geotechnical investigation proposed richmond...

Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. • 180 Wescar Lane • Ottawa, Ontario • K0A 1L0 • www.hceng.ca

Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Richmond Home

Hardware Addition

6379 Perth Street

Richmond, Ontario

Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. • 180 Wescar Lane • Ottawa, Ontario • K0A 1L0 • www.hceng.ca

Submitted to:

Argue Construction Ltd.

105-A Willowlea Road

Ottawa, Ontario

K0A 1L0

Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Richmond Home

Hardware Addition

6379 Perth Street

Richmond, Ontario

January 6, 2015

Project: 14-564

Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 1

2.1 Project and Site Description and Review of Geology Maps .......................................... 1

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 1

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 2

4.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 2

4.2 Fill/Possible Fill Material............................................................................................... 3

4.3 Silty Clay / Clayey Silt / Silt and Clay ........................................................................... 3

4.4 Sandy Silt .................................................................................................................... 5

4.5 Glacial Till .................................................................................................................... 5

4.6 Inferred Bedrock .......................................................................................................... 6

4.7 Groundwater Levels ..................................................................................................... 6

4.8 Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion ........................................................................... 6

5.0 PROPOSED EXPANSION ................................................................................................. 7

5.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 7

5.2 Excavation ................................................................................................................... 8

5.3 Foundations ................................................................................................................. 9

5.4 Foundation Wall Backfill ..............................................................................................10

5.5 Concrete Slab on Grade .............................................................................................11

5.6 Storage Building .........................................................................................................12

5.6.1 General ................................................................................................................12

5.6.2 Pier Foundation ...................................................................................................12

5.7 Grade Raise Restrictions ............................................................................................13

5.8 Frost Protection of Foundation ....................................................................................13

5.9 Seismic Site Classification and Liquefaction Potential .................................................13

6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 14

6.1 Winter Construction ....................................................................................................14

6.2 Disposal of Excess Soil ...............................................................................................14

6.3 Effects of Construction Induced Vibration ...................................................................14

6.4 Design Review and Construction Observation ............................................................14


iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Key Plan .................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 3: Borehole Location Plan .............................................................................................. 17

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Record of Borehole Sheets

Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the proposed

commercial expansion of the Richmond Home Hardware located at 6379 Perth Street in the

town of Richmond, Ontario (refer to Key Plan, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was

to identify the general subsurface conditions at the site by means of a limited number of

boreholes and, based on the factual information obtained, to provide engineering guidelines on

the geotechnical design aspects of the project, including construction considerations, which

could influence design decisions.

This investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated November 19, 2014.

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project and Site Description and Review of Geology Maps

It is understood that plans for the expansion of Richmond Home Hardware include the

construction of a new one storey addition to the existing one storey building as well as the

construction of a new one storey open aired storage building. The addition is anticipated to be

372 square metres (in plan) and of slab on grade construction (i.e. basementless). The new

storage building is anticipated to be about 446 square metres (in plan) and gravel or asphalt

surfaced. Currently the site is occupied by the existing hardware store, storage shed and

stockpiles of construction materials.

Based on our previous experience in the area as well as surficial geology maps, the site is likely

underlain by marine deposits of clay and silt with a thickness ranging from 5 to 10 metres.

Bedrock geology maps of the Ottawa area indicate that the overburden is underlain by

dolostone bedrock of the Oxford formation.

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

The field work for this investigation was carried out on December 4, 2014. During that time, four

(4) boreholes were advanced at the site using a track mounted drill rig supplied and operated by

Aardvark Drilling Inc. Details of the boreholes are provided below:

Two (2) boreholes, numbered 14-1 and 14-2 were advanced to depths of about

6.1 metres below ground surface at the outside corners of the proposed addition. These

boreholes were advanced for foundation design purposes.

One (1) dynamic cone (CPT) was driven from the bottom of borehole 14-1 to practical

refusal on inferred bedrock at a depth of about 7.0 metres below ground surface. The

CPT was driven in order to assess the seismic Site Class for the subject property.


2

Two (2) boreholes, numbered 14-3 and 14-4 were advanced to depths of 4.7 and

4.5 metres below ground surface, respectively, in the area of the proposed storage

building. These boreholes were advanced for foundation design purposes.

Standard penetration tests were carried out in the boreholes and samples of the soils

encountered were recovered using a 50 millimetre diameter split barrel sampler. In situ vane

shear strength testing was carried out where possible in the clayey deposits to measure the

undrained shear strength. The groundwater levels were observed in the open boreholes upon

completion of the drilling work.

The field work was supervised throughout by a member of our engineering staff who directed

the drilling operations, logged the samples and carried out the in-situ testing. Following the field

work, the soil samples were returned to our laboratory for examination by a geotechnical

engineer. Selected soil samples were tested for water content, grain size distribution and

Atterberg limits.

The locations and elevations of the boreholes were measured by Houle Chevrier Engineering

Ltd. using our Trimble R8 GPS survey instrument. The elevations are referenced to Geodetic

datum.

Descriptions of the subsurface conditions logged in the boreholes are provided on the Record of

Borehole sheets in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the

Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2. The results of the soil classification testing are provided on

the Record of Borehole sheets and on Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

As previously indicated, the soil and groundwater conditions identified in the boreholes are

given on the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix A. The borehole logs indicate the

subsurface conditions at the specific test locations only. Boundaries between zones on the logs

are often not distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted. The precision with

which subsurface conditions are indicated depends on the method of drilling, the frequency and

recovery of samples, the method of sampling, and the uniformity of the subsurface conditions.

Subsurface conditions at other than the test locations may vary from the conditions encountered

in the test holes. 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 groundwater conditions described in this report refer only to those observed at the place

and time of observation noted in the report. These conditions may vary seasonally or as a

consequence of construction activities in the area.


3

The soil descriptions in this report are based on commonly accepted methods of classification

and identification employed in geotechnical practice. Classification and identification of soil

involves judgement and Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. does not guarantee descriptions as

exact, but infers accuracy to the extent that is common in current geotechnical practice.

The following presents an overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes

advanced during this investigation.

4.2 Fill/Possible Fill Material

All of the boreholes encountered fill/possible fill material from ground surface. Table 4.11 below

describes the fill material encountered during the current investigation.

Table 4.1: Summary of Fill Material Encountered (Depth in Metres)

Borehole Grey Crushed Sand and

Gravel

Brown, fine to

medium grained

sand, some silt

and gravel

Grey brown silty

clay (possible fill)

14-1 0.0 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 0.8 – 1.5

14-2 0.0 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 0.8 – 1.5

14-3 0.0 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.6 -

14-4 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 -

Standard penetration tests carried out in the possible silty clay fill materials gave N values of 5

and 9 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, which reflects a stiff to very stiff consistency.

The water content of samples of the fill/possible fill material ranges from about 3 to 41 percent.

4.3 Silty Clay / Clayey Silt / Silt and Clay

A native deposit of silty clay/clayey silt/silt and clay (herein referred to as silty clay) was

encountered below the fill/possible fill material at all of the borehole locations at depths ranging

from about 0.6 to 1.5 metres. The upper portion of the silty clay can be described as grey

brown weathered crust. Standard penetration tests carried out in the weathered crust gave N

values of 1 to 8 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, decreasing with depth. Attempts were

undertaken to carry out in situ vane shear strength tests in the weathered crust at boreholes 14-

2 and 14-4. During some of the tests, the torque measuring equipment reached its capacity


4

without turning the vane, which indicates shear strength values in excess of 100 kilopascals and

a very stiff consistency. At the location of borehole 14-4, at a depth of about 2.4 metres below

ground surface, the in-situ shear strength value was measured at about 73 kilopascals, which

reflects a stiff consistency.

The weathered silty clay crust has a thickness of about 1.5 to 2.4 metres at the borehole

locations and extends to depths of about 2.9 to 3.6 metres below ground surface (elevations

91.5 to 92.0 metres, geodetic).

Below the weathered crust in boreholes 14-1 and 14-3, the silty clay becomes grey in colour

and contains silt seams and/or layers. The grey silty clay has a thickness of about 1.5 and 0.9

metres at boreholes 14-1 and 14-3, respectively, and extends to depths of about 4.6 and

3.8 metres below ground surface (elevations 90.4 and 91.1 metres, geodetic).

Standard penetration tests carried out in the grey silty clay gave N values of 1 blow per

0.3 metres of penetration. In situ vane shear strength tests carried out in the grey silty clay give

shear strength values ranging from about 8 to 48 kilopascals, which reflects a very soft to firm

consistency. In our opinion, the very low shear strength measured (i.e. 8 kilopascals) from

borehole 14-1 do not represent the actual soil consistency due to probable soil disturbance from

water inflow into the augers through the silt seams in the silty clay. As such, during the

fieldwork, a borehole was advanced adjacent to borehole 14-1 to confirm the soil at the

locations of the in situ vane shear strength tests (i.e. Sample number A and B at 3.1 and

4.6 metres below ground surface, respectively) which confirmed the presence of silt seams and

a sandy silt layer.

A particle size distribution test and an Atterberg limit test were carried out on a sample of the

weathered silty clay recovered from borehole 14-1 at about 1.8 metres below ground surface

(elevation 93.1 metres, geodetic). The particle distribution test shows that the sample recovered

from borehole 14-1 contains about 58 percent clay, about 39 percent silt size particles, and about

3 percent fine sand.

The Atterberg limit test gave a liquid limit of 51 percent, a plastic limit of 21 percent and a

corresponding plasticity index of 30. The testing indicates that the silt and clay is of high

plasticity.

The results of the testing are provided on Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A.

The water content measured in samples of the weathered grey brown silty clay crust collected

from the boreholes range from about 38 to 65 percent and are generally at or below the

measured liquid limit value.

The water content from samples of the grey silty clay from borehole 14-1 are about 38 and

39 percent and are below the measured liquid limit value.


5

4.4 Sandy Silt

A deposit of sandy silt was encountered below the silty clay at all of the borehole locations at

depths ranging from about 3.3 to 4.6 metres below ground surface (elevations 90.4 to

91.6 metres, geodetic). The sandy silt can generally be described as grey with variable

amounts of clay. The sandy silt has a thickness ranging from about 0.5 to 1.5 metres.

Standard penetration tests carried out in the sandy silt encountered in the boreholes gave N

values ranging from 3 to 12 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, which reflects a very loose to

compact relative density.

An Atterberg limit test was carried out on a sample of the grey sandy silt recovered from

borehole 14-2 at a depth of about 4.1 metres below ground surface in order to determine the

behaviour of the soil for liquefaction analysis. The Atterberg limit test gave a liquid limit of

18 percent, plastic limit of 17 percent and a corresponding plasticity index of 1 (see Figure A2).

The water content of the sandy silt samples from boreholes 14-1, 14-2, and 14-4 range from

about 16 to 28 percent.

Borehole 14-4 was terminated within the sandy silt at a depth of about 4.5 metres below ground

surface (elevation 90.3 metres, geodetic).

4.5 Glacial Till

Glacial till was encountered below the sandy silt at boreholes 14-1 to 14-3, inclusive, at depths

ranging from about 4.3 to 5.0 metres below ground surface (elevations 89.9 to 90.6 metres,

geodetic). The glacial till is composed of grey silty sand with variable amounts of gravel.

Cobbles and boulders should also be expected within the glacial till.

Standard penetration tests carried out in the glacial till gave N values of 13 and 19 blows per

0.3 metres of penetration, which reflects a compact relative density.

A dynamic cone penetration test was carried out in borehole 14-1 from 6.1 to 7.0 metres below

ground surface. The dynamic cone penetration test carried out in the glacial till deposit gave

penetration values between 50 and 81 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration. The dynamic cone

penetration test was terminated at practical refusal to driving of the cone on inferred bedrock at

a penetration resistance of 50 blows for no visible penetration.

The water content from samples of the glacial till from the boreholes range from about 10 to

11 percent.

Borehole 14-2 was terminated within the glacial till at a depth of about 5.9 metres below ground

surface (elevations 89.2 metres, geodetic).


6

4.6 Inferred Bedrock

Practical refusal to further advancement of the auger on the inferred bedrock surface occurred

in boreholes 14-3 and 14-4 at depths of about 4.7 and 4.5 metres below ground surface

(elevations 90.2 and 90.3 metres, geodetic), respectively. Practical refusal to further

advancement of the dynamic cone occurred in borehole 14-1 at 7.01 metres below ground

surface (elevation 87.9 metres, geodetic) on the inferred bedrock surface. It should be noted

that practical refusal of the auger and dynamic cone can sometimes occur on boulders and may

not necessarily be representative of the upper surface of the bedrock.

4.7 Groundwater Levels

The groundwater levels observed in the open boreholes during the relatively short period they

were left open are summarized in Table 4.2:

Table 4.2 – Groundwater Depth and Elevation (December 4, 2014)

Borehole

Groundwater Depth Below

Existing Ground Surface

(metres)

Groundwater Elevation

(metres, geodetic datum)

14-1 4.4 90.6

14-2 1.3 93.8

14-3 4.5 90.3

14-4 2.0 92.8

The groundwater levels may be higher during wet periods of the year such as the early spring or

following periods of precipitation.

4.8 Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion

The results of chemical testing on a soil sample recovered from borehole 14-2 at a depth

between 1.5 and 2.1 metres below ground surface are provided in Appendix B and are

summarized in Table 4.3 below:


7

Table 4.3: Summary of Corrosion Testing – Soil

Parameter Borehole 14-2

SA3 (1.5m – 2.1m)

Chloride Content (µg/g dry) 30

Conductivity (microsiemens/cm) 237

pH 7.15

Sulphate Content (µg/g dry) 48

5.0 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL EXPANSION

5.1 General

The information in the following sections is provided for the guidance of the design engineers

and Argue Construction and is intended for the design of this project only. Other contractors

bidding on or undertaking the works 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 construction techniques, schedule, safety and

equipment capabilities.

The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the

subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible surface and/or

subsurface contamination resulting from previous uses or activities of this site or adjacent

properties, and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site from materials from off site

sources are outside the terms of reference for this report.

5.2 Liquefaction Assessment

During a significant seismic event, vibrations can sometimes cause the pore water pressure to

increase within the soil mass and in severe cases, can create a condition known as seismic

liquefaction. The excess pore water pressure created reduces the effective stress between the

soil particles as well as the soil’s resistance to shearing (frictional resistance). A temporary

reduction in the shear strength of the soil may cause, among other issues, lateral movements of

gently sloping ground and a reduction in bearing capacity, and settlement of structures.

Soils which are more prone to experiencing seismic liquefaction include:

Coarse grained soils (i.e., more probable for sands than for silts);

Soils having a loose state of packing; and,

Soils located below the groundwater level.


8

An assessment of the liquefaction potential of the sandy silt deposit was carried out using the

Seed and Idriss (1971) simplified procedure based on the cyclic stress ratio.

The results of the assessment suggest that the sandy silt soils could be classified as potentially

liquefiable during a significant seismic event. The amount of settlement is highly variable since it

is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the thickness of the sandy silt deposit and its

liquefaction potential. Based on the thickness of the sandy silt deposit, the anticipated

settlement of the liquefiable native sands could be up to about 50 millimetres under a significant

seismic event. It is suggested that the building design take this into account or alternatively, a

seismic cone penetration test could be carried out at the site to better assess the potential for

seismic liquefaction.

It is considered that the above magnitudes of settlement could be acceptable, and therefore

typical strip, pad and pier footings could be used at this site. If the amount of settlement is not

acceptable, alternate foundation designs could be considered, such as densifying the liquefiable

soils (in order to reduce their liquefaction potential and associated settlements) or found the

structure on deep foundations. Further guidelines on densification or deep foundations could be

provided upon request.

5.3 Excavation

The excavation for the proposed building addition and the new storage building will be carried

out through fill material and native deposits of silty clay.

The sides of the excavation should be sloped in accordance with the requirements in Ontario

Regulation 213/91 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. According to the act, soils at

this site can be classified as Type 3. That is, open cut excavations within overburden deposits

should be carried out with side slopes of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter.

Disturbance to the silty clay subgrade can occur during excavation due to flow of soil between

the teeth on a standard bucket. To reduce disturbance of the subgrade soil, the final trimming

to the design elevation should be done using a bucket with a flat blade.

It is our experience that the upper part of the silty clay weathered crust may be impacted by past

frost action. During stripping of the site, there is potential for the upper part of the weathered

silty clay to peel upwards and become disturbed. Where this occurs within the building area,

the disturbed soil should be removed and replaced with compacted OPSS Granular B Type II.

Excavation Next to Existing Building Foundations 5.3.1

To prevent undermining of the existing building foundations, it is recommended that the bottom

of the excavation for the proposed addition be located beyond a line extending down and out

from the bottom edge of the existing and adjacent building foundations at 1 horizontal to 1

vertical, or flatter. If excavation is required within this zone, underpinning or temporary support


9

of the existing and adjacent foundations may be required. Details for underpinning and/or

support of foundations could be provided upon request.

The underside of footing level should match the existing underside of footing level where the

new foundation walls abut the existing foundation walls.

Groundwater Pumping 5.3.2

Groundwater inflow from the overburden deposits should be relatively small and controlled by

pumping from filtered sumps within the excavation. It is not expected that short term pumping

during excavation will have a significant effect on nearby structures and services.

It should be noted that the groundwater conditions were only observed for the relatively short

time that the boreholes were left open upon completion of drilling. The observations do not

represent stabilized groundwater conditions.

5.4 Foundations

Based on the boreholes advanced during the present investigation, the subgrade conditions

across the site consist of fill material followed by native deposits of silty clay, sandy silt and

glacial till. The proposed structures could be founded on conventional spread footings bearing

on or within the native, undisturbed deposits of weathered silty clay crust or on a pad of

compacted granular material (engineered fill) over native, undisturbed soil deposits. Where wet

conditions are encountered, the engineered fill should be underlain by a woven geotextile

meeting OPSS 1860 Class 2 requirements.

The engineered fill, where required, should consist of granular material meeting Ontario

Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS) requirements for Granular B Type II. OPSS

documents allow recycled asphaltic concrete and concrete to be used in Granular B Type II

materials. Since the source of recycled material cannot be determined, it is suggested that any

granular materials used beneath the proposed building be composed of virgin material only for

environmental reasons. The OPSS Granular B Type II should be compacted in maximum

200 millimetre thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value. To

provide adequate spread of load below the footings, the material should extend at least 0.5

metres horizontally beyond the edge of the footings and down and out from this point at 1

horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter.

The allowable bearing pressures for spread footing foundations at this site are based on the

necessity to limit the stress increase on the softer, compressible grey silty clay to an acceptable

level such that foundation settlements will not be excessive. Four important parameters in

calculating the stress increase on the grey silty clay beneath the weathered crust are:

The thickness of the weathered crust beneath the base of the foundation,

The size and type (i.e. pad, strip or pier) of the foundation,


10

The amount of surcharge (fill, etc.) in the vicinity of the foundation, and

The magnitude and type of ground floor loading.

For design purposes, the following bearing pressures should be used for footings bearing on or

within native undisturbed deposits of silty clay.

Table 5.1 – Allowable Bearing Pressure – Store Addition

Type of

Footing

Maximum

Depth of

Footing

(metres)

Maximum

Size of

Footing

(metres)

Factored Net

Geotechnical Resistance

at Serviceability Limit

State (SLS) (kilopascals)

Factored Net

Geotechnical Reaction

at Ultimate Limit State

(ULS) (kilopascals)

Strip 1.8 0.8 120 250

Pad 1.8 2.0 x 2.0 130 250

Notes: 1. The bearing pressures assume that the proposed grades will be within +/- 150 millimetres of existing site

elevations. 2. The sustained slab-on-grade load of the addition and ground load in the storage building is assumed to be

5 kilopascals.

There are many other possible combinations of founding depths, footing sizes and thickness of

grade raise fills which might be suitable for this project on this site. Furthermore, the

floor/ground loading could also affect the design of the foundations. All other alternatives must

be checked by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that overstressing of the softer silty

clay/clayey silt soil does not occur as this could result in excessive settlement of the building

addition and/or the storage building.

Assuming that the footing areas are cleaned of loose or disturbed soil, the total and differential

settlement of the footings should be less than 25 and 20 millimetres, respectively. The

settlement of the addition will be differential relative to the existing structure; therefore, it is

recommended that the addition be structurally separated from the existing building.

5.5 Foundation Wall Backfill

The fill material and native deposits at this site are frost susceptible and should not be used as

backfill against foundations, piers, etc. The backfill material should consist of imported sand or

sand and gravel meeting OPSS requirements for Granular B Type I or II. Where the backfill will

ultimately support areas of hard surfacing (pavement, sidewalks or other similar surfaces), the

backfill should be placed in maximum 200 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at

least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density value using suitable vibratory


11

compaction equipment. Light hand operated compaction equipment should be used next to the

foundation walls to avoid excessive compaction induced stress on the foundation walls.

Where future landscaped areas will exist next to the proposed structures and if some settlement

of the backfill is acceptable, the backfill could be compacted to at least 90 percent of the

standard Proctor maximum dry density value.

Where areas of hard surfacing (concrete, sidewalk, pavement, etc.) abut the proposed

buildings, a gradual transition should be provided between those areas of hard surfacing

underlain by non-frost susceptible granular wall backfill and those areas underlain by existing

frost susceptible native materials to reduce the effects of differential frost heaving. It is

suggested that granular frost tapers be constructed from the underside of footing grade to the

underside of the granular base/subbase material for the hard surfaced areas. The frost tapers

should be sloped at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter.

Perimeter foundation drainage is not considered necessary for a slab on grade structure at this

site, provided that the floor slab level is above the finished exterior ground surface level.

5.6 Concrete Slab on Grade (Heated Areas Only)

To provide predictable settlement performance of the concrete slab on grade, all fill and

possible fill material should be removed from below the slab areas. Following removal of these

materials, and prior to placement of any grade raise fill material, the subgrade surface should be

proof rolled with a large (10 tonne minimum) vibratory drum roller under the supervision of a

geotechnical engineer. Any soft areas determined from the proof rolling should be

subexcavated and replaced with suitable granular material (i.e., OPSS Granular B Type I or II).

The grade within the proposed addition could then be raised, where necessary, with imported

granular material conforming to OPSS requirements for Granular B Type I or II. The granular

base for the proposed slab on grade should consist of at least 150 millimetres of OPSS

Granular A.

City of Ottawa documents allow recycled asphaltic concrete and concrete to be used in

Granular A and Granular B Type I materials. Since the source of recycled material cannot be

determined, it is suggested that any granular materials used beneath the floor slabs be

composed of virgin material only, for environmental purposes.

The Granular A and Granular B Type I or II should be compacted in maximum 200 millimetre

thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value using suitable vibratory

equipment.


12

If any areas of the proposed building addition are to remain unheated during the winter period,

thermal protection of the slab on grade may be required. Further details on the insulation

requirements could be provided, if necessary.

The floor slab should be wet cured to minimize shrinkage cracking and slab curling. The slab

should be saw cut to about 1/3 the thickness of the slab as soon as curing of the concrete

permits, in order to minimize shrinkage cracks.

5.7 Storage Building

General 5.7.1

If strip footings are anticipated for the storage building at this site, the recommendations

provided in Section 5.2.1 to Section 5.2.3 apply for the construction of the storage building as

well. If a pier foundation is anticipated, the following design and construction guidelines are

provided.

Pier Foundation 5.7.2

For piers founded at 1.8 metres below ground surface, the subgrade soil at the storage building

location consists mainly of grey brown silty clay (weathered crust).

Based on the subsurface conditions which were encountered in the boreholes, the structure

could be supported on piers bearing on or within native, undisturbed deposits of silty clay and

sized using:

geotechnical reaction at Serviceability Limit State (SLS) of 90 kilopascals;

factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of 150 kilopascals.

If the piers are supported on conventional concrete pad footings, the foundation bearing values

and sizes given in Table 5.1 may be used.

Relatively small diameter pier foundations are more susceptible to a “punching” type of failure

than larger pad footings. As such, consideration should be given to supporting the concrete

piers on conventional concrete pad footings. The larger pad footings will also allow for greater

structural capacity and in turn, less piers to support the structure.

The post construction total and differential settlement of the piers should be less than

25 millimetres and 20 millimetres, respectively, provided that all loose and disturbed soil has

been removed from the bottom of the excavation prior to pouring the concrete piers.

The piers at this site should be provided with a minimum 1.8 metres of earth cover for frost

protection purposes.


13

The soil on this site was found to be frost susceptible. It is therefore recommended that in order

to prevent adfreeze of the soil to the concrete and possible frost jacking, the concrete for the

piers should be placed within formwork (i.e. sonotubes or a steel form). The unsupported

portion of the formwork should be braced to reduce shifting during concrete and backfill

placement. The concrete piers should be backfilled with free draining, non-frost susceptible soil

such as OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type II, and placed in maximum 200 millimetre thick

lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value using

suitable vibratory compaction equipment.

Alternatively, if the piers are augered and cast in place, or backfilled with the native soil, the

piers should be provided with a bond break such as 2 layers of 6 MIL polyethylene sheeting.

5.8 Grade Raise Restrictions

The firm grey silty clay deposit found below the weathered crust has a limited capacity to

support loads from footings and grade raise fill material. The geotechnical guidelines below

assume that the finished grade elevation at the site will be about +/- 150 millimetres of the

original ground surface on site (i.e., approximately 95.0 metres, geodetic) as found at the

locations of boreholes 14-1 and 14-2. If consideration is being given to raising the grade at the

site, the bearing pressures outlined in Sections 5.3 and 5.6 will need to be reduced accordingly.

5.9 Frost Protection of Foundations

All exterior footings and footings in heated portions of the proposed buildings should be

provided with at least 1.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Isolated,

unheated exterior footings and/or piers adjacent to surfaces which are cleaned of snow cover

during the winter months should be provided with a minimum of 1.8 metres of earth cover.

Alternatively, the required frost protection could be provided by means of a combination of earth

cover and extruded polystyrene insulation. An insulation detail could be provided upon request.

5.10 Seismic Site Classification and Liquefaction Potential

The subsurface conditions at the site are composed of fill over native deposits of silty clay,

sandy silt, and glacial till. Bedrock was inferred in boreholes 14-1, 14-3, and 14-4 at depths

ranging from about 4.5 to 7.0 metres below ground surface.

Based on the soil and groundwater conditions encountered together with the results of the in

situ testing, there is a potential for liquefaction of the sandy silt layer during a significant seismic

event. The amount of settlement of the liquefiable soils could be up to 50 millimetres.

Based on the results of this investigation, Site Class F should be used for the seismic design of

the addition and storage shed if the footings are constructed on the native overburden deposits

or on a pad of engineered fill above the native deposits. The potential for seismic liquefaction of

the soils at this site was made solely on the results of five (5) standard penetration tests. The


14

results of standard penetration tests in sandy soils below the groundwater can be influenced by

soil disturbance caused by drilling techniques/methodology. To further assess the potential for

seismic liquefaction of these soils, a seismic cone penetration test could be carried out. The

results of this test could change the Site Class and liquefaction potential.

6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Winter Construction

In the event that construction is required during freezing temperatures, the soil below the

footings should be protected immediately from freezing using straw, propane heaters and

insulated tarpaulins, or other suitable means.

Any excavations should be opened for as short a time as practicable and the excavations

should be carried out only in lengths which allow all of the construction operations, including

backfilling, to be fully completed in one working day. The materials on the sides of the

excavations should not be allowed to freeze. In addition, the backfill should be excavated,

stored and replaced without being disturbed by frost or contaminated by snow or ice.

6.2 Disposal of Excess Soil

It is noted that the professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical

aspects of the subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible

surface and/or subsurface contamination, including naturally occurring sources of

contamination, are outside the terms of reference for this report. This report does not constitute

a contaminated material management plan or an excess soil management plan.

6.3 Effects of Construction Induced Vibration

Some of the construction operations (such as granular material compaction, excavation, etc.)

will cause ground vibration on and off of the site. The vibrations will attenuate with distance

from the source, but may be felt at nearby structures. The magnitude of the vibrations will be

much less than that required to cause damage to the nearby structures or services in good

condition.

6.4 Design Review and Construction Observation

The details for the proposed construction were not available to us at the time of preparation of

this report. It is recommended that the final design drawings be reviewed by the geotechnical

engineer as the design progresses to ensure that the guidelines provided in this report have

been interpreted as intended.

The engagement of the services of the geotechnical consultant during construction is

recommended to confirm that the subsurface conditions throughout the proposed excavations

do not materially differ from those given in the report and that the construction activities do not


15

adversely affect the intent of the design. The subgrade surfaces for the proposed storage

building and store addition should be inspected by experienced geotechnical personnel to

ensure that suitable materials have been reached and properly prepared. The placing and

compaction of earth fill and imported granular materials should be inspected to ensure that the

materials used conform to the grading and compaction specifications.

We trust this report provides sufficient information for your present purposes. If you have any

questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Luc Bouchard, P.Eng.

Craig Houle, M.Eng., P.Eng. Principal

06 Jan 2015

06 Jan 2015

Project No.

DrawingProject

P.C.

Drawn By Date

December 2014

Revision No.

6379 PERTH STREET, RICHMOND, ON

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIVATION

KEY PLAN

FIGURE 114-564

0

SITE LOCATION

Rev.

Chkd by

Location

Scale

Date

20100

1:500

30m

Project

Client

Houle Chevrier Engineering

180 Wescar Lane

Ottawa ON

Tel: (613) 836-1422

www.hceng.ca

[email protected]

LEGEND

Drwn by

BOREHOLE LOCATION

PLAN

FIGURE 2

Argue Construction Ltd.

6379 PERTH STREET, RICHMOND, ON

PC LB

December 15, 2014

14-564

0

PROPOSED

NEW ONE STOREY

OPEN AIRED STORAGE BLDG.

445.85m²

PROPOSED NEW ONE STOREY

ADDITION

372 m²

EXISTING ONE STOREY

BUILDING

560 m²

KEY PLAN

PE

RT

H S

TR

EE

T

BOREHOLE LOCATION IN PLAN

(current investigation by Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.)

B

H

1

9

9

.

9

9

B

H

1

4

-

1

9

4

.

9

3

B

H

1

4

-

2

9

5

.

1

2

B

H

1

4

-

4

9

4

.

8

0

B

H

1

4

-

3

9

4

.

8

8

EXISTING CATCH BASIN

ELEVATION 95.00 METRES

BENCHMARK

NAIL IN UTILITY POLE

ELEVATION 94.75 METRES

PE

RT

H S

TR

EE

T

(NOT TO SCALE)


APPENDIX A

Record of Borehole Sheets

List of Abbreviations and Terminology

Figure A1 and A2

Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

SAMPLE TYPES AS auger sample CA casing sample CS chunk sample DO drive open MS manual sample RC rock core ST slotted tube TO thin-walled open Shelby tube TP thin-walled piston Shelby tube WS wash sample PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance, N

The number of blows by a 63.5 kg hammer dropped 760 millimetre required to drive a 50 mm drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm. For split spoon samples where less than 300 mm of penetration was achieved, the number of blows is reported over the sampler penetration in mm.

Dynamic Penetration Resistance

The number of blows by a 63.5 kg hammer dropped 760 mm to drive a 50 mm diameter, 60

o cone

attached to ‘A’ size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm.

WH

Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer and drill rods.

WR

Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rods. PH

Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure from drill rig.

PM

Sampler advanced by manual pressure. SOIL TESTS C consolidation test H hydrometer analysis M sieve analysis MH sieve and hydrometer analysis U unconfined compression test Q undrained triaxial test V field vane, undisturbed and remoulded shear

strength

SOIL DESCRIPTIONS Relative Density ‘N’ Value Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense over 50 Consistency Undrained Shear Strength

(kPa) Very soft 0 to 12 Soft 12 to 25 Firm 25 to 50 Stiff 50 to 100 Very Stiff over 100 LIST OF COMMON SYMBOLS cu undrained shear strength e void ratio Cc compression index cv coefficient of consolidation k coefficient of permeability Ip plasticity index n porosity u pore pressure w moisture content wL liquid limit wP plastic limit

φ1 effective angle of friction

γ unit weight of soil

γ1 unit weight of submerged soil

σ normal stress

1

2

3

4

5

A

6

B

7

C.S.

C.S.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

-

-

9

8

1

1

1

3

19

Pow

er A

uger

0.38

0.82

1.52

3.05

4.58

4.85

5.03

6.10

7.01

Boreholebackfilledwith augercuttings

Groundwaterobserved at4.35 metresbelowgroundsurface aftercompletionof drilling.

94.55

94.11

93.41

91.88

90.35

90.08

89.90

88.83

87.92

MH

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

Grey, crushed sand and gravel, tracesilt (FILL)

Brown, fine to medium grained sand,some silt and gravel, trace clay,possible cobbles (FILL)

Grey brown silty clay, trace sand andgravel (POSSIBLE FILL)

Very stiff to stiff, grey brown SILTAND CLAY (WEATHERED CRUST)

Soft to firm, grey CLAYEY SILT, somesilt seams/layers

Very loose, grey SANDY SILT, traceclay

Very loose, grey SANDY SILT

Compact to dense, grey silty sand,trace to some gravel, possiblecobbles and boulders (TILL)

Start of CPT test

End of BoreholeCPT refusal on inferred bedrock

LOGGED: A.N.

CHECKED:

SOIL PROFILE

Ground Surface

DEPTH(m)

20 40

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 40

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,k, cm/s

80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic

SPT HAMMER: 63.5 kg; drop 0.76 m

94.93

DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m

SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa

-7 -6 -5 -4

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR

STANDPIPEINSTALLATION

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

RECORD OF BOREHOLE 14-1

SAMPLES

WATER CONTENT, PERCENT

20

Q -U -

60 80

W

ELEV.

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

10 10 10 10

nat. V -rem. V -

40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

20

60

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Wp Wl80

PROJECT: 14-564

LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2

BORING DATE: December 4, 2014

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BO

RE

HO

LE R

EC

OR

D 2

012

WIT

H L

AB

WC

14-

564

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S D

EC

EM

BE

R 4

201

4.G

PJ

12

-17-

14

L.B.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

C.S.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

-

5

5

3

5

12

13

Pow

er A

uger

0.35

0.76

1.52

3.56

5.03

5.94



94.77

94.36

93.60

91.56

90.09

89.18

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger


Brown, fine to medium grained sand,some silt and gravel (FILL)

Grey brown silty clay (POSSIBLEFILL)

Very stiff to stiff, grey brown CLAYEYSILT (WEATHERED CRUST)

Loose to compact, grey SANDY SILT

Compact, grey silty sand, somegravel, possible cobbles and boulders(TILL)

End of Borehole

LOGGED: A.N.

CHECKED:

SOIL PROFILE

Ground Surface

DEPTH(m)

20 40

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 40


80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


95.12



-7 -6 -5 -4

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING


SAMPLES


20

Q -U -

60 80

W

ELEV.

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

10 10 10 10

nat. V -rem. V -

40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

20

60

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Wp Wl80

PROJECT: 14-564



ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BO

RE

HO

LE R

EC

OR

D 2

012

WIT

H L

AB

WC

14-

564

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S D

EC

EM

BE

R 4

201

4.G

PJ

12

-17-

14

>>

>>

L.B.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

A.S.

C.S.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

-

-

7

3

2

6

50+

Pow

er A

uger

0.30

0.59

2.90

3.81

4.32

4.72



94.58

94.29

91.98

91.07

90.56

90.16

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

Grey, crushed sand and gravel, tracesilt and cobbles (FILL)

Brown, fine to medium grained sand,some silt and gravel (FILL)

Very stiff to stiff, grey brown SILTYCLAY (WEATHERED CRUST)

Stiff to firm, grey SILTY CLAY

Loose, grey SANDY SILT, trace clay

Grey silty sand, trace to some gravel(TILL)

End of BoreholeAuger refusal on inferred bedrock

LOGGED: A.N.

CHECKED:

SOIL PROFILE

Ground Surface

DEPTH(m)

20 40

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 40


80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


94.88



-7 -6 -5 -4

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING


SAMPLES


20

Q -U -

60 80

W

ELEV.

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

10 10 10 10

nat. V -rem. V -

40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

20

60

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Wp Wl80

PROJECT: 14-564



ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BO

RE

HO

LE R

EC

OR

D 2

012

WIT

H L

AB

WC

14-

564

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S D

EC

EM

BE

R 4

201

4.G

PJ

12

-17-

14

L.B.

1

2

3

4

5

6

A.S.

C.S.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

-

-

7

3

5

5

Pow

er A

uger

0.41

0.84

3.28

4.50



94.39

93.96

91.52

90.30

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger


Grey brown silty clay (FILL)- A geotextile overlying a whiteperforated drainage pipe wasencountered in the fill material

Very stiff to stiff, grey brown SILTYCLAY (WEATHERED CRUST)

Loose, grey SANDY SILT, trace clay

End of BoreholeAuger refusal on inferred bedrock

LOGGED: A.N.

CHECKED:

SOIL PROFILE

Ground Surface

DEPTH(m)

20 40

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 40


80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


94.80



-7 -6 -5 -4

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR


AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING


SAMPLES


20

Q -U -

60 80

W

ELEV.

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

10 10 10 10

nat. V -rem. V -

40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

20

60

40

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Wp Wl80

PROJECT: 14-564



ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

BO

RE

HO

LE R

EC

OR

D 2

012

WIT

H L

AB

WC

14-

564

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S D

EC

EM

BE

R 4

201

4.G

PJ

12

-17-

14

>>

L.B.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE A1

Grain Size, mm

% P

assi

ng

BoreholeLegend Depth (m)Sample

1.5 - 2.1414-1

Project: 14-564

Date: December 2014

SAND

Sieve Size, mm

4.759.5

13.2

19.0

26.5

37.5

50.075.0

.075.150

.180

.250.425.8502.0063.0

CO

BB

LES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SILT AND CLAYGRAVEL

SO

ILS

GR

AIN

SIZ

E G

RA

PH

UN

IFIE

D 1

4-56

4 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

DE

CE

MB

ER

4 2

014.

GP

J H

OU

LE C

HE

VR

IER

FE

B 9

201

1.G

DT

12-

17-1

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

"A" LINE

FIGURE A2PLASTICITY CHART

LOW HIGH

"U" LINE

Liquid Limit, %

Pla

stic

ity In

dex,

PI

Legend Borehole Sample Depth (m)

14-1

14-2

4

5

1.5 - 2.1

3.8 - 4.4

LL % PL % PI %

50.7

17.8

20.9

16.5

29.8

1.2

Project: 14-564

Date: December 2014

HC

E A

TT

ER

BE

RG

LIM

ITS

14-

564

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S D

EC

EM

BE

R 4

201

4.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R F

EB

9 2

011.

GD

T 1

2-17

-14

MH or OH

ML or OLCL - ML

CL or OL

CH or OH

7

4

16

Group Symbol

CL = Lean ClayML = SiltCH = Fat ClayMH = Elastic SiltCL - ML = Silty ClayOL (Above "A" Line) = Organic ClayOL (Below "A" Line) = Organic SiltOH (Above "A" Line) = Organic ClayOH (Below "A" Line) = Organic Silt


APPENDIX B

Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion

Paracel Laboratories Report No.1450068

Order Date: 8-Dec-2014 Report Date: 11-Dec-2014

Fax: (613) 836-9731Phone: (613) 836-1422

Client PO:

This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:

Custody: 103647

Attn: Luc BouchardOttawa, ON K0A1L0180 Wescar Lane

Certificate of Analysis

Paracel ID Client ID

Houle Chevrier

Order #: 1450068

Project: 14-564

1450068-01 BH14-2 SA-3

Approved By:Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BScLaboratory Director

Page 1 of 7

Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work

Certificate of AnalysisClient:

Report Date: 11-Dec-2014Order Date:8-Dec-2014

Client PO: Project Description: 14-564Houle Chevrier

Order #: 1450068

Analysis Summary Table

Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction 10-Dec-14 10-Dec-14AnionsMOE E3138 - probe @25 °C, water ext 10-Dec-14 10-Dec-14ConductivityEPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 9-Dec-14 10-Dec-14pHGravimetric, calculation 9-Dec-14 9-Dec-14Solids, %

Page 2 of 7




Order #: 1450068

Client ID: BH14-2 SA-3 - - -Sample Date: ---04-Dec-14

1450068-01 - - -Sample ID:MDL/Units Soil - - -

Physical Characteristics

% Solids ---67.60.1 % by Wt.

General Inorganics

Conductivity ---2375 uS/cm

pH ---7.150.05 pH Units

Anions

Chloride ---305 ug/g dry

Sulphate ---485 ug/g dry

Page 3 of 7




Order #: 1450068

Method Quality Control: Blank

Analyte ResultReporting

Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride ND 5 ug/gSulphate ND 5 ug/g

General InorganicsConductivity ND 5 uS/cm

Page 4 of 7




Order #: 1450068

Method Quality Control: Duplicate


Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 6.4 5 ug/g dry 6.3 201.6Sulphate 10.2 5 ug/g dry 10.1 201.3

General InorganicsConductivity 245 5 uS/cm 237 6.23.1pH 6.05 0.05 pH Units 6.04 100.2

Physical Characteristics% Solids 92.2 0.1 % by Wt. 92.2 250.0

Page 5 of 7




Order #: 1450068

Method Quality Control: Spike


Limit Units SourceResult

%REC %RECLimit

RPDRPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 9.1 0.6 84.4 78-113mg/LSulphate 10.6 1.01 95.9 78-111mg/L

Page 6 of 7




Order #: 1450068

Qualifier Notes :None

Sample Data RevisionsNone

Work Order Revisions / Comments :

None

Other Report Notes :

MDL: Method Detection Limit

n/a: not applicable

Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples%REC: Percent recovery.RPD: Relative percent difference.

ND: Not Detected

Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'.Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.

Page 7 of 7

experience • knowledge • reliability

geotechnical

environmental

hydrogeology

materials testing & inspection

geotechnical investigation proposed richmond...

Documents