Geotechnical Investigation Report - Scugog

374 Pido Road Peterborough Ontario K9J 6X7 Canada | 11196473 | 02 | Report No 1 | September 11, 2019

Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Motel Development 1430 King Street, Port Perry, Ontario

Jadoro Investments Ltd.

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Motel Development, 1430 King Street, Port Perry, Ontario | 11196473 (01) |

Page i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 1

3. Field and Laboratory Procedures ................................................................................................. 2

4. Site Location and Surface Conditions .......................................................................................... 3

5. Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................. 3

5.1 Topsoil................................................................................................................................ 4

5.2 Clayey Silt .......................................................................................................................... 4

5.3 Till ....................................................................................................................................... 4

5.4 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 4

5.5 Hydraulic Conductivity and Infiltration Rates ..................................................................... 5

6. Discussion and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 6

6.1 Site Preparation Excavation, Dewatering and Backfill ....................................................... 6

6.2 Service Installation ............................................................................................................. 7

6.3 Foundation Design ............................................................................................................. 8

6.3.1 Subexcavation and Engineered Fill .................................................................. 8 6.3.2 Ground Improvement Techniques .................................................................. 10 6.3.3 Deep Foundations .................................................................................................. 10

6.4 Seismic Site Classification ............................................................................................... 11

6.5 Slab on Grade .................................................................................................................. 12

6.6 Pavement Design ............................................................................................................. 12

6.7 Water Balance Evaluation................................................................................................ 14

6.8 General Recommendations ............................................................................................. 16

6.8.1 Wells ............................................................................................................... 16 6.8.2 Test Pits During Tendering ............................................................................. 16 6.8.3 Subsoil Sensitivity ........................................................................................... 17 6.8.4 Winter Construction ........................................................................................ 17 6.8.5 Design Review ................................................................................................ 17

7. Statement of Limitations ............................................................................................................. 18

Table Index

Table 5.1 Potentiometric Water Level Summary ............................................................................... 5

Table 6.1 Bearing Pressures for Footings on Engineered Fill ........................................................... 8

Table 6.2 Pavement Structure ......................................................................................................... 13

Table 6.3 Pre Development Summary ............................................................................................ 14


Page ii

Table 6.4 Post Development Summary (No Enhancements) .......................................................... 15

Table 6.5 Post Development Summary (With Enhanced Infiltration) .............................................. 16

Enclosure Figure 1 Test Hole Location Plan

Appendix Index Appendix A Borehole Logs

Appendix B Physical Laboratory Data

Appendix C Hydraulic Conductivity Data

Appendix D Water Balance Calculations


Page 1

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation that was conducted to support

design and construction of a proposed motel that is being considered at the north end of the

property located at 1430 King Street, Port Perry, Ontario. GHD Limited (GHD) was retained by

Jadoro Investments Ltd. (the Client) to complete this geotechnical investigation. The work

conducted for this investigation was carried out in accordance with our proposal PD-1288 dated

June 21, 2019.

The new motel will be a four-storey structure with a slab-on-grade, i.e. no basement. The

development will also include an access driveway and paved parking. The new building will be

privately serviced for water (well) and sanitary disposal (septic system). GHD had conducted a

previous hydrogeological assessment at this property in support of the design for the proposed

septic system. Boreholes BH-1 to BH-5 were advanced in support of the hydrogeological

assessment and are not included in this geotechnical report as they are located well outside the

proposed building limits.

2. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation is to define the subsurface soil and groundwater

conditions at the project site and to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations regarding

earthworks construction, backfill, dewatering and drainage, building foundations, slab-on-grade,

servicing installation and pavement structure for asphalt paved parking and access areas. The

information contained herein must in no way be construed as an opinion of this site’s chemical,

environmental, or hydrogeological status.

The following scope of work was performed in order to accomplish the foregoing purposes:

1. Underground services were cleared prior to advancing the boreholes.

2. The boreholes were located as shown on the Test Hole Location Plan (Figure 1).

3. The subsurface conditions were explored by advancing, sampling and logging a total of

eleven (11) boreholes to depths ranging from 3.5 to 9.6 metres below existing grade (m).

4. The ground at the borehole locations was reinstated as close as possible to its original

condition upon completion of the fieldwork.

5. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in four (4) boreholes to facilitate groundwater

level measurements and in-situ testing.

6. Hydraulic testing (i.e. single well response slug testing) was also completed at the two (2)

monitoring wells to evaluate hydraulic conductivity of the subsoils. The infiltration rate of the

upper vadose zone was evaluated based on the soil type observed and in-situ testing.

7. Physical laboratory analysis of the encountered material was carried out including grain size

analysis with hydrometer, Atterberg Limits testing, and moisture content tests.


Page 2

8. Completed a water balance that considers pre- and post-development conditions and

evaluates groundwater baseflow conditions based on the current design.

9. Geotechnical engineering analysis of acquired field and laboratory data have been compiled

in this report outlining our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical engineering

recommendations.

3. Field and Laboratory Procedures

A field investigation was conducted under the supervision of GHD staff on July 29 and 30, 2019.

Field data collected on June 10, 2019 for the hydrogeological investigation (borehole BH-6) was

used to supplement this investigation. The work consisted of subsurface exploration by means of

advancing and sampling a total of eleven (11) exploratory boreholes to depths ranging from 3.5 to

9.6 m. The location of each borehole is illustrated on the attached Test Hole Location Plan (Figure

1). A detailed log of each borehole was maintained and representative samples of the materials

encountered in the boreholes were collected. A record of each borehole is presented in Appendix A.

The boreholes were advanced using a track mounted drill rig equipped with continuous flight, solid

stem power augers. Representative, disturbed samples of the strata penetrated were obtained

using a split-barrel, 50 mm outer-diameter (OD) sampler advanced by a 63.5 kg hammer dropping

approximately 760 mm. The results of these standard penetration tests (SPT’s) are reported as “N”

values on the borehole logs at the corresponding depths. Samples were also obtained directly form

augers cuttings.

Soil samples obtained from the boreholes were inspected in the field immediately upon retrieval for

type, texture, and colour. All test holes were backfilled following completion of the fieldwork. All

samples were sealed in clean plastic containers and transported to the GHD laboratory for further

visual-tactile examination, and to select appropriate samples for laboratory analysis. Upon

completion, the boreholes were backfilled with a mixture of auger cuttings and bentonite pellets and

sealed at the top with compacted auger cuttings.

Groundwater measurements and observations were obtained from the open boreholes during drilling

operations. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in four (4) boreholes to depths ranging

from 4.6 or 8.4 m. Wells were installed with sand pack around the screened interval, and bentonite

sealant above the screened interval. The monitoring wells were recorded and registered as wells

with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), and remain in place as of writing

this report. Groundwater measurements were obtained from the monitoring wells on August 1 and

14, 2019. Groundwater data is presented on individual Borehole Logs.

Physical laboratory testing was completed on representative soil samples, and consisted of moisture

content tests on all samples recovered, gradation analyses on three (3) representative soil samples

including hydrometers, and Atterberg Limits testing on one (1) of the soil samples. The analytical

results of the moisture content tests are plotted on the attached logs. The results of the gradation

test are incorporated into the borehole logs and are presented graphically in Appendix B.


Page 3

Constant head permeameter testing of the shallow site soils (i.e. infiltration testing) and in-situ

hydraulic response testing (i.e. single well response testing) of the installed monitoring wells were

performed on August 1, 2019 and August 14, 2019, respectively. The hydraulic response testing

consisted of falling head and rising head tests and was completed by introducing a one-metre slug

within the wells and measuring the water levels using a data logger programmed to record reading

at five (5) second intervals. The data was analyzed using AQTESOLV and the Bouwer-Rice

solution. Infiltration testing was completed using an ETC Pask (constant head well) permeameter.

The results for the hydraulic response tests and infiltration tests are presented in Appendix C.

Existing ground surface elevations and UTM coordinates at each borehole were surveyed by DFP

Surveyors and provided to GHD. Elevations hereafter contained in this report are for engineering

analytical purposes only, and must be verified prior to finalizing any design or contract parameters

upon which they are based.

4. Site Location and Surface Conditions

The Property is rectangular in shape and is generally bounded by agricultural (cash crop) fields to

the east and west, Highway 7A to the north and the golf course to the south. Occasional residential

lots occur along both King Street and Highway 7A. The ground surface across the Site is gently

rolling with an overall slope downwards towards the southeast. The maximum differential elevation

between boreholes is 0.6m. Cawker Creek exists approximately 300m to the east of the Site.

The Property is situated in the physiographic region known as the Schomberg Clay Plains

(Chapman and Putnam, 1984) approximately 5km north of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Site exists

within a clay plain with nearby sand plans (approximately 0.6km) to the southeast and northwest.

Drumlins occur near and within these sand plains. The surficial geology is comprised of glacial till.

The Ontario Geological Survey information indicates that the Quaternary geology for the area is

glaciolacustrine deposits of nearshore and beach deposits.

5. Subsurface Conditions

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the Site are graphically presented on the

borehole logs (Appendix A). It should be noted that the boundaries between the strata have been

inferred from the borehole observations and non-continuous samples. They generally represent a

transition from one soil type to another, and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of

geological change. Further, conditions may vary between and beyond the boreholes.

The boreholes generally encountered a surficial layer of topsoil, over firm to very stiff clayey silt,

underlain by compact to very dense silty sand till soils. Groundwater seepage was observed in six

(6) of the boreholes during drilling operations at depths ranging from 3.0 to 7.9m. Groundwater

measurements obtained from the monitoring wells on August 1 and 14, 2019 yielded potentiometric

water levels ranging from 4.2 to 6.1 m.

The following sections describe the major soil strata and subsurface conditions encountered during

this investigation in more detail.


Page 4

5.1 Topsoil

A layer of surficial topsoil was encountered in all boreholes. This topsoil layer ranged from

approximately 150 to 360 mm in thickness. This soil was observed to be in a damp, loose state,

with a silty, highly organic content. As such, it is expected to be devoid of any structural engineering

properties.

5.2 Clayey Silt

A layer of clayey silt was encountered in all boreholes immediately beneath the topsoil and extended

to depths ranging from 2.1 to 3.8 m. The clayey silt appeared light brown in colour and contained

trace amount of sand and gravel. SPT N values obtained from within the clayey silt layer varied

from 4 to 17 blows/300mm, indicating a variable state of in-situ consistency ranging from soft to very

stiff.

Moisture content tests performed on samples of the clayey silt yielded values ranging from

approximately 13% to 28% moisture by weight. Grain size distribution analyses conducted on

representative samples of the clayey silt suggests the following compositional range: 1 % gravel, 4

to 5 % sand, and 94 to 95 % silt and clay-sized particles. Hydrometer analyses conducted on these

samples suggest that the till contains 34 to 37 % particles between 5 and 75 micrometers (m) in

size. An Atterberg Limits test indicated the Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit of the clayey silt soil to

be 13% and 29%, respectively.

5.3 Till

A layer of till was encountered beneath the clayey silt layers in all boreholes and extended to the full

depth of the investigation. The till observed appeared brown to light grey in colour and consisted of

silty sand, contained variable amount of gravel, cobbles and boulders. SPT N values obtained from

within the till layer varied from 1 to over 100 blows/300mm, indicating a variable loose to very dense

in-situ state of relative density.

Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the till yielded values ranging from 8 to 24 %

moisture by weight. A grain size distribution analysis conducted on a representative sample of the

till suggests the following composition: 5 % gravel, 42 % sand, and 53 % silt and clay-sized

particles. A hydrometer analysis of this sample indicated 35 % between 5 and 75 m.

5.4 Groundwater

Groundwater observations and measurements were obtained from the open boreholes during and

upon completion of drilling operations. Groundwater seepage was observed in six (6) of the

boreholes during drilling operations at depths ranging from 3.0 to 7.9 m. Groundwater


water levels ranging from 4.2 to 6.1 m. Groundwater level data is summarized in Table 5.1.


Page 5

Table 5.1 Potentiometric Water Level Summary

Location Ground Elevation

(m)*

Water Level (m) GW Elevation (m)

August 1, 2019 August 1, 2019 August 14, 2019

BH-6 286.93 4.2 4.4 282.73

BH-7 286.66 4.4 4.8 282.26

BH-11 286.87 5.2 5.7 281.67

BH-12 286.81 5.7 6.1 281.11

Notes: m = metres; GW = groundwater; (*) Elevations are geodetic as determined by Donevan Fleischmann Petrich Ltd. (OLS) on July 3, 2019.

It must also be noted that groundwater levels are transient and tend to fluctuate with the seasons,

periods of precipitation, and temperature.

5.5 Hydraulic Conductivity and Infiltration Rates

Constant head permeameter testing of the shallow site soils (i.e. infiltration testing) and in-situ

hydraulic response testing (i.e. single well response testing) of the installed monitoring wells were

performed on August 1, 2019 and August 14, 2019, respectively. Infiltration testing was completed

at depths of approximately 0.3 to 0.6 m below grade near boreholes BH-7 and BH-12 using an ETC

Pask (constant head well) permeameter. The hydraulic response testing consisted of falling head

and rising head tests and was completed by introducing a one-metre slug within the wells and

measuring the water levels using a data logger programmed to record reading at five (5) second

intervals. The data was analyzed using AQTESOLV and the Bouwer-Rice solution. The results for

the hydraulic response tests and infiltration tests are presented in Appendix C.

The K values for the hydraulic conductivity testing are on the order of 10-4 to 10-5 cm/sec. The

hydraulic conductivity testing suggests that excavations within these soils are expected to yield little

water. However, increased amounts of water may be expected when pockets or layer of sand and

gravel are intersected.

Based upon the infiltration testing, the upper vadose zone (clayey silt) has a field saturated hydraulic

conductivity on the order of 10-5 cm/sec. Based on the Supplementary Guidelines to the Ontario

Building Code 2012, this correlates to an infiltration rate of 30 mm/hr. It is noted, however, that

slight variations in the soil stratigraphy may cause variations in the permeability of the soil in both

vertical and horizontal orientations.


Page 6

6. Discussion and Recommendations

Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the foregoing

sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical properties of

the subsurface materials that were encountered at the site and assume that they are representative

of the overall site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and recommendations are

intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the Site

should examine the factual results of the assessment, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the

information for construction, and make their own interpretation of this factual data as it affects their

proposed construction techniques, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like.

Comments, techniques, or recommendations pertaining to construction should not be construed as

instructions to the contractor.

The boreholes generally encountered a surficial layer of topsoil, over firm to very stiff clayey silt,

underlain by compact to very dense glacial till soils. Groundwater seepage was observed in six (6)

of the boreholes during drilling operations at depths ranging from 3.0 to 7.9 m. Groundwater


water levels ranging from 4.2 to 6.1 m.

Details regarding our conclusions and recommendations are outlined in the following sections.

6.1 Site Preparation Excavation, Dewatering and Backfill

Any and all topsoil, vegetation, fill, disturbed earth, concrete, organic and organic-bearing material is

to be stripped and removed from the building envelope area (including floor slab area) and proposed

pavement areas prior to commencing earthwork construction. Overly loose, organic, or otherwise

deleterious materials will require removal and replacement with an approved backfill material. The

subexcavated surface must be proof rolled and/or approved by a member of GHD prior to placement

of fill or foundations.

Excavations must be carried out to conform to the manner specified in Ontario Regulation 213/91

and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects (OHSA). All

excavations above the water table not exceeding 1.2 m in depth may be constructed with

unsupported slopes. The soils encountered above the groundwater during the investigation are

classed by OHSA as Type 3 soil, requiring unsupported walls of excavations to be sloped to the

bottom of the excavation with a gradient of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H: 1V) or flatter, or be retained

using a suitably designed shoring system.

It is recommended that chemical testing of representative soil samples be performed prior to

removal from the site of any excess soils generated during construction, as this will assess the

handling and disposal options available.


Page 7

Based on groundwater-related observations and the depth of excavations expected for this

development (4 to 5 m), it is generally anticipated that groundwater seepage will be encountered in

some locations. It is expected that pumping from collection sumps to an acceptable outlet will

control this expected groundwater infiltration; however, should any excavations extend deeper and

require more intensive dewatering or groundwater control, the use of filtered sumps, or other

suitable method of dewatering and/or sheet piling is recommended. Based on gradation analysis of

the Site soils and hydraulic response testing conducted at the Site, the K values of the native site

soils is expected to be on the order 10-5 cm/sec. Groundwater is expected to the flow to the

southeast direction towards Cawkers Creek.

If short-term pumping of groundwater at volumes greater than 50,000 L/day and less than 400,000

L/day is required during the construction stage, the Environmental Activity Sector Registry (EASR)

must be completed. The EASR streamlines the process and water pumping may begin once the

EASR registration is completed, the fee paid and supporting document prepared. The actual rate of

groundwater taking performed during construction will be a function of the final design, time of year,

and the contractor’s schedule, equipment, and techniques.

It is expected that some of the excavation spoils may be suitable for reuse as trench and/or

pavement subgrade backfill provided they are free of organics and at a moisture content that will

permit adequate compaction (may require prior processing such as aeration to lower the moisture

content). A final review and approval to reuse any soils should be made at the time of construction.

6.2 Service Installation

The material encountered during this investigation at the anticipated service invert elevations (2 to

4m depths) typically consists of soft to very stiff clayey silt or compact to very dense glacial till

containing cobbles and boulders. As such, for storm pipes, water mains or sanitary pipes outside

the building envelope which are collection pipes, a normal compacted Class “B” bedding is

recommended for all underground services, where moisture conditions inside the trench will allow for

placement and compaction of bedding material. Class “B” bedding is Granular “A”, or 19 mm

crusher run limestone, as per Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS). The minimum

recommended bedding thickness for the underground services is 150 mm. If any bedding subgrade

consists of unsuitable or otherwise incompetent soils, either subexcavate to competent soils, and/or

thicken the bedding material to 300mm. All bedding, surround, and cover materials should be

compacted to at least 100 % of its Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). For services

in the building envelope, the bedding should comply with Section 7 of the OBC while in the septic

system bedding should conform to section 8 of the OBC.

It is expected that some of the excavated soils may be suitable for reuse as trench backfill,

conditional upon suitable moisture content (within 2 % of optimum), final review and approval by an

experienced geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, and regular monitoring and

inspection of such reuse throughout construction. Compaction of any native soil in service trenches

is recommended to be a minimum of 98 % of its SPMDD. The soils observed may require

processing (such as aeration) to lower their moisture content to appropriate levels prior to being

considered as backfill material.


Page 8

6.3 Foundation Design

At typical shallow foundation depths between 1.5 and 3m, the existing soils are varying between 50

and 75 kPa and thus, not suitable for standard spread footing or column pads but has sufficient support

below the topsoil for floor slabs. As such, foundations for the proposed motel building could be

construction by one of the following options:

1) subexcavating the existing weak clayey silt to a 3.4 to 4.5m depth and replacing it with engineered fill back to the proposed founding level;

2) ground improvement techniques to improve the existing soil to a suitable bearing; or 3) deep foundations.

The following sections provide preliminary details regarding each strategy. The final foundation

recommendations may require further subsurface exploratory boreholes to confirm soil parameters

specific to the foundation option chosen, depending on the requirements of specialist construction

firms that would be involved with each option.

6.3.1 Subexcavation and Engineered Fill

The option that requires standard construction techniques is to found the structural loading on

reinforced, spread and continuous strip footings for column and load bearing walls, on compacted

engineered fill. The footings should be placed on engineered fill placed in lifts over the dense to

very dense native till, requiring full-depth removal of the existing fill materials down to competent and

approved native soils. Such suitable competent native soils were encountered at depths ranging

from 3.4 to 4.5m below existing grade. It is recommended that footings constructed on engineered

fill placed directly on dense to very dense native till be proportioned using the following bearing

capacities:

Table 6.1 Bearing Pressures for Footings on Engineered Fill

Parameter

Bearing Pressure on Engineered Fill

Rock-based Fill (2) Granular Fill (2) Earth Borrow Fill

(2)

Factored Bearing Capacity at ULS (1)

270 kPa 200 kPa 130 kPa

Bearing Capacity at SLS 180 kPa 120 kPa 95 kPa

Notes: (1) Resistance factor Φ =0.5 applied to the ULS bearing pressure for design purposes. (2) At least 1.0m of Rock-based, Granular or Earth Borrow fill. Quality of material is to be approved prior to use as engineered fill.

Any engineered fill upon which footings are placed must be a minimum thickness corresponding to

the notes that accompany the above table. Rock-based fill depending on how open graded it is may

have to be completely encapsulated with suitable filter fabric to minimize any migration of fine-

grained particles from surrounding soils into the voids within the rock fill. Footings (and foundation

walls) placed on engineered fill must be suitably reinforced; as a minimum, and where not already

specified in the design drawings, this reinforcing should use 2 continuous runs of 15M rebar

throughout the footings, and 2 runs of 15M rebar throughout near the top and bottom of the

foundation walls.


Page 9

The following is recommended for the construction of any engineered fill for the footings:

1. Remove any and all existing vegetation, topsoil, fill, organics, and organic-bearing soils to the

competent, undisturbed native soil from within the area of the proposed engineered fill.

2. The area of the engineered fill should extend horizontally 1m beyond the outside edge of the

building foundations and then extend downward at a 1:1 slope to a maximum of 1.5 m.

3. The base of the engineered fill area must be approved by a member of GHD prior to

placement of any fill, to ensure that all unsuitable materials have been removed, that the

materials encountered are similar to those observed, and that the subgrade is suitable for the

engineered fill.

4. All engineered fill material is to be approved by GHD at the time of construction.

5. Place approved engineered fill, in maximum 300 mm lifts, compacted to 100% of its SPMDD.

Any fill material placed under sufficiently wet conditions should consist of an approved, rock-

based fill, with the inclusion of appropriate geotextile fabric around the rock-based fill should

the rock fill contain enough voids to warrant.

6. Full time testing and inspection of the engineered fill will be required, to ensure compliance

with material and compaction specifications.

All exterior footings or footings in unheated areas, should be founded at least 1.2 m below the final

adjacent grade for frost protection, or be treated with an equivalent frost protection (such as suitable

insulation). Footings and walls exposed to frost action should be backfilled with non-frost

susceptible granular material.

Under no circumstances should the foundations be placed above organic materials, loose, frozen

subgrade, construction debris, or within ponded water. Prior to forming, all foundation excavations

must be inspected and approved by a member of GHD. This will ensure that the foundation bearing

material has been prepared properly at the foundation subgrade level and that the soils exposed are

similar to those encountered during this investigation.

Should basement or otherwise subgrade areas such as elevator pits be incorporated into any of the

buildings’ designs, it is recommended that for drainage purposes, perimeter drains be installed about

the structure. The subdrains would serve to drain seepage water that infiltrates the backfill, intersect

the groundwater, and help relieve hydrostatic pressures due to high groundwater levels. The drains

should consist of a perforated pipe, at least 150 mm in diameter, surrounded by clear, crushed stone

and suitable filter protection. The drain should discharge to a positive sump or other permanent frost

free outlet.

For foundations constructed in accordance with the foregoing manner, total settlements are

estimated to be less than 25 mm and differential settlements are estimated to be less than 19 mm.


Page 10

6.3.2 Ground Improvement Techniques

As an alternative, the structural loading for the new building may be supported on shallow footings

founded on soils improved using appropriate ground improvement techniques. This could include

(but is not necessarily limited to) rammed aggregate piers (RAPs), dynamic compaction, rapid

impact compaction, or other appropriate systems or techniques. An engineering firm specializing in

such systems such as GeoSolv Design Build, Menard, or another suitable firm, should assess the

soils information and provide advice regarding suitability of their various systems and techniques

including design criteria, load capacities, and further details regarding the construction and overall

costing associated with such techniques. Further geotechnical assessment may be required

depending on the input from the ground improvement specialists and the systems considered.

Appropriately designed and constructed soil improvement systems could allow for standard strip and

spread footings and floor slab to be utilized.

6.3.3 Deep Foundations

Helical Piers or Micropiles

As another alternative, structural loads may be supported on deep foundations consisting of helical

piers or micropiles, either one utilizing grade beams. The helical piers or micropiles would be

advanced through soft clayey silt soils encountered in the boreholes, to the underlying dense to very

dense native soils.

For design purposes, a helical pier or micropiles installation depth of 5 m below existing grade is

anticipated in order to achieve the sufficiently dense native soils (although this should be colnfirmed

with the helical pier specialists based on their system requirements). It is recommended that a unit

price for pier installation depth be requested in the helical pier or micropile tendering to allow for the

expected variations in depth of pier installation. The helical piers or micropiles should be designed

by experienced engineers specializing in such foundation elements, who will confirm the products

available, mechanisms and equipment that would best suit this project’s conditions, and the

structural load capacities of their foundation elements. The helical piers or micropiles must be

installed by an experienced and qualified contractor. The installation of the helical piers or

micropiles should be monitored and reviewed by a representative of GHD.

Concrete Caissons

Consideration may be given to the use of high capacity caissons for foundation support. It is

anticipated that suitable resistance will be achieved at the dense to very dense soils encountered in

boreholes encountered at depths of 3.4 to 4.5 m below existing grade. At this juncture the caisson

will require socket depth of twice the diameter. The depth to dense to very dense may vary

somewhat, and as such it is recommended that the construction tender request unit pricing based on

the depth of caisson installation to accommodate variations in caisson depths.


Page 11

For preliminary design purposes, it is recommended that caissons with a minimum diameter of

750mm be designed for end-bearing. Assuming a 1 m diameter the ultimate unit shaft friction of 2.5

kPa along a length of 5.5 m with socket. The geotechnical axial capacities calculated for a bored

caisson CIP installed 2 m within the hard till or bedrock has a geotechnical resistance coefficient Φ

of 0.4 applied to the ultimate axial capacity in order to obtain the factored geotechnical axial

resistance at ultimate limit states of 1400 kPa.

The axial capacity of the piles should be verified by means of at least one static load test on every

types of caisson sometime after their installation. The load should not exceed 90% of the piles

structural capacity in order to not damage them and confirm their geotechnical bearing capacity.

Once the load tests are completed, a resistance factor Φ of 0.5 could be applied in order to obtain

factored axial resistance at ultimate limit states.

Based on the borehole results, auguring for CIP caissons may encounter some resistance but

should not be particularly difficult or damaging with the exception of a very occasional boulder.

The anticipated settlement of the structure with a properly installed CIP caissons system would be

negligible and would be a function of the elastic compression of the support members. The

settlement value of the caisson can be confirmed by the load tests.

The construction must be carried out by an experienced, deep foundation specialist contractor familiar

with caisson construction. The caissons should be provided with a liner to facilitate excavation,

cleaning of the bases, inspection, and concreting. The concrete should have a minimum slump of

150mm with the mix being proportioned to provide a relatively high slump while maintaining its other

strength properties. In addition, the concrete should be placed in a manner to prevent segregation of

the mix.

6.4 Seismic Site Classification

The Ontario Building Code (OBC) requires the assignment of a Seismic Site Class for calculations of

earthquake design forces and the structural design based on a two percent probability of

exceedance in 50 years. According to the OBC, the Seismic Site Class is a function of soil profile

and is based on the average properties of the subsoil strata to a depth of 30 m below the ground

surface. The OBC provides the following three methods to obtain the average properties for the top

30 m of the subsoil strata:

Average shear wave velocity; Average Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values (uncorrected for overburden); or Average undrained shear strength.

Based on the results of the recent geotechnical investigation, the depths of boreholes extend to

maximum depth of 3.5 to 9.6 m only and the subsurface profile below this depth is not known. For a

preliminary design purposes, based on the criteria listed in Table 4.1.8.4.A. of the OBC and our

knowledge of the regional geology, a Seismic Site Class ‘D’ can be used for the design of the

proposed structure.


Page 12

6.5 Slab on Grade

Floors may generally be constructed as normal slabs-on-grade, on granular or 19 mm clear stone over

native, inorganic subsoils. The floor slab should be formed over a base course consisting of at least

150 mm of Granular “A” or clearstone backfill as per OPSS compacted to a minimum of 100 % of its

SPMDD. All grade increases or infilling below the granular or clearstone should utilize well graded,

free draining Granular "B", Type 1 backfill as per OPSS 1010, placed in lifts no thicker than 200 mm

before compaction, and compacted to a minimum of 100 % of its SPMDD.

If a deep foundation system is used, the existing soils are considered capable of supporting and

allowing a normal slab on grade, however this should be confirmed with the structural engineer in

regards to the structural interaction between the deep foundation system and slab elements.

6.6 Pavement Design

Based on the results of this investigation, we would recommend the following procedures be

implemented to prepare the proposed asphalt paved areas for its construction:

1. Remove all asphalt, fill, organics, organic-bearing materials and other deleterious materials from

the planned pavement areas.

2. Inspect and proof roll the subgrade for the purpose of detecting possible zones of overly wet or soft

subgrade. Any deleterious areas thus delineated should be replaced with approved granular

material compacted to a minimum of 98 % of its SPMDD.

3. If further stabilization of the pavement subgrade is deemed necessary, either subexcavate to

suitable soils and backfill with approved granular material compacted to 98% SPMDD, or place

woven geotextile such as Terrafix 200W or Mirafi HP270 on the exposed pavement subgrade

surface, after its approval and prior to placement of any subsequent fill.

4. Contour the subgrade surface to prevent ponding of water during the construction and to promote

rapid drainage of the sub-base and base course materials.

5. To maximize drainage potential, 150 mm diameter perforated pipe subdrains should be installed

below any curb lines. The pipe should be encased in filter fabric and surrounded by clear stone

aggregate. It is recommended that the subdrains discharge to a suitable, frost-free outlet.

6. Construct transitions between varying depths of granular base materials at a rate of 1:5 minimum.

The subgrade materials in the proposed pavement areas will consist of native silty clay. The frost

susceptibility of these soils is assessed as being generally high. In this regard, the following

minimum flexible pavement structures are recommended for the construction of the new access and

parking areas.


Page 13

Table 6.2 Pavement Structure

Profile Material Thickness (mm) In Conformance with OPSS

Form Light Duty Heavy Duty

Asphalt Surface H.L.3 40 40 1150

Asphalt Base H.L.8 50 50

Granular Base Granular “A” 150 150 1010

Granular Subbase Granular “B” 300 450*

*Type 1 sand and gravel source or 300 mm Type II crushed limestone source.

The following steps are recommended for optimum construction of paved areas:

1. The Granular “A” and “B” courses should be compacted to a minimum 100 % of their respective

SPMDD’s.

2. All asphaltic concrete courses should be placed, spread and compacted conforming to OPSS

Form 310 or equivalent. All asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum 92.0 % of

their respective laboratory Maximum Relative Densities (MRD’s).

3. Adequate drainage including short subdrain stubs surrounded by granular ‘B’ extending from

catch basin manholes should be provided to ensure satisfactory pavement performance.

It is recommended that all fill material be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness

before compaction. It is suggested that all granular material used as fill should have an in-situ

moisture content within 2 % of their optimum moisture content. All granular materials should be

compacted to 100 % SPMDD. Granular materials should consist of Granular “A” and “B” conforming

to the requirements of OPSS Form 1010 or equivalent.

The performance of the pavement structure is highly dependent upon the subgrade support

conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure that uniform

subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved as much as practically possible. It is noted

that the above recommended pavement structures are for the end use of the project. The most

severe loading conditions on pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction. As

such, during construction of the project the recommended granular depths may not be sufficient to

support loadings encountered. Consequently, special provisions such as restricted lanes, half-loads

during paving, etc. may be required, especially if construction is carried out during unfavorable

weather.


Page 14

6.7 Water Balance Evaluation

An evaluation of the water balance was completed to compute the potential impacts that may occur

in the recharge/discharge characteristics related to the proposed development. This evaluation is

based upon a site plan produced by Chamberlain Architects. The objective of the water balance is

to illustrate that post-development infiltration within the developable area can meet or be close to

pre-development values. The computations have used detailed parameters such as precipitation

(Burketon McLaughlin from 1981 to 2010 was used), regional evapotranspiration, infiltration and

runoff. Weather data from Burketon McLaughlin was selected as it was the closest weather station

to the Site (approximately 14.5 km). The detailed calculations can be reviewed in Appendix D. The

area to be developed is 28.6 ha based on information provided by the Client. Below is a summary of

the expected pre-development water balance values for the proposed commercial development

based on the current information.

Predevelopment Water Balance

The pre-development water balance incorporated the existing soils, slope and ground cover areas.

The infiltration factor for the area was calculated from the table of values presented in the “Land

Development Guidelines” (MOEE, 1995). It is based on three sub-factors which are:

Topography sub-factor; Soil sub-factor; and Cover sub-factor.

The slopes will be considered as “rolling” (slope of 2.8 to 3.8m per km). The soils are generally

comprised of clayey silt underlain by very dense glacial till material and will be considered an

impervious clay as per the water balance calculations. The existing vegetation was considered a

medium combination of woodland and cultivated lands. Table 6.1 summarizes the expected pre-

development water balance values for the Site.

Table 6.3 Pre Development Summary

Total Precipitation (Burketon McLaughlin): - 920 mm/year

Regional Evapotranspiration: - 583 mm/year

Recharge Available: - 337 mm/year

Area of Recharge Available (Site): - 28.6 ha

Total Water Surplus: - 96,480 m3/year

Total Estimated Infiltration: - 33,768 m3/year

Total Estimated Runoff: - 62,712 m3/year

Based upon these values, the pre-development Site infiltrates on the order of 33,768 m3 per year or

about 118 mm/year.


Page 15

Post Development Water Balance (No Enhancements)

The computation of the water budget was repeated for the proposed development assuming no

mitigation techniques, that is, runoff from impervious surfaces is unrecoverable and not infiltrated

into the ground. The anticipated impact of the development is related to increased runoff from

imperious surfaces, such as asphalt surface for the proposed parking lot and the building rooftop.

These are assumed to be impervious surfaces with zero infiltration capacity in this model. A

summary of the computations is provided in Table 6.2.

Table 6.4 Post Development Summary (No Enhancements)

Area of Site: - 28.6 ha

Impervious Surfaces: - 0.54 ha

Area Available for Infiltration: - 28.06 ha



Estimated Infiltration Factor: - 0.33

Infiltration % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - (-2%) (decrease)


Runoff % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - 4% (increase)

The impermeable surface area of proposed parking lot and building rooftop was obtained from the

site plan. Water surplus for precipitation falling on asphalt parking areas and the hotel rooftop is

estimated as 4% of the total yearly precipitation.

Under this scenario, the total infiltration volume decreased by 2% and runoff volume increased by

4%. Within the areas evaluated, the infiltration has reduced and the runoff increased versus the pre-

development values. Groundwater base flow would be expected to decrease over time in this

scenario. However, recharge via infiltration through the underlying clayey silt and till to the lower

aquifer from these lands is expected to be minor.

Based upon this scenario, mitigative strategies are required to minimize infiltration losses and

reduce storm water runoff. The following section discusses the water balance after considering

enhanced infiltration options.

Post Development Water Balance (Enhanced Infiltration)

The post-construction water budget computations were repeated considering enhanced infiltration

options which are also known as Low Impact Development (LID) technologies. These technologies

include and are not restricted to rainwater harvesting, downspout disconnection, infiltration trenches,

vegetated filter strips, bioretention, permeable pavement, enhanced grass swales, dry swales and

perforated pipe systems in order to balance the water budget and maintain any wetland features

including nearby creeks. The shallow subsurface soils are topsoil underlain by clayey silt material.

It is noted that LIDs can work in any soil type. The primary enhancement for this Site is to promote

infiltration and to move water from impervious surfaces to areas where infiltration can occur.


Page 16

The post-development water balance was modelled to include the disconnection of downspouts from

storm sewers and directing water from the building roof top to sodded areas or undeveloped grass

areas which can be enhanced with increased topsoil depths. A summary of the post-construction

water budget with enhancements for infiltration is presented in Table 6.3.

Table 6.5 Post Development Summary (With Enhanced Infiltration)

Area of Site: - 28.6 ha



Infiltration % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - (-0%) (decrease)


Runoff % Difference (pre- vs. post-): - 3% (increase)

In this scenario and based on the site plan provided, the infiltration values have been modelled to

show no change from an overall site perspective when compared with pre-development (i.e. pre-

expansion) values. Runoff has slightly increased as compared with the pre-development conditions

and will have to be managed as per a storm water management plan. In general, these preliminary

water balance calculations indicate development infiltration values can be maintained near- pre-

development values for the planned motel development.

6.8 General Recommendations

6.8.1 Wells

Any decommissioning of wells on-site must be performed by an appropriately-licensed well

contractor, in compliance with O.Reg. 903.

6.8.2 Test Pits During Tendering

It is strongly recommended that test pits be excavated at representative locations of this Site during

the construction tendering phase, with mandatory attendance of interested contractors. This will

allow them to make their own assessments of the groundwater and soil conditions at the Site and

how these will affect their proposed construction methods, techniques and schedules.


Page 17

6.8.3 Subsoil Sensitivity

The native subsoils are susceptible to strength loss or deformation if saturated or disturbed by

construction traffic. Therefore, where the subgrade consists of approved soil, care must be taken to

protect the exposed subgrade from excess moisture and from construction traffic.

6.8.4 Winter Construction

The subsoils encountered across the site are frost-susceptible and freezing conditions could cause

problems to the structures. As preventive measures, the following recommendations are presented:

1. During winter construction, exposed surfaces intended to support foundations must be

protected against freezing by means of loose straw and tarpaulins, heating, etc.

2. Care must be exercised so that any sidewalks and/or asphalt pavements do not interfere with

the opening of doors during the winter when the soils are subject to frost heave. This problem

may be minimized by any one of several means, such as keeping the doors well above

outside grade, installing structural slabs at the doors, and by using well-graded backfill and

positive drainage, etc.

3. Because of the frost heave potential of the soils during winter, it is recommended that the

trenches for exterior underground services be excavated with shallow transition slopes in

order to minimize the abrupt change in density between the granular backfill, which is

relatively non-frost susceptible, and the more frost-susceptible native soils.

6.8.5 Design Review

Due to the preliminary nature of the design details at the time of this report, GHD’s geotechnical

group must be allowed to review the foundation design and proposed final grading plans, prior to

their finalization. In addition, we strongly recommend that our firm be retained to review the related

earthworks specifications when they are available.

Geotechnical inspection and review of foundation excavations and compaction procedures must be

carried out to ensure compliance with our recommendations.


Page 18

7. Statement of Limitations

The attached Statement of Limitations is an integral part of this report. Should questions arise

regarding any aspect of this report, please contact our office.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

GHD

Leandro Ramos, P.Eng. David Workman, P.Geo. Andy Fawcett, P.Eng. lr/dw/af


Page 19

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

This report is intended solely for Jadoro Investments Ltd., and other parties explicitly identified in the report and is prohibited for use by others without GHD’s prior written consent. This report is considered GHD’s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of GHD. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient’s sole risk, without liability to GHD. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold GHD harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client’s unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices. The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of geotechnical engineering professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, GHD will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the final design. By issuing this report, GHD is the geotechnical engineer of record. It is recommended that GHD be retained during construction of all foundations and during earthwork operations to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed during our study. The intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge developed as part of our study is correctly carried forward to the construction phases. It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the eleven (11) borehole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at the 11 borehole locations may vary at other locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by construction activities on site (e.g. excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by GHD is completed.

GHD | Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Motel Development, 1430 King Street, Port Perry, Ontario | 11196473 (01)

Enclosures

2

8

7

.

0

0

2

8

7

.

0

0

287.00

2

8

7

.0

0

2

8

7

.

5

0

2

8

7

.

5

0

2

8

7

.

5

0

2

8

7

.

5

0

2

8

8

.

0

0

KIN

G'S

H

IG

HW

AY

N

o. 7A

E

XP

. P

LA

N D

138130

PA

RT

2

EDGE OF ASPHALT

DITCH

EDGE OF GRAVEL

0.5∅ CULVERT

P

O

S

T

W

O

O

D

EDGE OF ASPHALT

B

O

A

R

D

F

E

N

C

E

G

R

A

V

E

L

POST & WIRE FENCE

POST & WIRE FENCE

1

S

T

O

R

E

Y

V

IN

Y

L

-

C

L

A

D

B

Y R

EG

IS

TE

RE

D P

LA

N 292 (H

WY

)

P.I.N

. 26806-0217

B

P

E

D

WT

YL

WT

2

8

8

.1

3

2

8

7

.9

9

2

8

7

.9

0

2

8

8

.0

9

2

8

8

.0

6

2

8

7

.8

9

2

8

7

.8

7

2

8

8

.0

0

2

8

7

.9

2

2

8

7

.8

2

2

8

7

.6

8

2

8

7

.8

1

2

8

7

.6

8

2

8

7

.5

4

2

8

7

.3

8

2

8

7

.5

6

2

8

7

.4

1

2

8

7

.2

9

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

7

.2

1

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

7

.1

1

2

8

7

.0

1

2

8

6

.9

9

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

6

.9

8

2

8

6

.9

8

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

7

.0

1

2

8

8

.0

9

2

8

8

.4

2

2

8

8

.0

0

2

8

8

.0

1

2

8

8

.0

6

2

8

8

.0

3

2

8

7

.9

4

2

8

6

.8

5

2

8

6

.8

1

2

8

6

.9

2

2

8

6

.8

7

2

8

6

.8

3

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.8

6

2

8

7

.8

1

2

8

7

.6

2

2

8

7

.5

0

2

8

7

.3

8

2

8

7

.6

1

2

8

7

.0

1

2

8

6

.8

7

2

8

6

.9

2

2

8

7

.2

1

2

8

6

.9

9

2

8

6

.9

4

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

7

.2

0

2

8

7

.3

4

2

8

7

.2

0

2

8

7

.3

4

2

8

7

.1

2

2

8

7

.2

1

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

6

.8

7

2

8

6

.8

6

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.7

4

2

8

6

.7

5

2

8

6

.7

2

2

8

6

.6

3

2

8

6

.7

9

2

8

6

.8

0

2

8

6

.7

9

2

8

6

.8

0

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.8

3

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

6

.8

6

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

6

.9

8

2

8

6

.9

6

2

8

7

.0

4

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

7

.0

7

2

8

7

.1

3

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

7

.2

2

2

8

7

.1

4

2

8

7

.1

3

2

8

7

.0

6

2

8

7

.1

2

2

8

7

.1

1

2

8

7

.2

2

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

6

.9

8

2

8

6

.9

4

2

8

6

.8

6

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

6

.6

8

2

8

6

.9

2

2

8

7

.1

1

2

8

7

.1

9

2

8

7

.2

3

2

8

7

.2

0

2

8

7

.2

2

2

8

7

.2

2

2

8

7

.2

6

2

8

7

.2

1

2

8

7

.1

5

2

8

6

.9

3

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

7

.0

1

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

6

.7

8

2

8

6

.7

3

2

8

6

.6

9

2

8

6

.6

7

2

8

6

.7

3

2

8

6

.8

4

2

8

6

.9

1

2

8

7

.0

0

2

8

7

.0

2

2

8

6

.7

3

2

8

6

.6

8

2

8

6

.7

5

2

8

6

.7

0

2

8

6

.8

0

2

8

6

.8

1

2

8

6

.9

5

2

8

7

.0

0

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.9

9

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

6

.7

1

2

8

6

.7

6

2

8

6

.6

4

2

8

6

.6

9

2

8

7

.3

2

2

8

7

.0

9

2

8

6

.9

4

2

8

6

.7

8

2

8

6

.6

4

2

8

6

.7

3

2

8

6

.8

1

2

8

6

.7

9

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.9

1

2

8

6

.9

8

2

8

6

.9

9

2

8

6

.9

1

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

6

.9

5

2

8

6

.9

1

2

8

6

.8

3

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

7

.1

6

2

8

7

.0

6

2

8

6

.7

7

2

8

6

.6

6

2

8

6

.7

0

2

8

6

.8

6

2

8

6

.7

7

2

8

6

.7

0

2

8

6

.7

0

2

8

6

.7

3

2

8

6

.8

3

2

8

6

.8

7

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.9

3

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

6

.9

2

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

6

.9

5

2

8

7

.1

7

2

8

7

.3

1

2

8

7

.6

1

2

8

7

.2

0

2

8

6

.9

6

2

8

6

.9

3

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

7

.0

4

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.7

1

2

8

6

.9

4

2

8

6

.6

6

2

8

6

.7

0

2

8

6

.6

5

2

8

6

.6

1

2

8

6

.6

8

2

8

6

.9

3

2

8

7

.3

5

2

8

7

.1

9

2

8

7

.0

1

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.9

1

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

7

.0

5

2

8

7

.2

7

2

8

7

.7

3

2

8

7

.9

5

2

8

7

.2

5

2

8

7

.2

1

2

8

7

.3

5

2

8

7

.9

8

2

8

7

.2

2

2

8

6

.8

6

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

6

.9

1

2

8

6

.9

2

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.6

0

2

8

6

.6

2

2

8

6

.5

8

2

8

6

.5

3 2

8

6

.6

4 2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

6

.8

0

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

6

.8

0

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

7

.3

3

2

8

7

.9

5

2

8

7

.1

3

2

8

7

.2

3

2

8

7

.9

2

2

8

7

.2

7

2

8

7

.1

5

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

7

.1

6

2

8

7

.2

3

2

8

7

.8

6

2

8

7

.1

5

2

8

7

.1

2

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

7

.0

7

2

8

7

.7

3

2

8

7

.0

6

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

6

.7

8

2

8

6

.7

2

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

7

.8

4

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

7

.0

6

2

8

6

.9

5

2

8

6

.9

1

2

8

7

.0

2

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

7

.5

8

2

8

7

.0

0

2

8

6

.9

8

2

8

6

.6

5

2

8

6

.7

1

2

8

7

.0

0

2

8

7

.0

9

2

8

7

.4

9

2

8

7

.4

5

2

8

7

.0

1

2

8

6

.9

6

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

6

.5

5

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.7

9

2

8

6

.8

5

2

8

6

.7

3

2

8

6

.7

1

2

8

6

.8

5

2

8

7

.0

2

2

8

6

.9

3

2

8

6

.4

9

2

8

6

.4

7

2

8

6

.4

2

2

8

6

.9

6

2

8

6

.8

7

2

8

6

.5

9

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.6

3

2

8

6

.6

4

2

8

6

.7

0 2

8

6

.7

8

2

8

6

.7

4

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.8

8

2

8

6

.5

8

2

8

6

.4

0

2

8

6

.5

3

2

8

6

.4

0

2

8

6

.5

2

2

8

6

.4

9

2

8

6

.6

5

2

8

6

.6

6

2

8

6

.6

9

2

8

6

.7

6

2

8

6

.8

1

2

8

6

.7

1

2

8

6

.6

0

2

8

6

.6

0

2

8

6

.7

9

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

7

.4

2

2

8

7

.3

8

2

8

7

.2

7

2

8

7

.2

5

2

8

7

.4

6

2

8

7

.4

6

2

8

7

.2

5

2

8

7

.2

8

2

8

7

.5

7

2

8

7

.6

6

2

8

7

.6

1

2

8

7

.5

2

2

8

7

.5

8

2

8

7

.3

0

2

8

7

.1

6

2

8

7

.2

9

2

8

7

.2

6

2

8

7

.0

5

2

8

7

.1

5

2

8

7

.1

5

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

7

.2

3

2

8

6

.5

2

2

8

6

.6

7

2

8

6

.7

6

2

8

6

.9

4

2

8

6

.9

9

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.8

2

2

8

6

.6

9

2

8

7

.0

3

2

8

6

.9

7

2

8

6

.6

7

2

8

6

.6

2

2

8

6

.5

5

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

7

.4

1

2

8

7

.4

72

8

7

.9

9

2

8

7

.8

4

2

8

7

.5

8

2

8

7

.2

7

2

8

7

.2

5

2

8

7

.1

4

2

8

7

.1

9

2

8

7

.2

5

2

8

7

.1

7

2

8

7

.9

7

2

8

7

.7

9

2

8

7

.4

1

2

8

7

.4

1

2

8

7

.7

5

2

8

7

.4

0

2

8

7

.7

4

2

8

7

.1

8

2

8

6

.8

9

2

8

6

.9

0

2

8

7

.1

2

2

8

8

.1

6

2

8

8

.5

9

2

8

8

.4

1

2

8

8

.2

4

2

8

8

.1

5

2

8

8

.2

0

2

8

7

.3

9

2

8

7

.7

0

2

8

7

.7

0

2

8

7

.2

8

2

8

7

.2

4

2

8

8

.0

3

2

8

8

.3

0

2

8

7

.8

7

2

8

7

.5

7

2

8

7

.8

2

2

8

7

.4

3

2

8

7

.2

3

2

8

8

.0

8

2

8

8

.5

6

2

8

8

.4

5

2

8

7

.6

1

2

8

7

.6

5

2

8

7

.7

1

2

8

7

.7

2

2

8

7

.2

5

2

8

7

.2

3

2

8

8

.0

7

2

8

8

.3

5

2

8

8

.2

5

2

8

8

.0

9

2

8

7

.5

3

2

8

7

.5

9

2

8

7

.0

8

2

8

6

.7

6

2

8

6

.7

2

2

8

7

.6

0

2

8

7

.8

8

2

8

6

.6

3

BH-9

BH-6

BH-8

BH-7

BH-16

BH-11

BH-10

BH-13

BH-14

BH-15

BH-12

Coordinate System:

WGS 1984 UTM Zone 17T

Source: Satellite imagery and key figure © 2019 Google Earth / Google Maps. Site plan overlay from drawing no. A001, titled "Site Plan - Total Site", dated October 2018, by Chamberlain

Architect Services Limited, as provided by Client.

0 5 10 15 20m

CAD File: I:\Geo-Logic General\2019\Projects\E - Environmental\11196473-02 Jadoro Investments, Geotechnical, DW\Design\AutoCAD\11196473-01-DWG-19-08-13, Location Plan, SS.dwg

Sep 5, 2019

11196473-01

FIGURE 1

JADORO INVESTMENTS LTD.

1430 KING STREET, PORT PERRY, ON

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN

KEY FIGURE


Appendix A Borehole Logs

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

24

22

19

28

13

8

TOPSOIL - (360mm)

CLAYEY SILT - Light BrownClayey Silt, Trace Sand, Stiff,Moist

Very Stiff

Soft

Stiff

TILL - Light Brown ClayeySilt Till, Little Sand, TraceGravel, Hard, Moist

END OF BOREHOLE

0.36

1.71

2.29

2.99

3.51

5.00

50

78

100

100

100

94

3

10

17

4

8

100

Water Level - 4.16m08/01/2019

WL - 1.18 m06/27/2019

Water FirstEncountered andUpon Completionat 3m

Cave In to 4.3m50mm MonitoringWell Installed to aDepth of 4.6m

m0.94 mV

apou

rs

ELEVATION: 286.93 m

NOTES:

(blows / 12 in.-30 cm)

Shear test (Cu)Sensitivity (S) Water content (%)

wp wlAtterberg limits (%)

N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-6

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE

AS - AUGER SAMPLEST - SHELBY TUBE

- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 10 June 2019

CLIENT:

REFERENCE No.: 11196473-02

BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

DESCRIPTION OFSOIL AND BEDROCK

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-1

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab

LOGGED BY: Jamie McEachern

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD

Ground surface elevatoin and borehole coordinates surveyed by DFP Surveyors

1430 King Street, Port Perry, Ontario

CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value

DRILLING COMPANY: Strong Soil Search Inc. METHOD: Solid Stem Augers and Split Spoons

UTM: 17T 662500.729E 4883531.827N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

SS-8

SS-9

17

22

26

25

16

10

14

11

14

TOPSOIL (150 mm)CLAYEY SILT - Light BrownClayey Silt, Trace Sand, Stiff,Moist

With Sand

TILL - Light Brown SiltySand With Gravel and Clay,Loose, Wet

Dense, Moist

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

1.52

3.35

4.57

6.10

9.60

25

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

8

9

8

7

8

37

58

100+

100+

Water Level - 4.36m08/01/2019

Groundwaterseepage firstencountered at3.4m

Water at 5.2mUpon Completion

Cave-in to 6.7m

50mm MonitoringWell Installed to aDepth of 8.4m

m1.01 mV

apou

rs

ELEVATION: 286.66 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-7

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 29 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-2

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab

LOGGED BY: Eric Wierdsma

%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value

DRILLING COMPANY: Landshark Drilling Ltd. METHOD: Solid Stem Augers and Split Spoons

UTM: 17T 662493.994E 4883547.895N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

AS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

SS-8

AS-9

SS-10

20

25

26

19

21

14

8

11

14

14


TILL - Light Brown SiltySand with Clay, TraceGravel, Very Loose, Wet

Dense, With Gravel

Very Dense

Occassional Cobbles, Wet

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

3.81

4.57

6.10

7.01

9.30

40

70

100

90

100

25

80

100

8

9

9

10

1

43

84

100+


Water at 5.2mUpon Completion

Cave-in to 8.8m

Vap

ours

ELEVATION: 286.82 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-8

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 29 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-3

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662487.428E 4883567.955N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

15

22

23

22

20

TOPSOIL (150 mm)CLAYEY SILT - Light BrownClayey Silt, Trace Sand,Firm, Moist

Stiff

TILL - Light Brown SiltySand With Clay, TraceGravel, Compact, Moist

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

1.52

2.29

3.66

25

90

90

100

100

7

5

11

10

10

Borehole Open andDry UponCompletionNo groundwaterseepageencountered duringdrilling

Vap

ours

ELEVATION: 287.25 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-9

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 29 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-4

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662459.707E 4883563.911N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

AS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

SS-8

SS-9

20

24

24

22

13

9

10

12

18


TILL - Brown Silty SandWith Gravel, Trace Clay,Compact, Moist

Light Grey, Very Dense

Wet

Moist, Occassional Cobbles

Wet

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

3.05

4.57

6.10

7.01

7.62

9.30

50

100

90

40

100

100

100

100

6

9

6

27

56

100+

100+

100+

Groundwaterseepage firstencountered at6.1mWater and Cave-into 6.7m

Vap

ours

ELEVATION: 286.86 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-10

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 29 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-5

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662524.646E 4883585.925N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

AS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

SS-8

AS-9

SS-10

22

22

23

19

13

9

10

9

12

12


TILL - Brown Silty SandWith Gravel, Trace Clay,Loose, Moist

Light Grey, Compact

Dense

Moist, Occassional Cobbles,Very Dense

Wet

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

3.05

3.81

4.57

6.40

7.92

9.45

25

75

100

100

100

100

100

100

10

9

10

7

19

39

75

100+

Water Level - 5.23m08/01/2019

SS-7:5% Gravel42% Sand53% Silt and Clay35% between5-75 µm


50mm MonitoringWell Installed to aDepth of 8.8m

m1.06 mV

apou

rs

ELEVATION: 286.87 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-11

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 29 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-6

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662509.333E 4883593.226N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

AS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

AS-8

20

21

26

25

14

10

8

9


Firm

TILL - Brown Silty SandWith Gravel, Trace Clay,Loose, Moist

Grey

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

1.52

3.05

3.66

4.57

7.62

50

50

100

90

100

100

7

9

5

8

100+

100+

Water Level - 5.73m08/01/2019

End of boreholeopen and dry uponcompletion

50mm MonitoringWell Installed to aDepth of 7.6mNo significantgroundwaterseepageencountered duringdrilling

m0.95 mV

apou

rs

ELEVATION: 286.81 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-12

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 30 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-7

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662530.25E 4883645.74N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

17

21

24

25

24


Stiff


END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

1.52

3.05

3.66

70

100

100

100

100

6

8

13

9

11

SS-3:1% Gravel5% Sand94% Silt and Clay34% between5-75 µm

End of boreholeopen and dry uponcompletionNo groundwaterseepageencountered duringdrilling

Vap

ours

ELEVATION: 287.19 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-13

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 30 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-8

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662506.525E 4883619.095N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

23

22

22

18

9


Stiff

TILL - Brown Silty SandWith Gravel, Trace Clay,Very Dense, Moist

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

1.52

2.90

3.66

40

100

100

100

100

7

5

9

11

100+


Vap

ours

ELEVATION: 286.72 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-14

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 30 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-9

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662543.962E 4883601.162N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

18

24

21

21

9


Stiff

TILL - Brown Silty SandWith Gravel, Trace Clay,Dense, Moist

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

2.29

2.90

3.51

60

90

100

100

100

6

7

8

12

39


Vap

ours

ELEVATION: 286.68 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 30 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-10

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662529.702E 4883569.474N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

19

26

22

18

16

11

11


Stiff


Wet, Loose

Dense, Light Grey, Moist

Very Dense

END OF BOREHOLE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.15

1.52

2.13

3.05

3.81

4.57

4.88

40

80

100

100

100

100

100

8

5

9

11

7

35

100+

SS-3:1% Gravel4% Sand95% Silt and Clay37% between5-75 µmLL = 29.3%PI = 13.1%


End of boreholeopen and dry uponcompletion

Vap

ours

ELEVATION: 286.89 m

NOTES:




N

BOREHOLE No.: BH-16

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

CS - CORE SAMPLE


- WATER LEVEL

DATE: 30 July 2019

CLIENT:


BOREHOLE REPORT

%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32


0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

PROJECT:

m GROUND SURFACE

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-11

of 1Page: 1

Field Lab


%


1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Rec

ove

ry

ppm

RQD



CONE

COMMENTS

LEGEND

SS - SPLIT SPOON

"N" Value


UTM: 17T 662507.03E 4883572.345N

Pen

etra

tion

Inde

x

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

EN

VIR

O (

MU

LTIP

LE D

RIL

LER

S)

111

9647

3-03

-FIG

-19-

08-1

3, G

EO

TE

CH

BH

LO

GS

, JC

EW

LR

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

11/

9/19


Appendix B Physical Laboratory Data

Client: Lab no.:

Project/Site: Project no.:

Borehole no.: Sample no.:

Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 13, 2019

August 13, 2019

Josh Sullivan

SS-7

B-1

BH-11

SandGravel Clay & Silt Soil Description

4.6-5m

5 42 53

Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Geotechnical)

Jadoro Investments Ltd. SS-19-66

1430 King Street, Port Perry 11196473-02

(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Pe

rce

nt

Re

tain

ed

Pe

rce

nt

Pa

ss

ing

Diameter (mm)

Unified Soil Classification System

Clay & SiltSand Gravel

Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse

GHD FO-930.103-Particle-Size Analysis of Soils Geotechnical (USCS) (ASTM D422) - Rev. 0 - 07/01/2015

Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 13, 2019

August 13, 2019

Josh Sullivan

SS-2

B-2

BH-13


0.8-1.4m

1 5 94




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Pe

rce

nt

Re

tain

ed

Pe

rce

nt

Pa

ss

ing

Diameter (mm)





Client: Lab no.:



Depth: Enclosure:

Remarks:

Performed by: Date:

Verified by: Date:

August 13, 2019

August 13, 2019

Josh Sullivan

SS-3

B-3

BH-16


1.5-2.1m

1 4 95




(USCS) (ASTM D422)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Pe

rce

nt

Re

tain

ed

Pe

rce

nt

Pa

ss

ing

Diameter (mm)





Project Name:

Client:

Sample ID:

Value

13

29

Performed By: Date:

Date:

Depth: 1.5-2.1mJadoro Investments Ltd.

BH-16, SS-3 Enclosure No.:

Verified By:

BH-16, SS-3 Plasticity Index (%)

Liquid Limit (%)

August 13, 2019

August 13, 2019

J. Sullivan

Sample ResultsSymbol Sample

B-4

B-4

Depth

1.5-2.1m

Borehole

High

Plasticity Index and Liquid Limit TestingLS-703

Project No.:1430 King St., Port Perry

Low

11196473-02

PLASTICITY CHART

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

(P

I)%

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)%

CL

CH

CL ML

ML

MH OH

LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAY

LOW COMPRESSIBILITYINORGANIC SILT

LL 50

ML OL

HIGH COMPRESSIBILITYINORGANIC SILTOR INORGANIC CLAY

MEDIUM COMPRESSIBILITYINORGANIC SILTINORGANIC CLAY

HIGH PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAY


Appendix C Hydraulic Conductivity Data

0. 600. 1.2E+3 1.8E+3 2.4E+3 3.0E+30.001

0.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)

BH-7 FALLING HEAD TEST

Data Set: I:\...\11196473-01, BH-7 Falling Head Test.aqtDate: 08/30/19 Time: 15:35:32

PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: GHDClient: Jadora Investments Ltd.Project: 11196473-02Location: 1430 King Street, Port PerryTest Well: BH-7Test Date: August 14, 2019

AQUIFER DATA

Saturated Thickness: 3.6 m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 1.

WELL DATA (BH-7)

Initial Displacement: 0.4985 m Static Water Column Height: 3.6 mTotal Well Penetration Depth: 3.6 m Screen Length: 3. mCasing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.025 m

SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice

K = 6.508E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.4508 m

0. 1000. 2.0E+3 3.0E+3 4.0E+3 5.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)

BH-7 RISING HEAD TEST

Data Set: I:\...\11196473-01, BH-7 Rising Head Test.aqtDate: 08/30/19 Time: 15:37:15

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-7)

Initial Displacement: 0.7033 m Static Water Column Height: 3.6 mTotal Well Penetration Depth: 3.6 m Screen Length: 3. mCasing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.025 m

SOLUTION


K = 2.355E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.5047 m

0. 400. 800. 1.2E+3 1.6E+3 2.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)


Data Set: I:\...\11196473-01, BH-7 Falling Head Test.aqtDate: 08/30/19 Time: 15:41:29

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-11)

Initial Displacement: 0.5867 m Static Water Column Height: 3.1 mTotal Well Penetration Depth: 3.1 m Screen Length: 1.5 mCasing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.025 m

SOLUTION


K = 0.0001815 cm/sec y0 = 0.4429 m

0. 400. 800. 1.2E+3 1.6E+3 2.0E+31.0E-4

0.001

0.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Dis

plac

emen

t (m

)


Data Set: I:\...\11196473-01, BH-11 Rising Head Test.aqtDate: 08/30/19 Time: 15:43:33

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (BH-11)

Initial Displacement: 0.5115 m Static Water Column Height: 3.1 mTotal Well Penetration Depth: 3.1 m Screen Length: 1.5 mCasing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.025 m

SOLUTION


K = 0.0002366 cm/sec y0 = 0.473 m

Appendix C: Infiltration Testing (in‐situ)Project No. 11196473‐02Date: August 1, 2019Equipment: ETC Pask Permeameter

Location: BH‐7 BH‐12 BH‐12

Approx. Depth of hole: 0.6 m 0.3 m 0.6 m

Elapsed Time Permeameter Level Elapsed Time Permeameter Level Elapsed Time Permeameter Level

(minutes) (cm) (minutes) (cm) (minutes) (cm)

0 39.0 0 41.4 0 42.0

1 37.2 1 41.4 1 40.9

2 36.0 2 40.3 2 39.8

3 35.0 3 39.3 3 38.7

4 34.9 4 38.3 4 37.5

5 33.8 5 37.2 5 36.3

6 32.7 6 36.0 6 35.1

7 31.5 7 34.8 7 33.9

8 30.3 8 33.6 8 32.7

9 29.1 9 32.4 9 31.5

10 27.9 10 31.2 10 30.3

12 25.5 12 28.8 12 27.9

14 23.1 14 26.4 14 25.5

16 20.7 16 24.0 16 23.1

18 18.3 18 21.6 18 20.7

20 15.9 20 19.2 20 18.3

25 11.9 25 13.2 25 12.3

30 5.9 30 7.2 30 6.3

Quasi Steady Flow Rate ® 1.2 1.2 1.2

(cm/min)

Field‐saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksf) 6.40E‐06 6.40E‐06 6.40E‐06

(m/sec)


Appendix D Water Balance Calculations

Appendix D.1Water Budget (Thornthwaite Method) - Average Values*

Burketon McLaughlin (1981 to 2010) Elevation: 312 masl Distance Away: 14.5 km

Month Mean Heat Potential Daylight Adjusted Total Surplus DeficitTemperature Index ET Correction ET Precipitation

(oC) (mm) Factor (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)January -7.4 0 0 0.82 0 60.7 60.70February -6 0 0 0.82 0 48.5 48.50March -1.5 0 0 1.03 0 50.7 50.70April 5.9 1.28 27.49 1.12 30.79 70.4 39.61May 12.6 4.05 61.25 1.27 77.79 88.3 10.51June 17.4 6.61 86.12 1.28 110.23 93.3 0.00 16.93July 20 8.16 99.76 1.3 129.69 72.8 0.00 56.89August 19.2 7.67 95.55 1.2 114.66 96.7 0.00 17.96September 14.7 5.12 72.08 1.04 74.96 100.2 25.24October 8.4 2.19 39.92 0.95 37.93 84.6 46.67November 2 0.25 8.78 0.81 7.11 89.6 82.49December -4 0 0 0.78 0 64.7 64.70TOTAL 6.8 35.3 491.0 583.2 920.5 429.1 91.8

TOTAL WATER SURPLUS: 337.3 mm

Notes:*Average values of precipitation were used. Average values of temperature were also used.Water budget adjusted for latitude and daylightTotal Water Surplus is calculated as total precipitation minus adjusted potential evapotranspirationTotal Moisture Surplus is calculated as total precipitation minus actual evapotranspirationFormulas utilized:I = (Ti/5)1.514

E=0 when Ti<0 oC

E=16(10Ti/Itot)a when 0<Ti<26.5 oC

E=-415.85+32.24Ti-0.43Ti2 when Ti>26.5 oC

a=6.7x10-7I3-7.71x10-5I2+1.79x10-2I+0.49a = 1.055702229

Appendix D.2Water Budget Pre-Development

Catchment Designation

Total

Area (m2) 286005 286005Pervious Area (m2) 286005 286005Impervious Area (m2) 0 0

INFILTRATION FACTORSTopography Infiltration Factor 0.2Soil Infiltration Factor 0.1Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0.15

MOE Infiltration Factor 0.45Actual Infiltration Factor 0.35Runoff Coefficient 0.65Runoff from Impervious Surfaces* 0

INPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation (mm/yr) 921 921Run On (mm/yr) 0 0Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 921 921

OUTPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 337 337Net Surplus (mm/yr) 337 337Evaportranspiration (mm/yr) 583 583Infiltration (mm/yr) 118 118% Rooftop / Asphalt to infiltrate 0Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 118 118Runoff Pervious Areas 219 219Runoff Impervious Areas 0 0Total Runoff (mm/yr) 219 219

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 921 921Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0

INPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation (m3/yr) 263268 263268Run On (m3/yr) 0 0Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0

Total Inputs (m3/yr) 263268 263268OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 96480 96480Net Surplus (m3/yr) 96480 96480Evaportranspiration (m3/yr) 166788 166788Infiltration (m3/yr) 33768 33768Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 33768 33768Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 62712 62712Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 0Total Runoff (m3/yr) 62712 62712

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 263268 263268Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0

Notes:*Areas obtained Site Plan prepared by Chamberlain Architects.*Actual infiltration factor adjusted to match expected infiltration forclayey silt soils encountered at surface.

SITE

Vacant Grassed Lands

Appendix D.3Water Budget Post-Development - No Mitigation Strategies


Total

Area (m2) 1079 280572 4355 286005Pervious Area (m2) 0 280572 0 280572Impervious Area (m2) 1079 0 4355 5434

INFILTRATION FACTORSTopography Infiltration Factor 0.25 0.2 0.25Soil Infiltration Factor 0.1 0.1 0.1Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0 0.15 0

MOE Infiltration Factor 0.35 0.45 0.35Actual Infiltration Factor 0 0.35 0Runoff Coefficient 1 0.65 1Runoff from Impervious Surfaces* 0.8 0 0.8

INPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation (mm/yr) 921 921 921 921Run On (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 921 921 921 921

OUTPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 736 337 736 345Net Surplus (mm/yr) 736 337 736 345Evaportranspiration (mm/yr) 184 583 184 576Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 118 0 116Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 118 0 116Runoff Pervious Areas 0 219 0 215Runoff Impervious Areas 736 0 736 14Total Runoff (mm/yr) 736 219 736 229

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 921 921 921 921Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0

INPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation (m3/yr) 993 258266 4009 263268Run On (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0

Total Inputs (m3/yr) 993 258266 4009 263268OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 795 94647 3207 98649Net Surplus (m3/yr) 795 94647 3207 98649Evaportranspiration (m3/yr) 199 163619 802 164619Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 33127 0 33127Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 33127 0 33127Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 61521 0 61521Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 795 0 3207 4002Total Runoff (m3/yr) 795 61521 3207 65522

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 993 258266 4009 263268Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0

Notes:*Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20% of precipitation.*Areas obtained Site Plan prepared by Chamberlain Architects.*Asphalt has 0% infiltration capability.*Actual infiltration factor adjusted to match expected infiltration for clayey silt soils encounteredat surface.

SITE

Building rooftops

Landscaping or grass

Asphalt / Patio

Appendix D.4Water Budget Post-Development - With Mitigation Strategies


Total

Area (m2) 1079 280572 4355 286005Pervious Area (m2) 0 280572 0 280572Impervious Area (m2) 1079 0 4355 5434

INFILTRATION FACTORSTopography Infiltration Factor 0.25 0.2 0.25Soil Infiltration Factor 0.1 0.1 0.1Land Cover Infiltration Factor 0 0.15 0

MOE Infiltration Factor 0.35 0.45 0.35Actual Infiltration Factor 0 0.35 0Runoff Coefficient 1 0.65 1Runoff from Impervious Surfaces* 0.8 0 0.8

INPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation (mm/yr) 921 921 921 921Run On (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (mm/yr) 0 0 0 0Total Inputs (mm/yr) 921 921 921 921

OUTPUTS (PER UNIT AREA)Precipitation Surplus (mm/yr) 736 337 736 345Net Surplus (mm/yr) 736 337 736 345Evaportranspiration (mm/yr) 184 583 184 576Infiltration (mm/yr) 0 118 0 116% Rooftop to balance infiltration 80.8% -- --Rooftop Infiltration (mm/yr) 595 0 0 2Total Infiltration (mm/yr) 595 118 0 118Runoff Pervious Areas 0 219 0 215Runoff Impervious Areas 142 0 736 12Total Runoff (mm/yr) 142 219 736 227

Total Outputs (mm/yr) 921 921 921 921Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0

INPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation (m3/yr) 993 258266 4009 263268Run On (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0 0

Total Inputs (m3/yr) 993 258266 4009 263268OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 795 94647 3207 98649Net Surplus (m3/yr) 795 94647 3207 98649

Evaportranspiration (m3/yr) 199 163619 802 164619Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 33127 0 33127Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 642 0 0 642Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 642 33127 0 33768Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 61521 0 61521Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 153 0 3207 3360Total Runoff (m3/yr) 153 61521 3207 64881

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 993 258266 4009 263268Difference (Inputs - Outputs) 0 0 0 0

Notes:*Evaporation from impervious areas was assumed to be 20% of precipitation.*Asphalt has 0% infiltration capability*Will require about 87% of the rooftop water to be infiltrated *Actual infiltration factor adjusted to match expected infiltration for clayey silt soils encounteredat surface.

SITE

Building Rooftops

Landscaping or grass

Asphalt / Patio

Appendix D.5Water Budget Summary

SITEPost-Development Difference

No Mitigation Pre- vs. Post-INPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation (m3/yr) 263268 263268 0% 263268 0%Run On (m3/yr) 0 0 0% 0 0%Other Inputs (m3/yr) 0 0 0% 0 0%

Total Inputs (m3/yr) 263268 263268 0% 263268 0%OUTPUTS (VOLUMES)

Precipitation Surplus (m3/yr) 96480 98649 2% 98649 2%Net Surplus (m3/yr) 96480 98649 2% 98649 2%

Evapotranspiration (m3/yr) 166788 164619 -1% 164619 -1%Infiltration (m3/yr) 33768 33127 -2% 33127 -2%Rooftop Infiltration (m3/yr) 0 0 -- 642 81%Total Infiltration (m3/yr) 33768 33127 -2% 33768 0%Runoff Pervious Areas (m3/yr) 62712 61521 -2% 61521 -2%Runoff Impervious Areas (m3/yr) 0 4002 - 3360 -Total Runoff (m3/yr) 62712 65522 4% 64881 3%

Total Outputs (m3/yr) 263268 263268 0% 263268 0%

PARAMETERPre-Development Post-Development Difference

Leandro Ramos [email protected] 249-494-0611

Andy Fawcett [email protected] 705-749-3317

Geotechnical Investigation Report - Scugog

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Investigation Report - Scugog