Geotechnical Report Site Investigation and Design … · 2018-09-24 · SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT...

Geotechnical Report

Site Investigation and Design Recommendations

Ottawa Community Housing Project

3225 Uplands Drive Prepared for:

Atelier 292 Architect Inc.

292 Main Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1S 1E1

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

115 Walgreen Road

Carp, ON

K0A 1L0

June, 2017-Revised

CP-16-0469

3225 Uplands Drive, Ottawa, ON Geotechnical Report, CP-16-0469

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

3.0 FIELD PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................................... 1

4.0 LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................... 2

5.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 2

5.1 Site Geology ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

5.2 Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................................................ 2

5.2.1 Fill .................................................................................................................................................................... 2

5.2.2 Limestone Bedrock .......................................................................................................................................... 3

5.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

5.4 Chemical Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 3

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

6.1 General .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

6.1.1 Proposed Building ........................................................................................................................................... 4

6.2 Foundations ............................................................................................................................................................ 4

6.2.1 Strip or Spread Footings .................................................................................................................................. 5

6.2.2 Lateral earth Pressure ..................................................................................................................................... 5

6.2.3 Slab-on-Grade ................................................................................................................................................. 5

6.3 Rock Excavation ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

6.4 Frost Protection ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

6.5 Site Classification for Seismic Site Response .......................................................................................................... 6

6.6 Dewatering .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

6.7 Corrosion Potential and Cement Type .................................................................................................................... 7

6.8 Site Services ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

6.9 Pavement Structure ................................................................................................................................................ 7

7.0 CLOSURE ........................................................................................................................................... 8


ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1: Compressive Strength Test .................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 5-2: Soil Chemical Analysis Results ................................................................................................................................ 3

Table 6-1: Backfill Material Properties .................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 6-2: Proposed Pavement Structure ............................................................................................................................... 7

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Limitations of Report

APPENDIX B Figures

APPENDIX C Borehole Records

APPENDIX D Laboratory Test Results


1

SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT AND

FOUNDAITON DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

for

Atelier 292 Architect Inc.

3225 Uplands Drive, Ottawa, Ontario

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the factual findings obtained from a geotechnical investigation performed at the above

mentioned site, for the proposed townhouses in Ottawa, Ontario. The field work was carried out on October 7,

2016 and comprised of three boreholes advanced to a maximum depth of 4.4 m below existing ground surface.

The purpose of the investigation was to explore the subsurface conditions at this site and to provide anticipated

geotechnical conditions influencing the design and construction of the proposed buildings.

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd (McIntosh Perry) carried out the investigation at the request of

Atelier 292 Architect Inc..

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site for the proposed buildings is located on Uplands Drive, in Ottawa. The property contains a housing

development, the area under consideration for development is a portion of land along the south section of the

property bordered on Uplands Drive. The topography of the site was observed to be sloped up from the road and

then plateauing. The site is located on a residential road, bordered by apartment and townhouse developments.

The property is covered with grass and occasional trees and bushes. Occasional cobble and boulder size rock were

also observed at the surface. The location of the site is shown on Figure 1 included in Appendix B. The proposed

building location is shown on Figure 2 included in Appendix B, it is understood that the proposed construction will

include seven townhomes and three triplexes.

3.0 FIELD PROCEDURES

Public utility clearance was carried out by USL-1 on behalf of McIntosh Perry. Public and private utility

authorities were informed and all utility clearance documents were obtained before the commencement of

drilling work.

The equipment used for drilling was owned and operated by CCC Geotechnical and Enviromental Drilling of

Ottawa, Ontario. Three boreholes were advanced at this site using a truck-mounted CME 45B drilling rig.

Boreholes were advanced using hollow stem auger. Samples were taken at 0.75 m interval, using a 51 mm

O.D. split spoon sampler in accordance with Standard Penetration Test (SPT) procedures, until refusal.

Boreholes were advanced beyond refusal into bedrock using by core barrel with diamond drill bit and the

cores were retrieved by wireline tool. Borehole locations are shown on Figure 2 included in Appendix B.


2

4.0 LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES

Compressive strength test in accordance with ASTM-D7012 Method C was performed on selected segments

of the rock core samples. AME laboratories in Ottawa, Ontario performed the compressive strength test, on

behalf of McIntosh Perry. Test results provided by AME laboratory are included in Appendix D.

Paracel Laboratories Ltd., in Ottawa carried out chemical tests on one representative soil sample to

determine the soil corrosivity characteristics.

The rest of the soil and rock samples will be stored in McIntosh Perry storage facility for a period of one

month after submission of the final report. Samples will be disposed after this period of time unless

otherwise requested in writing by the owner or its representatives.

5.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Site Geology

Based on published maps of the area (Ontario Geological Survey), the site is located within the Physiographic

Region of Russell and Prescott Sand Plains. The Russell and Prescott Sand Plains extend to the south of the

Ottawa Valley Clay Plains, from Ottawa to Hawkesbury. The surface elevations are approximately 15 m higher

than those found within the lower lying clay plains to the north. The sand plains were deposited by the

Ottawa River and its north-bank tributaries into the Champlain Sea. Some sand and gravel deposits south of

Ottawa are of glaciofluvial origin.

Surficial geology maps of the area also indicate existence of the property is on Paleozoic bedrock, bordered

closely by till and coarse-textured glaciomarine deposits.

5.2 Subsurface Conditions

In general, the site stratigraphy within the proposed building footprints consisted of fill material overtop

Limestone Bedrock.

a) Fill

b) Limestone Bedrock

The soils encountered during the course of the investigation, together with the field and laboratory test

results are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets included in the Appendix C. Laboratory test results are

provided in Appendix D. Descriptions of the strata encountered are given below.

5.2.1 Fill

A layer of loose to compact fill was encountered in all boreholes. The fill consisted of a thin topsoil layer, with

combination of sand with depth. The fill contained occasional cobbles and boulders, and was found to be brown

and dry. The fill layer was found to range in thickness from 0.8 m to 1.1 m, with SPT ‘N’ values ranging from 8 to 11

blows/300 mm.


3

5.2.2 Limestone Bedrock

Boreholes were advanced beyond SPT and auger refusal to retrieve bedrock samples. The cores were

measured and logged both on site and in the office, and were observed to be medium to dark grey Limestone

from the Bobcaygon Formation, slightly weathered to fresh with fractures along roughly undulating shaly

partings. The bedrock elevation varied between El. 98.5 and El. 100.2.

The RQD measured within the limestone section of the retrieved rock cores varied largely and were observed

to increase with depth. Lower RQD values between 0% and 54% were found within the first 1.0 m to 1.2 m of

the rock surface, transitioning between elevations of El. 97.5 m and 99.0 m. Below the more fractured

weathered surface of the rock, the RQD values range between 76% and 100%. Based on the RQD values, the

limestone of the bedrock may be classified as poor to good quality. The majority of the fractures were

observed at the shale beddings.

Selected rock core samples were tested in the laboratory to determine the uniaxial compressive strength.

The results show an average compressive strength of 84.0 MPa. The results of rock core samples are included

in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5-1: Compressive Strength Test

Borehole Run No L/D Ratio Unit Mass

(kg/m3)

Strength

(MPa)

BH16-1 4 2.14:1 2,714 147.7

BH16-2 5 2.21:1 2,635 46.6

BH16-3 5 2.12:1 2,656 57.8

5.3 Groundwater

The core water from each borehole was purged in an attempt to measure the ground water table. The

ground water was observed between 3.01 m and 3.94 m below the ground surface, at an average elevation of

El. 96.9 m. Groundwater level may be expected to fluctuate due to the influence of seasonal changes.

5.4 Chemical Analysis

The chemical test results conducted by Paracel Laboratories in Ottawa, Ontario, to determine the resistivity,

pH, sulphate and chloride content of a representative soil sample. These results are shown in Table 5-2

below:

Table 5-2: Soil Chemical Analysis Results

Borehole Sample Depth pH Sulphate

(%)

Chloride

(%)

Resistivity

(Ohm-cm)

BH16-2 SS-1 0.0 – 0.6 7.69 0.0049 0.0010 1,800


4

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

This section of the report provides recommendations for the design of the proposed buildings to be

constructed at 3225 Uplands Drive in Ottawa, Ontario. The recommendations are based on interpretation of

factual information obtained from the boreholes advanced during the subsurface investigation. The

discussions and recommendations presented are intended to provide sufficient information to the designer

of the proposed building to select the suitable type(s) of foundation to support the structure.

The comments made on the construction are intended to highlight those aspects which could have impact or

affect the detail design of the building, for which special provisions may be required in the Contract

Documents. Those requiring information on construction aspects should make their own interpretation of

the factual data presented in the report. Interpretation of the data presented may affect equipment

selection, proposed construction methods, and scheduling of construction activities.

6.1.1 Proposed Building

It is understood the proposed construction will include four independent structures. On the west side of the

access road, is planned to be a row house containing seven homes, and on the east side of the access road

three triplex units. It is understood all of these structures will be two story buildings with a basement.

At present there is still no definitive information on the proposed elevation of the finished floor nor the

basement level. Therefore the foundation engineering recommendations were developed supposing the

founding level will be 1.8 m or lower below the average elevation of the west and east side of the property,

approximately El. 97.8 m or lower for the west side (row houses) and El. 99.2 m or lower for the east side

(triplexes). It is expected to receive finalized site grading and architectural plans before issuing the final

report, unless the present recommendations are deemed adequate.

6.2 Foundations

The subsurface conditions at this site consist of 0.8 m to 1.1 m of fill underlain by bedrock, at an elevation

ranging from El. 98.5 to El. 100.2. The bedrock encountered at this location is intensely fractured and very

poor quality to about El. 97.5 to El. 99.0, from west to east. The groundwater level was observed within the

bedrock at an average elevation of El. 96.9.

Considering the quality of bedrock at the founding level, the excavation should be extended just below El.

97.2 (west) to El. 98.7 (east), and covered with a layer of concrete as soon as practically possible. This will

prevent degradation of the bedrock surface upon exposure. All loose pieces of bedrock shall be removed

before placing the protective concrete slab. 75 mm of concrete is required underneath the footings. The

compressive strength of the concrete shall not be less than the bearing capacity which was used for structural

design or it should be equal to the compressive strength of proposed footings. This requirement may be

addressed with a note on the structural drawing for foundation and/or with a Non Standard Special Provision

(NSSP).


5

6.2.1 Strip or Spread Footings

Considering the order of load expected at the foundation level and the bedrock conditions at this site, it is

considered that provision of a conventional strip or spread footings will be adequate to support the proposed

structure. It is recommended that the footings for the structure placed below El. 97.2 m (west) and El. 98.7 m

(east) on limestone bedrock or on a concrete working to be designed using a geotechnical resistance of 750

kPa at Ultimate Limit State (ULS). This bearing capacity value is estimated based on minimum RQD of 75%.

Serviceability Limit State is not required for the expected structural loads. Settlements are expected to be

sub-millimeter for a conventional wood-frame residential building.

The compact to loose fill overburden does not provide a suitable bearing surface. It is important to install all

footings on similar bearing surface (bedrock) to avoid differential settlements.

Geotechnical resistance or the bearing pressure at SLS will not govern because of the bedrock at the founding

elevation and the load expected from the proposed structure at the footing level. The load required to

produce detrimental settlement of the structure will be much larger than the recommended value for

factored geotechnical resistance at ULS.

Strip footings shall not be narrower than 0.6 m in width.

All foundation walls shall be backfilled with free draining material conforming to OPSS Granular criteria.

Weeping tiles shall be installed around the foundation perimeter and at the subgrade level. These drainage

pipes shall provide positive flow to the existing storm services.

6.2.2 Lateral earth Pressure

Free draining material should be used as backfill for foundation walls. If proper drainage is provided “at rest”

condition may be assumed for calculation of earth pressure on foundation walls. Where clear stone is used

around the drainage or storm sewer, especially below the groundwater level, it should be surrounded by

suitable filter cloth or geotextile to eliminate migration of soil into the open voids of the stone. Migration of

soil, would likely result in surface settlement. The following parameters are recommended for the granular

backfill.

Table 6-1: Backfill Material Properties

Borehole Granular “A” Granular “B”

Effective Internal Friction Angle, �� 35° 30°

Unit Weight, �� ⁄ � 22.8 22.8

Existing fill material is not considered suitable for foundation backfill.

6.2.3 Slab-on-Grade

Conventional slab-on-grade elements are suitable to be used for the basement floor. For basement floor

slabs, a layer of OPSS Granular A, compacted to minimum 100% SPMDD, with minimum thickness of 150 mm,

should be placed directly below the slab-on-grade. The elevation difference between the founding level (or

bottom of excavation) and the underside of the Granular A shall be backfilled with OPSS Granular B Type II or


6

Granular A, compacted to minimum 100% SPMDD, extending up to 500 mm below the slab. Any grade raise

required at elevations lower than 500 mm below the slab, OPSS granular material shall be compacted to

minimum 95% SPMDD.

All slab-on-grade units shall float independently from all load-bearing structural elements.

It is recommended to install a layer of vapor barrier below all slab-on-grade. All slab-on-grade units shall float

independently from all load-bearing structural elements.

6.3 Rock Excavation

The footings for the proposed structure are expected to be constructed on the limestone bedrock between

El. 97.2 (west) to El. 98.7 (east). Considering the quality of the bedrock to the founding level, rock excavation

may be conducted through line drilling in conjunction with hoe-ramming. Controlled blasting is not

recommended for this building due to close proximity of the proposed and existing structures to the area of

excavation.

In case any blasting is employed for rock excavation, the peak particle velocity during blasting shall be limited

to 50 mm per second to avoid any damage to the adjoining structures and it should be limited to 10 mm per

second to prevent any discomfort to residents. If blasting is selected as excavation method, a licenced

structural engineer shall confirm the excavation method will not damage the nearby structure. Adjacent

structures shall be protected by designing appropriate supporting system In case the excavation extends to

the proximity of those structures.

The excavation for the foundation of the buildings will be advanced through fill consisting of topsoil, sand

with occasional cobbles and boulders. The overburden excavation should be completed in accordance with

Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 213/91 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) with specific

reference to acceptable size slopes and stabilization requirements. The general stratigraphy outlined

herein fall into an OHSA Type 3 soil. For excavations through multiple soil types, the side slope geometry is

governed by the soil with the highest number designation.

6.4 Frost Protection

In accordance with OPSD 3090.101, a minimum of 1.8 m earth cover is required to protect against the frost

penetration in the area where the site is located. The frost penetration depth is measured from the top of

the earth cover to the bottom of footings.

6.5 Site Classification for Seismic Site Response

The site can be classified as a Site Class “C” for the purposes of site-specific seismic response to earthquakes

based on Table 4.1.8.4.A OBC 2012.


7

6.6 Dewatering

Groundwater was observed to vary from a depth of 3.94 m to 3.01 m (El. 97.1 m to 96.5 m) below the existing

ground surface. The excavation for the structure foundation is not expected to extend below El. 97.2 m. In

the event the excavation is extended below expected water table, the amount of groundwater discharge into

the excavation may be substantial due to existing rock fractures.

6.7 Corrosion Potential and Cement Type

It is expected that footing installation will be on concrete protection slab placed on bedrock, no sulphate

attack is expected from limestone bedrock; General Use (Type GU) Portland cement will be adequate. Based

on the measured soil electrical resistivity and pH, a non-aggressive corrosive environment is expected for

buried steel elements in contact with native soil.

6.8 Site Services

The burial depth of water-bearing utility lines is typically 2.4 m below ground surface in Ottawa. If this depth

is not achievable due to design restrictions, equivalent thermal insulation should be provided.

The contractor should retain a professional engineer to provide detailed drawings for excavation and

temporary support of the excavation walls during construction.

Utilities should be supported on minimum of 150 mm bedding of Granular A compacted to minimum 95% of

standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). Since the native subgrade is fine grained, it is

recommended to separate the subgrade from the bedding material by a layer of geotextile to prevent cross

migration of materials. Utility cover can be Granular A or Granular B type II compacted to 95% SPMDD. All

covers to be compacted to 100% SPMDD if intersecting structural elements.

6.9 Pavement Structure

No traffic information has been provided to McIntosh Perry. It is understood as part of this construction, 7

additional parking spots will be added. The pavement structure most likely to be placed on existing sandy

material overlaying bedrock. The topsoil and any soft materials should be removed and the remainder of the

existing fill should be proof rolled under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer. Should grade raise be

required, compacted Granular B Type II or Granular A should be placed as needed and compacted to 98%

SPMDD prior to construction of pavement structure. The proposed pavement structure is included in Table

6-2.

Table 6-2: Proposed Pavement Structure

Material Thickness

(mm)

Surface Superpave 12.5 mm, Design Category B (or HL 3), PG 58-34 50

Base OPSS Granular A 150

Sub-base OPSS Granular B Type II 350


8

Both base and sub-base should be compacted to 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD).

Existing sandy material is not suitable to be used for pavement structure. Asphalt layers should be

compacted to comply with OPSS 310.

7.0 CLOSURE

We trust this report satisfies requirements of your project and provides adequate information for the defined

scope of work. Field investigations are conducted through limited subsurface sampling. A geotechnical

representative shall review the construction process. During the construction, in case of encountering any

site condition different from what predicted in this report, authors shall be immediately notified to evaluate

the situation. The “Limitations of Report” presented in Appendix A are an integral part of this report. Please

contact the undersigned should you have any questions or concerns.


Mary-Ellen Gleeson, M.Eng., EIT.

Geotechnical Engineering Intern

N’eem Tavakkoli, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer


9

REFERENCES

1) Canadian Geotechnical Society, “Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual”, 4th

Edition, 2006.

2) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2, “The Physiography

of Southern Ontario”, 3rd

Edition, 1984.

3) Google Earth, Google, 2015.

4) Government of Canada, National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), “Seismic Hazard Calculation” (online), 2010.

5) Canadian Standards Association (CSA), “Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction”, A23.1, 2009

6) Government of Ontario, “Ontario Building Code (OBC),” (online), 2012.

7) MTO – Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual

8) Natural Resources Canada – Seismic Hazard Calculator



115 Walgreen Road, R.R. 3

Carp, ON K0A 1L0

Appendix A

Limitations of Report


115 Walgreen Road, R.R.3

Carp, ON K0A 1L0

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd. (MPCE) carried out the field work and prepared the report. This document is

an integral part of the Foundation Investigation and Design report presented.

The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained at the borehole

locations where the tests were conducted. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the boreholes

may differ from those encountered at the specific locations where tests were conducted and conditions may become

apparent during construction, which were not detected and could not be anticipated at the time of the site

investigation. The benchmark level used and borehole elevations presented in this report are primarily to establish

relative differences in elevations between the borehole locations and should not be used for other purposes such as to

establish elevations for grading, depth of excavations or for planning construction.

The recommendations presented in this report for design are applicable only to the intended structure and the project

described in the scope of the work, and if constructed in accordance with the details outlined in the report. Unless

otherwise noted, the information contained in this report does not reflect on any environmental aspects of either the

site or the subsurface conditions.

The comments or recommendation provided in this report on potential construction problems and possible construction

methods are intended only to guide the designer. The number of boreholes advanced at this site may not be sufficient

or adequate to reveal all the subsurface information or factors that may affect the method and cost of construction. The

contractors who are undertaking the construction shall make their own interpretation of the factual data presented in

this report and make their conclusions, as to how the subsurface conditions of the site may affect their construction

work.

The boundaries between soil strata presented in the report are based on information obtained at the borehole

locations. The boundaries of the soil strata between borehole locations are assumed from geological evidences. If

differing site conditions are encountered, or if the Client becomes aware of any additional information that differs from

or is relevant to the MPCE findings, the Client agrees to immediately advise MPCE so that the conclusions presented in

this report may be re-evaluated.

Under no circumstances shall the liability of MPCE for any claim in contract or in tort, related to the services provided

and/or the content and recommendations in this report, exceed the extent that such liability is covered by such

professional liability insurance from time to time in effect including the deductible therein, and which is available to

indemnify MPCE. Such errors and omissions policies are available for inspection by the Client at all times upon request,

and if the Client desires to obtain further insurance to protect it against any risks beyond the coverage provided by such

policies, MPCE will co-operate with the Client to obtain such insurance.

MPCE prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any

reliance on or decision to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. MPCE accepts no

responsibility and will not be liable for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or

actions taken based on this report.




Carp, ON K0A 1L0

Appendix B

Figures

NepeanCreek

Rideau River

Kilborn Avenue

Hunt Club Road

Merivale Road

Heron Road

McCarthy Road

Bank Street

Baseline Road BrookfieldRoad

Hogs Back Road Walkley Road

Bronson Avenue

Albion Road

West Hunt Club Road

Viewmount D rive

Meadowlan

ds Drive

Daze

Street

Ryder

Street

River

Road

MeadowlandsDrive East

Limebank Road

Leitrim Road

Alta VistaDriv e

PrinceOf Wales Drive

Rive

rside

Drive

Colon

el By D

rive

Airport Parkway

Featherston Drive

LEGEND

³

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION3225 UPLANDS DR., OTTAWA, ON

SITE LOCATION

1FIGURE:

ATELIER 292 ARCHITECT INC.

Nov. 1, 2016JDMG

CP-16-0469

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:

DateGISChecked By115 Walgreen Rd., RR#3, Carp, ON K0A1L0

Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742H:\01

Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2016

Jobs

\CP\

0CP-

16-04

69 At

elier

292 A

rchite

ct Inc

., Tow

nhou

ses &

Apart

ments

, 322

5 Upla

nds (

Ottaw

a)\GI

S\mx

d\CP-

16-04

69_G

eotec

hnica

l_01_

SiteL

ocati

on32

25Up

lands

.mxd

REFERENCE

PropertyLocal RoadMajor RoadWooded Area

WatercourseWaterbodyUnevaluated WetlandProvincially Significant Wetland

GIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2016.

Site Location

Metres

1,500 0 1,500750

Scale 1:40,000

LEGEND

³

BOREHOLE LOCATIONS

2FIGURE:

JD

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT:

DateGISChecked By115 Walgreen Rd., RR#3, Carp, ON K0A1L0

Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742H:\01

Proj

ect -

Prop

osals

\2016

Jobs

\CP\

0CP-

16-04

69 At

elier

292 A

rchite

ct Inc

., Tow

nhou

ses &

Apart

ments

, 322

5 Upla

nds (

Ottaw

a)\GI

S\mx

d\CP-

16-04

69_G

eotec

hnica

l_02_

Boreh

oleLo

catio

ns32

25Up

lands

.mxd

REFERENCE

@A Borehole LocationApproximate Area of InvestigationApproximate Outline of Proposed Townhome/Triplex

GIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2016.MG

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION3225 UPLANDS DR., OTTAWA, ON

ATELIER 292 ARCHITECT INC.

Nov. 1, 2016CP-16-0469

Metres

20 0 2010

Scale 1:600




Carp, ON K0A 1L0

Appendix C

Borehole Records

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

8

50/50mm

REC92%

REC75%

REC94%

REC100%

1

2

3

4

5

6

________________________________RQD = 42%________________________________

147.7 MPa

RQD = 54%

________________________________

RQD = 83%

_______________________________

RQD = 100%

1.1

4.3

FILL, topsoil, sand, occasional cobbles andboulders, loose, brown, dry

LIMESTONE BEDROCK light to mediumgrey, slight to not weathered, fractures roughlyundulating gnerally occurring at shaly partings

END OF BOREHOLE

98.5

95.3

ST

RA

T P

LOT

wP

LIQUIDLIMIT

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd1-1329 Gardiners RdKingston, Ontario K7P 0L8

METRIC

MG

MG

NT

kN/m3

SAMPLES

SI

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

FIELD VANE

SA

RECORD OF BOREHOLE No 16-1

Numbers refer toSensitivity

25 50 75

"N"

VA

LUE

S(R

QD

)

20 40 60 80 100

, 3

PLASTICLIMIT

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DATE

w

QUICK TRIAXIAL

UNCONFINED

ORIGINATED BY

COMPILED BY

CHECKED BY

1 OF 1

99.60.0

ELEVDEPTH

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

SOIL PROFILE

3%STRAIN AT FAILURE

CL

LOCATION

COORDINATE

DATUM

07/10/2016

CP-16-0469

Atelier 292 Architect Inc

99.6

ID

CLIENT

ELEVATION

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

wL

WATER CONTENT (%)

GR

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

:

DESCRIPTION

3225 Uplands Dr

Co-ord; 45.323691;-74.687398

Geodetic

3

99

98

97

96

MP

MT

O T

EM

PLA

TE

(U

SE

) U

PLA

ND

S D

R B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J D

UN

NIN

G R

OA

D C

ULV

ER

T.G

DT

11

/11/

16

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

10

50/100mm

REC65%

REC93%

REC100%

1

2

3

4

5

6

_______________________

RQD = 27%

_______________________

46.6 MPa

RQD = 76%

_______________________

RQD = 75%

1.1

4.2



END OF BOREHOLE

98.9

95.8

ST

RA

T P

LOT

wP

LIQUIDLIMIT


METRIC

MG

MG

NT

kN/m3

SAMPLES

SI

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



FIELD VANE

SA



25 50 75

"N"

VA

LUE

S(R

QD

)

20 40 60 80 100

, 3

PLASTICLIMIT

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DATE

w

QUICK TRIAXIAL

UNCONFINED

ORIGINATED BY

COMPILED BY

CHECKED BY

1 OF 1

100.00.0

ELEVDEPTH

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

SOIL PROFILE

3%STRAIN AT FAILURE

CL

LOCATION

COORDINATE

DATUM

07/10/2016

CP-16-0469


100

ID

CLIENT

ELEVATION

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

wL

WATER CONTENT (%)

GR

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

:

DESCRIPTION

3225 Uplands Dr

Co-ord; 45.323721;-74.687165

Geodetic

3

99

98

97

96

MP

MT

O T

EM

PLA

TE

(U

SE

) U

PLA

ND

S D

R B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J D

UN

NIN

G R

OA

D C

ULV

ER

T.G

DT

11

/11/

16

SS

SS

RC

RC

RC

RC

11

50/50mm

REC71%

REC33%

REC98%

REC94

1

2

3

4

5

6

________________________________

RQD = 0%

________________________________

RQD = 0%

________________________________

57.8 MPa

RQD = 96%

_______________________________

RQD = 90%

0.8

4.4



END OF BOREHOLE

100.2

96.6

ST

RA

T P

LOT

wP

LIQUIDLIMIT


METRIC

MG

MG

NT

kN/m3

SAMPLES

SI

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa



FIELD VANE

SA



25 50 75

"N"

VA

LUE

S(R

QD

)

20 40 60 80 100

, 3

PLASTICLIMIT

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

DATE

w

QUICK TRIAXIAL

UNCONFINED

ORIGINATED BY

COMPILED BY

CHECKED BY

1 OF 1

101.00.0

ELEVDEPTH

LAB VANE20 40 60 80 100

SOIL PROFILE

3%STRAIN AT FAILURE

CL

LOCATION

COORDINATE

DATUM

07/10/2016

CP-16-0469


101

ID

CLIENT

ELEVATION

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

wL

WATER CONTENT (%)

GR

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

:

DESCRIPTION

3225 Uplands Dr

Co-ord; 45.323825;-74.686471

Geodetic

3

100

99

98

97

MP

MT

O T

EM

PLA

TE

(U

SE

) U

PLA

ND

S D

R B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J D

UN

NIN

G R

OA

D C

ULV

ER

T.G

DT

11

/11/

16

ROCK CORE DESCRIPTION

Borehole ID: BH16-1

3225 Uplands Rd, CP-16-0469:

CORE RECOVERY CORE DESCRIPTION

RC No. DEPTH (m) % CR* % RQD** DEPTH (m) DESCRIPTION

3

1.11 – 1.22

92%

42%

1.11 – 4.27

LIMESTONE (Bobcaygeon Formation) – Light to medium grey

sublithographic to finely crystalline limestone. Bedding is chaotic with

stylolites and bioturbation. Fractures roughly undulating to smoothly

undulating generally occurring at shaly partings.

Slight weathering to 1.4 m, fresh below. Open fractures with silty clay

infilling at 1.73 m and between 3.53 m to 3.56m.

Vugs with calcite infilling between 1.83 – 2.08 m.

4

1.22 – 2.08

75%

54%

5

2.08 – 3.61

94%

83%

6

3.61 – 4.27

100%

100%

CR* - Core Recovery Logged by: D. Arnott, P.Eng

RQD** - Rock Quality Designation

Note: Depths are approximate where core recovery is less than 100%


Borehole ID: BH16-2

3225 Uplands Rd, CP-16-0469:



4

1.14 – 2.08

65%

27%

1.14 – 4.16


sublithographic to finely crystalline limestone with <1 cm thick shaly

partings. Chaotic bedding with stylolites and bioturbation. Fractures

roughly undulating generally occurring at shaly partings.

Slightly weathered to 1.5 m, fresh below.

Open fractures with silty clay infilling at 1.73 m and between 3.53 m to

3.56m.

5

2.08 – 3.61

93%

76%

6

3.61 – 4.16

100%

75%





Borehole ID: BH16-3

3225 Uplands Rd, CP-16-0469:



3

0.81 – 1.42

71%

0%

0.81 – 4.37


sublithographic to finely crystalline limestone with <1cm thick shaly

partings. Bedding is chaotic with stylolites and bioturbation. Fractures

roughly undulating, generally occurring at shaly partings.

Slight weathering to 2.03 m, fresh below. Slight weathering at 3.73 m.

Vugs with calcite infilling between 2.03 – 2.59 m.

4

1.42 – 2.03

33%

0%

5

2.03 – 3.35

98%

96%

6

3.35 – 4.37

94%

90%







Carp, ON K0A 1L0

Appendix D

Laboratory Test Results

215 Stafford Rd. West, Unit 104

Ottawa, Ontario K2H 9C1

Phone: 613-726-3039

Fax: 613-726-3004

e-mail: [email protected]

Kilo Diameter Height Mass Area Volume Age Type of Unit Mass Strength L/D Correction Corrected

Newtons (m) (m) (kg) (m 2 ) (m 3 ) (Years) Fracture (kg/m 3 ) (Mpa) Ratio Factor Strength (MPA)

Comments:

H. Smith Reviewed By (Signature) : 11/04/2016Reviewed By (Print):

Rock Cores

Project Number: 60182.002 (CP-16-0469)

Core #

BH16-01 255.1 0.0469 0.1003 0.4702 N/A N/A

RC-4

2635 46.6 2.21:1 N/A N/A

Project Name: 3225 Uplands Dr.

2714 147.7 2.14:10.0017 0.00017

Compressive Strength

Test Report

BH16-02 82.5 0.0475 0.1048 0.4894 0.00177 0.00019

RC-5

BH16-03 101.5 0.0473 0.1001 0.4672 0.00176

RC-5

2656 57.8 2.12:1 N/A N/A0.00018

CCIL Certified Concrete Testing Laboratory

www.paracellabs.com1-800-749-1947

Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd

Attn: Mary Ellen GleesonRR#3 Carp, ON K0A 1L0115 Walgreen RoadMcIntosh Perry Consulting Eng. (Carp)

Certificate of Analysis

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

Paracel ID Client ID

Order #: 1643332

Order Date: 20-Oct-2016 Report Date: 24-Oct-2016

Client PO: CP-16-0469

Custody: 106522 Project: Uplands

1643332-01 BH16-2 SS-1

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 any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.

Approved By:

Page 1 of 7

Lab Supervisor

Mark Foto, M.Sc.

Order #: 1643332

Project Description: Uplands

Certificate of AnalysisClient:

Report Date: 24-Oct-2016

Order Date: 20-Oct-2016


McIntosh Perry Consulting Eng. (Carp)

Analysis Summary Table

Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction 21-Oct-16 22-Oct-16AnionsEPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 22-Oct-16 22-Oct-16pH, soilEPA 120.1 - probe, water extraction 21-Oct-16 21-Oct-16ResistivityGravimetric, calculation 22-Oct-16 22-Oct-16Solids, %

Page 2 of 7

Order #: 1643332







Client ID: BH16-2 SS-1 - - -Sample Date: ---07-Oct-16

1643332-01 - - -Sample ID:MDL/Units Soil - - -

Physical Characteristics

% Solids ---86.90.1 % by Wt.

General Inorganics

pH ---7.690.05 pH Units

Resistivity ---18.00.10 Ohm.m

Anions

Chloride ---105 ug/g dry

Sulphate ---495 ug/g dry

Page 3 of 7

Order #: 1643332







Method Quality Control: Blank

Analyte ResultReporting

Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride ND 5 ug/g Sulphate ND 5 ug/g

General InorganicsResistivity ND 0.10 Ohm.m

Page 4 of 7

Order #: 1643332







Method Quality Control: Duplicate


Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

General InorganicspH 7.74 0.05 pH Units 7.75 100.1Resistivity 108 0.10 Ohm.m 108 200.1

Physical Characteristics% Solids 87.7 0.1 % by Wt. 86.0 252.0

Page 5 of 7

Order #: 1643332







Method Quality Control: Spike


Limit Units SourceResult

%REC %RECLimit

RPDRPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 97.7 97.7 78-1135 ug/g Sulphate 100 100 78-1115 ug/g

Page 6 of 7

Order #: 1643332







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

Geotechnical Report Site Investigation and Design … · 2018-09-24 · SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT...

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Report Site Investigation and Design … · 2018-09-24 · SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT...