Final Geotechnical Reports
of Culverts
17M-02182-00 Culvert 274 Replacement,
Islington Avenue over Berry Creek,
Toronto, Ontario
17M-02182-00 Culvert 668 Retaining Wall
Replacement, Redwater Dr,
Toronto, Ontario
17M-02182-00 Final Geotechnical Report
Albion Road Culvert Replacement,
Toronto,Ontario
CITY OF TORONTO
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT ALBION ROAD, OVER ALBION CREEK, TORONTO, ONTARIO CITY OF TORONTO
FINAL REPORT PROJECT NO.: 17M-02182-00, PHASE 700, SUBPHASE 701 DATE: AUGUST 31, 2018 WSP UNITS 10 & 12 351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST MARKHAM, ON, CANADA L3R 4H9 T +1 905 475-0065 F +1 905 475-0064 WSP.COM
WSP Canada Inc.
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
2 SITE AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................. 1
3 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ............................... 1
4 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................... 2
4.1 SOIL CONDITIONS ...............................................................................2
4.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ..................................................... 4
5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 5
5.1 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT . 5
5.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS ......................................................................................................................................... 5
5.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT ................................. 6
5.1.3 SLIDING RESISTANCE .................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 EXCAVATIONS, GROUNDWATER CONTROL AND BACKFILL ................................................................................................ 7
5.2.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 7
5.2.2 EXCAVATION ........................................................................................................................................ 8
5.2.3 BACKFILL ................................................................................................................................................. 8
5.3 RETAINING STRUCTURES ............................................................... 8
5.3.1 BEARING RESISTANCE FOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL/WINGWALL . 8
5.3.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND EARTH PRESSURES ............................................................. 9
5.4 PAVEMENT RESTORATION ......................................................... 10
5.5 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................. 11
5.5.1 EXISTING SLOPE CONDITIONS AND PROFILES .......................................................... 11
5.5.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SLOPE ......... 12
5.5.3 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................. 13
5.5.4 ANALYSES OF LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE .............................................. 13
5.5.5 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 13
6 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ....................................... 14
6.1 SOIL SAMPLING .................................................................................. 14
6.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................. 14
6.3 FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 14
WSP Canada Inc.
6.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 15
7 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS .......................... 16
8 GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS OF REPORT................................................................................. 16
9 CLOSURES ............................................................................17
WSP Canada Inc.
TABLES
TABLE 4.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.3 ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING ................................................ 3 TABLE 4.4 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.5 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 4 TABLE 4.6 GROUNDWATER DEPTH/ELEVATION ............................. 4 TABLE 5.1 BEARING RESISTANCES AND FOUNDING
LEVELS OF FOOTINGS................................................................. 6 TABLE 5.2 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION .................................................... 7 TABLE 5.3 COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH
PRESSURE (GRANULAR ‘A’ OR GRANULAR ‘B ‘TYPE II) ............................................................................................ 9
TABLE 5.4 COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE (GRANULAR ‘B’ TYPE I) ................................... 9
TABLE 5.5 PAVEMENT DESIGN ................................................................... 10 TABLE 5.6 MATERIAL PARAMETERS FOR SLOPE
STABILITY ANALYSIS .................................................................. 12 TABLE 5.7 STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS OF
EXISTING SLOPES ........................................................................ 12 TABLE 6.1 SOIL SAMPLES AND CORRESPONDING
TESTS .................................................................................................... 14 TABLE 6.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS EXCEEDANCES ......................... 15 TABLE 6.3 TCLP EXCEEDANCES ................................................................. 15
DRAWINGS
DRAWING 1 BOREHOLE LOCATION, CROSS SECTION AND LTSTS PLAN
DRAWING 2 CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 3 CROSS SECTION B-B’ DRAWING 4 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SLOPE AT CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 5 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTNG SLOPE AT CROSS SECTION B-B’ DRAWING 6 LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE ANALYSIS AT CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 7 LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE ANALYSIS AT CROSS SECTION A-A’ DRAWING 8 PROPOSED ARMOUR STONE RETAINING WALL WITH 2.5H:1V SLOPE AT CROSS SECTION A-A’
WSP Canada Inc.
ENCLOSURES
ENCLOSURE 1-A NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS ENCLOSURE 1-B EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN THE RECORD OF BOREHOLE ENCLOSURES 2-4 BOREHOLE LOGS
FIGURES
FIGURES 1-4 RESULTS OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES AND ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTING
APPENDICES
A CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS B PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXISTING SLOPES
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by City of Toronto to provide a geotechnical investigation for the replacement of an existing culvert (Culvert 267, Albion Creek) located at Albion Road in City of Toronto, Ontario.
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface soil and groundwater information at the site by means of three (3) exploratory boreholes. Based on our interpretation of the borehole data, this report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the design and planning of Albion Creek culvert replacement.
This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented above and on the assumption that the design will be in accordance with the applicable codes and standards. If there are any changes in the design features relevant to the geotechnical analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards, this office should be contacted to review the design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and reporting before the recommendations of this office can be relied upon.
The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical consultants in Ontario.
This report has been prepared for City of Toronto and its designers. Third party use of this report without WSP consent is prohibited.
2 SITE AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY Based on the Physiography of Southern Ontario (1984), the surficial geology of the project site is relatively consistent, typically consisting of Late Wisconsinan Age Halton Glacial Till of silty clay to silty sand texture. Within the creek valleys, surficial alluvial deposits of gravel, sand, silt and clay are present overlying the till or bedrock, often with high moisture content and some organic content. Ordovician shale interbedded with limestone and calcareous siltstone of the Georgian Bay Formation lies at 3 m to 11m below existing ground surface.
3 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK The field work for this investigation was carried out by WSP on January 18 and 25, 2018 at which time three (3) boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 3.1 m to 7.7 m below the existing ground surface as shown on the Borehole Location, Cross Section and LOSTOS Plan, Drawing No. 1. The boreholes were advanced using a track mounted drilling machine provided by a drilling sub-contractor under the direction and supervision of WSP technical personnel. Soil samples were retrieved at regular intervals from the boreholes with a 50 mm O.D. split-barrel sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method.
In addition to the visual examination in the laboratory, all soil samples were tested for water contents. Four (4) selected soil samples were subjected to grain size analyses and one (1) of these samples was selected for Atterberg Limits testing. The results are shown on the borehole logs.
Water level observations were made during drilling in the open boreholes and at the completion of the drilling operations. A 50 mm diameter monitoring well was installed in each of the boreholes BH18-AB-1 and BH18-AB-3 to permit further monitoring the groundwater levels.
The boreholes were staked in the field by WSP and the ground surface elevations were surveyed by WSP using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device. It should be noted that the elevations at the as-drilled borehole locations were not provided by a professional surveyor and should be considered to be approximate. Contractors performing any work referenced to the borehole elevations should confirm the borehole elevations for their work.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 2
4 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The Albion Creek culvert is located approximately 40 m west of the intersection of Albion Road and Todd Brook Drive in City of Toronto, Ontario, as shown on Borehole Location, Cross Section and LTSTS Plan, Drawing 1.
The Albion Creek culvert was constructed in 1964. The culvert classified as Culvert 267 in City’s database is a corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP) arch culvert. The overall length of the culvert is approximately 44.5 m with the width by height of 5 m by 3 m. The culvert carries the overburden fill and four lanes of vehicular traffic lanes (two lanes in each direction). There is sidewalk and steel beam guide rail on each side of the roadway. A major sewer infrastructure and other utilities and infrastructures associated with Albion Road are present in the vicinity of the culvert.
The borehole locations are plotted on Drawing No. 1. Notes on sample descriptions are presented on Enclosure No. 1-A. Explanation of terms used in the record of boreholes is presented on Enclosure No. 1-B. The subsurface conditions in the boreholes (BH18-AB-1 to BH18-AB-3) are presented on the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 to 4 inclusive). The following is a summarized account of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, followed by more detailed descriptions of the major soil strata and the groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site.
4.1 SOIL CONDITIONS
In summary, underlying the existing pavement structure or topsoil, fill material was encountered in all boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 0.7 m to 4.4 m below the existing ground surface. The native soil encountered at the site mainly consisted of glacial till deposits with clayey texture and silty clay to silty clay /shale complex underlain by shale bedrock. Localized shallow stratum of sandy silt was also encountered.
Existing Pavement Structure:
Borehole BH18-AB-1 was advanced through the existing pavement structure. The asphalt thickness encountered was about 100 mm. The granular base thicknesses was approximately 100 mm.
Topsoil:
Topsoil with a thickness of about 200 mm was encountered surficially in Boreholes BH18-AB-2 and BH18-AB-3. The thicknesses of topsoil were shown in borehole logs.
Fill Material:
Fill material consisting of silty clay was encountered in all boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 0.7 m to 4.4 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within silty clay fill material gave N values ranging from 9 blows to greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a stiff to hard state, but generally stiff. It should be noted, the higher ‘N’ value may have been caused by frozen ground. The in-situ water contents of the fill samples were measured ranging from about 8 % to 20 %.
Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-AB-3/SS3) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 5 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 3
Table 4.1 Grain Size Distribution
BOREHOLE NO. SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
BH18-AB-3 SS3 3 23 40 34
Silty Clay Till:
Deposits of silty clay till were encountered in Borehole BH18-AB-1 and extended to a depth of about 2.1 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty clay till gave N values ranging from 26 blows to 28 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a very stiff state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from about 7 % to 8 %.
Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-AB-1/SS3) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 1 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:
Table 4.2 Grain Size Distribution
BOREHOLE NO. SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
BH18-AB-1 SS3 9 24 40 27
Atterberg limits test was carried out on this sample and the result of which is presented in Figure No. 2 as well as are summarized in the following table:
Table 4.3 Atterberg Limits Testing
Borehole No. sample No. LIQUID LIMIT
( WL ) PLASTIC LIMIT
( WP ) PLASTICITY INDEX
( PI )
BH18-AB-1 SS3 28 16 12
Silty Clay:
Deposits of silty clay were encountered in Boreholes BH18-AB-1 and BH18-AB-3 and extended to the depths ranging from 4.4 m to 5.6 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty clay gave N values ranging from 28 blows to 50 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a very stiff to hard state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from about 16 % to 18 %.
Sandy Silt:
Localized shallow stratum of sandy silt was encountered in Borehole BH18-AB-1 and extended to a depth of 2.9 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration test carried out within the sandy silt gave N value of 34 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a dense state. The natural water content of the soil sample was about 18 %.
Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-AB-1/SS4) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 3 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:
Table 4.4 Grain Size Distribution
BOREHOLE NO. SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
BH18-AB-1 SS4 0 26 65 9
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 4
Silty Clay / Shale Complex
Silty clay/shale complex was encountered beneath the fill material or native silty clay deposits in Boreholes BH18-AB-2 and BH18-AB-3.
What is described as ‘silty clay/shale complex’ consists of a rather heterogeneous, hard silty clay matrix containing extensive broken bedrock (shale, limestone and siltstone) slabs and fragments. This stratum was reportedly difficult to auger due to the fragmented shale/limestone/siltstone content and given its hard condition. The natural moisture content measured in the test sample from these materials was about 8% to 20%. The current investigation method could not determine the size and frequency of the boulder and cobbles.
This complex is a transitional deposit between bedrock and the overlying silty clay or may be the completely to highly weathered bedrock. This deposit has characteristics of both the shale/limestone/siltstone bedrock and silty clay. The slabs of bedrock found within the soil matrix can be quite large in size (0.5m to 1m in length or more).
Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-AB-3/SS8) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 4 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:
Table 4.5 Grain Size Distribution
BOREHOLE NO. SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND (SHALE
FRAGMENTS) % SILT % CLAY
BH18-AB-3 SS8 0 16 59 25
Probable Weathered Shale / Shale Bedrock
Based on the observation of the shale fragments retrieved from sampler, probable weathered shale/shale bedrock was encountered in all boreholes at depths ranging from 2.9 m to 6.3 m below the existing ground surface. All boreholes was terminated in the probable shale/shale bedrock. Since there is no rock coring being carried out, the nature, the strength and the degree of weathering were not determined.
4.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Groundwater observations and measurements are shown in details on the borehole logs. Groundwater was encountered in Boreholes BH18-AB-2 and BH18-AB-3 during and upon completion of drilling at depths ranging from 2.7 m to 7.5 m below existing ground surface. On January 31 and February 27, 2018, about two weeks and five weeks after the borehole drilling, the groundwater levels measured in the monitoring wells installed in BH18-AB-1 and BH18-AB-3 were at depths as shown in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 Groundwater Depth/Elevation
MONITORING WELL I.D. MONITORING DATE GROUNDWATER DEPTH/ELEVATION (M)
BH18-AB-1 Jan. 31, 2018 2.84/148.4
Feb. 27, 2018 3.13/148.1
BH18-AB-3 Jan. 31, 2018 5.92/142.9
Feb. 27, 2018 5.86/142.9
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 5
It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations in response to weather events and will also fluctuate with the water levels in the creek.
5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this report, the soil and groundwater conditions are interpreted as relevant to the design and planning of Culvert 267 replacement. Comments relating to construction are intended for the guidance of the design engineer to establish constructability.
The construction methods described in this report must not be considered as being specifications or direct recommendations to the contractors, or as being the only suitable methods. Prospective contractors should evaluate all of the factual information, obtain additional subsurface information as they might deem necessary and should select their construction methods, sequencing and equipment based on their own experience in similar ground conditions. The readers of this report are also reminded that the conditions are known only at the borehole locations and conditions may vary significantly in-between.
5.1 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT
The existing culvert is a CSP culvert with a size of about 5 m wide and 3 m high. Replacement of the existing culvert is currently being considered. However, the type of the replacement structure was unknown at the time this report was prepared.
Should the replacement of the existing culvert be considered, the new culvert structure will be designed in accordance with the 2006 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). Once the final design is available, the following recommendations should be further reviewed by the geotechnical engineer, following which additional recommendations can be provided, as required.
5.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS
The invert depth of the existing culvert is approximately 6 m below the road surface of Albion Road. It is assumed that the new culvert invert will likely be at a similar elevation.
Based on the subsoil information encountered at the borehole locations, topsoil and fill materials are considered unsuitable to support the proposed culvert/wingwalls foundations. As such, consideration should be given to removing topsoil and fill materials to expose the underlying competent native soil deposits or bedrock. For the design of the culvert and wingwalls bearing on the competent undisturbed native soils or bedrock, a geotechnical bearing resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and a factored geotechnical bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) together with corresponding founding depths/elevations at the borehole locations are summarized on Table 5.1.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 6
Table 5.1 Bearing Resistances and Founding Levels of Footings
BH No.
BEARING RESISTANCES AT
SLS (kPa)
FACTORED GEOTECHNICAL
RESISTANCES AT ULS
(kPa)
MINIMUM DEPTH BELOW EXISTING
GROUND/ELEVATION*
(m) ANTICIPATED FOUNDING SOIL
BH18-AB-2 300
1,000 450
1,500 2.3/143.5 3.0/142.8
Silty Clay/Shale Complex Shale Bedrock
BH18-AB-3 300
1,000 450
1,500 4.6/144.2 6.4/142.5
Silty Clay Shale Bedrock
Foundations designed to the specified bearing resistances at SLS are expected to settle less than 25mm total and 19mm differential. All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.2m of soil cover for frost protection.
Should it be required, the excavated area may be brought up to the designed subgrade elevation using granular engineered fill such as OPSS Granular A. A geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa may be used for the design of the culvert and wing walls bearing on the engineered Granular A fill.
The proposed founding soils to be exposed at the founding/subgrade level are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic and ponded water, leading to degradation of the founding soils. To limit this detrimental condition, a working mat of lean concrete should be placed on the subgrade as soon as possible after excavation.
All bearing surfaces must be checked, evaluated and approved at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer who is familiar with the findings of this investigation and the design and construction of similar structures prior to placement of any concrete, bedding, backfill, culvert structures, etc.
It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by WSP from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by WSP to validate the information for use during the construction stage.
5.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT
As an alternative to the open bottom culvert (refer to Section 5.1.1), precast concrete box culvert may be considered.
Designing the precast box culvert for a foundation founded on bedrock will obviously yield higher bearing resistances. However, it would entail risk related to the actual condition and location of the rock surface between the boreholes. The assumption that the culvert is resting on soil is more conservative, and also more versatile (because the condition and exact location of the rock surface is not critical and the foundation design would not likely need to be adjusted based on the actual as-found conditions).
It is anticipated that the proposed precast box culvert will be founded on engineered Granular A (i.e. possible engineered fill and/or levelling pad) overlying native deposits. Geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa can be used for the design of the precast concrete culvert bearing on the Granular A engineered fill as noted above.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 7
The Granular A material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 300 mm loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Full-time inspection by a geotechnical staff from WSP would be required during the placement of the engineered Granular A fill.
It should be noted that the founding soil of box culvert should be at least 1.2 m below the final grade to provide sufficient earth cover for frost protection unless the box culvert is designed to withstand the frost pressures.
5.1.3 SLIDING RESISTANCE
Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the culvert footing base concrete and the subgrade should be calculated in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC. Values for coefficient of friction between dissimilar materials are provided in Table 5.2. It should be noted that these values are unfactored and in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC, a factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the horizontal resistance.
Table 5.2 Coefficient of Friction
STRUCTURE MATERIALS GROUND OR BACKFILL MATERIALS COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARD SILTY CLAY/SHALE COMPLEX 0.4
SHALE BEDROCK 0.55
PRE-CAST CONCRETE GRANULAR 0.4
5.2 EXCAVATIONS, GROUNDWATER CONTROL AND BACKFILL
5.2.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL
The fill materials are considered to be unsuitable to support the culvert foundation and should be completely removed to expose competent native soil, as noted in the above sections. In this regard, foundation excavations for the culvert would extend below the local water table.
Groundwater control during excavation within the fill material and native soils above ground water level can be handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within the excavations. However, when excavations extend below the groundwater level, more significant groundwater seepage would be expected from water bearing sandy/silty soils (if any), highly weathered shale and fractures within the shale bedrock.
Control of the creek water will be necessary in order for foundation construction to be carried out in ‘dry’ conditions. Depending on the creek flow at the time of construction, surface water could flow through the culvert area by means of a temporary bypass/pipe, or be diverted by pumping from behind a temporary cofferdam. Assuming that the cofferdam and/or temporary bypass are effective, any seepage into the excavation during normal creek water flow conditions should be adequately controlled by pumping from properly filtered sumps. Pumping discharges should conform to the Ministry of the Environments and Climate Change (MOECC) guidelines, City of Toronto, Conservation Authority and other relevant agencies.
It would be necessary to carry out a hydrogeological study to support an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) for construction dewatering between 50,000 to 400,000 L/day or a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) for dewatering greater than 400,000 L/day.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 8
5.2.2 EXCAVATION
All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the fill materials and sandy silt can be classified as Type 3 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 4 soil below the water table. The very stiff to hard tills, silty clay and silty clay/shale complex can be classified as Type 2 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 3 soil below groundwater table.
Should excavation be required into bedrock for the foundations (e.g. strip/spread footings for open bottom culvert), any loose or highly weathered rock should be removed and any large voids in the rock surface should be levelled using lean concrete. Rock excavations less than 1 m can typically be carried out using mechanical equipment (such as hoe-rams mounted on hydraulic excavators). Excavations more than 1 m into rock maybe require blasting.
Provisions must be made in the excavation contract for bedrock excavations.
5.2.3 BACKFILL
The selected inorganic fill and native soils free of topsoil and organics can be used as general construction backfill where it can be compacted with sheep's foot type compactors. Loose lifts of soil, which are to be compacted, should not exceed 300mm and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). It should be noted that the excavated soils are subject to moisture content increase during wet weather which would make these materials too wet for adequate compaction. Stockpiles should be compacted at the surface or be covered with tarpaulins to minimize moisture uptake.
Imported Granular fill is recommended in areas where free draining material is required. Imported granular fill, which can be compacted with hand held equipment, should be used in confined areas.
5.3 RETAINING STRUCTURES
It is understood that retaining structures are required at the ends of culvert (10 m beyond each end of culvert). Since
the existing culvert will be reconstructed, consideration may be given to the construction of the proposed retaining
structures together with the design of new wingwall of culvert i.e. extended wingwall. Another consideration should
be given is the existing slope at the right bank of the downstream is not stable in terms of Long Term Stable Top of
Slope (refer to Section 5.5). Stabilization measures of the exiting slope should be implemented to satisfy TRCA (Toronto
and Region of Conservation Authority) requirements.
As alternatives to the extended wingwall, armour stone retaining wall (discussed in more detail in Section 5.5.5) or
vegetated wall may also be considered as retaining structures. The selection of the retaining wall structures will highly
depend on the site conditions and various aspects such as cost, constructability, structure to withstand against water
flow, future maintenance etc. Once the appropriate structure is selected, further geotechnical recommendations can
be provided to assist the detailed design. The following is the preliminary geotechnical recommendations based on the
borehole information.
5.3.1 BEARING RESISTANCE FOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL/WINGWALL
The proposed retaining structure should be founded on the competent undisturbed native soils. The bearing resistances and corresponding founding depths/elevations can be referred to Section 5.1.1 of this report.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 9
5.3.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND EARTH PRESSURES
The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the walls, assuming that the backfill to the retaining
walls consists of free-draining granular fill meeting the requirements of OPSS 1010 Granular A or Granular B. This fill
should be compacted in loose lifts not greater than 200 mm in thickness to 95 per cent of the material's Standard
Proctor maximum dry density in accordance with OPSS 501. The fill materials should be benched into the existing
roadway embankment side slopes. Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to provide positive drainage
of the granular backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to subdrains and frost taper
should be in accordance with applicable Ontario Provincial Standard Drawings.
Computation of earth pressures acting against retaining walls should be in accordance with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, (CHBDC) S6-06. For design purposes, the following properties can be assumed for backfill.
Compacted Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B’ Type II
Angle of Internal Friction =35 (unfactored)
Unit weight = 22 kN/m3
Table 5.3 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B ‘Type II)
LEVEL BACKFILL BACKFILL SLOPING AT 3H:1V BACKFILL SLOPING AT 2H:1V
Ka=0.27 Ka=0.34 Ka=0.40
Kb=0.35 Kb=0.44 Kb=0.50
Ko=0.43 Ko=0.56 Ko=0.62
K*=0.45 K*=0.60 K*=0.66
Compacted Granular ‘B’ Type I
Angle of Internal Friction =32 (unfactored)
Unit Weight = 21 kN/m3
Table 5.4 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure (Granular ‘B’ Type I)
LEVEL BACKFILL BACKFILL SLOPING AT 3H:1V BACKFILL SLOPING AT 2H:1V
Ka=0.31 Ka=0.39 Ka=0.47
Kb=0.39 Kb=0.49 Kb=0.57
Ko=0.47 Ko=0.62 Ko=0.69
K*=0.54 K*=0.68 K*=0.78
Note: Ka is the coefficient of active earth pressure
Kb is the backfill earth pressure coefficient for an unrestrained structure including compaction efforts
K0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 10
K* is the earth pressure coefficient for a soil loading a fully restrained structure and includes
compaction effects
The lateral earth pressures acting on retaining walls may be calculated from the following expression:
p = K( h +q)
where p = Lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth h
K = Earth pressure coefficient, as shown on Table 5.3 and 5.4 above
= Unit weight of backfill
h = Depth to point of interest in metres
q = Equivalent value of surcharge on the ground surface in kPa
The above expression assumes that a drainage system will be installed to prevent the build-up of any hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. The earth pressure coefficient to be adopted will depend on whether the retaining structure is restrained or some movement can occur such that the active state of earth pressure can develop.
A minimum compaction surcharge of 12 kPa should be included in the lateral earth pressures for the structural design of the walls, according to CHBDC Section 6.9.3 and Figure 6.6. Other surcharge loadings should be accounted for in the design as required.
5.4 PAVEMENT RESTORATION
It is understood the pavement restoration after the completion of the culvert replacement on Albion Road will be
required. It is understood that this section of Albion Road is a Major Arterial road. The following pavement design is
recommended for the pavement restoration according to City of Toronto’s Pavement Structural Design Guideline
Summary dated November 30, 2006.
Table 5.5 Pavement Design
MATERIAL THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT ELEMENTS (MM)
Asphaltic Material (OPSS 1150)
HL-1 40
HL 8 (HS) 150
Granular Material (OPSS 1010)
Granular A Base 50
Granular B, Type II Subbase 350
Prepared and Approved Subgrade
Prior to placing the granular subbase material, the exposed soil subgrade should be heavily proofrolled in conjunction
with an inspection by qualified geotechnical personnel. Remedial work (i.e. further subexcavation and replacement)
should be carried out on any disturbed, softened or poorly performing zones, as directed by geotechnical personnel.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 11
The granular subbase and base materials should be uniformly compacted to 100 percent of their standard Proctor
maximum dry densities. The asphalt materials should be compacted to 92 to 96.5 percent of their Marshall Maximum
Relative Densities ("MRD"), as measured in the field using a nuclear density gauge.
In addition, in order to preserve the integrity of the pavement, continuous subdrains should be placed along both sides
of the road. The invert of the subdrains should be at least 300 mm below the bottom of the Granular B subbase and
should be sloped to drain to the catchbasins. The subdrains should consist of perforated pipe wrapped in a suitable
geotextile and surrounded on all sides with a minimum thickness of 150 mm of clean free draining sand such as concrete
sand.
The above pavement designs should provide serviceable pavements for the anticipated traffic levels over a normal
design period of ten years, provided that timely maintenance is carried out (i.e. crack sealing).
Where new pavement abuts existing pavement (e.g. at the construction limits), proper longitudinal lap joints should be constructed to key the new asphalt into the existing pavement. The existing asphalt edges should be provided with a proper sawcut edge prior to keying in the new asphalt. It should be ensured that any undermined or broken edges resulting from the construction activities are removed by the sawcut.
5.5 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT A relatively steep slope is situated at the right bank of the downstream end of culvert. BH18-AB-1 was drilled at the top of the slope to obtain the soil and groundwater conditions of the slope. Based on the borehole information, the visual slope inspection and the provided topographic drawing, a detailed slope stability study was carried out to evaluate the long-term stable top of slope.
The assessment of the stability of the subject slope consisted of two parts: visual field review of the current slope conditions from a slope stability perspective; and a global stability analysis based on the subsurface conditions encountered in BH18-AB-1.
5.5.1 EXISTING SLOPE CONDITIONS AND PROFILES
On Dec. 13, 2017 and Feb. 28, 2018, site visits were made by a geotechnical engineer of WSP to examine the general site and existing slope conditions. Based on our site observations, the inclination of the existing slope in the vicinity of the culvert is generally flatter that 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V) with the exception of the slope located at the right bank of creek downstream. In general, 3H:1V slope is considered to be geotechnical stable. As such the slope stability study is limited to the slope at the right bank of the creek downstream where an unnamed laneway paved by asphaltic concrete carrying local traffic on the crest of slope.
The overall inclination of the slope generally is about 2.1 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.1H:1V). The inclinations of
the upper sections of the slope (1.7H:1V to 1.9H:1V) are steeper than the low sections of the slope (2.2H:1V to
2.3H:1V).
The slope surface is generally covered with trees, bushes and decayed trees/leaves, as shown on the
photograph 1 in Appendix B.
Pavement cracking was observed on the lane way located at the crest of the slope, as shown on Photograph 2, in Appendix B.
Water seepage was not noted on the slope surface during the site visits.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 12
The existing retaining walls located at the bottom of slope were tilled away from the slope, as shown on
Photograph 3, in Appendix B.
Erosion and undercut were observed and the shale bedrock was exposed where erosion protection measures
not applied, as shown on Photograph 4, in Appendix B.
5.5.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SLOPE
Soil strength parameters selected for the soil strata have been estimated based on BH18-AB-1 drilled near the slope, previously published information and from our experience on similar projects. A static slope stability analysis was carried out for the soil stratigraphy using effective stress strength parameters as shown on Table 5.6 below.
Table 5.6 Material Parameters for Slope Stability Analysis
SOIL UNIT
UNIT WEIGHT
(KN/M3)
EFFECTIVE COHESION C'
(KPA)
EFFECTIVE FRICTION ANGLE
Φ (DEGREES)
Fill 18 0 28
Silty Clay Till 20.5 1 29
Silty Clay 19 2 28
Sandy Silt 19.5 0 30
Silty Clay/Shale Complex 21 2 29
Shale Bedrock 24 500 20
Two (2) typical slope profiles identified as cross sections A-A’ and B-B’ were derived from the topographic drawing and are presented on Drawings 2 and 3.
Stability analyses of the existing slopes at above noted sections were carried out with the computer program SLIDE (Version 6.0) using the Simplified Bishop method. The analysis results are presented on Drawings 4 and 5 and are summarized on Table 5.7 below.
Table 5.7 Stability Analysis Results of Existing Slopes
SLOPE LOCATION
APPROXIMATE EXISTING
SLOPE INCLINATION
CALCULATED FACTOR OF
SAFETY
LONG-TERM
STABILITY
Section A-A’
(See Drawing 2)
Overall 2.1H:1V
(Upper Section 1.7H:1V)
1.164 Not Stable
Section B-B’
(See Drawing 3)
Overall 2.1H:1V
(Upper Section 1.9H:1V)
1.294 Not stable
The calculated factors of safety of the existing slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’ range from 1.164 to 1.294, which are less than the TRCA’s minimum acceptable value of 1.5. The existing slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’ are considered not stable in terms of long term stability based on TRCA’s requirements.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 13
5.5.3 EROSION CONSIDERATIONS
The magnitude of the erosion component is typically the estimated recession of the slope toe due to erosion over a specified design period, and is measured as a horizontal distance from the creek bank. For this study, the toe erosion component has been assessed using suggested guidelines for toe erosion allowances contained in “Technical Guide for River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (2002)” prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Based on the soil conditions encountered in BH18-AB-1 and the site observations, the soil at the toe of slope generally consist of silty clay/shale complex and shale bedrock. Evidence of active erosion at the banks was observed during the field site visit. In accordance with the “Technical Guide for River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (2002)”, a design erosion setback allowance of 5 m is considered applicable for the exposed silty clay/shale complex and shale bedrock which are present at the toe of the slope and the bank. This erosion allowance identified as e = 5.0 m will be used to establish the long-term stable top of slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’.
5.5.4 ANALYSES OF LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE
As discussed previously, the existing slope at Sections A-A’ and B-B’ are considered not stable in terms of long-term stability based on TRCA’s requirements.
In order to obtain the stable slope allowance, imaginary slope profiles have been created to search for the slope with a minimum FOS of 1.5. It is noted that the stable slope inclination of Georgian Bay formation shale bedrock is usually near vertical to 1H:1V. However, the inclination of 1.4H:1V for Georgian Bay shale bedrock has been used for this study, which is considered to be conservative. Based on the stability analysis of imaginary slopes carried out with the computer program SLIDE (Version 6.0) using the Simplified Bishop method, the imaginary slope with an inclination of 2.4H:1V for the upper section of the slope (i.e. soils) and 1.4H:1V for the low section of the slope (i.e. shale bedrock) has a FOS greater than 1.5, as shown on Drawings 6 and 7.
It is concluded that the Long-Term Stable Top of Slope Line can be drawn upward (5 m away from the riverbed for erosion allowance) at 1.4H:1V through the shale bedrock and 2.4H:1V through the soils and intersect the existing ground surface, which result in a stable top of slope about 3.5 to 3.9 m from the top of existing slope at Section A-A’ and B-B’, respectively. The Long Term Stable Top of Slope Line Sa-Sb are shown on Drawing 1. This Long-Term Stable
Top of Slope Line must be reviewed by TRCA for their approval.
5.5.5 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the LTSTS study, the existing laneway, on the crest of the steep slope at the right bank of the downstream, will be impacted in long-term by the erosion hazards and slope failure. At this location, the existing road alignment encroaches upon the LTSTS line, as such slope stabilization together with erosion protection measures should be implemented to satisfy TRCA requirements.
Stabilization measures such as retaining wall or reinforced engineered slope or the combination of both can be considered. As the low section of the existing slope consists of shale bedrock, rock anchor may be used to provide lateral resistance for the retaining wall. Section 5.3 of this report addresses the geotechnical recommendations for the design of the retaining wall. Should the reinforced engineered slope be used, the design and construction of the reinforced engineered slope/earth retention system should be carried out by a specialized contractor.
As per the discussions between the project team, an armour stone retaining wall is currently considered as the potential stabilization measure to satisfy the long-term stability of the slope. The armour stone wall is proposed to be built at the toe of the slope to retain a 2.5H:1V slope. Based on the global stability analysis as shown on drawing 8, the proposed armour stone retaining wall with regraded 2.5H:1V slope above the wall have a FOS greater than 1.5 which is considered stable in terms of long-term stability based on TRCA’s requirements.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 14
6 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
6.1 SOIL SAMPLING
In order to provide information regarding the chemical quality of the subsurface soil for the captioned site, soil samples taken from the depths ranging from 0.2 m to 4.3 m below the existing ground surface were submitted to AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario (“AGAT”). The representative soil samples were collected and placed in laboratory supplied glass jars, methanol vials and plastic zip lock bags. During sampling, obvious environmental impact (staining) was observed in the samples. The samples for chemical analyses were placed in a cooler with ice bags.
Upon return to our laboratory, the headspace of the sample bags was tested for presence of VOCs using a Multi-Gas monitor (RKI GX-6000). The VOC readings of the samples ranged between nil and 0.1 ppm.
6.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Soil samples, which were selected for various tests, are summarized in the table 6.1 below:
Table 6.1 Soil Samples and Corresponding Tests
TESTED SAMPLE I.D.
BOREHOLE SAMPLE SAMPLE TYPE NAME OF TEST
BH18-AB-1 SS2 BH18-AB-1 SS2 DISCRETE M & I
BH18-AB-2 SS1 BH18-AB-2 SS1 DISCRETE M & I AND BETX & PHCS
BH18-AB-3 SS1&SS2 BH18-AB-3 SS1&SS2 COMPOSITE M & I
BH18-AB-3 SS6 BH18-AB-3 SS6 DISCRETE BETX & PHCS
BH18-AB-3 SS3 BH18-AB-3 SS3 DISCRETE PAHS
BH18-AB-2 SS2 BH18-AB-2 SS2 DISCRETE PAHS
BH18-AB-3 SS3 BH18-AB-3 SS3 DISCRETE TCLP – METALS & INORGANICS
6.3 FINDINGS
Three (3) soil samples were selected for analyses of metal & inorganic parameters (M&I); two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC F1-F4 fractions) under O.Reg.153/04 (amended). Test results were compared to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) guidelines listed in Table 1 (Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards) for Residential / Parkland / Institutional/Industrial / Commercial / Community (RPIICC) Property Use and Tables 2 and 3 (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable & Non-Potable Ground Water Condition) for Residential/Parkland/Institutional (RPI)
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 15
and Industrial/Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011). The tested soil samples met the relevant MOECC guidelines, with the exceptions listed in the table below. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.
Table 6.2 Chemical Analysis Exceedances
TESTED
SAMPLE I.D.
BOREHOLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER EXCEEDANCES
MOECC TABLE1
RPIICC
MOECC TABLE 2
AG
MOECC TABLE3
RPI
MOECC TABLE3
ICC
BH18-AB-1 SS2
BH18-AB-1 SS2
M&I: EC M&I: EC M&I: EC -
BH18-AB-2 SS2
BH18-AB-2 SS2
PAHS: ACENAPHTHYLENE,
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE, BENZO(A)PYRENE,
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE, FLUORANTHENE,
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE, PYRENE
PAHS: BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,
BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE, FLUORANTHENE
PAHS: BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,
BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE, FLUORANTHENE
PAHS: BENZO(A)PYRENE
BH18-AB-3 SS3
BH18-AB-3 SS3
PAHS: ACENAPHTHYLENE,
ANTHRACENE BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,
BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTH
ENE, BENZO(K)FLUORANTH
ENE, DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE, FLUORANTHENE,
FLUORENE, INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE,
PHENANTHRENE, PYRENE
PAHS: BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,
BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTH
ENE, DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE, FLUORANTHENE,
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
PAHS: BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,
BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTH
ENE, DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENE, FLUORANTHENE,
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
PAHS: BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE,
BENZO(A)PYRENE, BENZO(B)FLUORANTH
ENE, DIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRAC
ENE
One (1) soil sample was analyzed for metals and inorganic parameters by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extraction. Test results were compared to Schedule 4 of O.Reg.558. The tested soil samples met the relevant guidelines as detailed in Table 6.3. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.
Table 6.3 TCLP Exceedances
TESTED
SAMPLE I.D.
BOREHOLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER EXCEEDANCES
METALS & INORGANICS
BH18-AB-3 SS3 BH18-AB-3 SS3 NONE
6.4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above noted soil sampling, laboratory testing and findings, disposal option of the excavated material is given below:
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 267 REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 16
— The excavated material from the site should be disposed as “non-hazardous” waste to a licensed landfill facility which will be willing to accept such material.
7 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Based on the existing borehole information and according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of OBC 2012, the subject site for the proposed culvert can be classified as “Class C” for seismic site response.
8 GENERAL COMMENTS AND LIMITATIONS OF REPORT
The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of design engineers. The number of boreholes required to determine the localized underground conditions between boreholes affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., would be much greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should, in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual borehole and test pit results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.
This report is intended solely for the Client named. The material in it reflects our best judgment in light of the information available to WSP at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by WSP, it shall not be used to express or imply warranty as to the fitness of the property for a particular purpose. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety.
The conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on information determined at the test hole locations. The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environment aspects of the project, unless otherwise stated. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes may differ from those encountered at the test hole locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction, which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the site investigation. The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the test hole locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating, planning, development, etc.
The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project described in the text and then only if constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report.
We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time.
DRAWING
200 CONC
300
CO
NC
300
CO
NC
675
UN
K
675
UN
K
SL2305918
SL2305915
SL2307566
S
S
S
SL2306589
SL2306571
S
S
MH4
4034
99058
MH4
404
299018
MH4
408599030
MH4
404
098953
CB
CB
BB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
MH4
404
298979
MH4
408799026
IO4409898970
IO4404
598966
IO4405698963
IO4402998952
MH4
404
898872
MH4
407598880
MH4
40609894
9
CB4
406198877
CB4
406798925
CB4
404
898937
CB4
405198872
CB4
40299894
2
CB4
402998935
CB4
404
598871
CB4
406299014
CB4
405799015
CB4
405699025
CB4
403399003
CB4
405598982
SL2305942
450 CONC
T
SL2306875
SL2306793
SL2306386
SL2306868
600 CONC
300 CONC
450 CONC
T
T
525 CSP
T
T
MH4
40279904
2 CB4
40239904
7
Bus
Shelter
LN 2
E
SA
NA
GA
N
N
LIG
HT
WO
OD
ALBION RDLSLS
LS
LS
LS
LS LS
LS
LS
LS
LSLS
LS
PROJECT: 17M-02182-01
SCALE: 1:500
FILE NO.:
DATE: MARCH 2018
DRAWING NO.:
110 0 10 metres5
LEGEND
BH18-AB-1
Albion Rd.
BOREHOLE LOCATION
Todd Bro
ok Dr.
BH18-AB-2(6m)
BH18-AB-3(9m)
Albion Creek
A
A'
BH18-AB-1(11m)
Toronto, Ontario
267 - Culvert. Over Albion Creek, Albion Road,
City of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
B
B'
Sa
Sb
LONG-TERM STABLE TOP OF SLOPE (LTSTS)
SECTION AND LTSTS PLAN
BOREHOLE LOCATION,CROSS
1285
1265
30 17
1246
C.L.
CC
C.L.
SMH
SMH
C.L.C.L.
RS
HE
HE
LS
HCP
LS
HE
INV. = 143
.687
OBV
OBV
WL
Nail
HE
Dirt
HE
Dirt
WL
Nail
Dirt
+142.71
8
+142.71
9
+142.72
4
+142.72
6
+142.72
8
+142.73
0
+142.73
2
+142.73
2
+142.73
3
+142.73
3
+142.73
4
+142.73
5
+142.73
5
+142.73
6
+142.73
7
+142.73
8
+142.74
2
+142.74
3
+142.74
3
+142.74
6
+142.75
2
+142.75
7+14
2.779
+142.79
9
+142.84
0
+142.85
0
+142.85
3
+142.85
9
+142.90
0
+142.98
6+142.9
89
+143.02
9
+143.07
3
+143.08
2
+143.08
4
+143.09
9
+143.17
8
+143.20
5
+143.21
9
+143.27
8
+143.35
5
+143.36
8
+143.37
0
+143.37
4
+143.37
7
+143.37
9
+143.37
9
+143.38
0
+143.38
1
+143.38
3
+143.38
5
+143.38
7
+143.39
0
+143.40
3
+143.40
4
+143.41
4
+143.45
0
+143.45
4
+143.49
6
+143.50
5
+143.55
2
+143.56
2
+143.62
5
+143.65
8
+143.68
7
+143.69
0
+143.70
7
+143.72
7
+143.75
0
+143.77
6
+143.82
1
+143.87
7
+143.89
4
+143.90
7
+143.93
6+14
3.971
+144.04
9
+144.06
0
+144.06
6
+144.06
9
+144.07
7
+144.08
1
+144.09
5
+144.12
3
+144.13
9
+144.15
9
+144.16
9
+144.17
0
+144.18
0
+144.19
2
+144.22
8
+144.23
3
+144.25
7
+144.26
1
+144.30
5
+144.31
6+14
4.322
+144.35
7
+144.39
8
+144.41
8
+144.41
8
+144.42
0
+144.44
7
+144.47
7
+144.48
7
+144.50
0
+144.53
0
+144.53
4
+144.53
4
+144.55
1+144.56
9
+144.57
1
+144.57
6+14
4.584
+144.58
4
+144.58
8
+144.59
0
+144.61
0
+144.61
4
+144.61
8
+144.62
1
+144.64
2
+144.65
0
+144.65
7
+144.66
1
+144.67
5
+144.68
6+14
4.699
+144.74
6
+144.75
1
+144.75
3
+144.76
4
+144.76
5
+144.77
0
+144.82
8
+144.82
8
+144.83
1
+144.83
2
+144.87
8
+144.89
8
+144.90
1
+144.90
4
+144.93
5
+144.93
9
+144.94
6
+144.95
5+145.01
5
+145.01
8+14
5.028
+145.02
9
+145.03
3
+145.04
9
+145.08
4
+145.08
8
+145.15
3
+145.15
6
+145.15
7
+145.17
8
+145.19
5
+145.20
9
+145.22
5
+145.22
8
+145.23
5
+145.24
1
+145.27
3
+145.28
8
+145.29
6
+145.30
3
+145.30
4
+145.40
4
+145.41
5
+145.44
0
+145.47
5
+145.48
3
+145.49
4
+145.50
2
+145.50
9
+145.51
9
+145.53
2+14
5.549
+145.55
1
+145.59
4
+145.61
4
+145.62
2
+145.63
7
+145.65
7
+145.66
2
+145.66
3
+145.70
9
+145.71
7
+145.72
9
+145.76
4
+145.85
7
+145.87
3
+145.87
7
+145.89
0
+145.89
7+14
5.901
+145.90
5
+145.91
8
+145.93
5
+145.96
5
+145.98
4
+146.02
4
+146.03
2
+146.03
8
+146.04
3
+146.04
6
+146.07
1
+146.08
1
+146.11
8
+146.11
9+146.12
7
+146.16
2
+146.23
3
+146.26
1
+146.26
2+146.27
6
+146.30
9
+146.32
5
+146.36
1
+146.41
2
+146.41
9+146.44
0+14
6.452
+146.52
6
+146.53
8
+146.55
4
+146.59
1+14
6.600
+146.60
4+14
6.605
+146.60
8
+146.60
8
+146.61
7+146.70
0
+146.82
6+14
6.833
+146.83
9
+146.89
5
+146.89
8
+146.97
5
+146.98
1
+146.99
8
+147.01
9
+147.04
1
+147.08
0
+147.08
0
+147.10
8+14
7.109
+147.11
0
+147.15
1
+147.22
8
+147.24
4
+147.24
9
+147.27
8
+147.60
8
+147.81
2
+147.84
1
+148.01
7
+148.05
4
+148.06
5
+148.11
3
+148.30
7+148.35
6+14
8.382
+148.50
0+14
8.549
+148.56
0
+148.59
7
+148.73
3
+148.74
1
+148.80
8
+148.81
3
+148.85
7
+148.85
8
+148.92
0
+148.94
5
+148.95
5
+148.96
5
+148.97
0
+148.98
0
+148.99
4
+148.99
7
+149.01
0
+149.01
4
+149.01
5
+149.02
4
+149.04
1
+149.05
0
+149.05
0
+149.05
2
+149.05
6
+149.05
8
+149.06
6
+149.06
7
+149.06
7
+149.06
9
+149.08
2
+149.08
4
+149.08
6
+149.08
8
+149.09
5
+149.10
3
+149.10
7
+149.12
2
+149.12
4
+149.13
3
+149.13
4
+149.13
6
+149.13
6
+149.13
8
+149.13
9
+149.14
5
+149.15
3+149.15
3
+149.16
5
+149.16
6
+149.16
9
+149.18
0
+149.18
1
+149.18
9
+149.19
1
+149.19
5
+149.19
9
+149.20
3
+149.20
3
+149.21
2
+149.21
3
+149.22
1
+149.24
7
+149.25
5
+149.25
7
+149.26
7
+149.26
8
+149.27
1
+149.27
6
+149.28
3
+149.29
5
+149.30
0
+149.30
5
+149.30
9
+149.31
0
+149.31
3
+149.31
4
+149.32
1
+149.33
4
+149.34
6
+149.35
3
+149.36
6
+149.37
9
+149.37
9
+149.38
1
+149.39
0
+149.39
3
+149.42
2
+149.42
4+14
9.428
+149.42
9
+149.43
4
+149.43
5
+149.47
9
+149.48
0+14
9.499
+149.51
4
+149.53
1
+149.54
1
+149.54
3
+149.54
4
+149.56
1
+149.56
6
+149.57
0
+149.58
7
+149.58
9
+149.71
5
+149.84
0
+149.84
7
+149.84
8
+149.90
2
+149.91
2
+149.93
3
+149.96
1
+149.97
7
+149.98
7
+150.03
3
+150.05
5
+150.10
4
+150.10
4
+150.35
3+15
0.368
+150.37
2
+150.40
9
+150.44
5
+150.54
3
+150.56
5
+150.57
6
+150.59
5
+150.73
0
+150.74
6
+150.76
0
+150.78
9
+150.78
9
+150.81
8
+150.87
9
+150.88
4
+150.89
6
+150.90
5
+150.92
3+150.94
0
+150.95
8
+150.99
0
+151.03
0
+151.03
2
+151.03
8
+151.06
0+151.06
2
+151.07
0
+151.09
5
+151.09
8
+151.10
0+15
1.101
+151.110
+151.13
8
+151.14
1
+151.14
2
+151.14
6
+151.16
8
+151.17
6+15
1.196
+151.21
7
+151.22
8
+151.23
0
+151.30
4
+151.31
2+15
1.316
+151.32
4
+151.34
9
+151.36
6
+151.40
0
+151.43
2
+151.49
5
Cross Section A-A'
West
A
1
2.1
East
A'
Albion Creek
Existing Slope
Property
Line
Laneway
Property
Line
Property
Line
Water Level 142.7
(Jan17, 2018)
21
Lightwood
Dr
33
Lightwood
Dr
Top of
Gabion
BH
18
-A
B-1
Fill
SiCLTill
Sa Si
Si CL
Shale Bedrock
Top of
Concrete
Bank
Fence
3.9m
Sa
2
CROSS SECTION A-A'
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONCity of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations267 - Culvert. Over Albion Creek, Albion Road,Toronto, Ontario
DRAWING NO.:
PROJECT: 17M-02182-00
DATE: FEBRUARY 2018 NOT TO SCALE
FILE NO.:
Cross Section B-B'
West
B
1
2.1
East
B'
Albion Creek
Existing Slope
Property
Line
Laneway
Property
Line
Water Level 142.7
(Jan17, 2018)
21
Lightwood
Dr
33
Lightwood
Dr
Top of
Gabion
Fence
Culvert
3.5m
Sb
3
CROSS SECTION B-B'
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONCity of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations267 - Culvert. Over Albion Creek, Albion Road,Toronto, Ontario
DRAWING NO.:
PROJECT: 17M-02182-00
DATE: FEBRUARY 2018 NOT TO SCALE
FILE NO.:
Drawing 4
Project: 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701
Geotechnical Investigation for Culvert 267 Replacement, Toronto, Ontario
Stability Analysis for Existing Slope at Cross Section A-A’
Drawing 5
Project: 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701
Geotechnical Investigation for Culvert 267 Replacement, Toronto, Ontario
Stability Analysis for Existing Slope at Cross Section B-B’
Drawing 6
Project: 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701
Geotechnical Investigation for Culvert 267 Replacement, Toronto, Ontario
Long – Term Stable Top of Slope Analysis at Cross Section A-A’
Drawing 7
Project: 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701
Geotechnical Investigation for Culvert 267 Replacement, Toronto, Ontario
Long – Term Stable Top of Slope Analysis at Cross Section B-B’
Drawing 8
Project: 17M-02182-00, Phase 700, Subphase 701
Geotechnical Investigation for Culvert 267 Replacement, Toronto, Ontario
Proposed Armour Stone Retaining Wall with 2.5H:1V Slope at Cross
Section A-A’
ENCLOSURE
Enclosure 1-A: Notes on Sample Descriptions
1. All sample descriptions included in this report generally follow the Unified Soil Classification. Laboratory grain size analyses provided by
WSP also follow the same system. Different classification systems may be used by others, such as the system by the International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE). Please note that, with the exception of those samples where a grain size
analysis and/or Atterberg Limits testing have been made, all samples are classified visually. Visual classification is not sufficiently
accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise differentiation between size classification systems.
2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the boring process. The reader
is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree of compaction. The borehole description may
therefore not be applicable as a general description of site fill materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as wood,
large concrete pieces or subsurface basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have been encountered in the boreholes. Since
boreholes cannot accurately define the contents of the fill, test pits are recommended to provide supplementary information. Despite
the use of test pits, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the exact composition of the fill. Most fills contain
pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This organic material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or
significant ongoing and future settlements. Fill at this site may have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the
results are given on the borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially generated nor
does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of gas only, and a detailed study is recommended for
sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it
unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on this site has not been tested for
contaminants that may be considered toxic or hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In
most residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally not detected in a
conventional preliminary geotechnical site investigation.
3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process associated with glaciation.
Because of this geological process the till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and as such may contain pockets and/or
seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm). Contractors
may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders during excavation, even if they are not indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated
that normal sampling equipment cannot differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical
variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential when dealing with
sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.
Enclosure 1-B: Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Borehole
Sample Type AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample
Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). WH – Samples sinks under “weight of hammer” Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).
Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487-10) Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mm Cobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm - 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm - 0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)
Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm) Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%
Soil Description
a) Cohesive Soils(*)
Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa) Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30 (*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer b) Cohesionless Soils Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50
Soil Tests w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater
pressure measurement DR Relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS Direct shear test ENV Environmental/ chemical analysis M Sieve analysis for particle size MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified proctor compaction test SPC Standard proctor compaction test OC Organic content test U Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test V Field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) Γ Unit weight
ASPHALT: 100 mmGRANULAR BASE: 100 mmFILL: silty clay, some sand, tracegravel, brown, moist, hard.
SILTY CLAY TILL: brown, moist,very stiff.
SANDY SILT: trace clay, brown,moist, dense.
SILTY CLAY: trace gravel, tracesand, grey, moist, very stiff.
PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE / SHALE BEDROCK:highly weathered, grey.
END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole was open and dry uponcompletion of drilling;2). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.
Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Jan 31, 2018 2.84Feb 27, 2018 3.13
40
65
151.1151.0
150.5
149.1
148.3
146.8
145.1
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
50/150mm
26
28
34
28
50/100mm
50/50mm
9
0
0.10.2
0.7
2.1
2.9
4.4
6.2
24
26
27
9
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
151
150
149
148
147
146
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Albion Road, over Albion Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION: N 4844021 E 298940
GR
1
2
3
4
5
6
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-AB-1
1st 2nd
Ground Surface ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
151.2
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
0.0
UNCONFINED
1 OF 1
20 40 60 80 100
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
Method: Solid Stem Auger
Diameter: 110mm
Date: Jan/19/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00
ENCL NO.: 2
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
17
M-0
2182
-01-
CU
LVE
RT
267
ALB
ION
RO
AD
2018
0124
.GP
J 2
7/2/
18
Bentonite
Sand
Screen
W. L. 148.1 mFeb 27, 2018
TOPSOIL: 200 mm
FILL: silty clay, some sand, tracegravel, containing shale pieces,brown, moist, stiff to very stiff.
SILTY CLAY / SHALE COMPLEX:grey, moist, very stiff to hard.
PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE / SHALE BEDROCK:highly weathered, grey.END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole was open uponcompletion of drilling;2). Water at a depth of 2.7m uponcompletion of drilling.
145.6
144.0
142.9
142.7
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
9
24
18
50/100mm
50/75mm
0.2
1.8
2.9
3.1
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
145
144
143
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Albion Road, over Albion Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION: N 4844075 E 298961
GR
1
2
3
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-AB-2
1st 2nd
Ground Surface ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
145.8
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
0.0
UNCONFINED
1 OF 1
20 40 60 80 100
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
Method: Solid Stem Auger
Diameter: 110mm
Date: Jan/25/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00
ENCL NO.: 3
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
17
M-0
2182
-01-
CU
LVE
RT
267
ALB
ION
RO
AD
2018
0124
.GP
J 2
7/2/
18
TOPSOIL: 200 mm
FILL: silty clay, sandy, trace gravel,brown, moist, firm to stiff.
--------------------containing wood pieces
--------------------black and grey
SILTY CLAY: trace gravel, tracesand, containing shale andlimestone pieces, grey, moist, hard.
SILTY CLAY / SHALE COMPLEX:grey, moist, hard.
PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE / SHALE BEDROCK:highly weathered, grey.
END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole was open uponcompletion of drilling;2). Water at a depth of 7.5m uponcompletion of drilling;3). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.
Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Jan 31, 2018 5.92Feb 27, 2018 5.86
40
59
148.6
144.4
143.2
142.6
141.1
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8
9
11
9
10
13
50
50/100mm
50/50mm
3
0
0.2
4.4
5.6
6.3
7.7
23
16
34
25
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
148
147
146
145
144
143
142
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Rehabilitations
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Albion Road, over Albion Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION: N 4844031 E 298982
GR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-AB-3
1st 2nd
Ground Surface ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
148.8
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
0.0
UNCONFINED
1 OF 1
20 40 60 80 100
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
Method: Solid Stem Auger
Diameter: 110mm
Date: Jan/19/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00
ENCL NO.: 4
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
17
M-0
2182
-01-
CU
LVE
RT
267
ALB
ION
RO
AD
2018
0124
.GP
J 2
7/2/
18
Cutting
Bentonite
Sand
Screen
W. L. 142.9 mFeb 27, 2018
FIGURE
Jan.25, 2018
1
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty clay till19mm16mm
13.2mm9.5mm4.75mm
2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm
0.0404 mm.0.0291 mm.0.0187 mm.0.0110 mm.0.0080 mm.0.0058 mm.0.0029 mm.0.0012 mm.
100.094.992.692.691.489.487.183.777.569.766.859.255.852.447.242.138.630.923.2
16.0 28.1 12.1
2.6265 0.5060 0.04300.0139 0.0027
CL A-6(6)
Sampled by Jack on Jan.18, 2018
City of Toronto
Geotechnical Investigation for Culverts Rehabilitations
17M-02182-00
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: BH18-AB-1 SS3Sample Number: MM-5429 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +75mmCoarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 8.6 2.0 5.7 16.9 39.6 27.2
80
56
40
28
20
14
10
5 2.5
1.2
5
0.6
3
0.3
15
0.1
6
0.0
75
Particle Size Distribution Report
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORTP
LA
ST
ICIT
Y I
ND
EX
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML
CL or OL
CH or OH
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
4
7
WA
TE
R C
ON
TE
NT
26
26.4
26.8
27.2
27.6
28
28.4
28.8
29.2
29.6
30
NUMBER OF BLOWS5 6 7 8 9 10 20 25 30 40
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No. Client: Remarks:
Project:
Location: BH18-AB-1 SS3Sample Number: MM-5429
Figure
Silty clay till 28.1 16.0 12.1 83.7 66.8 CL
17M-02182- City of Toronto
2
Sampled by Jack on Jan.18, 2018Geotechnical Investigation for Culverts Rehabilitations
Jan.25, 2018
3
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Sandy silt, trace clay2mm
0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm
0.0437 mm.0.0320 mm.0.0209 mm.0.0124 mm.0.0089 mm.0.0063 mm.0.0031 mm.0.0013 mm.
100.0100.0100.0
99.285.673.747.838.430.021.517.815.010.3
8.4
0.1267 0.1038 0.05670.0461 0.0209 0.00630.0029 19.31 2.63
Sampled by Jack on Jan.18, 2018
City of Toronto
Geotechnical Investigation for Culverts Rehabilitations
17M-02182-00
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: BH18-AB-1 SS4Sample Number: MM-5430 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +75mmCoarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 64.8 8.9
80
56
40
28
20
14
10
5 2.5
1.2
5
0.6
3
0.3
15
0.1
6
0.0
75
Particle Size Distribution Report
Jan.25, 2018
4
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty clay/shale complex4.75mm
2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm
0.0361 mm.0.0262 mm.0.0171 mm.0.0104 mm.0.0077 mm.0.0056 mm.0.0029 mm.0.0013 mm.
100.086.685.384.884.684.284.079.275.069.058.850.342.629.819.6
2.6990 0.5785 0.01100.0076 0.0030
Sampled by Jack on Jan.19, 2018
City of Toronto
Geotechnical Investigation for Culverts Rehabilitations
17M-02182-00
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: BH18-AB-3 SS8Sample Number: MM-5431 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +75mmCoarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 1.8 0.8 59.4 24.6
80
56
40
28
20
14
10
5 2.5
1.2
5
0.6
3
0.3
15
0.1
6
0.0
75
Particle Size Distribution Report
Feb.09, 2018
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Sandy clayey silt, trace gravel9.5mm
4.75mm2mm
0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm
0.0395 mm.0.0286 mm.0.0185 mm.0.0110 mm.0.0079 mm.0.0057 mm.0.0029 mm.0.0012 mm.
100.097.094.392.289.284.876.473.666.962.557.251.948.444.037.029.9
0.4885 0.2543 0.02360.0091 0.0012
Sampled by Jack on Jan.19, 2018
City of Toronto
Geotechnical Investigation for Culverts Rehabilitations
17M-02182-00
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: BH18-AB-3 SS3Sample Number: MM-5507 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +75mmCoarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 3.0 2.7 5.1 15.6 39.7 33.9
80
56
40
28
20
14
10
5 2.5
1.2
5
0.6
3
0.3
15
0.1
6
0.0
75
Particle Size Distribution Report
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST, UNITS 9-12MARKHAM, ON L3R4H9 (905) 475-0065
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
Nivine Basily, Inorganics Report WriterSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:
Neli Popnikolova, Senior ChemistTRACE ORGANICS REVIEWED BY:
DATE REPORTED:
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 15
Feb 07, 2018
VERSION*: 2
Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100
18T305562AGAT WORK ORDER:
ATTENTION TO: Jack Li
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
Laboratories (V2) Page 1 of 15
All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.
AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)
Member of:
VERSION 2:Revised Report Issued February 07th 2018. TCLP Metals and Inorganics added to BH18-AB-3 SS3 as per client request.
*NOTES
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request
BH18 - AB - 1
SS2
BH18 - AB - 3
SS1 & 2
BH18 - AB - 2
SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
SoilSoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:
2018-01-24 2018-01-252018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:
9030132 9030134 9030137G / S: A RDLUnit G / S: B G / S: C G / S: DParameter
<0.8[<A] <0.8[<A] <0.8[<A]Antimony 0.81.3µg/g 40 7.5 7.5
5[<D] 5[<D] 5[<D]Arsenic 118µg/g 18 18 11
82[<A] 52[<A] 77[<A]Barium 2220µg/g 670 390 390
0.8[<A] 0.8[<A] 0.8[<A]Beryllium 0.52.5µg/g 8 4 4
8[<A] 8[<A] 8[<A]Boron 536µg/g 120 120 120
0.17[<C] <0.10[<C] 0.14[<C]Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.10NAµg/g 2 1.5 1.5
<0.5[<D] <0.5[<D] <0.5[<D]Cadmium 0.51.2µg/g 1.9 1.2 1
21[<A] 20[<A] 22[<A]Chromium 270µg/g 160 160 160
10.4[<A] 11.7[<A] 11.1[<A]Cobalt 0.521µg/g 80 22 22
27[<A] 25[<A] 23[<A]Copper 192µg/g 230 140 140
27[<D] 9[<D] 14[<D]Lead 1120µg/g 120 120 45
<0.5[<A] <0.5[<A] <0.5[<A]Molybdenum 0.52µg/g 40 6.9 6.9
22[<A] 25[<A] 24[<A]Nickel 182µg/g 270 100 100
<0.4[<A] <0.4[<A] <0.4[<A]Selenium 0.41.5µg/g 5.5 2.4 2.4
<0.2[<A] <0.2[<A] <0.2[<A]Silver 0.20.5µg/g 40 20 20
<0.4[<A] <0.4[<A] <0.4[<A]Thallium 0.41µg/g 3.3 1 1
<0.5[<A] <0.5[<A] <0.5[<A]Uranium 0.52.5µg/g 33 23 23
30[<A] 25[<A] 28[<A]Vanadium 186µg/g 86 86 86
72[<A] 57[<A] 58[<A]Zinc 5290µg/g 340 340 340
<0.2[<A] <0.2[<A] <0.2[<A]Chromium VI 0.20.66µg/g 8 8 8
<0.040[<A] <0.040[<A] <0.040[<A]Cyanide 0.0400.051µg/g 0.051 0.051 0.051
<0.10[<D] <0.10[<D] <0.10[<D]Mercury 0.100.27µg/g 3.9 0.27 0.25
0.198[<A] 0.751[D-B] 0.175[<A]Electrical Conductivity 0.0050.57mS/cm 1.4 0.7 0.7
0.211[<A] 1.50[<A] 0.350[<A]Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA2.4NA 12 5 5
7.71 8.21 7.79pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2018-01-25
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-07
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)
SAMPLED BY:Jack LiSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V2)
Certified By:Page 2 of 15
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2018-01-25
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-07
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)
SAMPLED BY:Jack LiSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: A Refers to Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use, B Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, C Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, D Refers to Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Agricultural or Other Property Use - Coarse Textured SoilsGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.
9030132-9030137 EC & SAR were determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil). pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract prepared at 2:1 ratio.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V2)
Certified By:Page 3 of 15
BH18 - AB - 3
SS3SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
SoilSAMPLE TYPE:
2018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:
9030136G / S RDLUnitParameter
<0.010Arsenic Leachate 0.0102.5mg/L
0.436Barium Leachate 0.100100mg/L
0.071Boron Leachate 0.050500mg/L
<0.010Cadmium Leachate 0.0100.5mg/L
<0.010Chromium Leachate 0.0105mg/L
<0.010Lead Leachate 0.0105mg/L
<0.01Mercury Leachate 0.010.1mg/L
<0.010Selenium Leachate 0.0101mg/L
<0.010Silver Leachate 0.0105mg/L
<0.050Uranium Leachate 0.05010mg/L
0.22Fluoride Leachate 0.05150mg/L
<0.05Cyanide Leachate 0.0520mg/L
<0.70(Nitrate + Nitrite) as N Leachate 0.701000mg/L
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to O. Reg. 558 - Schedule IV Leachate Quality CriteriaGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2018-01-25
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-07
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
O. Reg. 558 Metals and Inorganics
SAMPLED BY:Jack LiSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V2)
Certified By:Page 4 of 15
BH18 - AB - 2
SS2
BH18 - AB - 3
SS3SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:
2018-01-252018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:
9030136 9030139G / S: A RDLUnit G / S: B G / S: C G / S: DParameter
<0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Naphthalene 0.050.09µg/g 9.6 0.6 0.6
0.13[A-B] 0.11[A-B]Acenaphthylene 0.050.093µg/g 0.15 0.15 0.15
0.07[<A] <0.05[<A]Acenaphthene 0.050.072µg/g 96 7.9 7.9
0.20[A-B] <0.05[<A]Fluorene 0.050.12µg/g 62 62 62
1.7[A-C] 0.34[<A]Phenanthrene 0.050.69µg/g 12 6.2 6.2
0.35[A-B] 0.11[<A]Anthracene 0.050.16µg/g 0.67 0.67 0.67
2.7[D-B] 1.2[D-B]Fluoranthene 0.050.56µg/g 9.6 0.69 0.69
2.3[A-C] 1.2[A-C]Pyrene 0.051µg/g 96 78 78
1.6[>B] 0.80[D-B]Benz(a)anthracene 0.050.36µg/g 0.96 0.5 0.5
1.6[<A] 0.77[<A]Chrysene 0.052.8µg/g 9.6 7 7
1.7[>B] 0.82[D-B]Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.050.47µg/g 0.96 0.78 0.78
0.57[A-C] 0.25[<A]Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.050.48µg/g 0.96 0.78 0.78
1.1[>A] 0.57[>A]Benzo(a)pyrene 0.050.3µg/g 0.3 0.3 0.078
0.54[D-B] 0.27[A-C]Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.050.23µg/g 0.76 0.38 0.38
0.14[>D] 0.08[<A]Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.050.1µg/g 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.52[<A] 0.27[<A]Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.050.68µg/g 9.6 6.6 6.6
0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Methyl Naphthalene, 2-and 1- 0.050.59µg/g 76 0.99 0.99
Acceptable LimitsUnitSurrogate
115 122.Chrysene-d12 % 50-140
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: A Refers to Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use, B Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, C Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, D Refers to Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Agricultural or Other Property Use - Coarse Textured SoilsGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.
9030136-9030139 Results are based on the dry weight of the soil.Note: The result for Benzo(b)Fluoranthene is the total of the Benzo(b)&(j)Fluoranthene isomers because the isomers co-elute on the GC column.
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2018-01-25
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-07
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil)
SAMPLED BY:Jack LiSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V2)
Certified By:Page 5 of 15
BH18 - AB - 2
SS1
BH18 - AB - 3
SS6SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:
2018-01-252018-01-24DATE SAMPLED:
9030135 9030137G / S: A RDLUnit G / S: B G / S: C G / S: DParameter
<0.02[<A] <0.02[<A]Benzene 0.020.02µg/g 0.32 0.21 0.21
<0.08[<A] <0.08[<A]Toluene 0.080.2µg/g 68 2.3 2.3
<0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Ethylbenzene 0.050.05µg/g 9.5 2 1.1
<0.05[<A] <0.05[<A]Xylene Mixture 0.050.05µg/g 26 3.1 3.1
<5[<A] <5[<A]F1 (C6 to C10) 525µg/g 55 55 55
<5[<A] <5[<A]F1 (C6 to C10) minus BTEX 525µg/g 55 55 55
<10[<A] <10[<A]F2 (C10 to C16) 1010µg/g 230 98 98
<50[<A] <50[<A]F3 (C16 to C34) 50240µg/g 1700 300 300
<50[<A] <50[<A]F4 (C34 to C50) 50120µg/g 3300 2800 2800
NA[<A] NA[<A]Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons 50120µg/g 3300 2800 2800
16.0 14.4Moisture Content 0.1%
Acceptable LimitsUnitSurrogate
100 97Terphenyl % 60-140
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2018-01-25
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-07
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)
SAMPLED BY:Jack LiSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V2)
Certified By:Page 6 of 15
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2018-01-25
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
DATE REPORTED: 2018-02-07
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)
SAMPLED BY:Jack LiSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: A Refers to Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use, B Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, C Refers to Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional Property Use - Coarse Textured Soils, D Refers to Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition - Soil - Agricultural or Other Property Use - Coarse Textured SoilsGuideline values are for general reference only. The guidelines provided may or may not be relevant for the intended use. Refer directly to the applicable standard for regulatory interpretation.
9030135-9030137 Results are based on sample dry weight.The C6-C10 fraction is calculated using Toluene response factor.The C10 - C16, C16 - C34, and C34 - C50 fractions are calculated using the average response factor for n-C10, n-C16, and n-C34.Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons are not included in the Total C16-C50 and are only determined if the chromatogram of the C34 - C50 hydrocarbons indicates that hydrocarbons >C50 are present.The chromatogram has returned to baseline by the retention time of nC50.Total C6 - C50 results are corrected for BTEX contributions.This method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory.nC6 and nC10 response factors are within 30% of Toluene response factor.nC10, nC16 and nC34 response factors are within 10% of their average.C50 response factor is within 70% of nC10 + nC16 + nC34 average.Linearity is within 15%.Extraction and holding times were met for this sample.Fractions 1-4 are quantified with the contribution of PAHs. Under Ontario Regulation 153, results are considered valid without determining the PAH contribution if not requested by the client.Quality Control Data is available upon request.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V2)
Certified By:Page 7 of 15
9030134 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.57 0.751BH18 - AB - 1 SS2 mS/cm
9030134 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.7 0.751BH18 - AB - 1 SS2 mS/cm
9030134 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 0.7 0.751BH18 - AB - 1 SS2 mS/cm
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Acenaphthylene 0.093 0.13BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Anthracene 0.16 0.35BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.36 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.47 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.48 0.57BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.56 2.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluorene 0.12 0.20BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.23 0.54BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Phenanthrene 0.69 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Pyrene 1 2.3BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.078 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 2.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.38 0.54BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.96 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.96 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 1.6BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 1.1BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 1.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 0.14BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 2.7BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030136 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.38 0.54BH18 - AB - 3 SS3 µg/g
9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Acenaphthylene 0.093 0.11BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.36 0.80BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.47 0.82BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.56 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.23 0.27BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T1 S RPI/ICC O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Pyrene 1 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 0.80BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.078 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 0.82BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T2 S AG CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T3 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
Guideline Violation
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
SAMPLEID GUIDELINE ANALYSIS PACKAGE PARAMETER GUIDEVALUE RESULTSAMPLE TITLE UNIT
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
GUIDELINE VIOLATION (V2) Page 8 of 15
9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benz(a)anthracene 0.5 0.80BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 0.57BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.78 0.82BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
9030139 ON T3 S RPI CT O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil) Fluoranthene 0.69 1.2BH18 - AB - 2 SS2 µg/g
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
Guideline Violation
ATTENTION TO: Jack LiCLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
SAMPLEID GUIDELINE ANALYSIS PACKAGE PARAMETER GUIDEVALUE RESULTSAMPLE TITLE UNIT
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
GUIDELINE VIOLATION (V2) Page 9 of 15
O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)
Antimony 9027705 <0.8 <0.8 NA < 0.8 97% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%
Arsenic 9027705 6 6 0.0% < 1 96% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 103% 70% 130%
Barium 9027705 94 94 0.0% < 2 97% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%
Beryllium 9027705 0.8 0.8 NA < 0.5 97% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 109% 70% 130%
Boron
9027705 8 9 NA < 5 75% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%
Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 9028452 0.81 0.84 3.6% < 0.10 99% 60% 140% 91% 70% 130% 91% 60% 140%
Cadmium 9027705 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 98% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%
Chromium 9027705 20 19 5.1% < 2 86% 70% 130% 108% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%
Cobalt 9027705 11.5 11.2 2.6% < 0.5 99% 70% 130% 92% 80% 120% 89% 70% 130%
Copper
9027705 32 31 3.2% < 1 98% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 95% 70% 130%
Lead 9027705 11 11 0.0% < 1 97% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%
Molybdenum 9027705 <0.5 <0.5 NA < 0.5 94% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 87% 70% 130%
Nickel 9027705 24 25 4.1% < 1 95% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%
Selenium 9027705 0.5 <0.4 NA < 0.4 100% 70% 130% 98% 80% 120% 103% 70% 130%
Silver
9027705 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 83% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%
Thallium 9027705 <0.4 <0.4 NA < 0.4 85% 70% 130% 101% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%
Uranium 9027705 0.6 0.6 NA < 0.5 87% 70% 130% 101% 80% 120% 100% 70% 130%
Vanadium 9027705 26 26 0.0% < 1 99% 70% 130% 89% 80% 120% 89% 70% 130%
Zinc 9027705 72 72 0.0% < 5 96% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 111% 70% 130%
Chromium VI
9028033 <0.2 <0.2 NA < 0.2 75% 70% 130% 97% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%
Cyanide 9034022 <0.040 <0.040 NA < 0.040 90% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 106% 70% 130%
Mercury 9027705 <0.10 <0.10 NA < 0.10 103% 70% 130% 95% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%
Electrical Conductivity 9028548 0.107 0.112 4.6% < 0.005 99% 90% 110%
Sodium Adsorption Ratio 9028452 1.82 1.84 1.1% NA
pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction
9031899 7.76 7.79 0.4% NA 99% 80% 120%
Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.Duplicate Qualifier: As the measured result approaches the RL, the uncertainty associated with the value increases dramatically, thus duplicate acceptance limits apply only where the average of the two duplicates is greater than five times the RL.
O. Reg. 558 Metals and Inorganics
Arsenic Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 96% 90% 110% 97% 80% 120% 96% 70% 130%
Barium Leachate 9043364 0.830 0.891 7.1% < 0.100 93% 90% 110% 90% 80% 120% 78% 70% 130%
Boron Leachate 9043364 0.054 0.059 NA < 0.050 102% 90% 110% 100% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%
Cadmium Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 98% 90% 110% 98% 80% 120% 90% 70% 130%
Chromium Leachate
9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 98% 90% 110% 104% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%
Lead Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 94% 90% 110% 88% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%
Mercury Leachate 9043364 <0.01 <0.01 NA < 0.01 100% 90% 110% 85% 80% 120% 85% 70% 130%
Selenium Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 98% 90% 110% 89% 80% 120% 89% 70% 130%
Silver Leachate 9043364 <0.010 <0.010 NA < 0.010 95% 90% 110% 95% 80% 120% 95% 70% 130%
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Jack Li
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
Dup #1 RPDMeasured
ValueRecovery Recovery
Quality Assurance
ATTENTION TO: Jack Li
CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
Soil Analysis
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
BatchPARAMETERSample
IdDup #2
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Feb 07, 2018 REFERENCE MATERIAL
MethodBlank
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V2) Page 10 of 15
AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.
Uranium Leachate
9043364 <0.050 <0.050 NA < 0.050 94% 90% 110% 95% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%
Fluoride Leachate 9043364 0.223 0.227 NA < 0.05 104% 90% 110% 106% 90% 110% 94% 70% 130%
Cyanide Leachate 9046528 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 100% 90% 110% 100% 90% 110% 99% 70% 130%
(Nitrate + Nitrite) as N Leachate 9043364 < 0.70 < 0.70 NA < 0.70 99% 80% 120% 105% 80% 120% 104% 70% 130%
Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.Duplicate Qualifier: As the measured result approaches the RL, the uncertainty associated with the value increases dramatically, thus duplicate acceptance limits apply only where the average of the two duplicates is greater than five times the RL.
Certified By:
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Jack Li
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
Dup #1 RPDMeasured
ValueRecovery Recovery
Quality Assurance
ATTENTION TO: Jack Li
CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
Soil Analysis (Continued)
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
BatchPARAMETERSample
IdDup #2
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Feb 07, 2018 REFERENCE MATERIAL
MethodBlank
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V2) Page 11 of 15
AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.
O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)
Benzene 9032284 < 0.02 < 0.02 NA < 0.02 116% 60% 130% 113% 60% 130% 114% 60% 130%
Toluene 9032284 < 0.08 < 0.08 NA < 0.08 107% 60% 130% 115% 60% 130% 109% 60% 130%
Ethylbenzene 9032284 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 101% 60% 130% 108% 60% 130% 105% 60% 130%
Xylene Mixture 9032284 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 73% 60% 130% 103% 60% 130% 98% 60% 130%
F1 (C6 to C10)
9032284 < 5 < 5 NA < 5 85% 60% 130% 90% 85% 115% 76% 70% 130%
F2 (C10 to C16) 9028453 < 10 < 10 NA < 10 102% 60% 130% 96% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%
F3 (C16 to C34) 9028453 < 50 < 50 NA < 50 102% 60% 130% 98% 80% 120% 106% 70% 130%
F4 (C34 to C50) 9028453 < 50 < 50 NA < 50 86% 60% 130% 94% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%
O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil)
Naphthalene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 109% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140% 106% 50% 140%
Acenaphthylene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 116% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140% 94% 50% 140%
Acenaphthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 102% 50% 140% 102% 50% 140% 95% 50% 140%
Fluorene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 110% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140% 110% 50% 140%
Phenanthrene
9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 105% 50% 140% 93% 50% 140% 109% 50% 140%
Anthracene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 95% 50% 140% 98% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140%
Fluoranthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 101% 50% 140% 101% 50% 140% 110% 50% 140%
Pyrene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 98% 50% 140% 93% 50% 140% 115% 50% 140%
Benz(a)anthracene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 109% 50% 140% 81% 50% 140% 98% 50% 140%
Chrysene
9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 103% 50% 140% 96% 50% 140% 107% 50% 140%
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 116% 50% 140% 99% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140%
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 97% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140% 89% 50% 140%
Benzo(a)pyrene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 104% 50% 140% 95% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140%
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 114% 50% 140% 105% 50% 140% 102% 50% 140%
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 105% 50% 140% 97% 50% 140% 103% 50% 140%
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 105% 50% 140% 87% 50% 140% 96% 50% 140%
Methyl Naphthalene, 2-and 1- 9021500 < 0.05 < 0.05 NA < 0.05 114% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140% 102% 50% 140%
Comments: When the average of the sample and duplicate results is less than 5x the RDL, the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) will be indicated as Not Applicable (NA).
Certified By:
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Jack Li
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
Dup #1 RPDMeasured
ValueRecovery Recovery
Quality Assurance
ATTENTION TO: Jack Li
CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
Trace Organics Analysis
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
BatchPARAMETERSample
IdDup #2
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Feb 07, 2018 REFERENCE MATERIAL
MethodBlank
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V2) Page 12 of 15
AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.
Soil Analysis
Antimony MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Arsenic MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Barium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Beryllium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Boron MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Boron (Hot Water Soluble) MET-93-6104EPA SW 846 6010C; MSA, Part 3, Ch.21
ICP/OES
Cadmium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Chromium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Cobalt MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Copper MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Lead MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Molybdenum MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Nickel MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Selenium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Silver MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Thallium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Uranium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Vanadium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Zinc MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Chromium VI INOR-93-6029 SM 3500 B; MSA Part 3, Ch. 25 SPECTROPHOTOMETER
Cyanide INOR-93-6052MOE CN-3015 & E 3009 A;SM 4500 CN
TECHNICON AUTO ANALYZER
Mercury MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Electrical Conductivity INOR-93-6036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER
Sodium Adsorption Ratio INOR-93-6007McKeague 4.12 & 3.26 & EPA SW-846 6010B
ICP/OES
pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction INOR-93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B PH METER
Arsenic Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Barium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Boron Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Cadmium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Chromium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Lead Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Mercury Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Selenium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Silver Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Uranium Leachate MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 1311 & 3010A & 6020A ICP-MS
Fluoride Leachate INOR-93-6018 EPA SW-846-1311 & SM4500-F- C ION SELECTIVE ELECTRODE
Cyanide Leachate INOR-93-6052EPA SW-846-1311 & MOE 3015 & SM 4500 CN- I
TECHNICON AUTO ANALYZER
(Nitrate + Nitrite) as N Leachate INOR-93-6053EPA SW 846-1311 & SM 4500 - NO3- I
LACHAT FIA
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Jack Li
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
Method Summary
ATTENTION TO: Jack Li
CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
METHOD SUMMARY (V2) Page 13 of 15
Trace Organics Analysis
Naphthalene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Acenaphthylene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Acenaphthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Fluorene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Phenanthrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Benz(a)anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Chrysene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Benzo(a)pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Methyl Naphthalene, 2-and 1- ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
.Chrysene-d12 ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS
Benzene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS
Toluene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS
Ethylbenzene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS
Xylene Mixture VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS
F1 (C6 to C10) VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method P & T GC/FID
F1 (C6 to C10) minus BTEX VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method P & T GC/FID
F2 (C10 to C16) VOL-91-5009CCME Tier 1 Method, EPA SW846 8015
GC / FID
F3 (C16 to C34) VOL-91-5009CCME Tier 1 Method, EPA SW846 8015
GC / FID
F4 (C34 to C50) VOL-91-5009CCME Tier 1 Method, EPA SW846 8015
GC / FID
Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method BALANCE
Moisture Content VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method BALANCE
Terphenyl VOL-91-5009 GC/FID
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Jack Li
AGAT WORK ORDER: 18T305562
Method Summary
ATTENTION TO: Jack Li
CLIENT NAME: WSP CANADA INC.
PROJECT: Culvent Replacement City of Toronto
AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
METHOD SUMMARY (V2) Page 14 of 15
Page 15 of 15
Appendix A
APPENDIX B
M:\181 - Projects\WSP-MMM Project (DW)\17M-02182-00\Culvert 267 Albion Road\Report\Appendix\Appendix B - Slope Inspection Photos.docx
Photograph 1 – Overview of the slope, looking west, standing at the toe of slope
Photograph 2 – Pavement cracking and settlement was observed on the lane way located at the crest of
slope
M:\181 - Projects\WSP-MMM Project (DW)\17M-02182-00\Culvert 267 Albion Road\Report\Appendix\Appendix B - Slope Inspection Photos.docx
Photograph 3 – The existing Gabion walls located at the bottom of slope were tilted away from the slope
Photograph 3 – Erosion and undercut were observed and the shale bedrock was exposed
CITY OF TORONTO
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT REDWATER DRIVE, OVER BERRY CREEK, TORONTO, ONTARIO CITY OF TORONTO
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT NO.: 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705
DATE: MARCH 13, 2019
WSP UNITS 10 & 12 351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST MARKHAM, ON, CANADA L3R 4H9
T: +1 905 475-0065 WSP.COM
WSP Canada Inc.
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
2 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ............................... 1
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................... 1
3.1 Soil Conditions .....................................................................................2
3.2 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................2
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 3
4.1 Foundations ..........................................................................................3
4.2 Soil Parameters and Earth Pressure ......................................... 4
4.3 Passive Toe Rsistance ...................................................................... 5
4.4 Sliding Resistance ............................................................................. 6
4.5 Excavations and Groundwater Control ................................... 6
4.5.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 6
4.5.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL ................................................................................................... 6
5 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ............................ 7
6 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT .............................................. 7
7 CLOSURES ............................................................................. 7
WSP Canada Inc.
TABLES
TABLE 3.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 2 TABLE 4.1 BEARING RESISTANCES AND FOUNDING
LEVELS OF FOOTINGS................................................................. 3 TABLE 4.2 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION .................................................... 6
DRAWINGS
DRAWING 1 LOCATION MAP DRAWING 2 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
ENCLOSURES
ENCLOSURE 1-A NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS ENCLOSURE 1-B EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN
THE RECORD OF BOREHOLE ENCLOSURE 2-3 BOREHOLE LOGS
FIGURE
FIGURE 1 RESULT OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by the City of Toronto to provide a geotechnical investigation for the retaining wall replacement at four quadrant of Culvert 668, over Berry Creek, Redwater Drive, in the City of Toronto, Ontario.
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface soil and groundwater information at the site by means of two (2) exploratory boreholes. Based on our interpretation of the borehole data, this report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the design and planning of the proposed retaining wall replacement.
This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented above and on the assumption that the design will be in accordance with the applicable codes and standards. If there are any changes in the design features relevant to the geotechnical analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards, this office should be contacted to review the design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and reporting before the recommendations of this office can be relied upon.
The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical consultants in Ontario.
This report has been prepared for City of Toronto and its designers. Third party use of this report without WSP consent is prohibited.
2 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK The field work for this investigation was carried out by WSP on October 11, 2018 at which time two (2) boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 4.9 m to 6.1 m below the existing ground surface as shown on Borehole Location Plan, Drawing No. 2. The boreholes were advanced using portable drilling equipment by a drilling sub-contractor under the full time direction and supervision of WSP personnel. Soil samples were retrieved at continuous intervals from the boreholes with a 50 mm O.D. split-barrel sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method (ASTM D1586).
In addition to the visual examination in the laboratory, all soil samples were tested for water contents. One (1) selected soil sample was subjected to grain size analysis. The result is shown on the borehole log.
Water level observations were made during drilling in the open boreholes and at the completion of the drilling operations.
The boreholes were staked in the field by WSP and the ground surface elevations were surveyed by WSP using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device. It should be noted that the elevations at the as-drilled borehole locations were not provided by a professional surveyor and should be considered to be approximate. Contractors performing any work referenced to the borehole elevations should confirm the borehole elevations for their work.
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is located approximately 40 m north of the intersection of Redwater Drive and Cricklewood Road, as shown on Location Map, Drawing No. 1. The existing retaining walls are located along the creek banks near both inlet and outlet of culvert. The existing retaining wall consists of several types of wall such as Armor Stone, concrete and gabion walls.
The borehole locations are plotted on Drawing No. 2. Notes on sample descriptions are presented on Enclosure No. 1-A. Explanation of terms used in the record of boreholes is presented on Enclosure No. 1-B. The subsurface conditionsin the boreholes (BH18-1 and BH18-2) are presented on the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 and 3 inclusive).
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 2
The following is a summarized account of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, followed by more detailed descriptions of the major soil strata and the groundwater conditions encountered in both boreholes drilled at the site.
3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS In summary, underlying existing topsoil, fill material was encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 2.7 m to 4.6 m below the existing ground surface. The native soil encountered at the site mainly consisted cohesionless silty sandy gravel deposits.
Topsoil:
Topsoil with thickness of about 100 mm was encountered surficially in both boreholes. The thickness of topsoil was shown in borehole logs.
Fill Material:
Fill material consisting of silty clay was encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 2.7 m to 4.6 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the fill material gave N values ranging from 3 to 18 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a soft to very stiff state. The in-situ water contents of the fill samples were measured ranging from about 8 % to 22 %.
Silty Sandy Gravel:
Deposits of silty sandy gravel were encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 4.6 m to 6.1 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH18-1 was terminated in these deposits. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty sandy gravel gave N values ranging from 13 to 103 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a compact to very dense state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from 6 % to 8 %.
Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-2/SS5) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 1 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:
Table 3.1 Grain Size Distribution
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
BOREHOLE NO, SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
BH18-2 SS5 33 31 29 7
Silty Clay Till:
Silty clay till were encountered in Borehole BH18-2 and extended to the termination depth of the borehole. Standard
penetration test carried out within the silty clay till gave N value of 78 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a
hard state. The natural water content of the soil sample was about 10 %.
3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater observations and measurements conducted upon completion of drilling are shown in detail on the borehole logs. Groundwater was encountered in both boreholes during and upon completion of drilling at depths ranging from 2.7 m to 4 m below existing ground surface.
It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations in response to weather events and will also fluctuate with the water levels in the creek.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT Project No. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 3
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this report, the soil and groundwater conditions are interpreted as relevant to the design and planning of the proposed retaining wall replacement. Comments relating to construction are intended for the guidance of the design engineer to establish constructability.
The construction methods described in this report must not be considered as being specifications or direct recommendations to the contractors, or as being the only suitable methods. Prospective contractors should evaluate all of the factual information, obtain additional subsurface information as they might deem necessary and should select their construction methods, sequencing and equipment based on their own experience in similar ground conditions. The readers of this report are also reminded that the conditions are known only at the borehole locations and conditions may vary significantly in-between.
4.1 FOUNDATIONS Based on the boreholes information, the proposed retaining walls can be supported by footings founded on the native silty sandy gravel. Footings founded on the undisturbed compact silty sandy gravel can be designed for a factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 225 to 375 kPa and a geotechnical resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of 150 to 250 kPa as summarized on Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Bearing Resistances and Founding Levels of Footings
BH No. Bearing
Resistances at SLS (kPa)
Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS
(kPa)
Minimum Depth Below Existing Ground/Elevation
(m)
Anticipated Founding Soil
BH18-1 150 250
225 375
4.6/138.5 5.3/137.8
Silty sandy gravel
BH18-2 250 375 2.7/139.4 Silty sandy gravel
Foundations designed to the specified bearing resistances at SLS are expected to settle less than 25mm total and 19mm differential. All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.2m of soil cover for frost protection.
When excavation extends into the cohesionless silty sandy gravel below water level, some difficulties should be expected for the footing installation/placement. Groundwater level (refer to Section 4.3.1) should be lowered to at least 1 m below the excavation base to maintain the stability of the base and side slopes of the excavations.
The proposed founding soils to be exposed at the founding/subgrade level are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic and ponded water, leading to degradation of the founding soils. To limit this detrimental condition, a working mat of lean concrete should be placed on the subgrade as soon as possible after excavation.
All bearing surfaces must be checked, evaluated and approved at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer who is familiar with the findings of this investigation and the design and construction of similar structures prior to placement of any concrete, bedding, backfill, etc.
It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by WSP from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 4
the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by WSP to validate the information for use during the construction stage.
4.2 SOIL PARAMETERS AND EARTH PRESSURE
The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the walls, assuming that the backfill to the retaining
walls consists of free-draining granular fill meeting the requirements of OPSS 1010 Granular A or Granular B. This fill
should be compacted in loose lifts not greater than 300 mm in thickness to 95 per cent of the material's Standard
Proctor maximum dry density in accordance with OPSS 501. Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to
provide positive drainage of the granular backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to
subdrains and frost taper should be in accordance with applicable Ontario Provincial Standard Drawings. For design
purposes, the following properties can be assumed for backfill.
Compacted Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B’ Type II
Angle of Internal Friction =35 (unfactored)
Unit weight = 22 kN/m3
Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:
Level Backfill Backfill Sloping at 3H:1V Backfill Sloping at 2H:1V
Ka=0.27 Ka=0.34 Ka=0.40
Kb=0.35 Kb=0.44 Kb=0.50
Ko=0.43 Ko=0.56 Ko=0.62
K*=0.45 K*=0.60 K*=0.66
Compacted Granular ‘B’ Type I
Angle of Internal Friction =32 (unfactored)
Unit Weight = 21 kN/m3
Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:
Level Backfill Backfill Sloping at 3H:1V Backfill Sloping at 2H:1V
Ka=0.31 Ka=0.39 Ka=0.47
Kb=0.39 Kb=0.49 Kb=0.57
Ko=0.47 Ko=0.62 Ko=0.69
K*=0.54 K*=0.68 K*=0.78
Note: Ka is the coefficient of active earth pressure
Kb is the backfill earth pressure coefficient for an unrestrained structure including compaction efforts
Ko is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest
K* is the earth pressure coefficient for a soil loading a fully restrained structure and includes compaction effects
The earth pressure coefficient to be adopted will depend on whether the retaining structure is restrained or some
movement can occur such that the active state of earth pressure can develop. Any existing fill and topsoil should not
be re-used as backfill material.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 5
The design of the new retaining wall should take into account the horizontal soil loads, the magnitude of wall rotation,
hydrostatic pressure as well as surcharge loads resulting from during and after construction.
Assuming a drainage system will be installed to prevent the build-up of any hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, the
earth pressure p (kPa) acting on the retaining wall at any depth h (m) can be calculated using the following expression:
P = K ( h +q)
Where p = lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth h
K = earth pressure coefficient, see table above
= unit weight of material, see above
h = depth in soil in meters
q = value of surcharge in kPa, acting adjacent to the wall.
The above calculation yields lateral pressures due to soil loading only. If the retaining walls are intended to become
partially submerged during the design flood event, then appropriate hydrostatic pressures below the water table should
be added to the earth pressures calculated as above in order to obtain the total lateral pressure acting on the walls.
Select free-draining granular fill, in accordance with the OPSS granular gradation specification, should be used as backfill
immediately adjacent to the retaining wall. In this regard, the onsite soils are considered unsuitable for this purpose.
As a minimum requirement, the granular backfill should be placed in the wedge-shaped zone defined by a 60 degree
line extending up and back from the bottom of the rear face of the retaining wall footing, beginning from a point at
least 1.2 m form the back of the retaining wall footings. Filtered longitudinal drains should be installed at the base of
the fill to provide positive drainage of the granular backfill. All granular backfill should be placed in maximum 300 mm
loose lifts and uniformly compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of Standard Proctor maximum dry density. Heavy
compaction equipment, however, should not be used within the lateral distance behind any structure equal to the
current height of the fill above the base of the structure.
The global stability analyses for the retaining wall and slope should be carried out by a geotechnical engineer once the
detailed design of the retaining wall is available.
4.3 PASSIVE TOE RSISTANCE The passive earth pressure coefficient of Kp = 3.0, for undisturbed native soils (level ground) below the frost depth, can be used for the design.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 6
4.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the retaining wall footing base concrete and the subgrade should be calculated using the values for coefficient of friction between dissimilar materials provided in Table 4.2. It should be noted that these values are unfactored, a factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the horizontal resistance.
Table 4.2 Coefficient of Friction
STRUCTURE MATERIALS GROUND OR BACKFILL MATERIALS COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE SILTY SANDY GRAVEL 0.45
PRE-CAST CONCRETE GRANULAR A 0.45
4.5 EXCAVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL
4.5.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL
The fill materials are considered to be unsuitable to support the culvert foundation and should be completely removed to expose competent native soil, as noted in the above sections. In this regard, foundation excavations for the retaining wall would extend near or below the local water table.
Groundwater control during excavation within the fill material and native soils above ground water level can be handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within the excavations. However, when excavation extending below the groundwater level, more significant groundwater seepage would be expected from water bearing sandy/gravelly soils. Depending upon the prevailing groundwater level and water level in creek at the time of construction and the excavation depths, some form of positive groundwater control, in addition to pumping from sumps, may be required. The groundwater level should be lowered to at least 1 m below the excavation base to maintain the stability of the base and side slopes of the excavations. Control of the creek water will be necessary in order for foundation construction to be carried out in ‘dry’ conditions.
4.5.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the fill materials and silty sandy gravel can be classified as Type 3 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 4 soil below the water table.
The selected inorganic fill and native soils free of topsoil and organics can be used as general construction backfill where it can be compacted with sheep's foot type compactors. Loose lifts of soil, which are to be compacted, should not exceed 300mm and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). It should be noted that the excavated soils are subject to moisture content increase during wet weather which would make these materials too wet for adequate compaction. Stockpiles should be compacted at the surface or be covered with tarpaulins to minimize moisture uptake.
Imported Granular fill is recommended in areas where free draining material is required. Imported granular fill, which can be compacted with hand held equipment, should be used in confined areas.
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 7
5 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Based on the existing borehole information and according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of OBC 2012, the subject site for the proposed culvert can be classified as “Class D” for seismic site response.
6 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT WSP should be retained for a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that this report has been properly interpreted and implemented. If not accorded the privilege of making this review, WSP will assume no responsibility for interpretation of the recommendations in the report.
The comments given in this report are intended for the guidance of design engineers. The number of boreholes required to determine the localized underground conditions between boreholes affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., may be greater than has been carried out for current purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the work shall, in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual borehole results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.
We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time.
7 CLOSURES We trust that the information contained in this report is satisfactory. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
S I G N A T U R E S
Jack Li, E.I.T. Project Officer, Geotechnical Service
Derek Wang, P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer
WSP Canada Inc. prepared this report solely for the use of the intended recipient, CITY OF TORONTO, in accordance with the professional
services agreement. The intended recipient is solely responsible for the disclosure of any information contained in this report. The content
and opinions contained in the present report are based on the observations and/or information available to WSP Canada Inc. at the time of
preparation. If a third party makes use of, relies on, or makes decisions in accordance with this report, said third party is solely responsible
for such use, reliance or decisions. WSP Canada Inc. does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result
March 19, 2019
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 668 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 705 CITY OF TORONTO
WSP
Page 8
of decisions made or actions taken by said third party based on this report. This limitations statement is considered an integral part of this
report.
The original of this digital file will be conserved by WSP Canada Inc. for a period of not less than 10 years. As the digital file transmitted
to the intended recipient is no longer under the control of WSP Canada Inc., its integrity cannot be assured. As such, WSP Canada Inc. does
not guarantee any modifications made to this digital file subsequent to its transmission to the intended recipient.
1 Approval of this document is an administrative function indicating readiness for release and does not impart legal liability on to the Approver for any technical content contained herein. Technical accuracy and fit-for-purpose of this content is obtained through the review process. The Approver shall ensure the applicable review process has occurred prior to signing the document.
DRAWINGS
Hum
ber R
iver
Berry Creek
HW
Y 4
01
ELM
HU
RS
T D
R
REDWATER DR
ALLE
NB
Y A
VE
HA
DR
IAN
DR
KIPLING AVE
SH
EN
DA
LE D
R
STAVELY CRES
IRW
IN R
D
GO
LF
DO
WN
DRBURRARD RD
BE
RG
AM
OT
AV
E
LE
DU
C D
R
RE
XD
ALE
BLV
D
RE
SO
UR
CE
S R
D
BE
NW
AY
DR
FROST ST
CH
ILC
OT A
VE
TURPIN AVE
HW
Y 4
01 C
OLLE
CT
OR
CLE
AR
BR
OO
KE
CIR
CHALFO
NT R
D
ISLINGTON AVE
ALBION RD
COVE DR
PAKENHAM DR
GRIERSON RD
BE
AT
TIE
AV
E
COPPERMILL DR
BO
NIF
AC
E A
VE
FO
RD
WIC
H C
RE
S
HA
RD
ISTY
DR
TO
FIE
LD
CR
ES
HW
Y 409
ENDICOTT AVE
HATFIELD
CRES
TORBOLTON DR
GE
NT
HO
RN
AV
E
HUNTSMO
OR RD
BE
TH
RID
GE
RD
NO
RF
IELD
CR
ES
PY
LO
N P
L
ARMEL CRT
BARRHEAD CRES
CA
ULF
IELD
RD
KENNEBEC CRES
RIN
GW
AY
CR
ES
MA
RC
EL R
D
DRUMHELLER RD
BR
IGH
AM
CR
T
URBAN CRT
DE
ES
IDE
CR
T
BEMBER
G C
RT
AU
BU
RN
DALE
CR
T
DAY
SLA
ND
RD
KLIBURN PL
HO
LB
ER
G S
THW
Y 4
01
HWY 401
HWY 401 COLLECTOR
ISLINGTON AVE
GE
OT
EC
HN
ICA
L IN
VE
ST
IGA
TIO
N
Culvert 668 R
etaining Wall R
eplacement
Ov
er Berry
Creek
, Red
water D
rive, T
oro
nto
,
On
tario
LOCATION MAP
1F
ILE
. NO
.:P
RO
JE
CT: 1
7M
-021
82-0
0/7
00/7
05
DA
TE
: NO
VE
MB
ER
201
8
DR
AW
ING
NO
.:.
1:1
00
00
SC
AL
E:
020
040
010
0M
ete
rs
LegendAP
PR
OX
IMA
TE
SIT
E L
OC
AT
ION
LEGEND
-$-BH18-1 BOREHOLE LOCATION
10 5 0
11111 I
10 metres
.. c:::::-.c::::::t::::===---·1
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS PLAN
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Culvert 668 Retaining Wall Replacement Over Berry Creek, Redwater Drive, Toronto, Ontario
DATE: NOVEMBER 2018 SCALE: 1 :500
PROJECT: 17M-02182-0017001705 FILE NO.:
2
DRAWING NO.: '''I >
ENCLOSURES
Enclosure 1-A: Notes on Sample Descriptions
1. All sample descriptions included in this report generally follow the Unified Soil Classification. Laboratory grain size analyses provided by
WSP also follow the same system. Different classification systems may be used by others, such as the system by the International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE). Please note that, with the exception of those samples where a grain size
analysis and/or Atterberg Limits testing have been made, all samples are classified visually. Visual classification is not sufficiently
accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise differentiation between size classification systems.
2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the boring process. The reader
is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree of compaction. The borehole description may
therefore not be applicable as a general description of site fill materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as wood,
large concrete pieces or subsurface basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have been encountered in the boreholes. Since
boreholes cannot accurately define the contents of the fill, test pits are recommended to provide supplementary information. Despite
the use of test pits, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the exact composition of the fill. Most fills contain
pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This organic material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or
significant ongoing and future settlements. Fill at this site may have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the
results are given on the borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially generated nor
does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of gas only, and a detailed study is recommended for
sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it
unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on this site has not been tested for
contaminants that may be considered toxic or hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In
most residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally not detected in a
conventional preliminary geotechnical site investigation.
3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process associated with glaciation.
Because of this geological process the till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and as such may contain pockets and/or
seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm). Contractors
may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders during excavation, even if they are not indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated
that normal sampling equipment cannot differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical
variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential when dealing with
sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.
Enclosure 1-B: Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Borehole
Sample Type
AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample
Penetration Resistance
Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30
in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).
WH – Samples sinks under “weight of hammer”
Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30
in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).
Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487-10)
Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mmCobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm - 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm - 0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)
Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm)
Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%
Soil Description
a) Cohesive Soils(*)
Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa)
Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30
(*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer
b) Cohesionless Soils
Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value
Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50
Soil Tests
w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater
pressure measurement DR Relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS Direct shear test ENV Environmental/ chemical analysis M Sieve analysis for particle size MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified proctor compaction test SPC Standard proctor compaction test OC Organic content test U Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test V Field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) Γ Unit weight
TOPSOIL: 100 mmFILL: silty clay, some gravel, somesand, brown to dark grey, moist towet, soft to very stiff.
SILTY SANDY GRAVEL: traceclay, grey, wet, compact to verydense.
END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of4.3m bgs upon completion ofdrilling;2). Water was at depth of 4m bgsupon completion of drilling.
143.0
138.5
137.0
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5
17
17
11
8
3
13
77
0.1
4.6
6.1
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
143
142
141
140
139
138
137N
AT
UR
AL
UN
IT W
T
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Replacement
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Redwater Drive, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION: N 4841913.2 E 615984.8
GR
1
2
3
4
5
6
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-1
1st 2nd
Ground Surface ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
143.1
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
0.0
UNCONFINED
1 OF 1
20 40 60 80 100
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
Method: Continuous Spoon
Diameter: 50mm
Date: Oct/11/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00/700/705
ENCL NO.: 2
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
17M
-021
82-0
0-C
ULV
ER
T 6
68 R
ED
WA
TE
R D
R.G
PJ
31/
10/1
8
TOPSOIL: 100 mmFILL: silty clay, some gravel, somesand, containing cobbles, brown todark grey, moist to wet, soft to verystiff.
SILTY SANDY GRAVEL: traceclay, containing sandy silt till layer,grey, wet, compact to very dense.
----------------------sandy silt till layer
SILTY CLAY TILL: trace gravel,some sand, grey, moist, hard.
END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of3.7m bgs upon completion ofdrilling;2). Water was at depth of 2.7m bgsupon completion of drilling.
29
142.0
139.4
137.5
137.2
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4
18
7
11
25
25
103
78
33
0.1
2.7
4.6
4.9
31 7
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
142
141
140
139
138
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Replacement
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Redwater Drive, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION: N 4841925.7 E 615951.8
GR
1
2
3
4
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-2
1st 2nd
Ground Surface ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
142.1
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
0.0
UNCONFINED
1 OF 1
20 40 60 80 100
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
Method: Continuous Spoon
Diameter: 50mm
Date: Oct/11/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00/700/705
ENCL NO.: 3
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
17M
-021
82-0
0-C
ULV
ER
T 6
68 R
ED
WA
TE
R D
R.G
PJ
31/
10/1
8
FIGURE
Oct.17, 2018
1
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sandy gravel, trace clay26.5mm19mm16mm
13.2mm9.5mm4.75mm
2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm
0.0415 mm.0.0296 mm.0.0192 mm.0.0115 mm.0.0083 mm.0.0061 mm.0.0031 mm.0.0013 mm.
100.096.291.889.382.367.456.549.344.941.837.836.334.133.130.125.022.018.010.0
6.0
14.0049 10.5968 2.79250.9409 0.0191 0.00480.0031 894.21 0.04
Sampled by Jack on Oct.11, 2018
City of Toronto
Culverts Replacement, Redwater Drive, Culvert 668, Toronto, ON
17M-02182-00
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: BH18-2 SS5Sample Number: MM-6569 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +3"Coarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 3.8 28.8 10.9 11.6 8.6 29.1 7.2
80
56
40
28
20
14
10
5 2.5
1.2
5
0.6
3
0.3
15
0.1
6
0.0
75
Particle Size Distribution Report
CITY OF TORONTO
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 274 REPLACEMENT
WSP Canada Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR CULVERT 274 REPLACEMENT ISLINGTON AVENUE, OVER BERRY CREEK, TORONTO, ONTARIO CITY OF TORONTO
FINAL REPORT
PROJECT NO.: 17M-02182-00 PHASE 700 SUBPHASE 703
DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
WSP UNITS 10 & 12 351 STEELCASE ROAD WEST MARKHAM, ON, CANADA L3R 4H9
T: +1 905 475-0065 WSP.COM
WSP Canada Inc.
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
2 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ............................... 1
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................... 1
3.1 Soil Conditions .....................................................................................2
3.2 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................3
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 3
4.1 Geotechnical Design for Culvert Replacement ....................3
4.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS ......................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT AND WINGWALLS ......................................................................................................................................... 4
4.1.3 SUBGRADE PROTECTION, FROST PROTECTION AND SCOUR PROTECTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5
4.1.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE .................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Excavations and Groundwater Control ................................... 6
4.2.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL ....................................................................................................... 6
4.2.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL ................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Earth Pressures and Retaining Structures ............................. 7
4.4 Pavement Restoration .................................................................... 8
5 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ......................................... 9
5.1 Soil sampling ....................................................................................... 9
5.2 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................ 9
5.3 Findings .................................................................................................. 9
5.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 10
5.5 Corrosivity Potential and Cement Type .................................. 11
WSP Canada Inc.
6 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS ........................... 11
7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ............................................. 11
8 CLOSURES ........................................................................... 12
WSP Canada Inc.
TABLES
TABLE 3.1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 2 TABLE 3.2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION .................................................... 3 TABLE 4.1 BEARING RESISTANCES AND FOUNDING
LEVELS OF FOOTINGS................................................................. 4 TABLE 4.2 COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION .................................................... 6 TABLE 4.3 COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH
PRESSURE ........................................................................................... 7 TABLE 4.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN ..................................................................... 8 TABLE 5.1 SOIL SAMPLES AND CORRESPONDING
TESTS ...................................................................................................... 9 TABLE 5.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS EXCEEDANCES ......................... 10 TABLE 5.3 TCLP EXCEEDANCES ................................................................. 10 TABLE 5.4 RESULTS OF ANSI/AWWA SOIL
CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL RATING AND SULPHATE CONTENT ................................................................. 11
DRAWINGS
DRAWING 1 LOCATION MAP DRAWING 2 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
ENCLOSURES
ENCLOSURE 1-A NOTES ON SAMPLE DESCRIPTIONS ENCLOSURE 1-B EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN
THE RECORD OF BOREHOLE ENCLOSURE 2-3 BOREHOLE LOGS
FIGURES
FIGURES 1-2 RESULTS OF GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES
APPENDIX
A CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 1
1 INTRODUCTION WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by the City of Toronto to provide a geotechnical investigation for an existing culvert (Culvert 274) replacement located at Islington Avenue over Humber River Tributary (Berry Creek) in the City of Toronto, Ontario.
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain subsurface soil and groundwater information at the site by means of two (2) exploratory boreholes. Based on our interpretation of the borehole data, this report presents the findings of the investigation and provides comments and recommendations related to the design and planning of the proposed culvert replacement.
This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented above and on the assumption that the design will be in accordance with the applicable codes and standards. If there are any changes in the design features relevant to the geotechnical analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards, this office should be contacted to review the design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and reporting before the recommendations of this office can be relied upon.
The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical consultants in Ontario.
This report has been prepared for City of Toronto and its designers. Third party use of this report without WSP consent is prohibited.
2 FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK The field work for this investigation was carried out by WSP on August 31, 2018 at which time two (2) boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 6.6 m to 9.5 m below the existing ground surface as shown on Borehole Location Plan, Drawing No. 2. The boreholes were advanced using a truck mounted drilling machine provided by a drilling sub-contractor under the direction and supervision of WSP technical personnel. Soil samples were retrieved at regular intervals from the boreholes with a 50 mm O.D. split-barrel sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method (ASTM D1586).
In addition to the visual examination in the laboratory, all soil samples were tested for water contents. Two (2) selected soil samples were subjected to grain size analyses. The results are shown on the borehole logs.
Water level observations were made during drilling in the open boreholes and at the completion of the drilling operations. A 50 mm diameter monitoring well was installed in each of the boreholes to permit further monitoring the groundwater levels as well as for the possible future hydrogeological study.
The boreholes were staked in the field by WSP and the ground surface elevations were surveyed by WSP using a Global Positioning System (GPS) device. It should be noted that the elevations at the as-drilled borehole locations were not provided by a professional surveyor and should be considered to be approximate. Contractors performing any work referenced to the borehole elevations should confirm the borehole elevations for their work.
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject culvert is located approximately 1.3 km north of Highway 401, and 35 m north of the intersection of Islington Avenue and Torbolton Drive, as shown on Location Map, Drawing No. 1.
The existing culvert 274 was constructed in 1956. The culvert is a single span cast -in-place reinforced concrete culvert. The overall length of the culvert is approximately 48.8 m with the width of about 5 m. The opening height of the culvert ranges from 2.3 m at the west end to 3.2 m at the east end. The culvert carries the overburden fill and four lanes of
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 2
vehicular traffic lanes (two lanes in each direction). There is sidewalk and steel beam guide rail on each side of the roadway. The underground utilities along Islington Avenue are present in the vicinity of the culvert.
The borehole locations are plotted on Drawing No. 2. Notes on sample descriptions are presented on Enclosure No. 1-A. Explanation of terms used in the record of boreholes is presented on Enclosure No. 1-B. The subsurface conditionsin the boreholes (BH18-1 and BH18-2) are presented on the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 and 3 inclusive).The following is a summarized account of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, followed by moredetailed descriptions of the major soil strata and the groundwater conditions encountered in both boreholes drilled atthe site.
3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS In summary, underlying the existing pavement structure, fill material was encountered in both boreholes and extended to a depth of about 3.7 m below the existing ground surface. The native soil encountered at the site mainly consisted cohesionless silty sand and glacial till deposits with both sandy and clayey texture.
Existing Pavement Structure:
Both boreholes were advanced through the existing pavement structure. The asphalt thickness encountered ranged from about 120 mm to 180 mm. The average granular base thickness was approximately 130 mm and the average granular sub-base thickness was approximately 270 mm.
Fill Material:
Fill material consisting of sand and gravel/silty sand and silty clay was encountered in both boreholes and extended to a depth of about 3.7 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within clayey fill material gave N values ranging from 5 blows to 10 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a firm to stiff state. Standard penetration tests carried out within sandy / gravelly fill material gave N values ranging from 2 blows to 13 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating a very loose to compact state. The in-situ water contents of the fill samples were measured ranging from about 2 % to 14 %.
Silty Clay Till:
Deposits of silty clay till were encountered in Borehole BH18-1 and extended to the termination depth of the borehole. Standard penetration test carried out within the silty clay till gave N value of greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a hard state. The natural water content of the soil sample was about 8 %.
Sand and Silt Till:
A stratum of sand and silt till was encountered in borehole BH18-1 and extended to a depth of 5.6 m below the existing ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the sand and silt till gave N values ranging from 20 blows to 24 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a compact state. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from 9 % to 13 %.
Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-1/SS7) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 1 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:
Table 3.1 Grain Size Distribution
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
BOREHOLE NO, SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
BH18-1 SS7 6 45 39 10
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 3
Silty Sand:
Deposit of silty sand was encountered in both boreholes and extended to depths ranging from 6.6 m to 8.5 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH18-2 was terminated in this deposit. Standard penetration tests carried out within the silty sand gave N values ranging from 25 blows to greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a compact to very dense state, but generally very dense. The natural water contents of the soil samples ranged from 2 % to 10 %.
Grain size analysis of one soil sample (BH18-2/SS6) was conducted and the result is presented in Figure No. 2 as well as shown on the borehole log with the following fractions:
Table 3.2 Grain Size Distribution
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
BOREHOLE NO, SAMPLE NO. % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
BH18-2 SS6 3 57 31 9
3.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater observations and measurements are shown in detail on the borehole logs. Groundwater was encountered in both boreholes during and upon completion of drilling at depths ranging from 4.4 m to 5.2 m below existing ground surface. On September 4, 2018, groundwater level measured in the monitoring wells installed in BH18-1 and BH18-2 was at depths of 4.25 m and 4.74 m below existing ground surface, respectively.
It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations in response to weather events and will also fluctuate with the water levels in the creek.
4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this report, the soil and groundwater conditions are interpreted as relevant to the design and planning of the proposed culvert 274 replacement. Comments relating to construction are intended for the guidance of the design engineer to establish constructability.
The construction methods described in this report must not be considered as being specifications or direct recommendations to the contractors, or as being the only suitable methods. Prospective contractors should evaluate all of the factual information, obtain additional subsurface information as they might deem necessary and should select their construction methods, sequencing and equipment based on their own experience in similar ground conditions. The readers of this report are also reminded that the conditions are known only at the borehole locations and conditions may vary significantly in-between.
4.1 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT The existing culvert is a cast-in-place concrete culvert with a size of about 5 m wide and 3 m high. Replacement of the existing culvert is currently being considered. However, the type of the replacement culvert structure was unknown at the time this report was prepared.
The culvert replacement will be designed in accordance with the 2006 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). Once the final design is available, the following recommendations should be further reviewed by the geotechnical engineer, following which additional recommendations can be provided, as required.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 4
4.1.1 FOUNDATION FOR OPEN BOTTOM CONCRETE CULVERT AND WINGWALLS
Based on the design drawings provided, it is understood that the footing of the existing culvert is founded at approximately 4.6 m (Elev. 135.9 m) below existing road surface on Islington Avenue. It is assumed that the new culvert will likely be founded at a similar elevation.
Based on the subsoil information encountered at the borehole locations, existing fill materials are considered unsuitable to support the proposed culvert/wingwalls foundations. As such, consideration should be given to removing existing fill materials to expose the underlying competent native deposits. For the design of the culvert and wingwalls bearing on the competent undisturbed native soils, a geotechnical bearing resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and a factored geotechnical bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) together with corresponding founding depths/elevations at the borehole locations are summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Bearing Resistances and Founding Levels of Footings
BH No. Bearing
Resistances at SLS (kPa)
Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS
(kPa)
Minimum Depth Below Existing Ground/Elevation
(m)
Anticipated Founding Soil
BH18-1 200 300
300 450
3.8/136.7 7.1/133.4
Sand and Silt Till Silty Sand
BH18-2 300 450 3.8/136.7 Silty Sand
Foundations designed to the specified bearing resistances at SLS are expected to settle less than 25mm total and 19mm differential. All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.2m of soil cover for frost protection.
Should it be required, the excavated area may be brought up to the designed subgrade elevation using granular engineered fill such as OPSS Granular A. A geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa may be used for the design of the culvert and wing walls bearing on the engineered Granular A fill.
The proposed founding soils to be exposed at the founding/subgrade level are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic and ponded water, leading to degradation of the founding soils. To limit this detrimental condition, a working mat of lean concrete should be placed on the subgrade as soon as possible after excavation.
All bearing surfaces must be checked, evaluated and approved at the time of construction by a geotechnical engineer who is familiar with the findings of this investigation and the design and construction of similar structures prior to placement of any concrete, bedding, backfill, culvert structures, etc.
It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by WSP from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by WSP to validate the information for use during the construction stage.
4.1.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE BOX CULVERT AND WINGWALLS
As an alternative to the open bottom culvert (refer to Section 4.1.1), precast concrete box culvert may be considered. It is anticipated that the precast box culvert will be founded on engineered Granular A (i.e. engineered fill and/or levelling pad) overlying native deposits. Geotechnical resistance at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa can be used for the design of the precast concrete culvert bearing on the Granular A engineered fill as noted above.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 5
The Granular A material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 300 mm loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Full-time inspection by a geotechnical staff from WSP would be required during the placement of the engineered Granular A fill.
It should be noted that the founding soil of box culvert should be at least 1.2 m below the final grade to provide sufficient earth cover for frost protection unless the box culvert is designed to withstand the frost pressures.
4.1.3 SUBGRADE PROTECTION, FROST PROTECTION AND SCOUR PROTECTION
As mentioned above, spread and/or strip footings for open bottom culvert foundation and for any associated concrete wing walls/retaining walls, should be founded at a minimum depth of 1.2 m below the lowest surrounding grade, to provide adequate protection against frost penetration (per OPSD 3090.101 – Foundation Frost Depths for Southern Ontario). It should be noted that the scour protection, such as rip rap and rock blocks should not be considered as earth cover for frost protection purposes.
If the water course flow velocities are sufficiently high, provision should be made for scour and erosion protection (suitable non-woven geotextiles and/or rip-rap) for the new culvert. In order to prevent surface water from flowing around the culvert, and potentially causing erosion and loss of fine soil particles, a concrete cut-off wall/wing wall or a clay seal may be constructed at the upstream end of the culvert. If a clay seal is adopted, the clay material should meet the requirements of OPSS 1205 (Material Specification for Clay Seal). The clay seal should have a thickness of 1 m, and the seal should extend from a depth of 1 m below the scour level to a minimum height equivalent to the high water level, and laterally to a sufficient distance to prevent surface water from flowing around the culvert.
The requirements for design of erosion protection measures for the inlet and outlet of the proposed culvert should be considered by design engineers. As a minimum, rip rap treatment for the outlet of the culvert should be consistent with the standard presented in OPSD 810.010 (Rip-Rap Treatment for Sewer and Culvert Outlets), Rip Rap Treatment Type A. Erosion protection for the inlet of the culvert should follow the standard presented in OPSD 810.010, similar to Rip-Rap Treatment Type A with the rip-rap placed to above the high water level, in combination with the cut off measures noted above. Rip rap should be provided over the full extent of the clay seal, if applicable, including the tributary channel slopes and engineered fill slope adjacent to the culvert.
4.1.4 SLIDING RESISTANCE
Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the culvert footing base concrete and the subgrade should be calculated in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC. Values for coefficient of friction between dissimilar materials are provided in Table 4.2. It should be noted that these values are unfactored and in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC, a factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the horizontal resistance.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 6
Table 4.2 Coefficient of Friction
STRUCTURE MATERIALS GROUND OR BACKFILL MATERIALS COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE / PRE-CAST CONCRETE
GRANULAR 0.4
SAND AND SILT TILL/SILTY SAND 0.3
4.2 EXCAVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL
4.2.1 GROUNDWATER CONTROL
The fill materials are considered to be unsuitable to support the culvert foundation and should be completely removed to expose competent native soil, as noted in the above sections. In this regard, foundation excavations for the culvert would extend near or below the local water table.
Groundwater control during excavation within the fill material and native soils above ground water level can be handled, as required, by pumping from properly constructed and filtered sumps located within the excavations. However, when excavation extending below the groundwater level, more significant groundwater seepage would be expected from water bearing sandy/silty soils. Depending upon the prevailing groundwater level at the time of construction and the culvert invert depths, some form of positive groundwater control, in addition to pumping from sumps, may be required. The groundwater level should be lowered to at least 1 m below the excavation base to maintain the stability of the base and side slopes of the excavations.
Control of the creek water will be necessary in order for foundation construction to be carried out in ‘dry’ conditions. Depending on the creek flow at the time of construction, surface water could flow through the culvert area by means of a temporary bypass/pipe, or be diverted by pumping from behind a temporary cofferdam. Assuming that the cofferdam and/or temporary bypass are effective, any seepage into the excavation during normal creek water flow conditions should be adequately controlled by pumping from properly filtered sumps. Pumping discharges should conform to the Ministry of the Environments, Conservation and Parks (MECP) guidelines, City of Toronto, conversation authority and other relevant agencies.
It should be noted that groundwater control measures that extract between 50,000 to 400,000 L/day of water are subject to an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) or a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) for extract greater than 400,000 L/day of water.
4.2.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL
All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the fill materials and silty sand can be classified as Type 3 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 4 soil below the water table. The glacial tills can be classified as Type 2 Soil above groundwater table and as Type 3 soil below groundwater table.
The selected inorganic fill and native soils free of topsoil and organics can be used as general construction backfill where it can be compacted with sheep's foot type compactors. Loose lifts of soil, which are to be compacted, should not exceed 300mm and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). It should be noted that the excavated soils are subject to moisture content increase during wet weather which would make these materials too wet for adequate compaction. Stockpiles should be compacted at the surface or be covered with tarpaulins to minimize moisture uptake.
Imported Granular fill is recommended in areas where free draining material is required. Imported granular fill, which can be compacted with hand held equipment, should be used in confined areas.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 7
4.3 EARTH PRESSURES AND RETAINING STRUCTURES The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the walls, assuming that the backfill to the culvert and wing walls consists of free-draining granular fill meeting the requirements of OPSS 1010 Granular A or Granular B Type II. This fill should be compacted in loose lifts not greater than 300 mm in thickness to 95 per cent of the material's Standard Proctor maximum dry density in accordance with OPSS 501. The fill materials should be benched into the existing roadway embankment side slopes. Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to provide positive drainage of the granular backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to subdrains and frost taper should be in accordance with applicable Ontario Provincial Standard Drawings.
Computation of earth pressures acting against retaining walls and any wing walls should be in accordance with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, (CHBDC) S6-06. For design purposes, the following properties can be assumed for backfill.
Compacted Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B’ Type II
Angle of Internal Friction =35 (unfactored)
Unit weight = 22 kN/m3
Table 4.3 Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure
Level Backfill Backfill Sloping at 3H:1V Backfill Sloping at 2H:1V
Ka=0.27 Ka=0.34 Ka=0.40
Kb=0.35 Kb=0.44 Kb=0.50
Ko=0.43 Ko=0.56 Ko=0.62
K*=0.45 K*=0.60 K*=0.66
Note: Ka is the coefficient of active earth pressure
Kb is the backfill earth pressure coefficient for an unrestrained structure including compaction efforts
K0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest
K* is the earth pressure coefficient for a soil loading a fully restrained structure and includes
compaction effects
These values are based on the assumption that the backfill behind the retaining structures is free-draining granular material and adequate drainage is provided. The earth pressure coefficient to be adopted will depend on whether the retaining structure is restrained or some movement can occur such that the active state of earth pressure can develop.
A minimum compaction surcharge of 12 kPa should be included in the lateral earth pressures for the structural design of the walls, according to CHBDC Section 6.9.3 and Figure 6.6. Other surcharge loadings should be accounted for in the design as required.
The above calculation yields lateral pressures due to soil loading only. If the culvert is intended to become partially submerged during the design flood event, then appropriate hydrostatic pressures below the water table should be added to the earth pressures calculated as above in order to obtain the total lateral pressure acting on the culvert.
The fill depth during placement should be maintained equal on both sides of the culvert walls, with one side not exceeding the other by more than 500 mm.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 8
The use of heavy vibratory equipment behind the culvert and any other below-grade structures should be limited within a lateral distance equal to the height of the backfill (at the time of compaction) above the base of the structure. If required, WSP can provide additional assistance with the refinement of design earth pressure parameters based on the type of culvert selected, dimensions, etc.
4.4 PAVEMENT RESTORATION It is understood the pavement restoration after the completion of the culvert replacement on Islington Avenue will be required. It is understood that this section of Islington Avenue is a Major Arterial road. The following pavement design in Table 4.4 is recommended for the pavement restoration according to City of Toronto’s Pavement Structural Design Guideline Summary dated November 30, 2006.
Table 4.4 Pavement Design
MATERIAL THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT ELEMENTS (mm)
Asphaltic Material (OPSS 1150)
HL-1 40
HL 8 (HS) 150
Granular Material (OPSS 1010)
Granular A Base 50
Granular B, Type II Subbase 350
Prepared and Approved Subgrade
Prior to placing the granular subbase material, the exposed soil subgrade should be heavily proofrolled in conjunction with an inspection by qualified geotechnical personnel. Remedial work (i.e. further subexcavation and replacement) should be carried out on any disturbed, softened or poorly performing zones, as directed by geotechnical personnel.
The granular subbase and base materials should be uniformly compacted to 100 percent of their standard Proctor maximum dry densities. The asphalt materials should be compacted to 92 to 96.5 percent of their Marshall Maximum Relative Densities ("MRD"), as measured in the field using a nuclear density gauge.
In addition, in order to preserve the integrity of the pavement, continuous subdrains should be placed along both sides of the road. The invert of the subdrains should be at least 300 mm below the bottom of the Granular B subbase and should be sloped to drain to the catchbasins. The subdrains should consist of perforated pipe wrapped in a suitable geotextile and surrounded on all sides with a minimum thickness of 150 mm of clean free draining sand such as concrete sand.
The above pavement designs should provide serviceable pavements for the anticipated traffic levels over a normal design period of ten years, provided that timely maintenance is carried out (i.e. crack sealing).
Where new pavement abuts existing pavement (e.g. at the construction limits), proper longitudinal lap joints should be constructed to key the new asphalt into the existing pavement. The existing asphalt edges should be provided with a proper sawcut edge prior to keying in the new asphalt. It should be ensured that any undermined or broken edges resulting from the construction activities are removed by the sawcut.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 9
5 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
5.1 SOIL SAMPLING In order to provide information regarding the chemical quality of the subsurface soil for the captioned site, soil samples taken from the depths ranging from 0.7 m to 3.5 m below the existing ground surface were submitted to AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario (“AGAT”). Two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of metal & inorganic parameters (M&I), benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC F1-F4 fractions) under O.Reg.153/04 (amended). One (1) soil sample was selected for analysis of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The representative soil samples were collected and placed in laboratory supplied glass jars, methanol vials and plastic ziplock bags. During sampling, no obvious environmental impact (staining) was observed in the samples. The samples for chemical analyses were placed in a cooler with ice bags.
Upon return to our laboratory, the headspace of the sample bags was tested for presence of VOCs using a Multi-Gas monitor (RKI GX-6000). The VOC readings of the samples ranged between nil and 91.2 ppm.
5.2 LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples, which were selected for various tests, are summarized in the Table 5.1 below:
Table 5.1 Soil Samples and Corresponding Tests
Tested Sample I.D.
Borehole Sample
Sample Type Name of Test
BH18-1 SS2 & SS3 BH18-1 SS2 & SS3 composite M & I and BETX & PHCs
BH18-1 SS2 BH18-1 SS2 discrete PAHs
BH18-2 SS2 BH18-2 SS2 discrete M & I and BETX & PHCs
TCLP
BH18-1 SS2 to SS5
BH18-2 SS1 to SS5
composite TCLP M & I
5.3 FINDINGS Two (2) soil samples were selected for analyses of metal & inorganic parameters (M&I); benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC F1-F4 fractions) under O.Reg.153/04 (amended). One (1) soil sample was selected for analyses of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Test results were compared tothe Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) guidelines listed in Table 1 (Full Depth BackgroundSite Condition Standards) for Residential / Parkland / Institutional/Industrial / Commercial / Community (RPIICC)Property Use, Tables 2 and 3 (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable & Non-Potable Ground WaterCondition) for Residential/Parkland/Institutional (RPI) and Industrial/Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses andTable 2 (Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition) for Agriculture or otherProperty Use (AG) of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the EnvironmentalProtection Act (April 15, 2011). The tested soil samples met the relevant MECP guidelines, with the exceptions listedin the Table 5.2 below. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 10
Table 5.2 Chemical Analysis Exceedances
Tested Sample I.D.
Borehole Sample
Parameter Exceedances
MECP Table 1 RPIICC
MECP Table 2 AG
MECP Table 2 & 3 RPI
MECP Table 2 & 3 ICC
BH18-1 SS2& SS3
BH18-1 SS2& SS3
None M & I: Lead None None
BH18-2 SS2 BH18-2 SS2 M & I: EC & SAR M & I: EC & SAR M & I: EC & SAR M & I: EC & SAR
One (1) composite soil sample was analyzed for metals and inorganic parameters by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extraction. Test result was compared to Schedule 4 of O.Reg.558. The tested soil sample met the relevant guidelines as detailed in Table 5.3. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix A.
Table 5.3 TCLP Exceedances
Tested Sample I.D.
Borehole Samples
Parameter Exceedances
Metals & Inorganics
TCLP BH18-1 SS2 to SS5 BH18-2 SS1 to SS5
None
5.4 CONCLUSIONS MECP Tables 2 and 3 (ICC) criteria are generally used to assess soil quality in municipally serviced areas. However, for soil to be exported to another property as “clean fill”, it is advisable that quality may need to meet MECP Table 1 RPIICC criteria.
Test results generally complied with the MECP criteria, with the exception of Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) parameters exceedance. The MECP criteria for EC and SAR is related to plant growth factors. Elevated EC and SAR concentrations indicate that there may be difficulty with growing grasses or plants in the tested soils. EC and SAR impacted soil can be reused on-site, as municipal roads are exempted from these parameters.
It should be noted that the test result for composite sample SS2 & SS3 obtained from BH18-1 had exceedances for metals and inorganics parameter Lead when compared to Table 2 AG guidelines. However, the concentrations of the tested sample are within the Tables 2 and 3 ICC criteria which govern the subject municipally serviced areas.
In the view above, the excess soils from the excavation may potentially be reused on-site or disposable off-site at a pit / quarry which are willing to accept the material for rehabilitation purposes, provided that the material is placed at least 1.5 m below final grade. Permission and approvals are required from appropriate authorities.
TCLP test results are below the Leachate Quality Criteria (O. Reg. 558/00) for all parameters tested, and hence any excess soil resulted from the construction activities can be considered as “non-hazardous and non-registrable” waste for disposal at a suitable licensed landfill facility.
Additional testing of samples may be required for final acceptance at the destination site, in particular for sites which carry a more sensitive land-use zoning. Approval from the MECP may be required to reuse the soil at a site(s) with a more sensitive land use.
WSP Canada Inc.
Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Culvert Replacement Project No. 17M-02182-00 Phase 700 SubPhase 703 City of Toronto
WSP
Page 11
5.5 CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL AND CEMENT TYPE Two (2) selected soil samples were submitted to AGAT Laboratories (AGAT) for laboratory analyses of pH, resistivity, redox potential, and sulphide concentrations to determine the soil corrosivity and potential exposure of concrete elements to sulphate attack. The tested samples were obtained from boreholes BH18-1 (Sample SS8) and BH18-2 (Sample SS7).
Table 5.4 below summarizes the ANSI/AWWA rating for the tested soil samples for the potential for corrosion towards buried steel elements. A score of 10 points or more indicates potential for corrosion. Based on the results and associated rating, the corrosion potential of the tested soil samples is considered to be low. It should be noted that there are other factors which may influence the corrosion potential, such as the nature of effluent conveyed, the application of de-icing salts on the site and subsequent leaching into the subsoils and stray currents.
The soil samples noted above were also submitted for laboratory analyses of soluble sulphates to assess the potential for degradation of buried concrete in contact with the encountered soils. The soluble sulphate concentrations of the tested samples range from 24 ug/g (24 ppm or 0.0024%) to 27 ug/g (27 ppm or 0.0027%). Based on the results, the potential for sulphate attack on concrete is considered “negligible” based on CSA Standard A23.1, Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction. Sulphate resistant Portland cement is not required. It should, however, be noted that the final selection of the type of concrete should be made by the Engineer taking into account all design considerations, as required.
Table 5.4 Results of ANSI/AWWA Soil Corrosivity Potential Rating and Sulphate Content
Sample I.D.
Sulphate Content (µg/g or
ppm)
Resistivity (ohms-cm)
PH Redox
Potential (mv)
Sulphide (%) Moisture Content
(%)
Total Points
BH18-1 SS8 27 3560/0 8.81/3 167/0 0.19/Trace/0 Moist/ 1 4
BH18-2 SS7 24 7870/0 8.77/3 159/0 0.17/Trace/0 Moist/ 1 4
6 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Based on the existing borehole information and according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of OBC 2012, the subject site for the proposed culvert can be classified as “Class D” for seismic site response.
7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT WSP should be retained for a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that this report has been properly interpreted and implemented. If not accorded the privilege of making this review, WSP will assume no responsibility for interpretation of the recommendations in the report.
The comments given in this report are intended for the guidance of design engineers. The number of boreholes required to determine the localized underground conditions between boreholes affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., may be greater than has been carried out for current purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the work shall, in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual borehole results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.
DRAWINGS
Humber River
Berry C
reek
HWY 401
ELMHURST DR
RE
DW
AT
ER
DR
ALLENBY AVE
HADRIAN DR
KIP
LIN
G A
VE
SHENDALE DR
STA
VE
LY C
RE
S
IRWIN RD
GOLFDOWN DR
BU
RR
AR
D R
D
BERGAMOT AVE
LEDUC DR
REXDALE BLVD
RESOURCES RD
BENWAY DR
FR
OS
T S
T
CHILCOT AVE
TU
RP
IN A
VE
HWY 401 COLLECTOR
CLEARBROOKE CIR
CHALFO
NT R
D
ISLIN
GT
ON
AV
E
ALB
ION
RD
CO
VE
DR
PA
KE
NH
AM
DR
GR
IER
SO
N R
D
BEATTIE AVE
CO
PP
ER
MIL
L D
R
BONIFACE AVE
FORDWICH CRES
HARDISTY D
R
TOFIELD CRES
HWY 4
09
EN
DIC
OT
T A
VE
HAT
FIELD
CRES
TO
RB
OLT
ON
DR
GENTHORN AVE
HU
NTSM
OO
R R
D
BETHRIDGE RD
NORFIELD CRES
PYLON PL
AR
ME
L C
RT
BA
RR
HE
AD
CR
ES
CAULFIELD RD
KE
NN
EB
EC
CR
ES
RINGWAY CRES
MARCEL RD
DR
UM
HE
LLE
R R
D
BRIGHAM CRT
UR
BA
N C
RT
DEESIDE CRT
BEM
BER
G C
RT
AUBURNDALE CRT
DAYSLAND RDKLIB
UR
N P
L
HOLBERG ST
HWY 401HW
Y 4
01
HW
Y 4
01
CO
LLE
CT
OR
ISLIN
GTO
N A
VE
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
City of Toronto Culverts Replacement
274-Islington Avenue, Over Berry Creek
Toronto, Ontario
LOCATION MAP
1FILE. NO.:PROJECT: 17M-02182-00/700/703
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018
DRAWING NO.:.1:10000SCALE:
0 200 400100Meters
LegendAPPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION
2366
50
2380
2386
2385
MH420
0700
152
IO42
0290
0163
MH420
0700
145
MH420
3400
161
MH420
4300
157
MH420
5500
134
MH420
5400
151
MH420
6800
125
200 CONC
200 UNK
200
UN
K
375 C
ONC
375 CONC
450 CONC
900 C
ONC
900 C
ONC
450 C
ONC
450 C
ON
C
900
CO
NC
450 RC
450 RC
250 UNK
200
UN
K SL2308851
SL2308895
SL2308984
S
S
S
SL2
310
169S
SL2313797
SL2310366
SL2310348
SL2310321
SL2310
313
SL2310259
SL2310
171
SL2310
167
SL2310
166
SL2309890
SL2310
227
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SS
S
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
BB
CB
B BCB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
MH420
0800
135
IO42
0190
0175
MH420
1500
159
MH421
1300
116
MH421
0800
122
CB421
2100
129
CB420
8000
142
CB420
3900
157
CB420
8000
125
CB421
2500
110
CB420
0000
139
CB420
3100
142
CB420
4900
125
CB421
2000
135
CB421
1400
113
CB420
5600
156
CB420
5200
134
CB420
3300
144
CB420
11001
37
CB419
6000
166
CB419
7400
179
CB419
9100
172
CB419
9500
154
SL2308845
975 RC
T
SL2313
559
SL2310233
SL231
0195
SL2310174
SL2309326
SL2309057
975 C
ONC
450 CONC
250 CONC
450 CONC
37
5
CO
NC
T
T
975
RC T
T
T
UN
K
AC
TV
300 UNK ABND MB-9107/7 FB-410B/48-50
300 PVC ACTV MB-9107/7 FB-410B/48-50
300 UNK ABND FB-170B/51
300
DI
AB
ND
MB-6404 F
B-280
D/70
300 UNK ACTV
300
DI
AC
TV
300 DI ACTV MB-6404 FB-280D/70
ISLINGTON AVE ISLINGTON AVE
HU
MBER RIV
ER TRIB
BUS S
HELTE
R
BMH
HEHE
CC
SMH
C.L.
Grass
SMH
SMH
SMH
Grass
OB
V
WL
Nail
Dirt
INV. = 138.789
INV. = 137.851
C.L.
INV. = 137.727
C.L.
WL
INV. = 138.238
SIB
Dirt
OB
V
C.L.
HE
Dirt
C.L.
Nail
Grass
OB
V
CC
HESMH
SCALE: 1:500
FILE NO.:
DRAWING NO.:
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2018
PROJECT: 17M-02182-00/700/703
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
PA
RKIN
G
PA
RKIN
G
+136.0
50
+136.0
69
+136.1
73
+136.3
82
+136.4
11
+136.4
12
+136.4
21
+136.4
21
+136.4
23
+136.4
23
+136.4
25
+136.4
27
+136.4
30
+136.4
30
+136.4
30
+136.4
32
+136.4
33
+136.4
33
+136.4
35
+136.4
35
+136.4
37
+136.4
38
+136.4
39
+136.4
40
+136.4
43
+136.4
44
+136.4
46
+136.4
49
+136.4
79
+136.4
92
+136.5
00
+136.5
07
+136.5
22
+136.5
24 +
136.5
34
+136.5
35
+136.5
36 +136.5
46
+136.5
55
+136.5
65
+136.5
96
+136.6
02
+136.6
09
+136.6
37
+136.6
37
+136.6
70
+136.6
70
+136.6
76
+136.6
79
+136.7
06
+136.7
32
+136.7
33
+136.7
45
+136.7
49
+136.7
50
+136.8
10
+136.8
11
+136.8
36
+136.8
45
+136.8
69
+136.8
81
+136.9
26
+136.9
49
+136.9
59
+136.9
61
+136.9
86
+136.9
95
+137.0
08
+137.0
16
+137.0
16
+137.0
16
+137.0
18
+137.0
45
+137.0
52
+137.0
70
+137.0
72
+137.0
99
+137.1
55
+137.1
65
+137.1
88
+137.1
97
+137.1
98
+137.2
00
+137.2
02
+137.2
06
+137.2
31
+137.2
32
+137.2
57
+137.2
78
+137.3
04
+137.3
44
+137.3
52
+137.3
69
+137.3
71
+137.3
79
+137.3
83
+137.3
92
+137.4
02
+137.4
08
+137.4
08
+137.4
81
+137.4
83
+137.5
07
+137.5
08
+137.5
09
+137.5
10
+137.5
38
+137.5
72
+137.5
76
+137.5
99
+137.6
09
+137.6
13
+137.6
14
+137.6
23
+137.6
41
+137.6
59
+137.6
70
+137.6
81
+137.6
83
+137.6
83
+137.6
89
+137.7
25
+137.7
27
+137.7
55
+137.7
67
+137.7
76
+137.7
87
+137.7
97
+137.8
13
+137.8
20
+137.8
20
+137.8
23
+137.8
24
+137.8
32
+137.8
45
+137.8
51
+137.8
68
+137.8
99
+137.9
07
+137.9
10
+137.9
10
+137.9
13
+137.9
37
+137.9
37
+137.9
64
+138.0
08
+138.0
34
+138.0
40
+138.0
65
+138.0
70
+138.0
82
+138.0
88+138.1
19
+138.1
26
+138.1
33
+138.1
37
+138.1
41
+138.1
60
+138.1
63
+138.1
99
+138.2
25
+138.2
38
+138.2
91
+138.3
00
+138.3
07
+138.3
08
+138.3
15
+138.3
34
+138.3
36
+138.3
44
+138.3
73
+138.3
87
+138.3
95
+138.4
05
+138.4
18
+138.4
20
+138.4
40
+138.5
43
+138.5
73
+138.5
74
+138.5
76
+138.6
14
+138.6
36
+138.6
65
+138.6
72
+138.6
75
+138.6
83
+138.6
86
+138.7
30
+138.7
43
+138.7
62
+138.7
67
+138.7
89
+138.8
12
+138.8
19
+138.8
39
+138.8
53
+138.9
19
+138.9
23
+138.9
58
+138.9
66
+138.9
86
+138.9
86
+139.0
04
+139.0
14
+139.0
47
+139.1
14
+139.1
19
+139.1
78
+139.2
48
+139.2
56
+139.2
76
+139.3
16
+139.3
16
+139.3
73
+139.3
76
+139.3
80
+139.3
90
+139.4
77
+139.5
00
+139.5
16
+139.5
18
+139.5
18
+139.5
22
+139.5
41
+139.5
55
+139.5
87
+139.5
91
+139.6
11
+139.6
14
+139.6
43
+139.6
62
+139.6
65
+139.7
10
+139.7
39+
139.7
47
+139.7
75
+139.7
89
+139.8
02
+139.8
06
+139.8
10
+139.8
14
+139.8
21
+139.8
27
+139.8
41
+139.8
48
+139.8
55
+139.8
56
+139.8
66
+139.8
81
+139.8
81
+139.9
32
+139.9
34
+139.9
40
+139.9
61
+139.9
75
+139.9
79
+139.9
89
+140.0
23
+140.0
33
+140.0
68
+140.1
15
+140.1
23
+140.1
30
+140.1
34
+140.1
49
+140.1
63
+140.1
81
+140.1
85
+140.1
88
+140.1
98
+140.2
03
+140.2
07
+140.2
22
+140.2
40
+140.2
47
+140.2
47
+140.2
53
+140.2
58
+140.2
58
+140.2
69
+140.2
72
+140.2
81
+140.2
83
+140.2
84
+140.2
87
+140.2
92
+140.2
93
+140.3
07
+140.3
13
+140.3
24
+140.3
69
+140.3
70
+140.3
97
+140.4
13
+140.4
41
+140.4
43
+140.4
47
+140.4
52
+140.4
62
+140.4
66
+140.4
80
+140.4
80
+140.4
86
+140.4
86
+140.4
94
+140.4
96
+140.4
97
+140.4
98
+140.4
98
+140.4
99
+140.5
01
+140.5
03
+140.5
07
+140.5
09
+140.5
11
+140.5
16
+140.5
21
+140.5
21
+140.5
24
+140.5
28
+140.5
31
+140.5
36
+140.5
38
+140.5
38
+140.5
43
+140.5
53
+140.5
55
+140.5
57 +140.5
57
+140.5
59
+140.5
61
+140.5
63
+140.5
66
+140.5
67
+140.5
68
+140.5
68
+140.5
70
+140.5
71
+140.5
72
+140.5
74
+140.5
75
+140.5
78
+140.5
79
+140.5
87
+140.5
88
+140.5
90
+140.5
90
+140.5
91
+140.6
03
+140.6
13
+140.6
15
+140.6
20
+140.6
29
+140.6
35
+140.6
36
+140.6
40
+140.6
47
+140.6
57
+140.6
69
+140.6
76
+140.6
88
+140.6
92
+140.6
93
+140.7
01
+140.7
02
+140.7
06
+140.7
10
+140.7
12
+140.7
12
+140.7
12
+140.7
13
+140.7
14
+140.7
15
+140.7
19
+140.7
20
+140.7
25
+140.7
26
+140.7
26
+140.7
30
+140.7
32
+140.7
33
+140.7
39
+140.7
40
+140.7
42
+140.7
49
+140.7
50
+140.7
50
+140.7
53
+140.7
66
+140.7
67
+140.7
67
+140.7
70
+140.7
72
+140.7
72
+140.7
73
+140.7
74
+140.7
75
+140.7
76
+140.7
80
+140.7
82
+140.7
84
+140.7
87
+140.7
87
+140.7
90
+140.7
92
+140.7
95
+140.7
96
+140.8
00
+140.8
00
+140.8
07
+140.8
07
+140.8
07
+140.8
11
+140.8
15
+140.8
16
+140.8
17
+140.8
19
+140.8
25
+140.8
26
+140.8
32
+140.8
32
+140.8
37
+140.8
40
+140.8
41
+140.8
42
+140.8
44
+140.8
46
+140.8
46
+140.8
47
+140.8
53
+140.8
57
+140.8
60
+140.8
62
+140.8
62
+140.8
62
+140.8
65
+140.8
66
+140.8
71
+140.8
73
+140.8
74
+140.8
75
+140.8
75
+140.8
86
+140.8
86
+140.8
89
+140.8
89
+140.8
91
+140.8
94
+140.8
96
+140.8
96+140.9
06
+140.9
09
+140.9
10
+140.9
11
+140.9
12
+140.9
16 +
140.9
16
+140.9
21
+140.9
23
+140.9
32
+140.9
35
+140.9
35
+140.9
35
+140.9
37
+140.9
37+140.9
38
+140.9
44
+140.9
45
+140.9
47
+140.9
48
+140.9
50
+140.9
54
+140.9
54
+140.9
56
+140.9
61
+140.9
62
+140.9
67
+140.9
70
+140.9
74
+140.9
79
+140.9
83
+140.9
86
+140.9
92
+140.9
92
+140.9
95
+140.9
95
+140.9
98
+141.0
02
+141.0
04
+141.0
09
+141.0
10
+141.0
10
+141.0
14
+141.0
18
+141.0
18
+141.0
19
+141.0
20
+141.0
22
+141.0
25
+141.0
26
+141.0
27
+141.0
38
+141.0
48
+141.0
55
+141.0
58
+141.0
61
+141.0
63
+141.0
63
+141.0
67
+141.0
72
+141.0
92
+141.1
21
+141.1
69
+141.1
98
+141.2
64
+141.2
97
210 0 10 metres5
LEGEND
Torb
olton Dr.
Berry Creek
Islington Ave.
BOREHOLE LOCATIONS PLAN
BH18-2
BH18-1
BH18-1
Toronto, Ontario
274 - Culvert. Over Berry Creek, Islington Avenue,
City of Toronto Culverts Replacement
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
BOREHOLE / MONITORING WELL LOCATION
ENCLOSURES
Enclosure 1-A: Notes on Sample Descriptions
1. All sample descriptions included in this report generally follow the Unified Soil Classification. Laboratory grain size analyses provided by
WSP also follow the same system. Different classification systems may be used by others, such as the system by the International Society
for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE). Please note that, with the exception of those samples where a grain size
analysis and/or Atterberg Limits testing have been made, all samples are classified visually. Visual classification is not sufficiently
accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise differentiation between size classification systems.
2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the boring process. The reader
is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree of compaction. The borehole description may
therefore not be applicable as a general description of site fill materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as wood,
large concrete pieces or subsurface basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have been encountered in the boreholes. Since
boreholes cannot accurately define the contents of the fill, test pits are recommended to provide supplementary information. Despite
the use of test pits, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the exact composition of the fill. Most fills contain
pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This organic material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or
significant ongoing and future settlements. Fill at this site may have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the
results are given on the borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially generated nor
does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of gas only, and a detailed study is recommended for
sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it
unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on this site has not been tested for
contaminants that may be considered toxic or hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In
most residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally not detected in a
conventional preliminary geotechnical site investigation.
3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process associated with glaciation.
Because of this geological process the till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and as such may contain pockets and/or
seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm). Contractors
may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders during excavation, even if they are not indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated
that normal sampling equipment cannot differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical
variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential when dealing with
sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.
Enclosure 1-B: Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Borehole
Sample Type AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample
Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). WH – Samples sinks under “weight of hammer” Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in).
Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487-10) Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mm Cobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm - 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm - 0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)
Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm) Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%
Soil Description
a) Cohesive Soils(*)
Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa) Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30 (*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer b) Cohesionless Soils Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50
Soil Tests w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater
pressure measurement DR Relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS Direct shear test ENV Environmental/ chemical analysis M Sieve analysis for particle size MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified proctor compaction test SPC Standard proctor compaction test OC Organic content test U Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test V Field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) Γ Unit weight
6
0.2
0.7
2.9
3.7
5.6
8.5
9.5
AS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
45
13
13
10
2
24
20
25
50/150mm
50/150mm
10
ASPHALT: 180 mm
GRANULAR BASE: 120 mmGRANULAR SUBBASE: 350 mm
FILL: sand and gravel, some silt,brown, moist, compact to loose.
FILL: silty sand, some gravel,brown, very moist, very loose.
SAND AND SILT TILL: tracegravel, some clay, brown, moist,compact.
SILTY SAND: trace gravel, traceclay, grey, moist to wet, compact tovery dense.
SILTY CLAY TILL: trace gravel,some sand, brown, moist, hard.
END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of4.6m upon completion of drilling;
39
140.3
139.8
137.6
136.8
134.9
132.0
131.0
PID:2.8ppm
PID:91.2ppm
PID:21ppm
PID:13.6ppm
PID:8.4ppm
PID:17.2ppm
PID:0ppm
PID:0ppm
PID:0ppm
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
140
139
138
137
136
135
134
133
132
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
140.5
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
0.0
UNCONFINED
Continued Next Page
1 OF 2
20 40 60 80 100GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Replacement
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Islington Ave, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION:
GR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-1
1st 2nd
Ground Surface
Method: Solid Stem Auger
Diameter: 110mm
Date: Aug/31/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00
ENCL NO.: 2
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
WIT
H P
ID
17M
-021
82-0
0-C
ULV
ER
T 2
74 I
SLI
NG
TO
N A
VE
.GP
J 2
0/9/
18
Bentonite
Sand
Screen
Caved in
W. L. 136.2 mSep 04, 2018
2). Water was at depth of 4.4m bgsupon completion of drilling;3). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.
Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Sep 4, 2018 4.25
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
UNCONFINED
2 OF 2
20 40 60 80 100GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Replacement
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Islington Ave, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION:
GR
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-1
1st 2nd
Continued
Method: Solid Stem Auger
Diameter: 110mm
Date: Aug/31/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00
ENCL NO.: 2
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
WIT
H P
ID
17M
-021
82-0
0-C
ULV
ER
T 2
74 I
SLI
NG
TO
N A
VE
.GP
J 2
0/9/
18
3
0.1
0.5
2.9
3.7
6.6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
57
10
8
6
5
10
79/280mm
50/150mm
50/150mm
9
ASPHALT: 120 mmGRANULAR BASE: 140 mmGRANULAR SUBBASE: 190 mmFILL: silty clay, some sand, brown,moist, stiff to firm.
---------------------black, organic inclusion
FILL: silty sand, some gravel,brown, very moist, loose.
SILTY SAND: trace gravel, traceclay, brown, moist to wet, verydense.
END OF THE BOREHOLENotes:1). Borehole caved to a depth of4.6m upon completion of drilling;2). Water was at depth of 4.4m bgsupon completion of drilling;3). A 50mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in the borehole uponcompletion of drilling.
Water Level ReadingsDate Depth (mbgs)Sep 4, 2018 4.74
31
140.4
140.1
137.6
136.8
134.0
PID:0.7ppm
PID:0.7ppm
PID:14.7ppm
PID:4.5ppm
PID:3.4ppm
PID:0ppm
PID:0ppm
ST
RA
TA
PLO
T
LAB VANE
:
10 20 30
REMARKS
AND
GRAIN SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
(%)
NATURALMOISTURECONTENT
3
SI
GRAPHNOTES
LIQUIDLIMIT
SAMPLES
NU
MB
ER
140
139
138
137
136
135
134
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
SOIL PROFILE
ELE
VA
TIO
N
20 40 60 80 100
QUICK TRIAXIAL
SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)
TY
PE
,3
CL
=3%Strain at Failure
Measurement
(Cu)
(kP
a)(m)
140.5
PLASTICLIMIT
FIELD VANE& Sensitivity
ELEV
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT
wL
0.0
UNCONFINED
1 OF 1
20 40 60 80 100GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
"N"
B
LOW
S
0.3
m
4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT: City Of Toronto Culverts Replacement
CLIENT: CITY OF TORONTO
PROJECT LOCATION: Islington Ave, over Berry Creek, Toronto, Ontario
DATUM: UTM Zone 17N, NAD83
BH LOCATION:
GR
1
2
3
4
5
6
Numbers referto Sensitivity
w
WATER CONTENT (%)
wP
DEPTH
SA
LOG OF BOREHOLE BH18-2
1st 2nd
Ground Surface
Method: Solid Stem Auger
Diameter: 110mm
Date: Aug/31/2018
REF. NO.: 17M-02182-00
ENCL NO.: 3
WS
P-S
OIL
-RO
CK
-MA
Y-2
9-20
17.G
LBW
SP
SO
IL L
OG
WIT
H P
ID
17M
-021
82-0
0-C
ULV
ER
T 2
74 I
SLI
NG
TO
N A
VE
.GP
J 2
0/9/
18
Bentonite
Sand
Screen
Caved in
W. L. 135.8 mSep 04, 2018
FIGURES
Sep.10, 2018
1
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Sand and silt till, some clay, trace gravel13.2mm9.5mm4.75mm
2mm0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm
0.0438 mm.0.0316 mm.0.0204 mm.0.0121 mm.0.0087 mm.0.0063 mm.0.0031 mm.0.0013 mm.
100.099.093.889.185.681.273.355.548.839.934.930.023.319.116.611.610.0
2.4698 0.7460 0.13130.0802 0.0205 0.00500.0014 91.58 2.23
Sampled by Jack on Aug.31, 2018F.M.=1.07
City of Toronto
Culverts Replacement for Islington AveToronto, ON
17M-02182-00
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: BH18-1 SS7Sample Number: MM-6424 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +75mmCoarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 6.2 4.7 7.9 32.4 38.6 10.2
80
56
40
28
20
14
10
5 2.5
1.2
5
0.6
3
0.3
15
0.1
6
0.0
75
Particle Size Distribution Report
Sep.10, 2018
2
(no specification provided)
PL= LL= PI=
D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=
USCS= AASHTO=
*
Silty sand, trace clay, trace gravel9.5mm
4.75mm2mm
0.850mm0.425mm0.250mm0.106mm0.075mm
0.0452 mm.0.0326 mm.0.0209 mm.0.0122 mm.0.0088 mm.0.0063 mm.0.0032 mm.0.0013 mm.
100.097.191.987.279.467.947.040.029.824.821.517.414.912.4
9.98.3
1.3748 0.6489 0.18260.1211 0.0457 0.00890.0033 55.56 3.49
Sampled by Jack on Aug.31, 2018F.M.=1.09
City of Toronto
Culverts Replacement, Islington Avenue, Toronto, ON
17M-02182-00
Soil Description
Atterberg Limits
Coefficients
Classification
Remarks
Location: BH18-2 SS6Sample Number: MM-6425 Date:
Client:
Project:
Project No: Figure
SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
PE
RC
EN
T F
INE
R
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
0.0010.010.1110100
% +75mmCoarse
% Gravel
Fine Coarse Medium
% Sand
Fine Silt
% Fines
Clay
0.0 0.0 2.9 5.2 12.5 39.4 31.0 9.0
80
56
40
28
20
14
10
5 2.5
1.2
5
0.6
3
0.3
15
0.1
6
0.0
75
Particle Size Distribution Report
APPENDIX A