1654967 rep 2017'03'17 geotechnical report - hillsdale ... · pdf file5.1 topsoil...
TRANSCRIPT
March 17, 2017
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT HILLSDALE, ONTARIO
REP
OR
T
Submitted to:GCSJ Hillsdale Development Inc. 3190 Steeles Avenue East, Suite 300 Markham, Ontario L3R 1G9 Attention: Ms. Shauna Dudding, P.Eng.
Report Number: 1654967 (Rev. 1)
Distribution:
1 eCopy – GCSJ Hillsdale Developments Inc. 1 Copy – Golder Associates Ltd.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES ......................................................................................................................... 1
3.1 Field Investigation ..................................................................................................................................... 1
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 2
4.1 Topsoil ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
4.2 (CL/CI-ML) Clayey Silt to Silty Clay .......................................................................................................... 2
4.3 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Upper) .................................................................................................. 3
4.4 (SM) Silty Sand ......................................................................................................................................... 3
4.5 (ML) Sandy Silt ......................................................................................................................................... 3
4.6 (SM) Silty Sand (Till) ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.7 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Lower) .................................................................................................. 4
4.8 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................................... 5
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 5
5.1 Topsoil Stripping and Reuse ..................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Engineered Fill .......................................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Foundation Design .................................................................................................................................... 7
5.3.1 Basement and Garage Floor Slabs ..................................................................................................... 8
5.3.2 Permanent Below-Grade Walls ........................................................................................................... 9
5.4 Excavation for Site Servicing .................................................................................................................... 9
5.4.1 Pipe Bedding and Cover ................................................................................................................... 10
5.4.2 Trench Backfill .................................................................................................................................. 11
5.5 Soil Bulking ............................................................................................................................................. 11
5.6 Construction Dewatering ........................................................................................................................ 12
5.7 Stormwater Management Pond .............................................................................................................. 12
5.8 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................................... 14
5.9 Road Side Ditches .................................................................................................................................. 15
5.10 Culverts .................................................................................................................................................. 15
6.0 ADDITIONAL WORK, INSPECTIONS AND TESTING ....................................................................................... 15
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) ii
ATTACHMENTS Important Information and Limitations of This Report Figure 1 – Key Plan Figure 2 – Borehole Location Plan Figures 3 to 7 APPENDIX A Method of Soil Classification
Abbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits
List of Symbols
Record of Boreholes 16-1 to 16-5, TB-1, TB-2 and SWM-1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has been retained by GCSJ Hillsdale Development Inc. to provide geotechnical
engineering services in support of the design of a residential development within the existing Sarjeant lands, in
Hillsdale, in the Township of Springwater, Ontario.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the geotechnical information (soil and groundwater) acquired in this
area and to provide preliminary recommendations and comments on the geotechnical aspects of the design and
construction of the proposed development.
The factual data, interpretations and preliminary recommendations contained in this report pertain to a specific
project as described in the report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. If the project is
modified in concept, location or elevation, or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the
report, Golder should be given an opportunity to confirm that the preliminary recommendations are still valid. In
addition, this report should be read in conjunction with the attached "Important Information and Limitations of This
Report", attached to this report. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to this information, as it is essential
for the proper use and interpretation of this report.
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND It is understood that GCSJ Hillsdale Development Inc. is proposing to develop the Sarjeant Lands as residential
lots, a tile bed and a Storm Water Management (SWM) Pond. The proposed development property is located
north and adjacent to the Hillsdale Heritage Village Development, which is draft plan approved. The Sarjeant
Lands are about 200 m wide north to south and the portion of the lands to be developed extend east about 800 m
from Penetanguishene Road (Highway 93). The site is located in the Township of Springwater, County of Simcoe,
Ontario, as shown on Figure 1.
Based on the current Draft Plan prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. dated December 7, 2016, the proposed
development will consist of residential lots, associated roadways, a tile bed block located on the east boundary of
the property and a SWM pond that is located in the south eastern corner of the site and west of the tile bed block.
3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
3.1 Field Investigation A subsurface investigation was carried out at the site between April 20, 2016 and April 22, 2016, during which time
a total of eight boreholes were advanced at the site (Boreholes 16-1 to 16-5, TB-1, TB-2 and SWM-1). The
surveyed borehole locations are indicated on the attached Figure 2.
The boreholes were drilled using a buggy-mounted drill rig supplied and operated by a specialist drilling contractor.
Soil samples were obtained in the boreholes at approximately 0.75 m and 1.5 m intervals of depth, where possible,
using 50 mm outer diameter split-spoon samplers driven by an automatic hammer, in accordance with the
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedures (ASTM D1586). The split-spoon samplers used in the investigation
limit the maximum particle size that can be sampled and tested to about 38 mm. Therefore, particles or objects
that may exist within the soils that are larger than this dimension will not be sampled or represented in the grain
size distributions. The results of the in situ field tests (i.e., SPT ‘N’-values) as presented on the Record of Borehole
sheets and in subsequent sections of this report are uncorrected.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 2
The groundwater conditions were noted in the open boreholes during drilling. Monitoring wells, 50 mm diameter,
were installed in selected boreholes and were equipped with above ground steel casing access covers to allow for
subsequent monitoring of the groundwater levels at the site.
The field work was observed on a full-time basis by a member of Golder’s engineering staff who arranged for the
clearance of underground utility services, directed the sampling and in-situ testing operations, and logged the
subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes. All of the samples obtained during this investigation were
brought to our Barrie laboratory for further examination, natural water content testing and selective classification
testing.
The borehole locations were staked out in the field by Golder personnel prior to the drilling operations. Following
the drilling, the borehole and monitoring well locations were surveyed by licenced surveyors. The ground surface
elevations (referenced to Geodetic Datum) at the borehole locations were also surveyed at that time.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes, as well as the results of the field
and laboratory testing are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix A and on Figures 3 to 7,
respectively, following the text of this report. Golder’s “Method of Soil Classification” and “Abbreviations and Terms
Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits” are also attached in Appendix A to assist in the interpretation of the
borehole logs. It should be noted that the boundaries between the soil strata have been inferred from drilling
observations and non-continuous samples. They generally represent a transition from one soil type to another
and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of geological change. Further, conditions will vary between
and beyond the boreholes.
In general, the subsurface conditions at the site are variable throughout the site and consist of a surficial layer of
topsoil, underlain by a near surface deposits of sand and silty sand. The underlying stratigraphic sequence is
variable and consists of deposits of silty clay, clayey silt, sandy silt, and silty sand and silty sand till. Groundwater
was encountered in several of the boreholes on completion of drilling and subsequently measured in the monitoring
wells was found to vary throughout the site. A more detailed description of the major soil strata and groundwater
conditions is presented below.
4.1 Topsoil A layer of topsoil ranging in thickness from about 80 mm to 200 mm was encountered at all borehole locations.
4.2 (CL/CI-ML) Clayey Silt to Silty Clay A deposit of cohesive, brown, clayey silt to silty clay containing varying amount of sand was encountered in
Boreholes 16-1 and 16-3. The deposit thickness ranged from 2.3 m to 3.7 m, with only minor variation in the
consistency.
The SPT “N”-values measured in the clayey silt to silty clay ranged from 8 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to
40 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a stiff to hard consistency. In general, the “N”-values were between
8 and 14 indicating the deposit is generally stiff. The higher “N”-values (i.e. hard) of 40 blows per 0.3 m and
50 blows per 0.15 m of penetration were measured in the lower portion of the silty clay deposit in Borehole 16-3.
The natural water contents measured on select samples of the cohesive clayey silt to silty clay range from 21 per
cent to 37 per cent.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 3
The results of grain size distribution tests completed on two selected samples of the silty clay deposit are shown
on Figure 3. Atterberg Limits testing carried out on two selected samples of the cohesive silty clay deposit
measured liquid limits ranging between about 38 and 42 per cent, plastic limits ranging between about 20 and
22 per cent and plasticity indices ranging between about 18 and 20. These results indicate that the cohesive
deposit is classified as a silty clay of intermediate plasticity. The grain size distribution curves for two selected
samples of the silty clay are shown on Figure 4.
4.3 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Upper) An upper sand deposit, ranging from 0.5 m to 3.0 m in thickness, was encountered below the topsoil in each of
the boreholes, excluding Borehole 16-4. Gravelly sand was encountered in Borehole TB-1 below the upper sand
layer. The gravelly sand to sand deposit contained varying amounts of fines, is non-cohesive, moist to wet and
was brown to dark brown in colour.
The SPT “N”-values measured in the gravelly sand to sand deposit range from 2 blows to 18 blows per 0.3 m of
penetration indicating that these soils are very loose to compact. In general, the “N”-values were less than 6 blows
indicating that the deposit is generally in a very loose to loose state of compactness, with the two higher
(i.e. compact state) “N”-values of 16 and 18 measured near the surface of the underlying till deposit.
The natural water contents measured on select samples of the upper gravelly sand to sand deposit range between
approximately 6 and 19 per cent. A grain size distribution curve for one selected sample of the sand is shown on
Figure 5.
4.4 (SM) Silty Sand A silty sand deposit, ranging from 0.5 m to 1.4 m in thickness, was encountered in each of the boreholes, excluding
Boreholes 16-3 and TB-1. The silty sand deposit contained varying amounts of fines, is non-cohesive, moist to
wet and brown/dark brown to grey in colour.
The SPT “N”-values measured in the upper portion of the silty sand deposit ranged from 2 blows to 6 blows per
0.3 m of penetration indicating that the upper portion of the deposit is in a very loose to loose state of compactness.
The lower portion of the deposit measured SPT “N”-values ranging from 27 blows to 38 blows per 0.3 m of
penetration indicating that the lower portion of the deposit is in a compact to dense state of compactness.
The natural water contents measured on select samples of the silty sand deposit range between approximately
8 per cent and 21 per cent. The grain size distribution curves for two selected samples of the silty sand are shown
on Figure 6.
4.5 (ML) Sandy Silt A sandy silt deposit was encountered in Boreholes 16-1, 16-2, 16-4, and SWM-1. The sandy silt is non-cohesive,
moist to wet and brown to grey in colour. The deposit ranges in thickness from 0.7 m to over 2.3 m, as
Boreholes 16-1 and 16-2 were terminated in this deposit at a maximum depth of 6.6 m below ground surface.
The SPT “N”-values measured in the sandy silt deposit ranged from 1 blow to 4 blows per 0.3 m of penetration
indicating that the upper portion of the deposit is in a very loose state of compactness. The lower portion of the
deposit measured SPT “N”-values ranging from 19 blows to 51 blows per 0.3 m of penetration indicating that the
lower portion of the deposit is in a compact to very dense state of compactness.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 4
The natural water contents measured on select samples of the sandy silt range between approximately 12 per
cent and 25 per cent.
4.6 (SM) Silty Sand (Till) A deposit of non-cohesive, moist to wet, brown to grey silty sand till was encountered below the cohesive and
non-cohesive deposits in each of the boreholes, excluding Boreholes 16-1 and 16-2. The deposit ranges in
thickness from 1.4 m to over 6.6 m as Boreholes 16-3 to 16-5 and TB-1 were terminated within the till deposit at a
maximum depth of 9.6 m. Although cobbles and boulders were not noted during drilling through the till deposits
at this site, cobbles and boulders are commonly encountered in glacially derived materials and should be expected
within these deposits.
The SPT “N”-values measured within the silty sand till deposit range from 11 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to
56 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating that the deposit is compact to very dense. One sample did not penetrate
the full sample depth at the bottom of Borehole 16-5, which could be indicative of the presence of a cobble/boulder.
The natural water content of the silty sand till samples range from about 7 per cent to 14 per cent. The grain size
distribution curves of four samples of the silty sand till deposit are shown on Figure 7.
4.7 (SW/SP) Gravelly Sand to Sand (Lower) A lower deposit of non-cohesive, moist to wet, brown to grey gravelly sand to sand was encountered in
Boreholes TB-2 and SWM-1 underlying the silty sand and silty sand till deposits. The gravelly sand was
encountered in Borehole TB-2 at a depth of about 8.6 m below existing ground surface and was terminated in this
deposit at a depth of 9.6 m. The sand was encountered in Borehole SWM-1 at a depth of about 4.4 m below
existing ground surface and was terminated in this deposit at a depth of 9.3 m.
The SPT “N”-values measured in the lower gravelly sand to sand deposit range between 31 blows and 55 blows
per 0.3 m of penetration indicating that these soils are dense to very dense. One sample did not penetrate the full
sample depth at the bottom of Borehole SWM-1.
The natural water contents measured on the gravelly sand to sand were approximately 13 per cent and 19 per
cent.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 5
4.8 Groundwater Conditions The groundwater conditions encountered during this investigation and monitoring well installation details are
presented on the Record of Borehole sheets. The groundwater levels measured in monitoring wells are
summarized in the following table:
Table 1: Groundwater Measurements
Borehole No.
Surface Elevation
(m)
On Completion April 22, 2016 October 18, 2016
Depth Below
Existing Grade (m)
Elevation (m)
Depth Below Existing
Grade (m)
Elevation (m)
Depth Below Existing
Grade (m)
Elevation (m)
BH16-1 252.62 4.6 248.02 1.64 250.98 4.60 248.02
BH16-2 250.07 2.3 247.77 n/a n/a
BH16-3 245.48 5.3 240.18 1.60 243.88 6.01 239.47
BH16-4 247.21 Dry - 1.26 245.95 5.08 242.13
BH16-5 245.71 Dry - n/a n/a
TB-1 243.90 Dry - 2.65 241.25 5.29 238.42
TB-2 243.12 3.1 240.02 n/a n/a
SWM-1 244.98 4.6 240.38 2.80 242.18 5.48 239.69
It should be noted that the groundwater levels at the site are anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal variations in
precipitation and runoff.
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the report provides engineering recommendations for the geotechnical design aspects of the project
based on our interpretation of the boreholes advanced at the site. The information in this portion of the report is
provided for the guidance of the design engineers and professionals. Where comments are made on construction,
they are provided only in order to highlight aspects of construction which could affect the design of the project.
Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results of the investigation,
satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction and make their own interpretation of the
factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, equipment capabilities, costs,
sequencing and the like.
Our professional services for this assignment address only the geotechnical (physical) aspects of the subsurface
conditions at this site. The geo-environmental (chemical) aspects, including the consequences 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 of the terms of reference for this report.
It is understood that the site will be developed as a residential subdivision with accompanying site servicing
including a leaching tile bed and SWM Pond. The general grading will result in the roads being approximately
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 6
0.5 m to 1.0 m above the original ground surface elevations. The depths of the proposed pipe invert elevations
for underground services are anticipated to be between 3 m and 4 m below the existing ground surface. The SWM
pond will have its deeper base at El. 240.75 m and the normal water level at El. 242.25 m. The proposed re-
grading of the site may be carried out using engineered fill. The results of this investigation should be reviewed
by Golder once the final designs of the proposed residential development are available.
5.1 Topsoil Stripping and Reuse Topsoil was encountered in all the boreholes advanced at this site. Surface probing to determine topsoil thickness
in more detail should be carried out in advance of preparing the final plans. The following geotechnical comments
are provided regarding topsoil stripping and reuse at the site:
Consideration may be given to selective stripping operations, consisting of road allowances and building
envelopes (including driveways).
Outside of road allowances and building envelopes, the topsoil may be buried and/or reused as general lot
fill to raise grades. The primary factor controlling methane generation is the organic carbon content of the
topsoil. The loss on ignition (LOI) test provides an indication of the organic carbon content of the sample.
Generally, an LOI value of less than 20 per cent is considered to be acceptable in terms of methane
generation potential. If topsoil is to be reused as general lot fill to raise grades, then LOI testing should be
carried out.
Where the topsoil is used as general lot fill, its thickness should be limited to about 1.2 m. The topsoil fill
should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to 95 per cent of the material’s
Standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). To have any success in placing topsoil as lot grading fill,
it must be placed at or very close to its optimum water content to achieve workability and adequate
compaction, in order to minimize post-construction settlements and/or lateral movements (e.g. of fences,
etc.).
5.2 Engineered Fill Based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, deposits of potentially compressible soils
(stiff silty clay deposits) were encountered in Boreholes 16-1 and 16-3. Once the final grading plans have been
prepared, Golder should review the grade raises, if any, to determine if the silty clay deposit is susceptible to
settlement. However, grade raises of less than about 4 m should not result in any long-term consolidation
settlement based on the consistency of the silty clay deposit. If significant grade raises are planned, the silty clay
and near surface loose to very loose granular deposits may have to be removed before placing engineered fill if
they are within the zone of influence of the building foundations.
Prior to placing engineered fill at the site, the topsoil and the surficial layers containing organic matter, must first
be stripped. The area(s) should then be proof rolled in conjunction with an inspection by qualified geotechnical
personnel, to confirm that the exposed soils are native, undisturbed and competent, and have been adequately
cleaned of ponded water and all fill as well as disturbed, loosened, softened, organic and other deleterious
materials. Remedial work (i.e., further sub-excavation and replacement) should be carried out as directed by
qualified geotechnical personnel.
Materials for reuse as engineered fill must be approved by qualified geotechnical personnel prior to placement. In
this regard, excavated native soils from the site, free of significant amounts of organics and other deleterious
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 7
materials, may be reused as engineered fill. Based on the measured natural water contents, most of the native
materials (except for the glacial till deposits) encountered in the boreholes are generally higher than their estimated
laboratory optimum water contents for compaction and will require drying prior to compaction. It should also be
noted that due to the fine-grained nature of the near surface soils, their workability is sensitive to moisture
conditions and some difficulty should be expected in achieving adequate compaction during wet weather.
If imported materials are to be used for engineered fill, they must be approved by Golder at the source(s), prior to
hauling to the site. In this regard, imported granular materials which meet the requirements for OPSS Select
Subgrade Material (SSM) would be suitable for use as engineered fill. The approved materials for engineered fill
should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 98 per cent of SPMDD
throughout. The placement of engineered fill must be monitored by Golder on a full-time basis.
The final surface of the engineered fill should be protected as necessary from construction traffic, and should be
sloped to provide positive drainage for surface water during and following the construction period. During periods
of freezing weather, additional soil cover should be placed above final subgrade to provide for frost protection.
Prior to placing additional engineered fill, the surface of the existing engineered fill must be re-inspected by Golder.
5.3 Foundation Design Based on the results of this investigation, the subsurface soil conditions are variable throughout the site with the
upper about 2 m compactness of the near surface sand, silty sand and sandy silt being very loose to loose. Below
about 2 m depth below ground surface, the deposits are generally compact to dense/stiff. Light residential single
family houses with basements may be founded on conventional shallow spread and/or continuous strip footings
bearing in the native, undisturbed soils below the loose to very loose surficial deposits. Such footings should be
designed using a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 200 kPa and geotechnical
reaction at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 125 kPa, for a maximum 25 mm of settlement at or below the
proposed founding depths given in Table 2 below. These bearing values are based on the assumption that strip
footings have a minimum width of 450 mm, spread footings have a minimum dimension of 1 m and maximum
dimension of 3 m. The footings can be founded below these depths to accommodate basements dimensions.
Table 2: Proposed Minimum Founding Depths
Borehole ID
Minimum Depth below Existing Ground
Surface
(m)*
Corresponding Maximum Elevation
(m) Anticipated Founding
Soils
16-1 2.2 250.4 Stiff silty clay
16-2 2.2 247.9 Compact sandy silt
16-3 1.5 244.0 Stiff silty clay
16-4 1.5 245.7 Compact silty sand till
16-5 2.2 243.5 Compact silty sand till
*at least 1.6 m of soil cover, or equivalent insulation, is required after final grading for frost protection.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 8
For foundations in engineered fill, if required to raise the grade, provided that the engineered fill thickness is at
least 2 m, a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of 225 kPa and a geotechnical reaction
at Serviceability Limit State (SLS, for 25 mm of settlement) of 150 kPa may be used. This recommendation
assumes that the engineered fill areas are constructed above suitable subgrade soils at the depths indicated above
and follow the recommendations above.
For an engineered fill thickness less than 2 m, the ULS and SLS values provided above for the native soils should
be used.
Golder should be given the opportunity to review all foundation recommendations once foundation elevations are
finalized.
All foundation excavations at the site should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety
Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. The founding materials are susceptible to disturbance by
construction activity especially during wet weather and care should be taken to preserve the integrity of the
materials as bearing strata. Prior to pouring concrete for the footings, the foundation excavations should be
inspected by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that the footings are founded within an undisturbed and
competent bearing stratum that has been cleaned of ponded water and all disturbed, softened, loosened, organic
and other deleterious material. It is essential that all footings founded on engineered fill and/or native soils be
inspected by Golder prior to pouring concrete.
Where spread footings are constructed at different elevations, the difference in elevation between the individual
footings should not be greater than one half the clear distances between the footings. In addition, the lower footings
should be constructed first so that if it is necessary to construct the lower footings at a greater depth than anticipated,
the elevation of the upper footings can be adjusted accordingly. Stepped strip footings should be constructed in
accordance with the Ontario Building Code, Section 9.15.3.8.
All exterior footings and footings in unheated areas should be provided with at least 1.6 m of soil cover after final
grading, or equivalent thermal insulation, to minimize the potential for damage due to frost action. In addition, the
bearing soil and fresh concrete should be protected from freezing during cold weather construction.
5.3.1 Basement and Garage Floor Slabs
In preparation for the construction of the basement and garage floor slabs, all loose, wet, and disturbed material
should be removed from beneath the floor slabs. Provision should be made for at least 200 millimetres of OPSS
Granular ‘A’ or 19 mm Crusher Run Limestone to form the base of the floor slabs.
To prevent hydrostatic pressure build up beneath the basement and garage floor slabs, it is suggested that the
granular base below the floor slabs be positively drained. This could be achieved by providing a hydraulic link
between the underslab fill material and the exterior perimeter drainage system. The perimeter drainage system
will be pumped to the road side ditch.
Although the groundwater levels at the site were observed to fluctuate, the groundwater levels were measured as
high as 1.2 m to 2.8 m below ground surface during April 2016. Localized perched water tables may be
encountered within the near surface non-cohesive deposits overlying the silty clay deposits (Boreholes 16-1 and
16-3). If the groundwater level is encountered above subgrade level, a geotextile should be placed between the
underslab fill and the granular subgrade soils, to control the potential loss of fine soil particles from the subgrade
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 9
soil into the drainage system. In the extreme case, loss of fines into the drainage system could cause ground loss
beneath the slab, slab settlement and plugging of the drainage system which could result in wet basements.
5.3.2 Permanent Below-Grade Walls
The design of the basement foundation walls for the residential buildings should take into account the horizontal
soil loads, hydrostatic pressure and surcharge loads that may occur during or after construction. The permanent
below-grade wall is considered to be a rigid structure and should be designed to resist at-rest lateral earth
pressures calculated as follows:
p = K ( h + q)
where:
p = lateral earth pressure acting depth z, kPa
K = Ko at rest earth pressure coefficient, use 0.5
= unit weight of retained soil, a value of 21 kN/m3 may be assumed
h = depth to point of interest in soil, metres
q = equivalent value of surcharge on the ground surface, kPa
The above expression assumes that the perimeter drainage system prevents the build-up of any hydrostatic
pressure behind the wall. Should hydrostatic pressures act on the walls, they must be included in calculating the
lateral earth pressures.
Drainage of the wall backfill should be provided by means of a perforated pipe subdrain in a surround of concrete
sand, fully wrapped in geotextile, which leads by gravity drainage to a sump pit. Conventional damp proofing of
the basement walls is appropriate with the above design approach.
Where backfilling of below-grade walls is required, the backfill materials should consist of imported, free-draining
granular soils approved by Golder. The backfill materials should be placed evenly in lifts not exceeding 200 mm
of loose thickness. The layers should be compacted to at least 95 per cent of the materials’ SPMDD. Light
compaction equipment should be used immediately adjacent to the wall; otherwise compaction stresses on the
wall may be greater than that imposed by the backfill material. The upper 0.3 m of backfill should consist of clayey
material to provide a relatively impermeable cap and the exterior grade should also be shaped to slope away from
the building. Alternatively, where site excavated material is to be reused for all backfill, an approved geo-composite
drainage system should be used directly against the wall.
5.4 Excavation for Site Servicing The underground services are anticipated to be located between 3 m and 4 m depth below ground surface. The
native stiff silty clay, compact gravelly sand, sand, silty sand and/or sandy silt and compact silty sand till is
considered to be suitable for supporting the pipes, provided the integrity of the base can be maintained during
construction. Some difficulty may be encountered in excavating the compact to dense tills encountered in
Boreholes 16-4 and 16-5, if the excavation extends into these deposits, due to the potential presence of cobbles
and boulders, as previously noted.
Based on the groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes during drilling, the pipes are anticipated to be
near or below the local groundwater table at most locations. Groundwater control during excavation within the
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 10
predominant near surface non-cohesive deposits will require some form of active dewatering (such as well points).
As such, it is our opinion that a Permit to Take Water will likely be required for installation of the underground
infrastructure. Further details are provided in Sections 5.6 and 5.7.
It is recommended to carry out a "public digging" (i.e. test pitting) during the tender stage, to allow prospective
bidders to assess the subsurface conditions and determine the type of groundwater control required, consistent
with their equipment capabilities and the actual groundwater conditions at that time. The locations of the test pits
should be determined in consultation with Golder.
It is anticipated that the trench excavations will consist of conventional temporary open cuts, with side slopes not
steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical below the groundwater table (without pro-active dewatering) and 1 horizontal
to 1 vertical above the groundwater table or in soils that have been sufficiently dewatered. However, depending
upon the construction procedures adopted by the contractor, actual groundwater seepage conditions, the success
of the contractor’s groundwater control methods and weather conditions at the time of construction, some flattening
and/or blanketing of the slopes may be required. Care should be taken to direct surface runoff away from the
open excavations and all excavations should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety
Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. According to OHSA, the near surface very loose to loose non-
cohesive materials would be classified as Type 4 soils; and the compact to dense glacial till and stiff silty clay
deposits would be classified as Type 3 soils, above the water table. Unless the very loose surficial materials are
removed and replaced with engineered fill, the temporary trenches will have to be sloped at 3 horizontal to
1 vertical and the soils classified as Type 4 soils.
Some trench excavations could be carried out using a vertically excavated, unsupported excavations (using a
properly engineered trench liner box for protection, certified by an experienced engineer); or by a supported
(sheeted) excavation if conditions warrant in wet areas and/or in close proximity to adjacent underground services.
It must be emphasized that a trench liner box provides protection for construction personnel but does not provide
any lateral support for adjacent excavation walls, underground services or existing structures. It is imperative that
underground services and existing structures adjacent to the trench excavations be accurately located prior to
construction and adequate support provided where required.
If required to support adjacent services or structures, shoring may be used and could consist of braced soldier pile
and lagging, braced sheet piles or potentially a slide rail system designed by a Professional Engineer including
assessment of the potential for basal heave. If shoring is implemented at the site, the requirements of
OPSS.PROV 539 should be followed. Design of temporary works will be entirely the responsibility of the
contractor.
5.4.1 Pipe Bedding and Cover
The bedding for watermains and sewers should be compatible with the type and class of pipe, the surrounding
subsoil and anticipated loading conditions and should be designed in accordance with Township of Springwater
or County of Simcoe standards. Where granular bedding is deemed to be acceptable, it should consist of at least
150 mm of OPSS Granular A or 19 mm crusher run limestone material. From the springline to 300 mm above the
obvert of the pipe, sand cover may be used. All bedding and cover materials should be placed in maximum
150 mm loose lifts and should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 per cent of SPMDD. Clear stone bedding
material should not be used in any case for pipe bedding or to stabilize the base.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 11
5.4.2 Trench Backfill
The excavated materials from the site will consist of silty sand to sand, silty sand till or silty clay. The majority of the native subsoils (except for the glacial till deposits) encountered in the boreholes are generally higher than their estimated laboratory optimum water contents for compaction. The excavated materials at suitable water contents may be reused as trench backfill provided they are free of significant amounts of topsoil, organics or other deleterious material, and are placed and compacted as outlined below. All topsoil and organic materials should be wasted or used for landscaping purposes. All oversized cobbles and boulders (i.e. greater than 150 mm in size) should be removed from the backfill. Where the trench will be covered with a hard surfaced area, the type of native material placed in the frost zone (between subgrade level and 1.6 metres depth) should match the soil exposed on the trench walls for frost heave compatibility.
All trench backfill, from the top of the cover material to 1 m below subgrade elevation, should be placed in
maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 95 per cent of SPMDD. From 1 m below
subgrade to subgrade elevation, the materials should be compacted to at least 98 per cent of SPMDD.
Alternatively, if water contents at the time of placement are too high, or if there is a shortage of suitable in-situ
material, then an approved imported sandy material which meets the requirements for OPSS Select Subgrade
Material (SSM) could be used. It should be placed in loose lift thicknesses and compaction requirements as
indicated above. Backfilling operations during cold weather should avoid inclusions of frozen lumps of material,
snow and ice.
Normal post-construction settlement of the compacted trench backfill should be anticipated, with the majority of
such settlement taking place within about six months following the completion of trench backfilling operations. This
settlement will be reflected at the ground surface and in pavement reconstruction areas, may be compensated for
where necessary by placing additional granular material prior to asphalt paving. However, since it is anticipated
that the asphalt binder course will be placed shortly following the completion of trench backfilling operations, any
settlement that may be reflected by subsidence of the surface of the binder asphalt should be compensated for by
placing an additional thickness of binder asphalt or by padding. In any event, it is recommended that the surface
course asphalt should not be placed over the binder course asphalt (across the full road width) for at least
12 months. Post-construction settlement of the restored ground surface in any boulevard/ditch trench areas is
also expected and should be topped-up and re-landscaped, as required.
It should be noted that in some cases, even though the compaction requirements have been met, the subgrade
strength in the trench backfill areas may not be adequate to support heavy construction loading, especially during
wet weather or where backfill materials wet of optimum have been placed. In any event, the subgrade should be
proofrolled and inspected by Golder prior to placing the Granular B subbase and additional subbase material
placed, as required, consistent with the prevailing weather conditions and anticipated use by construction traffic.
5.5 Soil Bulking Soil bulking is the increase in total volume of soil over the volume of the same material in the undisturbed state.
Bulking of native soils occurs when they are excavated from undisturbed ground. It should be noted that due to
the variability of the subsoils on the site, the actual soil bulking factor can only be best determined when the
proposed site grading plan is available and a series of additional laboratory and in-situ field tests are completed
on the proposed "cut" soils. However, for initial design purposes and considering the predominant native silty
sand to sand soils at this site, bulking of about 15 per cent (increase in total volume) would be expected after
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 12
excavation and prior to re-compaction. After re-compaction, bulking of about 5 per cent would be expected. Higher
values may be anticipated for the silty clay soils.
5.6 Construction Dewatering Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during the borehole investigation, it is anticipated that due to the
relatively high water levels measured across the site, active dewatering will be required for excavations for the site
services and potentially for at least some of the proposed basements. In order to maintain the stability of the
sidewalls and base of the excavation, an external groundwater control system (e.g. well points or eductor wells)
will be required to sufficiently lower the groundwater level in the granular deposits (e.g. to a level at a minimum of
1 m below the base of the excavation) before the excavation deepens. Design of the dewatering system will be
entirely the responsibility of the contractor.
It is anticipated that the construction dewatering activities will require a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) or
Environmental Activity and Section Registry (EASR) be obtained from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change (MOECC). A hydrogeological assessment will be required along with the appropriate permit applications,
including a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) or Environmental Activity and Section Registry (EASR), to reduce
potential groundwater related construction delays and to support the design of long-term basement drainage
requirements.
5.7 Stormwater Management Pond Borehole SWM-1 was advanced in the area of the proposed SWM pond. Underlying the topsoil a deposit of very
loose to loose sand to sandy silt was encountered which extended to a depth of about 2.1 m below ground surface
(Elevation 242.9 m). The near surface sand to sandy silt is underlain by a deposit of compact to dense silty sand
till extending to a depth of about 3.7 m below ground surface (Elevation 241.3 m). The glacial till deposit is
underlain by a deposit of dense to very dense silty sand to sand in which the borehole terminated at a depth of
about 9.3 m below ground surface (Elevation 235.7 m). The lower pond bottom elevation is set at 240.75 m (depth
of about 4.3 m) and normal operating level of the pond is set at an elevation of 242.25 m (depth of about 2.75 m).
The groundwater level in the monitoring well installed in Borehole SWM-1 was measured at as high as about 2.8 m
(Elevation 242.2 m) on April 22, 2016 which is very close to the design normal operating water level.
The excavation of the pond will extend through non-cohesive deposits below the groundwater table. Pro-
active dewatering will be required to facilitate stable pond construction below the groundwater table. It is
anticipated that groundwater control will require perimeter well points or educator wells in addition to pumping
from filtered sumps.
The operating normal water level of the pond will be at about the measured groundwater level; however, the
groundwater level is likely to vary seasonally.
To minimize groundwater and stormwater interaction along the pond excavation and slopes, the base and
slopes should be lined with a low hydraulic conductivity liner, such as a Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) or a
0.6 m thick compacted clay liner (minimum Plasticity Index of 10 and minimum fines 15%). Both liner types
will require a minimum of 300 mm of clayey soil over the top as a protection layer with a maximum particle
size of 100 mm. Prior to placing of the GCL the subgrade will have to be prepared and inspected to ensure
that the surface receiving the GCL is smooth and free of any debris, sharp rocks or other deleterious materials
larger than 50 mm as well as free of any voids, large cracks, standing water or ice. The clay liner should
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 13
consist of material which is consistent in composition without any significant zones of silt, sand or gravel. The
largest particle size should not exceed 100 mm. The material for the clay liner should be placed in maximum
150 mm thick lifts at a water content between 0 to 4 per cent above its optimum water content and compacted
to a least 95 per cent of the SPMDD.
Resistance to buoyancy of the liner will be required during maintenance activities (i.e. when the pond is
drained). In this regard, the liner will need to be covered with sufficient soil weight (ballast) to counteract the
upward seepage pressures based on the water levels at the site. The top of the ballast should consist of
50 mm-150mm gravel/rip rap to help minimize the potential of damaging the liner during maintenance period.
The material used to construct berms for the pond (if required) should be approved by Golder prior to
placement. In this regard, the excavated materials would be suitable for reuse for berm construction provided
these materials are at suitable moisture contents and cobbles/boulders are removed. The non-cohesive
deposits of sand to sandy silt encountered on site are not suitable for berm construction. The approved
material to construct berms should be placed in maximum 300 mm loose lifts and uniformly compacted to
at least 98 per cent of the SPMDD. Strict control over the water content of the material will be necessary.
Care should be taken to ensure homogeneity of the constructed berm (i.e. no erodible layers). The prepared
foundation for the berm should be inspected by Golder prior to placement of berm fill material.
It is understood that the pond slopes will not be steeper than 4 horizontal to 1 vertical (4H:1V) above the
normal water level; side slopes below the permanent water level will be no steeper than 5H:1V or flatter.
These slopes are considered to be stable subject to inspection by Golder during construction. To prevent
the potential for surface erosion, a seeded erosion mat should be installed as soon as possible on all slopes
above the permanent pond level. The slopes should be maintained until the roots have taken hold.
Where pipes enter or exit the pond, they should be provided with a concrete collar and be backfilled with a
relatively impermeable material (e.g. silty clay to clayey silt) to minimize preferential flow through the pipe
bedding and backfill and possible loss of ground. Pipes entering or exiting the pond should be sized and
designed to allow for cleaning.
The pond will be equipped with an emergency spillway designed to eliminate the possibility of over-topping
of the berms.
The non-cohesive deposits encountered in the borehole and anticipated at the base of the pond are extremely
susceptible to disturbance by heavy construction equipment, which would affect construction traffic on the
base of the excavation, especially during wet weather and/or where seepage is encountered. A base
treatment may be required, such as blanketing with crushed stone or the like, to protect the exposed base,
to facilitate construction and future maintenance.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 14
5.8 Pavement Design This section of the report provides engineering information for the geotechnical/pavement design aspects of the
project, based on our interpretation of the information obtained under this investigation, and our understanding of
the project requirements.
As traffic information was not available, it is anticipated that the proposed residential roads will be used by
homeowners as well as emergency and garbage collection vehicles. Golder should be given an opportunity to
review the pavement design once the traffic data is available or the traffic loads are different from that assumed.
Based on the results of the investigation, the predominant subgrade material at this site is expected to be silty
sand. The recommended pavement structure for the proposed residential roads is as follows; and is consistent
with the pavement designs within the Township of Springwater Engineering Design Standards.
Table 3: Pavement Design
Topsoil or any organic matter encountered within the footprint of the proposed roadway should be stripped
completely regardless of depth.
The subgrade should be proofrolled prior to placement of any granular materials. Loose or soft areas identified
by proofrolling should be sub-excavated and replaced with Select Subgrade Material (SSM), compacted to provide
a stable uniform subgrade to meet the requirements of OPSS.MUNI 501 (November 2014). The remedial work
should be carried out on any disturbed, softened or poorly performing zones, as directed by Golder. After
proofrolling, grade the subgrade to the desired crossfall and compact any required fill material to a minimum of
98 per cent of the material’s SPMDD within 1 m below subgrade level.
The granular base and subbase materials should be placed and compacted to meet the requirements of
OPSS.MUNI 1010 (November 2013) and OPSS.MUNI 501 (November 2014). The granular base and subbase
materials should be compacted to 100 per cent of the material’s SPMDD. Care should be taken during excavation
to ensure that the new granular materials are not contaminated by construction traffic.
The hot mix asphaltic concrete should be produced, placed and compacted to meet the requirements of
OPSS 1150 (November 2010) and OPSS 310 (November 2012). Design and placement of Superpave mixes
should conform to current OPSS and AASHTO specifications. The asphalt cements should conform to
Material Standard 8.5 m Road
Thickness of Pavement Layers (mm)
Asphaltic Concrete (OPSS 1150)
HL 3 or Superpave 12.5 Surface Course
40
HL 4, HL 8 or Superpave 19.0 Binder Course
50
Granular Materials (OPSS. MUNI 1010)
Granular A Base 150
Granular B, Type I Subbase 300
Total Pavement Thickness (mm) 540
Prepared and Approved Subgrade
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1) 15
OPSS.MUNI 1101 (November 2013). It is recommended that PG 58-28 asphalt cement be used for all asphalt
mixes. The hot mix asphalt should be compacted to at least 92 per cent of the material’s Maximum Relative
Density (MRD). Tack coat should be applied between the surface and binder courses of the asphaltic concrete.
Where new pavement abuts existing pavement (e.g. at the development limits), proper transverse joints should
be constructed to key the new asphalt into adjacent existing surface. The existing asphalt edge should be provided
with a proper sawcut edge prior to keying in the new asphalt. It should be ensured that any undermining or broken
edges resulting from the construction activities are removed by the sawcut.
It should be noted that in some cases, even though the compaction requirements have been met, the subgrade
strength may not be adequate to support heavy construction loading especially during wet weather or where
subgrade soils are wet of optimum. In this regard, the design subbase thickness may not be sufficient for a
construction haul road and additional granular materials may be required. The subgrade should be proofrolled
and inspected by Golder prior to placing the subbase and additional material placed as required to address the
subgrade soil conditions and the anticipated construction traffic.
5.9 Road Side Ditches To preserve the integrity of the completed paved areas, a permanent drainage system is recommended. For this
subdivision development, ditching is proposed to accomplish sufficient drainage for the pavement structure. The
inverts of ditches should be established at least 0.3 m below the elevation of the top of subgrade and, due to the
presence of very loose to loose upper sandy deposits, should be sloped not steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
The ditches should be grassed or lined with sufficient materials to promote resistance to erosion. Ongoing
maintenance is recommended to promote the long term stability of the ditch slopes.
5.10 Culverts Two box culverts are proposed to cross the southern boundary of Sarjeant Lands. The eastern twin 1830 mm x
910 mm concrete culvert will have inverts of ranging from El. 242.1 m to El. 242.2 m. The western twin 1830 mm
x 910 mm concrete culvert will have inverts of ranging from El. 243.9 m to El. 244.1 m.
Based on the nearest borehole (Borehole 16-3), both culverts may be designed using a factored geotechnical
resistance at ULS of 150 kPa and a geotechnical reaction at SLS of 100 kPa for a maximum total of 25 mm
settlement.
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, Ko = 0.5 and unit weight of retained soil of = 21 kN/m3 may be assumed for
the design.
6.0 ADDITIONAL WORK, INSPECTIONS AND TESTING Prior to tendering, the geotechnical aspects of the final design drawings and specifications and the proposed geo-
related construction methodology should be reviewed by Golder to confirm that the various aspects outlined in this
report have been met. During construction, sufficient subgrade monitoring, in-situ density tests, and materials
tests should be carried out to confirm that the ground conditions encountered are consistent with those
encountered in the boreholes, and to monitor conformance with the pertinent project specifications.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
2013 1 of 2
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 o f the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development and purpose described to Golder by the Client. 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 can not 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 upon the reasonable request of the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. 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 can not 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 can not 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 Ground water 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.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT
2013 2 of 2
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.
HILLSDALEELMVALE
ORR LAKE
WAVERLEY
PHELPSTON
MOONSTONE
CRAIGHURST
SITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATIONSITE LOCATION
SARJEANT LANDSHERITAGE VILLAGE
GCSJ HILLSDALE DEVELOPMENT INC.
025
mm
1649706CONTROL
FIGURE
1----
2016-11-18
STB/MK
OS
SEMP
SITE LOCATION PLAN TITLE
PROJECT NO. REV.
PROJECT
CLIENT
CONSULTANT
PREPARED
DESIGNED
REVIEWED
APPROVED
YYYY-MM-DD
Path
: \\g
olde
r.gds
\gal
\Mis
siss
auga
\SIM
\Clie
nts\
Ger
aniu
m\H
illsda
le\9
9_PR
OJ\
1649
706_
Ger
aniu
m_H
illsda
le\4
0_PR
OD
\000
3_G
eote
ch\
| Fi
le N
ame:
164
9706
-000
3-BG
-000
1.dw
g
IF T
HIS
MEA
SUR
EMEN
T D
OES
NO
T M
ATC
H W
HAT
IS S
HO
WN
, TH
E SH
EET
SIZE
HAS
BEE
N M
OD
IFIE
D F
RO
M: A
NSI
A
1:100,000
5,0000
METRES
2,500
LEGEND
REFERENCE(S)
BASE DATA - MNR LIO, OBTAINED 2016PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD UNDER LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OFNATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2016PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N
ROAD
WATERCOURSE
SITE LOCATION
WATER AREA, PERMANENT
WETLAND / SWAMP AREA, PERMANENT
RAILWAY
025
mm
1649706CONTROL
FIGURE
2----
2016-11-18
STB/MK
OS
SEMP
SARJEANT LANDSHERITAGE VILLAGE
GCSJ HILLSDALE DEVELOPMENT INC.
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN TITLE
PROJECT NO. REV.
PROJECTCLIENT
CONSULTANT
PREPARED
DESIGNED
REVIEWED
APPROVED
YYYY-MM-DD
Path
: \\g
olde
r.gds
\gal
\Mis
siss
auga
\SIM
\Clie
nts\
Ger
aniu
m\H
illsda
le\9
9_PR
OJ\
1649
706_
Ger
aniu
m_H
illsda
le\4
0_PR
OD
\000
3_G
eote
ch\
| Fi
le N
ame:
164
9706
-000
3-BG
-000
2.dw
g
IF T
HIS
MEA
SUR
EMEN
T D
OES
NO
T M
ATC
H W
HAT
IS S
HO
WN
, TH
E SH
EET
SIZE
HAS
BEE
N M
OD
IFIE
D F
RO
M: A
NSI
B
TITLE
PROJECT NO. REV.
PROJECTCLIENT
CONSULTANT
PREPARED
DESIGNED
REVIEWED
APPROVED
YYYY-MM-DD
Path
: \\g
olde
r.gds
\gal
\Mis
siss
auga
\SIM
\Clie
nts\
Ger
aniu
m\H
illsda
le\9
9_PR
OJ\
1649
706_
Ger
aniu
m_H
illsda
le\4
0_PR
OD
\000
3_G
eote
ch\
| Fi
le N
ame:
164
9706
-000
3-BG
-000
2.dw
g
IF T
HIS
MEA
SUR
EMEN
T D
OES
NO
T M
ATC
H W
HAT
IS S
HO
WN
, TH
E SH
EET
SIZE
HAS
BEE
N M
OD
IFIE
D F
RO
M: A
NSI
B
BOREHOLE LOCATION (2016)
DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
LEGEND
REFERENCE(S)
BASE MAP DATA - MALONE GIVEN PARSON LTD. PROJECT NO. 16-2551, DECEMBER 7, 2016BOREHOLE LOCATIONS SURVEYED BY RADY-PENTEK & EDWARD SURVEYING LTD., APRIL 25, 2016DATUM: NAD83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 17
1:2,000
1000
METRES
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PLA
STI
CIT
Y I
ND
EX
%
LIQUID LIMIT %
Figure No. 3
Project No. 1654967 PLASTICITY CHART
(CI) SILTY CLAY
ML
ML or OL
MH or OH
CH
CL - ML
CI
SYMBOL
4
LEGEND BH SAMPLE
16-1 4
16-3
CL
Checked By: OS
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(CI) SILTY CLAY FIGURE 4
Date: 13-Jul-16
Project Number: 1654967
Checked By: OS Golder Associates
LEGEND
BOREHOLE SAMPLE ELEVATION(m)
16-3 4 242.9616-1 4 250.10
SYMBOL
0.00010.0010.010.11101000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE, mm
PE
RC
EN
TF
INE
RT
HA
N
6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
COBBLE
SIZE
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(SP) SAND FIGURE 5
Date: 08-Sep-16
Project Number: 1654967
Checked By: OS Golder Associates
LEGEND
BOREHOLE SAMPLE ELEVATION(m)
16-5 2 244.71
SYMBOL
0.00010.0010.010.11101000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE, mm
PE
RC
EN
TF
INE
RT
HA
N
6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
COBBLE
SIZE
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(SM) SILTY SAND FIGURE 6
Date: 29-Aug-16
Project Number: 1654967
Checked By: OS Golder Associates
LEGEND
BOREHOLE SAMPLE ELEVATION(m)
16-2 3 248.32SWM-1 6 240.98
SYMBOL
0.00010.0010.010.11101000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE, mm
PE
RC
EN
TF
INE
RT
HA
N
6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
COBBLE
SIZE
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION(SM) SILTY SAND (TILL) FIGURE 7
Date: 29-Aug-16
Project Number: 1654967
Checked By: OS Golder Associates
LEGEND
BOREHOLE SAMPLE ELEVATION(m)
16-4 3 245.46SWM-1 4 242.46
16-5 5 242.4116-3 9 239.15
SYMBOL
0.00010.0010.010.11101000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE, mm
PE
RC
EN
TF
INE
RT
HA
N
6" 3"4¼" 1½" 1" ¾" ½" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch
COBBLE
SIZE
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES
GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SARJEANT LANDS DEVELOPMENT
March 17, 2017 Report No. 1654967 (Rev. 1)
APPENDIX A Method of Soil Classification Abbreviations and Terms Used on Records of Boreholes and Test Pits List of Symbols Record of Boreholes 16-1 to 16-5, TB-1, TB-2 and SWM-1
METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
Organic or Inorganic
Soil Group
Type of Soil Gradation
or Plasticity 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 =
𝑫𝑫𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏𝟔𝟔 𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪 =
(𝑫𝑫𝟑𝟑𝟔𝟔)𝟐𝟐
𝑫𝑫𝟏𝟏𝟔𝟔𝒙𝒙𝑫𝑫𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔
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 indicate a range of similar soil types within a stratum.
February 2017 1
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS
PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS
Soil Constituent
Particle Size
Description Millimetres
Inches (US Std. Sieve Size)
BOULDERS Not
Applicable >300 >12
COBBLES Not
Applicable 75 to 300 3 to 12
GRAVEL Coarse
Fine 19 to 75
4.75 to 19 0.75 to 3
(4) to 0.75
SAND Coarse Medium
Fine
2.00 to 4.75 0.425 to 2.00
0.075 to 0.425
(10) to (4) (40) to (10) (200) to (40)
SILT/CLAY Classified by
plasticity <0.075 < (200)
SAMPLES
AS Auger sample
BS Block sample
CS Chunk sample
DO or DP Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube sampler – note size
DS Denison type sample
FS Foil sample
GS Grab Sample
RC Rock core
SC Soil core
SS Split spoon sampler – note size
ST Slotted tube
TO Thin-walled, open – note size
TP Thin-walled, piston – note size
WS Wash sample
MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS
Percentage by Mass
Modifier
>35 Use 'and' to combine major constituents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY)
> 12 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable
> 5 to 12 some
≤ 5 trace
SOIL TESTS
w water content
PL , wp plastic limit
LL , wL liquid limit
C consolidation (oedometer) test
CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text)
CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test1
CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement1
DR relative density (specific gravity, Gs)
DS direct shear test
GS specific gravity
M sieve analysis for particle size
MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis
MPC Modified Proctor compaction test
SPC Standard Proctor compaction test
OC organic content test
SO4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates
UC unconfined compression test
UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test
V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test)
γ unit weight
1. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU.
PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: 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.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a project end area of 10 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (qt), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60° cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod
NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS COHESIVE SOILS
Compactness2 Consistency
Term SPT ‘N’ (blows/0.3m)1 Very Loose 0 - 4
Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50
Very Dense >50 1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure
effects. 2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT ‘N’ ranges from Terzaghi
and Peck (1967) and correspond to typical average N60 values.
Term Undrained Shear
Strength (kPa) SPT ‘N’1,2
(blows/0.3m) Very Soft <12 0 to 2
Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15
Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30 Hard >200 >30
1. SPT ‘N’ in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects; approximate only.
2. SPT ‘N’ values should be considered ONLY an approximate guide to consistency; for sensitive clays (e.g., Champlain Sea clays), the N-value approximation for consistency terms does NOT apply. Rely on direct measurement of undrained shear strength or other manual observations.
Field Moisture Condition Water Content Term Description
Dry Soil flows freely through fingers.
Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool.
Wet As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled.
Term Description
w < PL Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit.
w ~ PL Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic Limit.
w > PL Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit.
February 2017 2
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 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,
minor)
(c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) 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) III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation σ′p pre-consolidation stress (a) Index Properties OCR over-consolidation ratio = σ′p / σ′vo ρ(γ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* ρd(γd) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength ρw(γw) density (unit weight) of water τp, τr peak and residual shear strength ρs(γs) density (unit weight) of solid particles φ′ effective angle of internal friction γ′ unit weight of submerged soil δ angle of interface friction (γ′ = γ - γw) µ coefficient of friction = tan δ DR relative density (specific gravity) of solid c′ effective cohesion particles (DR = ρs / ρw) (formerly Gs) cu, su undrained shear strength (φ = 0 analysis) e void ratio p mean total stress (σ1 + σ3)/2 n porosity p′ mean effective stress (σ′1 + σ′3)/2 S degree of saturation q (σ1 - σ3)/2 or (σ′1 - σ′3)/2 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
February 2017 3
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
5
3
14
10
9
27
19
26
MH
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines;brown and dark brown; non-cohesive,moist, very loose to loose
(SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose
(CI) SILTY CLAY, some sand; brown;cohesive, w>PL, stiff
(SM) SILTY SAND; grey; non-cohesive,moist to wet, compact
(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,wet, compact
End of Borehole
NOTES:
1. Water level measured at a depth of4.6 m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 20, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of1.64 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.
0.15
1.37
2.13
4.42
5.18
6.55
251.25
250.49
248.20
247.44
246.07
Hole Plug
Silica Sand
Screen
Cave
April 22, 2016
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 20, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 1
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 16-1
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937672.00; E 597838.00
DD
0.00252.62
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
2
6
21
51
35
38
39
41
M
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown; non-cohesive, moist, very loose
(SM) SILTY SAND; brown to grey;non-cohesive, moist to wet, very loose toloose
(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,moist to wet, compact to very dense
(SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, wet, dense
(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,wet, dense
End of Borehole
NOTE:
1. Water level measured at a depth of2.3 m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 20, 2016.
0.15
0.69
2.13
4.42
5.18
6.55
249.38
247.94
245.65
244.89
243.52
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 20, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 1
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 16-2
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937601.00; E 597971.00
DD
0.00250.07
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
4
9
8
11
40
50/ 0.15
18
55
MH
M
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown to brown; non-cohesive, moist,very loose
(CI) SILTY CLAY, trace sand; brown;cohesive, w>PL, stiff
(ML) CLAYEY SILT; brown; cohesive,moist, stiff
(CL) SILTY CLAY; brown; cohesive,moist, hard
(SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; brown,(TILL); non-cohesive, wet to moist,compact to very dense
End of Borehole
NOTES:
1. Waterlevel measured at a depth of 5.3m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 20, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of1.6 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.
0.15
1.37
2.90
3.66
5.11
6.55
244.11
242.58
241.82
240.37
238.93
Hole Plug
Silica Sand
Screen
Cave
April 22, 2016
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 20, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 1
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 16-3
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937737.00; E 598251.00
DD
0.00245.48
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
1
17
17
40
23
36
45
34
MH
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL(SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose
(ML) sandy SILT; brown; non-cohesive,wet, very loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; grey and brown, (TILL);non-cohesive, moist, compact to dense
End of Borehole
NOTES:
1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling, April 22, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of1.26 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.
0.10
0.69
1.37
6.55
246.52
245.84
240.66
Hole Plug
Silica Sand
Screen
Cave
April 22, 2016
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 20, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 1
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 16-4
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937861.00; E 598167.00
DD
0.00247.21
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
4
2
21
22
31
24
56
50/ 0.15
M
MH
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL(SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown to brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose
(SP) SAND, some non-plastic fines;brown; non-cohesive, moist, loose
(SM) SILTY SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, gravelly to somegravel; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive,moist, compact to very dense
End of Borehole
NOTE:
1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling, April 22, 2016.
0.15
0.69
1.37
2.13
6.40
245.02
244.34
243.58
239.31
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 22, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 1
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 16-5
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937942.00; E 598242.00
DD
0.00245.71
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
16
25
20
19
27
11
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL
(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown to brown; non-cohesive, moist,very loose
(SW) gravelly SAND; brown;non-cohesive, moist, compact
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive, moistto wet, compact
End of Borehole
NOTES:
0.20
1.06
2.50
9.60
243.70
242.84
241.40
234.30
Hole Plug
Silica Sand
Screen
April 22, 2016
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 22, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 2
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: TB-1
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937977.00; E 598344.00
DD
0.00243.90
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
1. Borehole dry upon completion ofdrilling, April 22, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of2.65 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 22, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 2 OF 2
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: TB-1
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
--- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ---
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937977.00; E 598344.00
DDDEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
6
18
50
52
42
55
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL(SM) SILTY SAND; dark brown to brown;non-cohesive, moist, very loose
(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines;brown; non-cohesive, moist to wet, looseto compact
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace to somegravel; grey, (TILL); non-cohesive,moist, very dense to dense
(SW) gravelly SAND, trace non-plasticfines; grey; non-cohesive, moist, verydense
End of Borehole
NOTE:
0.08
1.06
4.04
8.61
9.60
242.06
239.08
234.51
233.52
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 22, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 2
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: TB-2
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937926.00; E 598434.00
DD
0.00243.12
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
1. Water level measured at a depth of3.1 m in open borehole upon completionof drilling, April 22, 2016.
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 22, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 2 OF 2
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: TB-2
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
--- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ---
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937926.00; E 598434.00
DDDEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Bug
gy M
ount
Pow
er A
uger
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
5
4
29
47
31
31
44
44
50/ 0.15
M
M
Hol
low
Ste
m A
uger
108
mm
I.D
. 216
mm
O.D
.
TOPSOIL(SP) SAND, trace non-plastic fines; darkbrown to brown; non-cohesive, moist,very loose to loose
(ML) sandy SILT; grey; non-cohesive,moist, very loose
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey,(TILL); non-cohesive, moist, compact todense
(SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey;non-cohesive, moist, dense
(SP) SAND, trace to some gravel;brown; non-cohesive, moist to wet,dense to very dense
End of Borehole
NOTES:
1. Water level measured at a depth of
0.15
1.37
2.13
3.66
4.42
9.30
243.61
242.85
241.32
240.56
235.68
Hole Plug
Silica Sand
Screen
April 22, 2016
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 21, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 1 OF 2
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: SWM-1
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
GROUND SURFACE
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937837.00; E 598296.00
DD
0.00244.98
DEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
4.6 m below ground surface in openborehole upon completion of drilling,April 21, 2016.2. Water level measured at a depth of2.8 m below ground surface, April 22,2016.
TY
PE
BORING DATE: April 21, 2016
NU
MB
ER
Wl
PIEZOMETEROR
STANDPIPEINSTALLATION
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s
Wp W
WATER CONTENT PERCENT
BO
RIN
G M
ET
HO
D
ELEV.
AD
DIT
ION
AL
LAB
. TE
ST
ING
SOIL PROFILE
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
BLO
WS
/0.3
m 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
10 20 30 40
SHEET 2 OF 2
SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 64kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC
RECORD OF BOREHOLE: SWM-1
SAMPLES
DEPTH(m)
DESCRIPTION
LOGGED:
CHECKED:
--- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ---
DATUM: Geodetic
PROJECT: 1654967
LOCATION: N 4937837.00; E 598296.00
DDDEPTH SCALE
1 : 50
DE
PT
H S
CA
LEM
ET
RE
S
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
NL/OS
GT
A-B
HS
001
S
:\CLI
EN
TS
\GE
RA
NIU
M\H
ILLS
DA
LE\0
2_D
AT
A\G
INT
\165
496
7-B
G-0
001.
GP
J G
AL-
MIS
.GD
T 1
0-1
9-16
ST
B
DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa
20 40 60 80
Q -U -
nat V.rem V.
Golder Associates Ltd.
121 Commerce Park Drive, Unit L
Barrie, Ontario, L4N 8X1
Canada
T: +1 (705) 722 4492