed after 48 hours of the previous set.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 16

Since the piles would be founded on shale bedrock, it is expected that several rounds of restriking could be

required. The need for multiple restrikes could be reduced by using a lesser geotechnical capacity for the piles.

Some of the piles may not fully penetrate the bouldery glacial till to reach the bedrock surface; some of the

piles may instead “hang up” at a shallower depth in the glacial till. In that case, pre-drilling of the glacial till

could be considered, which would be costly. Alternatively, these particular piles may need to be designed for

a reduced capacity. The ULS factored axial resistance of these piles will depend on the depth to which they

penetrate and the set that is achieved. The capacities of these piles may have to be confirmed in the field by

carrying out load testing.

Due to their smaller cross section, H-piles might have more success in penetrating the glacial till and reaching

the bedrock surface. However the integrity of pipe piles following driving may be more readily inspected

(by visual examination of the pile interiors) than for H-piles, and therefore damaged piles can be more easily

identified. As well, H-piles are typically more expensive. The option of using H-piles could however be

discussed with the piling contractor.

It is recommended that dynamic monitoring and capacity testing (known as PDA testing) be carried out (by the

contractor) at an early stage in the piling operation to verify both the transferred energy from the pile driving

equipment and the load carrying capacity of the piles. As a preliminary guideline, the specification should

require that at least 10 percent of the piles be included in the dynamic testing program. CASE method

estimates of the capacities should be provided for all piles tested. These estimates should be provided by

means of a field report on the day of testing. As well, CAPWAP analyses should be carried out for at least one

third of the piles tested, with the results provided no later than one week following testing. The final report

should be stamped by a professional engineer licensed in the province of Ontario.

The purpose of the PDA testing will be to confirm that the contractor’s proposed set criteria is appropriate and

that the required pile geotechnical capacity is being achieved. It will therefore be necessary for the pile to have

sufficient structural capacity to survive that testing, which could require a stronger pile section than would

otherwise be required by the design loading.

For example, for the PDA testing to be able to record/confirm a factored geotechnical resistance of

1,500 kilonewtons (per the previously indicated design example), it will be necessary to successfully proof load

the tested piles to 3,000 kilonewtons during the PDA testing (per the resistance factor of 0.5 to be applied to

PDA test results, as specified in Commentary K of the National Building Code of Canada). However, that proof

load may exceed the actual structural capacity of the piles. If the piles fail (structurally) at a lower load, then the

full geotechnical capacity cannot be confirmed (and piles will have been damaged and will need to be wasted).

The following options could therefore be considered:

1) Piles with a higher structural capacity could be specified (i.e., piles with a ULS factored structural

resistance higher than the factored geotechnical resistance, and higher than required by the design

loading), so that the piles can be successfully tested to the required loading, so that the geotechnical

capacity can then be confirmed by the PDA testing. This option could significantly increase the cost of the

piled foundations (due, for example, to the increased wall thickness or diameter of pile that would be used).

It might be feasible to use these stronger piles only for those that will be tested, however this option would

not permit random testing of the ‘production’ piles, as is typically part of a PDA testing program.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 17

2) A reduced ULS factored geotechnical resistance could be used for the design (e.g., 1,000 kilonewtons

instead of 1,500 kilonewtons), such that the piles would have sufficient structural capacity to be loaded to

twice the design geotechnical resistance. This option would again increase the cost for the piled

foundations, by increasing the number of piles that would be required.

3) The PDA results could be used/evaluated using ‘Working Stress Design’ (WSD) criteria (i.e., using a factor

of safety of 2), rather than using Limit States Design (LSD) methods. The pile capacities assessed using

PDA test results have, in fact, traditionally been established using WSD methods by applying a factor of

safety (typically 2) against the ultimate pile capacity determined by the testing, and then checking the

resulting capacity versus the working/service load. However, in compliance with the Ontario Building Code

and the National Building Code of Canada, ‘Limit States Design’ methods are being used (by applying a

resistance factor against the ultimate pile capacity determined by the testing) and these two methods do

not yield a consistent pile design. However, for field verification of the set criteria and geotechnical

capacity, the structural engineer (and owner) could accept a WSD methodology, given its traditional use.

Prior consultation with the local Municipal Building Official should be considered, if this option is selected.

4) Static load testing could be carried out, rather than PDA testing, to confirm the ULS geotechnical

resistance of the piles, since the OBC/NBCC specify a resistance factor of 0.6 for static load tests (instead

of 0.5). However, it may still not be feasible to prove the full geotechnical resistance.

The foundation and piling specifications should be reviewed by Golder Associates prior to tender and

the contractor’s submission (i.e., shop drawings, equipment, procedures, and set criteria) should be reviewed

by the geotechnical consultant prior to the start of piling. That submission should include a WEAP (Wave

Equation Analysis of Piles) analysis of the driveability of the pile, to the design depth, using the contractor’s

selected hammer.

Vibration monitoring should be carried out during pile installation to ensure that the vibration levels at nearby

existing structures are maintained below tolerable levels. A maximum peak particle velocity of 50 millimetres per

second is recommended for structures.

Piling operations should be inspected on a full time basis by geotechnical personnel to monitor the pile locations

and plumbness, initial sets, penetrations on restrike, and to check the integrity of the piles following installation.

5.6.1.2 Resistance to Lateral Loading

Lateral loading could be resisted fully or partially by the use of battered piles.

Alternatively, the resistance to lateral loading could be derived from the soil resistance in front of the piles, and it

may be assumed that this resistance will be nearly the same for vertical and inclined piles.

The SLS geotechnical response of the soil in front of the piles under lateral loading may be calculated using

subgrade reaction theory where the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction, kh, is based on the equation

given below, as described by Terzaghi (1955) and the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (3rd Edition).


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 18

For cohesionless soils:

B

znk h

h

Where: nh

z

B

= the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction, as given below;

= the depth (m); and,

= the pile diameter/width (m).

For cohesive soils:

B

sk u

h

67

Where: su = the undrained shear strength of the soil (kPa); and,

B = the pile diameter/width (m).

The constant of horizontal subgrade reaction depends on the soil type and soil density/consistency around the

pile shaft. For the design of resistance to lateral loads, the values indicated in the table below may be used.

The values provided are unfactored geotechnical parameters.

Elevation

(m) Soil Type

nh

(kPa/m)

su

(kPa)

Pile cap to bottom of clay

Stiff to very stiff silty clay - 80

Bottom of clay to 39.0

Compact to dense silty sand 4.4 -

39.0 to 34.0 Dense glacial till 11.0 -

Note: The bottom of clay elevation varies from 53.5 metres to 56.0 metres. The more critical elevation should be

considered.

Group action for lateral loading should be considered when the pile spacing in the direction of the loading is less

than six to eight pile diameters. Group action can be evaluated by reducing the coefficient of lateral subgrade

reaction in the direction of loading by a reduction factor as follows:

Pile Spacing in Direction of Loading (d = Pile Diameter)

Reduction Factor

8d 1.0

6d 0.7

4d 0.4

3d 0.25

The coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction values calculated as described above may then be used

to calculate the lateral deflection of the pile (i.e., the SLS response of the pile), taking into the account the

soil-structure interaction.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 19

For establishing the ULS factored structural resistance, the shear force and bending moment distribution in the

piles under factored loading can be established using these same procedures and parameters for evaluating the

SLS response of the pile.

The ULS geotechnical resistance to lateral loading may be calculated using passive earth pressure.

For individual piles in cohesive soils (i.e., silty clay) the ULS lateral resistance is assumed to vary linearly with a magnitude of 2Su at the surface of the deposit (i.e., the underside of pile cap level) and a magnitude of 9Su at a depth equal to three pile diameters below the underside of the pile cap (where Su is the previously provided undrained shear strength). Below a depth equal to 3 pile diameters, and to the bottom of the deposit, the lateral resistance is assumed to be constant at 9Su.

The ULS lateral passive resistance from the underlying silty sand may be assumed to act over the pile shaft to a depth equal to six pile diameters below the underside of the pile cap (except where the silty clay thickness exceeds that depth) and the resistance per unit length of pile may be calculated as:

Pp(z) = 3dKp Dw + 3dKp (z – Dw) ( – w)

Where: Pp(z) is the ULS lateral resistance at depth ‘z’ below ground surface; i.e., underside-of-slab level (kN/m);

is average unit weight of overlying soil, use 18 kN/m3;

Kp is the coefficient of passive earth pressure, use 3.0;

Dw is the depth to groundwater table below ground surface(m), assume is at underside-of-pile-cap level;

w is the unit weight of water, use 9.8 kN/m3; and,

d is the pile diameter (m).

Since the elevation of the interface between the silty clay and the silty sand varies across the footprint between

about 53.5 and 56.0 metres, the more critical condition would need to be selected and evaluated.

The ULS lateral resistance of a pile group may be estimated as the sum of the individual resistances across the

face of the group, perpendicular to the direction of the applied lateral force.

The ULS resistances obtained using the above parameters represent unfactored values; a resistance factor of

0.5 should be applied in calculating the horizontal resistance.

If uplift resistance is required, the piles would have some capacity which could be relied upon. Rock anchors

could also be used, but the significant depth to the bedrock surface could make that an expensive option.

Further geotechnical input on both issues can be provided, if required.

5.6.2 Raft Foundations

A foundation alternative for the proposed building at this site would be to use a ‘raft’ foundation. A raft foundation

would need to be sufficiently rigid so that the building loads would be relatively uniformly distributed over the

entire building footprint.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 20

The available bearing resistance for support of the raft foundation depends on the founding level, since it

impacts on both the bearing stratum and on the compensating effect of the weight of the excavated soil.

As currently proposed, the founding level will be at about elevation 56.3 metres and the bearing stratum will

likely vary from silty clay to silty sand. The founding level should ideally be uniform across the footprint to limit

differential settlements. An additional complication is the need to first dewater the sand layer, as discussed in

Section 5.3; otherwise the groundwater inflow would disturb the sand.

For the proposed founding level, it is considered that the raft foundation can be designed using an SLS gross

contact stress of 250 kilopascals. This bearing resistance is based on maintaining the stress level in the clay

deposit at a reasonable margin below the preconsolidation pressure of the clay deposit below founding level;

i.e., such that the stress level in the clay will not approach or surpass its ‘yield’ stress.

The ULS factored bearing resistance that may be used for the design of the raft foundation is 275 kilopascals.

However, this value could potentially be refined (i.e., increased) somewhat once further details on the

foundation arrangement are known.

The post-construction total and differential settlements of the raft will depend, in part, upon the length of time

that passes between the excavation being made and the building load being applied, since the clay will

“rebound” (i.e., swell) following removal of the weight of the overlying soil. This rebound will be recovered as

settlement once the structure loads are imposed on the raft. The post-construction settlements will be larger for

corresponding longer lengths of time between excavating and re-loading. In addition, the clay will also undergo

heave and subsequent settlement as a result of undrained distortion of the deposit. Compression of the

underlying silty sand will also occur, although to a lesser extent.

If the bearing stress under the raft were to reach the SLS bearing resistance provided above (i.e., if the full

structure weight were to equal the full available SLS bearing resistance), the calculated total settlement of the

raft foundation is expected to be in the order of 25 to 50 millimetres (accounting for the recovered rebound and

distortion settlement of the clay and compression of the silty sand), depending in part upon that duration of

unloading/construction and noting that the larger settlement estimate would correspond to a period of several

months of unloading.

Based on the currently proposed founding level, the thickness of clay beneath the raft will vary across the

footprint (due to the varying bottom-elevation of the clay). There may be portions of the raft that are not

underlain by any clay (i.e., which are founded directly on the sand). Some differential settlement will therefore

occur due to the different settlement characteristics of these two materials. The resulting magnitude of

differential settlements across the length or width of the structure cannot feasibly be estimated with accuracy.

However, for design purposes, it is recommended that a differential settlement of up to 80 percent of the total

settlement be expected/accommodated. However, this differential settlement will also depend greatly on the

stiffness of the raft; even for uniform ground conditions, the settlement of the edge of the raft would typically be

less than that of the centre.

If variations in the raft level are needed, such as to accommodate sloping parking levels or deeper foundation

areas for elevator pits, there would be an even increased potential for differential settlements.

The SLS resistance and corresponding settlement estimates are dependent upon the soil at or below founding

level not being disturbed during construction. The silty clay and sandy subgrades will be very sensitive to

disturbance by construction traffic, especially in the presence of water (although temporary lowering of the


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 21

groundwater level in the sand is recommended). It should therefore be planned to place a mud slab of lean

concrete at the base level immediately upon completion of excavation (and inspection/approval of the

subgrade), to minimize disturbance of the subgrade material.

It should also be noted that the localized differential settlements (i.e., raft slab deflections) within/beneath

individual bays (such as directly beneath a column versus the mid-span of the bay) will depend upon the relative

stiffness between the raft slab and the underlying subgrade. The deflections and the resulting forces and

bending moments in the slab to be used in its structural design could be determined by structural analysis using

a modulus of subgrade reaction, ks, for the subgrade.

It should be noted, however, that the modulus of subgrade reaction is not a fundamental soil property and its

value depends, in part, on the size and shape of the loaded area. For the analysis of the contact stress

distribution beneath a raft foundation, its value would depend on the size of the areas over which

increased/concentrated contact stresses are anticipated (analogous to equivalent footings beneath the

columns); the size of these areas is in turn related to the value the modulus of subgrade reaction, i.e., they are

inter-related.

Accordingly, the analysis of the raft slab should ideally involve an iterative analysis between the determination of

the contact stress distribution by the structural engineer and the geotechnical determination of the modulus of

subgrade reaction value, until the two are consistent with each other. For initial analyses, the modulus of

subgrade reaction may be assumed to be in the range of 5 to 50 megapascals per metre. This range reflects

both uncertainty in the size of the loaded area as well as variability in the properties of the subgrade soils.

The structural design of the slab at any location should be determined based on whichever value causes the

larger effect, since either the maximum and minimum modulus values may govern for different locations and

load effects (e.g., shear force versus bending moments).

It should also be noted that the SLS bearing resistance specified above for design of a raft foundation would not

necessarily be available for the design of spread footing foundations; i.e., it should not be interpreted that

spread footings would be a feasible foundation option, based on the magnitude of that value. As a preliminary

assessment, the available SLS bearing resistance for perimeter spread footings would be only about half of the

above value (i.e., 125 kilopascals). A higher bearing resistance might however be available for interior pad

footings. If these bearing resistance values are potentially feasible for a spread footing foundation option,

further assessment can be carried out and additional geotechnical guidelines provided.

5.6.3 Frost Protection

All perimeter and exterior foundation elements or interior foundation elements in unheated areas should be

provided with a minimum of 1.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Isolated, unheated exterior

footings/pile caps adjacent to surfaces which are cleared of snow cover during winter months should be

provided with a minimum of 1.8 metres of earth cover.

It is expected that these requirements will be satisfied for all of the foundation elements of the building due to

the deep founding level required to accommodate the 2 levels of underground parking. It is also assumed that

the below-grade levels will be heated.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 22

5.6.4 Seismic Design

The seismic design provisions of the 2012 OBC depend, in part, on the shear wave velocity of the

upper 30 metres of soil and/or bedrock below founding level. Therefore, in order to determine a seismic Site

Class for the proposed Greystone building, VSP testing was carried out within borehole 15-3, the results of

which are provided in a memorandum in Appendix D.

Based on the results of the VSP testing as well as a review of the subsurface conditions on the site, it is

considered that a Site Class of C would be applicable to the design of the building (provided that the founding

level is at least 6 metres below the existing ground surface, as is currently planned in the design).

In addition, the soils at this site are not considered to be liquefiable.

5.6.5 Basement Floor Slab

The following guidelines are provided on the basis that a ‘drained’ foundation system will be provided; i.e., that a

water tight foundation is not to be provided.

In preparation for the construction of the basement floor slab, all loose, wet, and disturbed material should be

removed from beneath the floor slab.

If a piled foundation system is to be used, then either a slab-on-grade concrete floor slab can be provided, or an

asphalt surfaced pavement can be provided.

In both cases, provision should be made for a drainage layer consisting of at least 300 millimetres of free

draining granular material, such as 16 millimetre clear crushed stone, to underlie the floor slab or pavement.

To prevent hydrostatic pressure build up, this granular layer should be drained. This should be achieved by

installing rigid 100 millimetre diameter perforated pipes in the floor slab bedding at 6 metre centres.

The perforated pipes should discharge to a positive outlet such as a sump from which the water is pumped.

If or where an asphalt surface will be provided for the basement level, at least 150 millimetres of OPSS

Granular A base should be provided above the clear stone, compacted to at least 100 percent of the material’s

standard Proctor maximum dry density.

Any bulk fill required to raise the grade to the underside of the clear stone should consist of OPSS Granular ‘B’

Type I or II. The underslab bulk fill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be

compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable

vibratory compaction equipment.

Since the subgrade in some locations will consist of sand, there would be the potential for loss of ground and

plugging of the drainage system due to the loss of soil particles from the subgrade soils into the underslab clear

stone fill resulting from the groundwater inflow. In that case, a Class II nonwoven geotextile having a Filtration

Opening Size (FOS) not exceeding 100 microns in accordance with OPSS 1860 should be placed on the

subgrade, with overlaps of at least 0.5 metres between rolls. The placement of the geotextile should be

inspected and approved by qualified geotechnical personnel.

If a raft foundation is provided, then the raft slab will also form the floor slab. Although that raft would not

necessarily be designed to resist water pressures (since a ‘drained’ foundation system is being provided), it

could presumably accommodate some level of water pressure build-up. The perimeter drainage system (see


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 23

Section 5.6.6) will permanently lower the groundwater level along the edge of the raft, but some higher water

pressures could persist beneath the central portion of the raft. Groundwater levels as high as elevation 58.1

metres have been recorded in the underlying sand layer. The raft could therefore be designed to accommodate

that level of piezometric pressure. The weight of the raft may, in fact, be sufficient to resist that pressure.

Alternatively, a drainage layer could be provided beneath the entire raft footprint. Similar to as described for the

piled foundation option, the drainage layer could consist of at least 300 millimetres of free draining granular

material, such as 16 millimetre clear crushed stone, underlain by a Class II nonwoven geotextile having an FOS

not exceeding 100 microns placed on the subgrade, with overlaps of at least 0.5 metres between rolls.

Drainage piles are not considered necessary in this case, however the drainage layer must be hydraulically

continuous with the perimeter drainage system.

5.6.6 Foundation Wall Backfill

The backfill and drainage requirements for basement walls, as well as the lateral earth pressures, will depend

on the type of excavation that is made to construct the basement levels.

The following guidelines are also provided on the basis that the structure foundations are designed to be

‘drained’.

5.6.6.1 Open Cut Excavations

The following guidelines apply to any portions of the basement walls made in open cut excavations, such as might feasibly be the case for the upper portion of the excavation, or where a ramp is provided for equipment access.

The soils at this site are potentially frost susceptible and should not be used as backfill against exterior, unheated, or well insulated foundation elements within the depth of potential frost penetration (1.5 metres) to avoid problems with frost adhesion and heaving. Free draining backfill materials are also required if hydrostatic water pressure against the basement walls (and potential leakage) is to be avoided. The foundation and basement walls therefore should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible sand or sand and gravel conforming to the requirements for OPSS Granular B Type I.

To avoid ground settlements around the foundations, which could affect site grading and drainage, all of the backfill materials should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts, compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s standard Proctor maximum dry density.

The basement wall backfill (for the full height of the wall) should be drained by means of a perforated pipe subdrain in a surround of 19 millimetres clear stone, fully wrapped in a geotextile, which leads by positive drainage to a storm sewer or to a sump from which the water is pumped.

5.6.6.2 Shored Excavations

Where shoring will be provided, the basement walls may be poured using formwork or alternatively the

excavation shoring could serve as formwork.

If a drained foundation is to be provided, then the following guidelines apply:

Where basement walls will be poured against shoring, vertical drainage such as Miradrain must be installed on the face of the shoring to provide the necessary drainage. The top edge of the Miradrain should be sealed or covered with a geotextile to prevent the loss of soil into the void between the sheet and geotextile of the Miradrain.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 24

Where the basement walls will be constructed using formwork, it will be necessary to backfill a narrow

gallery between the shoring face and the outside of the walls. The backfill should consist of 6 millimetre

clear stone ‘chip’, placed by a stone slinger or chute. In no case should the clear stone chip be placed in

direct contact with other soils. For example, surface landscaping or backfill soils placed near the top of the

clear stone backfill should be separated from the clear stone with a geotextile.

Both the drain pipe for the wall backfill and/or the Miradrain should be connected to a perimeter drain at the

base of the excavation which is connected to a sump pump. Note: An estimate of the sustained flow into

this drainage system is provided in Section 5.5.2.

Conventional damp proofing of the basement walls is appropriate with the above design approach.

For concrete walls poured against shoring, damp proofing using an interior treatment such as Crystal Lok

could be considered.

If a water-tight foundation is to be provided, further guidelines would need to be provided.

5.6.6.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

The magnitude of the lateral earth pressures will depend on the backfill materials and backfill conditions

adjacent to the foundation walls. If the backfill materials for open cut excavations consist of compacted sand or

sand and gravel (OPSS Granular ‘B’ Type I or II), then the lateral earth pressures may be taken as:

h(z) = Ko (z + q)

Where: h(z) = Lateral earth pressure on the wall at depth z, kilopascals;

Ko = At-rest earth pressure coefficient, use 0.5 (for both open cut and shored excavations);

= Unit weight of retained soil, use 20 kilonewtons per cubic metre;

z = Depth below top of wall, metres; and

q = Uniform surcharge at ground surface to account for traffic and equipment (not less than

15 kilopascals), plus any surcharge due to adjacent foundation loads.

These lateral earth pressures would increase under seismic loading conditions. The earthquake-induced

dynamic pressure distribution, which is to be added to the static earth pressure distribution, is a linear

distribution with maximum pressure at the top of the wall and minimum pressure at its toe (i.e., an inverted

triangular pressure distribution). The total pressure distribution (static plus seismic) for design may be

determined as follows:

h(z) = Ko γ z + (KAE – Ko) γ (H-z)

Where: h(d) = Lateral earth pressure at depth z, kilopascals;

KAE = Seismic earth pressure coefficient, use 0.8; and

H = Total height of the wall, metres.

It should be noted that all of the lateral earth pressure equations are given in an unfactored format and will need

to be factored for ULS design purposes.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 25

It should also be noted that the above lateral earth pressure equations assume that the foundation walls will be

drained. If the walls are design to be water-tight, the walls will have to be designed to resist the additional

hydro-static pressure.

It has been assumed that the underground parking levels will be maintained at minimum temperatures but will

not be permitted to freeze. If these areas are to be unheated, additional guidelines for the design of the

basements walls will need to be provided.

In areas where pavement or other hard surfacing will about the building, differential frost heaving could occur

between the granular fill immediately adjacent to the building and the more frost susceptible materials beyond

the wall backfill. To reduce the severity of this differential heaving, the backfill adjacent to the wall should be

placed to form a frost taper. The frost taper should be brought up to pavement subgrade level from 1.5 metres

below finished exterior grade level at a slope of 3H:1V, or flatter, away from the wall. The granular fill should be

placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material’s

standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. It should be noted that

since the grade is going to be lowered, and therefore the frost will penetrate deeper than historical, these details

are of particular importance.

The passive resistance offered by the foundation wall backfill soils (and those retained by the shoring) could

also be considered in evaluating the lateral resistance applied to the structure. The magnitude of that lateral

resistance could depend, in part, on the backfill materials and backfill conditions adjacent to the foundation

walls. Movement of the backfill and wall is also required to mobilize the passive resistance. Further guidelines

on the available resistance can be provided, if required.

5.7 Groundwater Management Considerations 5.7.1 Permit to Take Water

Based on the predicted inflows and dewatering rates for the Greystone building excavation, a Permit to Take

Water (PTTW) will be required as the volumes of water to be taken at the site are expected to exceed 50,000

Litres per day. A Category 3 Permit would be required as the duration of construction pumping is anticipated to

exceed the 30 day limit for a Category 2 PTTW.

A PTTW application package will be prepared for submission to the MOECC in May 2015. The PTTW will

include all water takings associated with the remediation and subsequent development of Phase I of the Oblates

Property, which is anticipated to commence with the remediation of the Phase I development area in September

2015. The PTTW application will include a technical study, which is required to evaluate the rate of groundwater

taking and any potential impacts due to the groundwater taking.

As discussed previously, the piezometric level in the silty sand should be lowered in advance of excavation,

such as by pumping from several wells screened in the silty sand layer at locations around the excavation.

Pumping for some period of time in advance of excavation would be required, such that the groundwater level

would always be lower than the excavation floor level, as excavation progresses. Additional water management,

related to water that will accumulate in the excavation, will also be required. The additional quantity of water that

will be pumped from the excavation will depend on many factors including the contractor’s schedule and rate of

excavation, the size of the excavation, the material (fill, silty clay or silty sand), incident precipitation, and the time

of year at which the excavation is made (e.g., fluctuation in seasonal groundwater elevation).


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 26

Incident precipitation could add up to approximately 150,000 litres of water per day, based on the excavation

geometry described above and a 72 millimetre precipitation event (a 10 year event as observed at the Ottawa

International Airport weather station). It is important to note that groundwater inflow into the excavation will

decrease over time as the fill, silty clay and silty sand (overburden) dewater. However, during the progression

to steady-state and once steady-state is reached, short-term increases in groundwater inflows would be

expected following precipitation events if the overburden is recharged and subsequently drains into the

excavation.

The contractor will be responsible for discharging the water takings under the PTTW in a manner that does not

result in erosion, flooding or siltation. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining any required discharge

approvals. Proposed points of discharge include storm or sanitary sewers near the site. A Sewer Use

Agreement would be required from the City of Ottawa before any discharge to the sewers would be permitted

5.7.2 Impacts due to Dewatering

The investigation determined that the site, and likely the adjacent properties, is underlain by sensitive silty clay

materials, which can potentially consolidate (i.e., compress/settle) if subjected to significant reduction in pore

pressure over an extended period of time. Given the relatively limited groundwater level lowering estimated during

construction dewatering and the stiffness of the silty clay, consolidation of the sensitive silty clay deposit is not

expected to be significant and impacts to nearby structures are not anticipated. One factor to be considered in this

assessment is the foundation loading which is currently applied to the silty clay by adjacent buildings; the presence

of a higher existing stress level in the clay, from building foundation loads, would increase the potential for

consolidation of the deposit due to dewatering. St-Paul University buildings have been identified within the

predicted 75 metre radius of influence associated with the dewatering (see Section 5.5.2) required for the

excavation construction. Based on a review of our records, it appears that nearest buildings are likely supported

on spread footings. Using some assumed foundation loading for this 4-storey high building, it is still expected that

the resulting stress in the clay due to dewatering will not result in settlement. However, this assessment should be

confirmed (with the assistance of a structural engineer) in support of the application for the PTTW.

Although it is expected that any settlements resulting from the calculated drawdowns would be minimal in

magnitude, and that no damage to the nearby commercial and residential buildings, and services or impact on

their serviceability would be expected (based on the currently available information), it would be prudent to carry

out a precise survey/monitoring of the elevations of selected structures in the nearby developed areas

underlain by silty clay. The purpose of this program would be to protect 175 Main Street Regional Inc. from

damage claims that are unrelated to the construction (e.g., such as caused by desiccation and shrinkage of clay

during drought periods due to the water demand of tree roots) and to provide baseline information against which

such claims can be evaluated.

5.8 Corrosion and Cement Type A sample of soil from borehole 15-3 was submitted to EXOVA Environmental Ontario for basic chemical analysis

related to potential corrosion of buried steel elements and potential sulphate attack on buried concrete

elements. The results of this testing are provided in Appendix E. The results indicate that concrete made with

Type GU Portland cement should be acceptable for substructures. The results also indicate a potential for

corrosion of exposed ferrous metal, which should be considered in the design of substructures.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 27

6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The soils at this site are sensitive to disturbance from ponded water, construction traffic and frost.

At the time of the writing of this report, only conceptual details for the proposed development were available.

Golder Associates should be retained to review the final drawings and specifications for this project prior to

construction to ensure that the guidelines in this report have been adequately interpreted.

It is recommended that the final shoring design be reviewed and accepted by a geotechnical engineer prior to

construction and that periodic inspection of the shoring installation procedures be carried out to ensure

compatibility with the building design.

Should construction be carried out during freezing temperatures, freezing of the soil behind the temporary

support walls could place additional stress on the walls/rakers. Accordingly, the soils behind the support walls

should be protected from freezing temperatures by methods such as a combination of heaters and tarpaulins.

A Permit-to-Take-Water (PTTW) from the MOECC is currently being obtained for this project. The contractor’s

dewatering plan should be reviewed in relation to the PTTW as well as the objectives and recommendations

provided in this report.

The hydrogeologic assessment results provided in this report are based on an excavation level no lower than

elevation 56.3 metres. If deeper excavation will be required, such as for elevator pits, the assessment and

construction recommendations will need to be revised.

Reference should also be made to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment report in regards to the quality

of the groundwater at this site, which should be considered in relation to the disposal of groundwater pumped

from the excavations. Based on the low concentrations of metals, PAHs and PHCs in the groundwater, it is

expected that the pumped water quality will meet both of the City’s storm and sanitary sewer discharge criteria,

noting the use of conventional construction techniques to reduce the concentration of TSS introduced into the

water to be pumped by the excavation and/or backfilling activities to an acceptable level.

Reference should also be made to the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment in relation to the soil/fill quality

for disposal.

If the proposed building is to be supported by a pile foundation system, piling operations should be inspected on

a full time basis by geotechnical personnel to monitor the pile locations and plumbness, initial sets, penetrations

on restrike, and to check the integrity of the piles following installation.

Inspection of the prepared subgrade for floor slabs and control on the placing and compaction of the granular fill

for floor slabs should be carried out to document that the materials used conform to specifications from both a

grading and compaction point of view.

If a raft foundation is to be used for the proposed building, all raft foundation bearing areas should be inspected

by geotechnical personnel to ensure that a suitable subgrade has been reached and that it has been properly

prepared. In order to avoid disturbance of the sensitive clay subgrade, it is recommended that the clay (and silty

sand) subgrade be protected by a mud slab of lean concrete as soon as each portion of the excavation has

been completed and inspected.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 28

Prior to construction, it is recommended that a pre-construction survey of existing structures adjacent to the site

be carried out to document their condition and the presence of any existing defects. If any existing cracks or

other defects are identified, more direct monitoring of those features should be considered (such as by means of

‘tell-tales’).

Vibration monitoring should also be carried out at the adjacent buildings, particularly during the installation of the

shoring or piled foundations.

It should also be noted that the soil and rock samples retrieved as part of the geotechnical investigation are

generally only maintained for a period of 3 months following issuance of the report.

The groundwater level monitoring devices (i.e., standpipe piezometers or wells) installed at the site will require

decommissioning at the time of construction in accordance with Ontario Regulation 128/03. That work should

be included in the construction contract. Some of those devices may be useful during the initial stages of

dewatering, to monitoring the progress of the groundwater level lowering.


July 2015 Report No. 1524337 29

7.0 CLOSURE We trust this report satisfies your current requirements. If you have any questions regarding this report, please

contact the undersigned.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Susan Trickey, P.Eng. Mike Cunningham, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer Principal, Geotechnical Engineer

NJ/SAT/MIC/ob n:\active\2015\3 proj\1524337 eq homes building oblates phase 1 ottawa\reporting\final\1524337 final rpt-001.docx

Golder Associates Ltd. Page 1 of 2

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development and purpose described to Golder by the Client, 175 Main Street Regional Inc. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report. The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder's express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then the client may authorize the use of this report for such purpose by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process, provided this report is not noted to be a draft or preliminary report, and is specifically relevant to the project for which the application is being made. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder's report or other work products. The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations, including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities. Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions.

Golder Associates Ltd. Page 2 of 2

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT (cont'd)

Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed. Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during construction. Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client's expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal. Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of Golder's report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder's report. During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of Golder's report and to confirm and document that construction activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder's report. Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this recommendation is not followed, Golder's responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the preparation of the Report. Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly. Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction monitoring of the system.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - PROPOSED GREYSTONE

BUILDING - OBLATES PROPERTY - PHASE 1 - 175 MAIN STREET,

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

EQ HOMES INC.

CONSULTANT

DESIGN

PREPARED

REVIEW

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

TITLE

PROJECT No. Rev.

PROJECT

CLIENT

Path: \\golder.gds\gal\ottaw

a\A

ctive\S

patial_IM

\E

QH

om

es\O

blatesM

ultiS

toreyB

uilding\99_P

RO

J\1524337_E

QH

om

es_O

blatesM

ultiS

toreyB

uilding\40_P

RO

D\P

hase1000_G

eotech\ | F

ile N

am

e: 1524337-1000-01.dw

g

025 m

m

IF

T

HIS

M

EA

SU

RE

ME

NT

D

OE

S N

OT

M

AT

CH

W

HA

T IS

S

HO

WN

, T

HE

S

HE

ET

S

IZ

E H

AS

B

EE

N M

OD

IF

IE

D F

RO

M: A

NS

I B

1524337

PHASE

1000

FIGURE

1

A

2015-04-22

JM

----

SAT

MIC

SITE PLAN

0

1:500

10 20

METRES

NOTE(S)

1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER

ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT No. 1524337

APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION, PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION BY GOLDER

ASSOCIATES LTD., REPORT No. 14-1122-0005

LEGEND

REFERENCE(S)

1. BASE PLAN SUPPLIED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT BY NOVATECH

2. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83, COORDINATE SYSTEM: MTM

ZONE 9, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION, CURRENT INVESTIGATION

KEY MAP

SCALE: 1:25,000

LEGEND

Borehole: 15-5 wi = 44% So = 100% 17.6 kN/m³

Sample: 4 wf = 29% eo = 1.20 Gs = 2.75

Depth (m): wl = 43% Cc = 0.53

Elevation (m): wp = 21% Cr = 0.011

SCALE AS SHOWN TITLE

DATE 05/12/15CADD N/A ENTERED MI

PROJECT No. 1524337 REV. 2 REVIEW SAT

6.5

2

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Consolidation summary FILE No. CHECK CNM FIGURE

58.7

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.501 10 100 1000 10000

VO

ID R

AT

IO

PRESSURE (kilopascals)

'vo= 110 kPaCALCULATED EXISTING EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE

'p = 315 kPaMOST PROBABLE APPARENT PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE

=

Cobble coarse fine coarse medium fine

Size

Sample Depth (m)

9 11.89-12.509 13.62-14.239 11.89-12.507 10.67-11.28

Created by: MI

Project: Golder Associates Checked by: CNM

Borehole

1524337

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SILT AND CLAYGRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE

FIGURE 3

SILTY SAND to SAND, some silt

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R T

HA

N

GRAIN SIZE, mm

15-215-315-415-5


July 2015 Report No. 1524337

APPENDIX A Method of Soil Classification Abbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits List of Symbols Lithological and Geotechnical Rock Description Terminology Record of Borehole Sheets

METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

January 2013 G-1

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group

Type of Soil Gradation

or Plasticity 𝑪𝒖 =

𝑫𝟔𝟎

𝑫𝟏𝟎 𝑪𝒄 =

(𝑫𝟑𝟎)𝟐

𝑫𝟏𝟎𝒙𝑫𝟔𝟎

Organic Content

USCS Group Symbol

Group Name

INO

RG

AN

IC

(Org

an

ic C

onte

nt

≤30

% b

y m

ass

)

CO

AR

SE

-GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(˃

50

% b

y m

ass

is la

rge

r th

an

0.0

75

mm

)

GR

AV

EL

S

(>5

0%

by

ma

ss o

f co

ars

e f

ract

ion

is

larg

er

tha

n 4

.75

mm

)

Gravels with

≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded

<4 ≤1 or ≥3

≤30%

GP GRAVEL

Well Graded ≥4 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL

Gravels with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line

n/a GM SILTY

GRAVEL

Above A Line

n/a GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

SA

ND

S

(≥5

0%

by

ma

ss o

f co

ars

e f

ract

ion

is

sma

ller

than

4.7

5 m

m) Sands

with ≤12% fines

(by mass)

Poorly Graded

<6 ≤1 or ≥3 SP SAND

Well Graded ≥6 1 to 3 SW SAND

Sands with

>12% fines

(by mass)

Below A Line

n/a SM SILTY SAND

Above A Line

n/a SC CLAYEY

SAND

Organic or Inorganic

Soil Group

Type of Soil Laboratory

Tests

Field Indicators Organic Content

USCS Group Symbol

Primary Name Dilatancy

Dry Strength

Shine Test

Thread Diameter

Toughness (of 3 mm thread)

INO

RG

AN

IC

(Org

an

ic C

onte

nt

≤30

% b

y m

ass

)

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

(≥5

0%

by

ma

ss is

sm

alle

r th

an 0

.07

5 m

m)

SIL

TS

(N

on

-Pla

stic

or

PI

and

LL

plo

t b

elo

w A

-Lin

e

on

Pla

stic

ity

Ch

art

b

elo

w)

Liquid Limit

<50

Rapid None None >6 mm N/A (can’t roll 3 mm thread)

<5% ML SILT

Slow None to

Low Dull

3mm to 6 mm

None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT

Slow to very slow

Low to medium

Dull to slight

3mm to 6 mm

Low 5% to 30%

OL ORGANIC

SILT

Liquid Limit ≥50

Slow to very slow

Low to medium

Slight 3mm to 6 mm

Low to medium

<5% MH CLAYEY SILT

None Medium to high

Dull to slight

1 mm to 3 mm

Medium to high

5% to 30%

OH ORGANIC

SILT

CL

AY

S

(P

I a

nd

LL

plo

t a

bo

ve A

-Lin

e o

n

Pla

stic

ity C

ha

rt

be

low

)

Liquid Limit <30

None Low to

medium Slight

to shiny ~ 3 mm

Low to medium 0%

to 30%

(see

Note 2)

CL SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit 30 to 50

None Medium to high

Slight to shiny

1 mm to 3 mm

Medium

CI SILTY CLAY

Liquid Limit ≥50

None High Shiny <1 mm High CH CLAY

HIG

HL

Y

OR

GA

NIC

S

OIL

S

(Org

an

ic

Co

nte

nt

>3

0%

b

y m

ass

)

Peat and mineral soil mixtures

30%

to 75%

PT

SILTY PEAT, SANDY PEAT

Predominantly peat, may contain some

mineral soil, fibrous or amorphous peat

75%

to 100%

PEAT

Note 1 – Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non-plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 – For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor “trace organics” for soils with between 5% and 30% organic content include the prefix “organic” before the Primary name.

Dual Symbol — A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC and CL-ML. For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify transitional material between “clean” and “dirty” sand or gravel. For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left). Borderline Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, CL/CI, GM/SM, CL/ML. A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil has been identified as having properties that are on the transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline symbol may be used to or indicates a range of similar soil types within a stratum.

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows:

I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued) w water content π 3.1416 wl or LL liquid limit ln x, natural logarithm of x wp or PL plastic limit log10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 lp or PI plasticity index = (wl – wp) g acceleration due to gravity ws shrinkage limit t time IL liquidity index = (w – wp) / Ip FoS factor of safety IC consistency index = (wl – w) / Ip emax void ratio in loosest state emin void ratio in densest state ID density index = (emax – e) / (emax – emin) II. STRESS AND STRAIN (formerly relative density) γ shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties ∆ change in, e.g. in stress: ∆ σ h hydraulic head or potential ε linear strain q rate of flow εv volumetric strain v velocity of flow η coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient υ Poisson’s ratio k hydraulic conductivity σ total stress (coefficient of permeability) σ′ effective stress (σ′ = σ – u) j seepage force per unit volume σ′vo initial effective overburden stress σ1, σ2, σ3 principal stress (major, intermediate, (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) minor) Cc compression index σoct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = (σ1 + σ2 + σ3)/3 Cr recompression index τ shear stress (over-consolidated range) u porewater pressure Cs swelling index E modulus of deformation Cα secondary compression index G shear modulus of deformation mv coefficient of volume change K bulk modulus of compressibility cv coefficient of consolidation (vertical direction) ch coefficient of consolidation (horizontal direction) Tv time factor (vertical direction) U degree of consolidation III. SOIL PROPERTIES σ′p pre-consolidation stress OCR over-consolidation ratio = σ′p / σ′vo (a) Index Properties ρ(γ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* (d) Shear Strength ρd(γd) dry density (dry unit weight) τp, τr peak and residual shear strength ρw(γw) density (unit weight) of water φ′ effective angle of internal friction ρs(γs) density (unit weight) of solid particles δ angle of interface friction γ′ unit weight of submerged soil µ coefficient of friction = tan δ (γ′ = γ – γw) c′ effective cohesion DR relative density (specific gravity) of solid cu, su undrained shear strength (φ = 0 analysis) particles (DR = ρs / ρw) (formerly Gs) p mean total stress (σ1 + σ3)/2 e void ratio p′ mean effective stress (σ′1 + σ′3)/2 n porosity q (σ1 – σ3)/2 or (σ′1 – σ′3)/2 S degree of saturation qu compressive strength (σ1 – σ3) St sensitivity * Density symbol is ρ. Unit weight symbol is γ

where γ = ρg (i.e. mass density multiplied by acceleration due to gravity)

Notes: 1 2

τ = c′ + σ′ tan φ′ shear strength = (compressive strength)/2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations commonly employed on Records of Boreholes, on figures and in the text of the report are as follows:

I. SAMPLE TYPE III. SOIL DESCRIPTION AS Auger sample (a) Non-Cohesive (Cohesionless) Soils BS Block sample Density Index N CS Chunk sample Relative Density Blows/300 mm or Blows/ft DS Denison type sample Very loose 0 to 4 FS Foil sample Loose 4 to 10 RC Rock core Compact 10 to 30 SC Soil core Dense 30 to 50 SS Split-spoon Very dense over 50 ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample (b) Cohesive Soils II. PENETRATION RESISTANCE Consistency cu, su Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: kPa psf

The number of blows by a 63.5 kg. (140 lb.) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.)

Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Very stiff Hard

0 to 12 12 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 200 over 200

0 to 250 250 to 500 500 to 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 4,000 over 4,000

Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance; Nd: IV. SOIL TESTS

The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb.) w water content hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive wp plastic limit uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60º cone wl liquid limit attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of C consolidation (oedometer) test 300 mm (12 in.). CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text)

CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test1 PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure with porewater pressure measurement1 WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer DR relative density (specific gravity, Gs) WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and DS direct shear test rod M sieve analysis for particle size MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis Piezo-Cone Penetration Test (CPT) MPC Modified Proctor compaction test

A electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° SPC Standard Proctor compaction test conical tip and a project end area of 10 cm2 OC organic content test pushed through ground at a penetration rate of SO4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (Qt), UC unconfined compression test porewater pressure (PWP) and friction along a UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test sleeve are recorded electronically at 25 mm V field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) penetration intervals. γ unit weight

Note: 1 Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU. V. MINOR SOIL CONSTITUENTS Per cent by Weight Modifier Example 0 to 5 Trace Trace sand 5 to 12 Trace to Some (or Little) Trace to some sand 12 to 20 Some Some sand 20 to 30 (ey) or (y) Sandy over 30 And (non-cohesive (cohesionless)) or

With (cohesive) Sand and Gravel Silty Clay with sand / Clayey Silt with sand

LITHOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ROCK DESCRIPTION TERMINOLOGY

WEATHERINGS STATE

Fresh: no visible sign of weathering

Faintly weathered: weathering limited to the surface of major

discontinuities.

Slightly weathered: penetrative weathering developed on open

discontinuity surfaces but only slight weathering of rock material.

Moderately weathered: weathering extends throughout the rock

mass but the rock material is not friable.

Highly weathered: weathering extends throughout rock mass and

the rock material is partly friable.

Completely weathered: rock is wholly decomposed and in a friable

condition but the rock and structure are preserved.

BEDDING THICKNESS

Description Bedding Plane Spacing

Very thickly bedded Greater than 2 m

Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m

Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m

Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m

Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm

Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm

Thinly laminated Less than 6 mm

JOINT OR FOLIATION SPACING

Description Spacing

Very wide Greater than 3 m

Wide 1 m to 3 m

Moderately close 0.3 m to 1 m

Close 50 mm to 300 mm

Very close Less than 50 mm

GRAIN SIZE

Term Size*

Very Coarse Grained Greater than 60 mm

Coarse Grained 2 mm to 60 mm

Medium Grained 60 microns to 2 mm

Fine Grained 2 microns to 60 microns

Very Fine Grained Less than 2 microns

Note: * Grains greater than 60 microns diameter are visible to the

naked eye.

CORE CONDITION

Total Core Recovery (TCR)

The percentage of solid drill core recovered regardless of quality or

length, measured relative to the length of the total core run.

Solid Core Recovery (SCR)

The percentage of solid drill core, regardless of length, recovered at

full diameter, measured relative to the length of the total core run.

Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

The percentage of solid drill core, greater than 100 mm length,

recovered at full diameter, measured relative to the length of the

total core run. RQD varied from 0% for completely broken core to

100% for core in solid sticks.

DISCONTINUITY DATA

Fracture Index

A count of the number of discontinuities (physical separations) in

the rock core, including both naturally occurring fractures and

mechanically induced breaks caused by drilling.

Dip with Respect to Core Axis

The angle of the discontinuity relative to the axis (length) of the

core. In a vertical borehole a discontinuity with a 90o angle is

horizontal.

Description and Notes

An abbreviation description of the discontinuities, whether naturally

occurring separations such as fractures, bedding planes and

foliation planes or mechanically induced features caused by drilling

such as ground or shattered core and mechanically separated

bedding or foliation surfaces. Additional information concerning the

nature of fracture surfaces and infillings are also noted.

Abbreviations JN Joint PL Planar

FLT Fault CU Curved

SH Shear UN Undulating

VN Vein IR Irregular

FR Fracture K Slickensided

SY Stylolite PO Polished

BD Bedding SM Smooth

FO Foliation SR Slightly Rough

CO Contact RO Rough

AXJ Axial Joint VR Very Rough

KV Karstic Void

MB Mechanical Break

SS

SS

SS

SS

TP

SS

TP

Pow

er A

uger

17

WH

WH

WH

PH

WH

PH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TOPSOIL/FILL - (SM) SILTY SAND;brown; moistFILL - (SP) SAND, fine to medium, tracefines; brown; non-cohesive, moist,compact

(CL) sandy SILTY CLAY; grey brown;cohesive, w>PL, firm

(CL/CI) SILTY CLAY; grey, with blackmottling; cohesive, w>PL, firm to stiff

End of Borehole

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

63.72

62.19

57.11

0.15

1.52

3.05

8.13

PIEZOMETEROR

STANDPIPEINSTALLATION

W

WATER CONTENT PERCENT

PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm

NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp

BORING DATE: March 5, 2015

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm

DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s

SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE

SHEET 1 OF 1RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 15-1

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

GROUND SURFACE

0.0065.24

PROJECT: 1524337

LOCATION: See Site PlanM

IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80

DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m

nat V.rem V.

Q -U -

SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

TP

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

Was

h B

orin

g

16

4

2

WH

WH

WH

PH

2

24

33

MH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

>96

>96

>96

TOPSOIL/FILL - (ML) sandy SILT;brown; moistFILL - (SM) sandy SILT; grey;non-cohesive, moistFILL - (SP) SAND, medium, trace fines;brown; non-cohesive, moist, compact

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; greybrown, with sand seams (WEATHEREDCRUST); cohesive, w>PL, very stiff

(CL/ML) SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT,trace sand; grey brown; cohesive, w>PL,stiff

(CL/CI) SILTY CLAY; grey, with sandseams; cohesive, w>PL, stiff to very stiff

(SM) SILTY SAND; grey; non-cohesive,wet, compact to dense

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

NW

Cas

ing

64.32

63.78

63.18

61.12

53.50

0.15

0.76

1.30

1.90

3.96

11.58

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.0065.08

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Was

h B

orin

g

24

32

42

11

61

57

45

5

24

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

(SM) SILTY SAND; grey; non-cohesive,wet, compact to dense

(ML) sandy SILT; grey; non-cohesive,wet, compact

(SM) SILTY SAND; grey; non-cohesive,wet, dense to very dense

(ML) sandy SILT, some gravel togravelly; dark grey, withcobbles/boulders (GLACIAL TILL);non-cohesive, wet, compact

End of Borehole

NW

Cas

ing

45.57

45.12

39.10

37.34

19.51

19.96

25.98

27.74

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


--- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ---

DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

Was

h B

orin

g

1

1

2

1

2

1

WR

14

31

CHEM

MH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>96

>96

TOPSOIL/FILL - (ML) CLAYEY SILT;brown, moistFILL - (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY; grey brown,with brick; cohesive, moistFILL - (SM) SILTY SAND, trace mediumsand; brown; non-cohesive, moist

(CL/ML) SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT,trace sand; grey brown; cohesive, w>PL,firm

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY; grey;cohesive, w>PL, stiff to very stiff

(SM/SP) SILTY SAND to SAND, somesilt; grey; non-cohesive, wet, loose tovery dense

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

HW

Cas

ing

64.58

63.67

62.14

54.52

0.08

0.61

1.52

3.05

10.67

76 mm Diam. PVCCasing

Bentonite-CementGrout

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp

BORING DATE: February 26 - March 4, 2015

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

65.19

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

RC

SS

RC

RC

Was

h B

orin

gR

otar

y D

rill

34

64

62

48

>100

78

49

38

DD

70

DD

DD

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

(SM/SP) SILTY SAND to SAND, somesilt; grey; non-cohesive, wet, loose tovery dense

(ML) sandy SILT; grey; non-cohesive,wet, dense

(ML) sandy SILT, some gravel togravelly; dark grey, withcobbles/boulders (GLACIAL TILL);non-cohesive, wet, dense to very dense

HW

Cas

ing

HQ

Cor

e

40.91

40.40

24.28

24.79



PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


RC

RC

RC

Rot

ary

Dril

l DD

DD

DD

21

22

C1


Borehole continued on RECORD OFDRILLHOLE 15-3

HQ

Cor

e

34.0831.11

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


Rot

ary

Dril

l

1

2

3

4

100

100

100

100

Fresh, laminated to thinly bedded, black,fine grained, porous, non-calcareousSHALE, occasional thin (~1 mm)near-vertical calcite vein. Rare calcitevein parallel to bedding. Sulphidespresent in rock in the form of crystals.

End of Drillhole 36.58

HQ

Cor

e

28.61



BR- Polished- Slickensided- Smooth- Rough- Mechanical Break

POKSMRoMB

- Broken Rock

RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 15-3

5 10 15 20

RECOVERY

JNFLTSHRVNCJ

FLU

SH

20406080

DEPTH(m) TOTAL

CORE %

- Planar- Curved- Undulating- Stepped- Irregular

- Bedding- Foliation- Contact- Orthogonal- Cleavage C

OLO

UR

%

RE

TU

RN

DR

ILLI

NG

RE

CO

RD

20406080

DISCONTINUITY DATADESCRIPTION

0 30 60 90

ELEV.

R.Q.D.%

20406080

TYPE AND SURFACEDESCRIPTION Ja

INCLINATION: -90° AZIMUTH: ---

FRACT.INDEXPER

0.25 m

DIP w.r.t.COREAXIS

B AngleJcon Jr

DRILLING DATE: February 26 - March 4, 2015

DRILL RIG: CME 850

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling

RU

N N

o.

SY

MB

OLI

C L

OG

SHEET 4 OF 4

NOTE: For additionalabbreviations refer to listof abbreviations &symbols.

SOLIDCORE %

0 90 180

270

PLCUUNSTIR

- Joint- Fault- Shear- Vein- Conjugate

BDFOCOORCL

1 : 75

HECLOGGED:

CHECKED: SAT

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

DATUM: Geodetic

DEPTH SCALE

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

BEDROCK SURFACE

31.1134.08

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-R

CK

004

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

ISS

.GD

T 0

7/23

/15

JM

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY

K, cm/secRMC-Q'

AVG.

DiametralPoint Load

Index(MPa)

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

2 4 6

SS

SS

SS

SS

TP

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

Was

h B

orin

g

10

2

WH

WH

PH

WH

2

18

21

24

MH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

>96

>96

>96

TOPSOIL - (ML) sandy SILT; brown;moistFILL - (SM) sandy SILT; brown;non-cohesive, moistFILL - (SP) SAND, fine; brown;non-cohesive, moist

(CI/CH) SILTY CLAY to CLAY, tracesand; grey brown (WEATHEREDCRUST); w>PL, very stiff

(CL/ML) SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT,trace sand; grey brown; cohesive, w>PL,very stiff

(CL/CI) SILTY CLAY, trace sand; grey,with black mottling; cohesive, w>PL, stiffto very stiff

(SM) SILTY SAND; grey, with sandseams; non-cohesive, wet, compact

(SM/SP) SILTY SAND to SAND, somesilt; grey; non-cohesive, wet, compact todense

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

NW

Cas

ing

64.51

63.90

62.07

61.46

55.04

53.54

0.15

0.61

1.22

3.05

3.66

10.08

11.58

Native Backfill andBentonite

Bentonite Seal

Standpipe

Silica Sand

Bentonite Seal

Silica Sand

38 mm Diam. PVC#10 Slot Screen

Silica Sand

Cave

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.0065.12

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Was

h B

orin

g

27

29

41

36

3

8

22

46

38

44

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

(SM/SP) SILTY SAND to SAND, somesilt; grey; non-cohesive, wet, compact todense

(ML) sandy SILT; grey; non-cohesive,wet, very loose to loose

(SM) SILTY SAND; grey; wet, loose tocompact


NW

Cas

ing

44.09

41.96

40.58

21.03

23.16

24.54

Cave

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS 8921

End of BoreholeAuger Refusal

NW

Cas

ing

34.3930.73

Cave

WL in Screen atElev. 57.26 m onMar. 20, 2015

WL in Standpipe atElev. 59.63 m onMar. 20, 2015

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

TP

SS

TP

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

Was

h B

orin

g

4

WH

WH

PH

2

PH

1

21

21

C

MH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

>96

>96

TOPSOIL/FILL - (ML) sandy SILT;brown, moistFILL - (ML) sandy SILT; brown;non-cohesive, moist

(CL/ML) sandy SILTY CLAY to CLAYEYSILT; grey brown; cohesive, w>PL, verystiff

(CL/CI) SILTY CLAY; grey, with blackmottling; cohesive, w>PL, stiff to verystiff

(SM) SILTY SAND to SAND, some silt;grey; non-cohesive, wet, very loose todense

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

NW

Cas

ing

63.70

62.02

55.97

0.15

1.52

3.20

9.25

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.0065.22

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Was

h B

orin

g

30

41

37

29

6

20

48

32

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

(SM) SILTY SAND to SAND, some silt;grey; non-cohesive, wet, very loose todense

(ML) sandy SILT; grey; non-cohesive,wet, loose

(SM) SILTY SAND; grey; non-cohesive,wet, compact

(ML) sandy SILT, some gravel togravelly; dark grey, withcobbles/boulders (GLACIAL TILL);non-cohesive, wet, dense

End of Borehole

NW

Cas

ing

44.04

42.51

40.76

38.85

21.18

22.71

24.46

26.37

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

SAT

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

HEC

PROJECT: 1524337


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -




APPENDIX B Record of Borehole Sheet and Consolidation Test Results Previous Investigation by Golder Associates Ltd.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

TP

SS

SS

TP

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

5

13

4

4

2

PH

PH

PH

PH

PH

WR

9

19

31

24

19

C

MH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

>96

>96

FILL/TOPSOIL - (ML) sandy SILT;brown; moistFILL - (SM) SILTY SAND, traceorganics; brown; non-cohesive, moist,looseFILL - (SP) SAND, fine to medium, somefines; brown; non-cohesive, moist,compact(ML) CLAYEY SILT, trace sand; grey(WEATHERED CRUST); cohesive,w>PL, very stiff(ML) sandy CLAYEY SILT; grey brown(WEATHERED CRUST); cohesive,w>PL, stiff to firm

(CI-ML) SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT;grey; cohesive, w>PL, firm to stiff

(CI-ML) SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT;grey, with black streaks and sandseams; cohesive, w>PL, stiff to very stiff

(SM) SILTY SAND, trace fine gravel;grey, with silt seams; non-cohesive, wet,very loose to loose

(SM) SILTY SAND, fine; grey;non-cohesive, wet, compact to dense

(SM-ML) SILTY SAND to sandy SILT;grey; non-cohesive, wet, compact

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

64.53

63.92

63.31

62.09

59.04

54.48

52.95

50.66

0.15

0.61

1.22

1.83

3.05

6.10

10.66

12.19

14.48

Bentonite Seal

Native Backfill

Bentonite Seal

Silica Sand

Standpipe 'B'

Silica Sand

Bentonite Seal

Native Backfill

Bentonite Seal

Silica Sand

50 mm Diam. PVC#10 Slot Screen 'A'

Silica Sand

Cave

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp

BORING DATE: August 12, 2014

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE


DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

CK

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM

GROUND SURFACE

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

0.0065.14

PROJECT: 14-1122-0005-5100


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


SS

SS

SS

Pow

er A

uger

DC

PT

26

17

28

17

18

19

(SM) SILTY SAND, fine; grey, with thinsilt seams; non-cohesive, wet, compact

Possible Silty Sand

Possible Glacial Till

End of BoreholeDynamic Cone Penetration Test Refusal

Note:

1. This borehole log has been revisedwith hydraulic conductivity testing andgroundwater level monitoring informationfrom March 20, 2015. The originalborehole log was provided in GolderAssociates Ltd. Report No.14-1122-0005-5100.

200

mm

Dia

m. (

Hol

low

Ste

m)

49.90

46.25

45.03

38.32

15.24

18.89

20.11

26.82

Cave

WL in Screen 'A' atElev. 57.43 m onMar. 20, 2015

WL in Screen 'B' atElev. 63.02 m onMar. 20, 2015

PIEZOMETEROR


W



NU

MB

ER

DEPTH(m)

Wp

BORING DATE: August 12, 2014

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D


DESCRIPTION

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


SAMPLES

10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3

ELEV.

Wl

20 40 60 80

TY

PE

BLO

WS

/0.3

0m

SOIL PROFILE



DEPTH SCALE

1 : 75

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

CK

DATUM: Geodetic

LOGGED:

CHECKED:

DWM

PROJECT: 14-1122-0005-5100


IS-B

HS

001

15

243

37.G

PJ

GA

L-M

IS.G

DT

07

/23/

15

JM

20 40 60 80

20 40 60 80


nat V.rem V.

Q -U -


115

125

155

190

210

LEGEND

Borehole: 14-212 wi = 39% So = 100% 18.1 kN/m³

Sample: 7 wf = 26% eo = 1.08 Gs = 2.75

Depth (m): wl = 34% Cc = 0.48

Elevation (m): wp = 19% Cr = 0.010

SCALE AS SHOWN TITLE

DATE 12/10/14CADD N/A ENTERED CW

PROJECT No. 14-1122-0005 REV. 2 REVIEW CK

4.8

8

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS

Consolidation summary FILE No. CHECK CNM FIGURE

60.3

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.401 10 100 1000 10000

VO

ID R

AT

IO

PRESSURE (kilopascals)

'vo= 80 kPaCALCULATED EXISTING EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN PRESSURE

'p = 290 kPaMOST PROBABLE APPARENT PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE

=



APPENDIX C Results of Hydraulic Conductivity Testing

N:\Active\2015\3 Proj\1524337 EQ Homes Building Oblates Phase 1 Ottawa\Hydrogeology\slug tests\analysis\14-212A FHT.xlsx

Golder Associates Ltd.

Page 1 of 1

HVORSLEV SLUG TEST ANALYSISFALLING HEAD TEST 14-212A

INTERVAL (metres below ground surface)

Top of Interval = 11.96Bottom of Interval = 13.49

where K = (m/sec)

where: r c = casing radius (metres)

R e = filter pack radius (metres)

L e = length of screened interval (metres)

t = time (seconds)h t = head at time t (metres)

INPUT PARAMETERS RESULTSr c = 0.03

R e = 0.10

L e = 1.5 K= 7E-06 m/sec

t 1 = 17.5 K= 7E-04 cm/sect 2 = 94.5

h 1 /h 0 = 0.67

h 2 /h 0 = 0.26

Project Name: EQ Homes / Oblates / Ottawa Analysis By: CWT

Project No.: 1524337 Checked By: DH/BTB

Test Date: 20-03-15 Analysis Date: 23-03-15

0.01

0.10

1.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

He

ad

Ra

tio

Time (sec)

( )

−

++=

12

2

12

e

e

e

e

e

c

tt hh ln

2RL1

2RLln

2LrK

2

N:\Active\2015\3 Proj\1524337 EQ Homes Building Oblates Phase 1 Ottawa\Hydrogeology\slug tests\analysis\15-4A RHT.xlsx


Page 1 of 1

HVORSLEV SLUG TEST ANALYSISRISING HEAD TEST 15-4A

INTERVAL (metres below ground surface)

Top of Interval = 11.28Bottom of Interval = 12.80

where K = (m/sec)

where: r c = casing radius (metres)

R e = filter pack radius (metres)

L e = length of screened interval (metres)

t = time (seconds)h t = head at time t (metres)

INPUT PARAMETERS RESULTSr c = 0.02

R e = 0.04

L e = 1.5 K= 1E-05 m/sec

t 1 = 2 K= 1E-03 cm/sect 2 = 106.5

h 1 /h 0 = 0.89

h 2 /h 0 = 0.07

Project Name: EQ Homes / Oblates / Ottawa Analysis By: CWT

Project No.: 1524337 Checked By: DH/BTB

Test Date: 20-03-15 Analysis Date: 23-03-15

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

He

ad

Ra

tio

Time (sec)

( )

−

++=

12

2

12

e

e

e

e

e

c

tt hh ln

2RL1

2RLln

2LrK

2



APPENDIX D Results of Vertical Seismic Profile Testing


1931 Robertson Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2H 5B7 Tel: +1 (613) 592 9600 Fax: +1 (613) 592 9601 www.golder.com

Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

This memorandum presents the results of the Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) testing carried out at the proposed

residential building on the Oblates property located at 175 Main Street in Ottawa, Ontario. VSP testing was

completed in borehole 15-3, located behind the current residence, on March 13, 2015. Borehole 15-5 was drilled

to an approximate depth of 36.58 m below the existing ground and then cased with a PVC pipe grouted in place.

The subsurface conditions at the borehole consist of approximately 30 m of clayey to sandy silt and till over

shale bedrock.

Methodology

For the VSP method, seismic energy is generated at the ground surface by an active seismic source and

recorded by a geophone located in a nearby borehole at a known depth. The active seismic source can be

either compression or shear wave. The time required for the energy to travel from the source to the receiver

(geophone) provides a measurement of the average compression or shear wave seismic velocity of the

medium between the source and the receiver. Data obtained from different geophone depths are used to

calculate a detailed vertical seismic velocity profile of the subsurface in the immediate vicinity of the test

borehole (Example 1).

The high resolution results of a VSP survey are often used for earthquake engineering site classification, as per

the National Building Code of Canada, 2010.

DATE March 30, 2015 PROJECT No. 1524337

TO Susan Trickey, P.Eng. Golder Associates Ltd.

FROM Patrick Finlay EMAIL [email protected], [email protected]

VSP TEST RESULTS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OBLATES PROPERTY 175 MAIN STREET, OTTAWA, ONTARIO

Susan Trickey, P.Eng. 1524337

Golder Associates Ltd. March 30, 2015

2/5

Example 1: Layout and resulting time traces from a VSP survey

Field Work

The field work was carried out on March 13, 2015, by personnel from the Golder Ottawa office.

Both compression and shear wave seismic sources were used and both were located in close vicinity to the

borehole. The seismic source for the compression wave test consisted of a 9.9 kilogram sledge hammer

vertically impacted on a metal plate. The plate was located 2 metres from the borehole on the ground surface.

The seismic source for the shear wave test consisted of a 3 metre long, 150 millimetres by 150 millimetres

wooden beam, weighted by a vehicle and horizontally struck with a 9.9 kilogram sledge hammer on alternate

ends of the beam to induce polarized shear waves. The shear source was also located 2 metres from the

borehole, and coupled to the ground surface by parking a vehicle on top of it. Test measurements started at

1.0-metre below the ground surface. Data were recorded in the borehole with a 3-component receiver spaced at

1.0-metre intervals below the ground surface to a maximum depth of the casing (36 metres).

The seismic records collected for each source location were stacked a minimum of ten times to minimize the

effects of ambient background seismic noise on the collected data. The data was sampled at 0.020833 millisecond

intervals and a total time window of 0.341 seconds was collected for each seismic shot.



3/5

Data Processing

Processing of the VSP test results consisted of the following main steps:

1) Combination of seismic records to present seismic traces for all depth intervals on a single plot for each

seismic source and for each component;

2) Low Pass Filtering of data to remove spurious high frequency noise;

3) First break picking of the compression and shear wave arrivals; and,

4) Calculation of the average compression and shear wave velocity to each tested depth interval.

Processing of the VSP data was completed using the SeisImager/SW software package (Geometrics Inc.).

The seismic records are presented on the following two plots and show the first break picks of the compression

wave and shear wave arrivals overlaid on the seismic waveform traces recorded at the different geophone

depths (Figures 1 and 2). The arrivals were picked on the vertical component for the compression source and

on the two horizontal components for the shear source.

`

Figure 1: First break picking of compression wave arrivals (red) along the seismic traces recorded at each receiver depth.



4/5

Figure 2: First break picking of shear wave arrivals (red) along the seismic traces recorded at each receiver depth.

Results

The VSP results are summarized in Table 1. The shear wave and compression wave layer velocities, at the field

collected one-metre intervals, were calculated by best fitting a theoretical travel time model to the field data

collected at half metre intervals. The depths presented on the table are relative to ground surface.

The estimated dynamic engineering moduli, based on the calculated wave velocities, are also presented on

Table 1. The engineering moduli were calculated using an estimated bulk density, based on the borehole log.

A bulk density of 1,850 kg/m3 was used for silty clay from a depth of 0 to 10 m; 2,040 kg/m3 for silty sand/sandy

silt from 10 m to 24 m; 2,200 kg/m3 for till from 25 to 30 m; and, 2,500 kg/m3 was used for shale bedrock from

31 m down to 36 m bgs

The average shear wave velocity from ground surface to a depth of 30 metres was measured to be 283 m/s.

The average shear wave velocity from 6 m to a depth of 36 metres was measured to be 361 m/s.

March 2015 TABLE 1SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY AND COMPRESSIONAL WAVE PROFILE AT BH 15-3

1524337

Top BottomCompressional

Wave (m/s)Shear Wave

(m/s)Poissons

Ratio

Shear Modulus

(MPa)

Deformation Modulus

(MPa)

Bulk Modulus (MPa)

0.0 1 888 415 1850 0.36 319 867 10341.0 2 1178 254 1850 0.48 119 352 24082.0 3 1105 192 1850 0.48 68 202 21683.0 4 1231 188 1850 0.49 65 195 27164.0 5 1318 193 1850 0.49 69 205 31225.0 6 1370 194 1850 0.49 70 207 33796.0 7 1410 197 1850 0.49 72 214 35827.0 8 1425 198 1850 0.49 73 216 36608.0 9 1450 199 1850 0.49 73 218 37929.0 10 1455 197 1850 0.49 72 214 382110.0 11 1465 202 1850 0.49 75 225 387011.0 12 1580 196 2040 0.49 78 234 498812.0 13 1880 319 2040 0.49 208 617 693313.0 14 1880 319 2040 0.49 208 617 693314.0 15 1880 319 2040 0.49 208 617 693315.0 16 1900 319 2040 0.49 208 617 708816.0 17 1905 323 2040 0.49 213 632 711917.0 18 1905 321 2040 0.49 210 624 712318.0 19 1890 320 2040 0.49 209 621 700919.0 20 1890 320 2040 0.49 209 621 700920.0 21 1910 323 2040 0.49 213 632 715821.0 22 1920 325 2040 0.49 215 640 723322.0 23 1900 320 2040 0.49 209 621 708623.0 24 1910 324 2040 0.49 214 636 715724.0 25 1910 324 2040 0.49 214 636 715725.0 26 2000 380 2200 0.48 318 941 837626.0 27 1840 600 2200 0.44 792 2282 639227.0 28 1840 620 2200 0.44 846 2429 632128.0 29 1900 1000 2200 0.31 2200 5757 500929.0 30 2100 1020 2200 0.35 2289 6160 665030.0 31 2100 1010 2200 0.35 2244 6057 671031.0 32 3000 1300 2500 0.38 4225 11698 1686732.0 33 3000 1440 2500 0.35 5184 14000 1558833.0 34 3100 1500 2500 0.35 5625 15155 1652534.0 35 3050 1550 2500 0.33 6006 15927 1524835.0 36 3100 1530 2500 0.34 5852 15672 16222

Notes1. Depth Presented relative to ground surface.2. This Table to be analyzed in conjunction with the accompanying report.

Layer Depth (m) Dynamic Engineering PropertiesEstimated

Bulk Density

(kg/m3)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0 10 20 30 40

Tra

vel

Tim

e (

s)

Depth (m)

Wave Velocity - Field Collected vs. Modelled Data

Field Shear

Model Shear

Field Compression

Model Compression

Golder Associates



APPENDIX E Results of Chemical Analysis EXOVA Environmental Ontario Report No. 1504272

EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis

Client: Golder Associates Ltd. (Ottawa) 1931 Robertson Road Ottawa, ON K2H 5B7Attention: Ms. Susan TrickeyPO#: Invoice to: Golder Associates Ltd. (Ottawa)

Report Number: 1504272 Date Submitted: 2015-03-23Date Reported: 2015-03-25Project: 1524337COC #: 795010

Lab I.D.Sample MatrixSample TypeSampling DateSample I.D.

Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline

8.0

0.012

0.38

2630

0.03 %0.01 SO4

General Chemistry

ohm-cm1 Resistivity mS/cm0.05 Electrical Conductivity %0.002 Cl 2.0 pHAgri. - Soil

1165182Soil

2015-02-26BH 15-3

SA1/1.52-2.13mGroup Analyte MRL Units Guideline

Lab I.D.Sample MatrixSample TypeSampling DateSample I.D.

Page 2 of 3146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1

All analysis completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated by ** which indicates analysis was completed in Mississauga, Ontario).Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted.Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request.

Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range


1931 Robertson Road

Ottawa, Ontario, K2H 5B7

Canada

T: +1 (613) 592 9600

1524337 final rpt-001

Documents