GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TANK FARM SITE APPRAISAL ...

Distribution: 1 cc: Nyon Oil Inc. 2 cc: MMM Group Limited PML Ref.: 12HF0111 cc: PML Hamilton Report: 11 cc: PML Toronto June 2012

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TANK FARM SITE APPRAISAL HIGHWAY 140 PORT COLBORNE, ONTARIO

for

NYON OIL INC. c/o MMM GROUP LIMITED PETO MacCALLUM LTD. 45 BURFORD ROAD HAMILTON, ONTARIO L8E 3C6 Phone: (905) 561-2231 Fax: (905) 561-6366 Email: [email protected]

June 21, 2012 PML Ref.: 12HF011 Report: 1 Nyon Oil Inc. c/o Ms. Kristy Shortall, M.PI, MCIP, RPP MMM Group Limited 100 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, Ontario L3T 0A1 Dear Ms. Shortall Geotechnical Investigation Tank Farm Site Appraisal Highway 140 Port Colborne, Ontario

Peto MacCallum Ltd. (PML) is pleased to present the results of the geotechnical recently completed for this project. Authorization to proceed with this assignment was provided by Mr. Gordon R. Baker on behalf of Nyon Oil Inc. in an email dated April 19, 2012.

It is understood that a 35.5 ha petroleum tank farm is planned on vacant agricultural land in Port Colborne, Ontario. The site is bordered by the CNR right of way to the north, the Welland Canal to the west and Highway 140 to the east. Current plans call for the installation of fifty-eight 36.3 m diameter tanks with imposed pressure of about 150 kPa.

It is noted that the south half of the site contains a 10 to 12 m high fill stockpile. Final site grades were not available at the time of this report. It is anticipated that significant cut operations will be required to match site grades on a large portion of the site within the south half, to the existing grade of Highway 140. Reference is made to Drawing 1, appended, which shows the tank layout and site topography.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to assess the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site and based on the findings; provide preliminary geotechnical comments and recommendations for foundations of the proposed tanks.

The subsurface stratigraphy revealed in the boreholes typically comprised fill and/or topsoil, overlying clay underlain by silt till over dolostone bedrock.

Piles founded on the bedrock are considered to be the most suitable foundation system from a geotechnical perspective. Raft foundations or ring type foundations are not considered suitable at this time. Further investigations are required to estimate the differential settlement due to consolidation of the clay.

45 Burford Road, Hamilton Ontario L8E 3C6 Tel: (905) 561-2231 Fax: (905) 561-6363

E-mail: [email protected] BARRIE, HAMILTON, KITCHENER, TORONTO

Geotechnical Investigation, Tank Farm Site Appraisal, Highway 140, Port Colborne PML Ref.: 12HF011, Report: 1 June 21, 2012, TOC 1 of 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1

2. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................... 2

3. SUMMARIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 2

3.1 Fill .................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Topsoil ............................................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Clay ................................................................................................................................. 3

3.4 Silt Till .............................................................................................................................. 4

3.5 Bedrock ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.6 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................................. 4

4. ENGINEERING DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 4

4.1 Site Grading .................................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Foundations .................................................................................................................... 6

4.2.1 Piles ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1.1 H-Piles ................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1.2 Pipe Piles .............................................................................................. 7 4.2.1.3 General Pile Comments ........................................................................ 8

4.2.2 Raft Foundation/Ring Type Foundation ............................................................... 9

4.3 Excavation and Ground Water Control .......................................................................... 10

4.3.1 Excavation ......................................................................................................... 10 4.3.2 Ground Water Control ........................................................................................ 10

4.4 Re-use of Site Material .................................................................................................. 10

List of Abbreviations

Log of Boreholes 1 to 7

Drawing 1 – Borehole Location Plan

Appendix A – Engineered Fill

Geotechnical Investigation, Tank Farm Site Appraisal, Highway 140, Port Colborne PML Ref.: 12HF011, Report: 1 June 21, 2012, Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Peto MacCallum Ltd. (PML) is pleased to present the results of the geotechnical investigation

recently completed for this project. Authorization to proceed with this assignment was provided by

Mr. Gordon R. Baker on behalf of Nyon Oil Inc. in an email dated April 19, 2012. Services were

provided in accordance with our proposal PML Ref.: FQH3361, dated April 13, 2012.

It is understood that a 35.5 ha petroleum tank farm is planned on vacant agricultural land in

Port Colborne, Ontario. The site is bordered by the CNR right of way to the north, the Welland

Canal to the west and Highway 140 to the east. Current plans call for the installation of fifty-eight

36.3 m diameter tanks with imposed pressure of about 150 kPa.

It is noted that the south half of the site contains a 10 to 12 m high fill stockpile. Final site grades

were not available at the time of this report. It is anticipated that significant cut operations will be

required to match site grades on a large portion of the site within the south half, to the existing

grade of Highway 140. Reference is made to Drawing 1, appended, which shows the tank layout

and site topography.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to assess the subsurface soil and groundwater

conditions at the site and based on the findings, provide geotechnical comments and

recommendations for foundations of the proposed tanks.

The comments and recommendations provided in this report are based on the site conditions at

the time of the investigation, and are applicable only to the proposed development as described in

the report. Any changes in development, including finishing grades and layout will require review

by PML to assess the validity of the report, and may require modified recommendations,

additional investigation and/or analysis.


2. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

The field work was carried out between May 14 and 24, 2012 and consisted of seven boreholes

drilled to 24.1 to 35.7 m termination depths. The borehole locations are shown on Drawing 1,

appended.

The borehole locations were selected and established in the field by PML. Ground surface

elevations and UTM co-ordinates at the borehole locations were determined by PML. The

following benchmark was used for vertical reference:

BM: St. Lawrence Seaway Authority benchmark 5009 located along Highway 140, 100 m south of junction with Netherby Road, and 37 m west of centre line of highway.

Elevation: 179.443 m (geodetic)

The boreholes were advanced using continuous flight hollow stem augers, powered by a track-

mounted CME-55 drill rig, supplied and operated by a specialist drilling contractor, working under

the full time supervision of a member of our engineering staff.

Representative samples of the overburden were recovered at frequent depth intervals using a

conventional split-spoon sampler during drilling. Standard penetration tests, pocket penetrometer

tests, field vane tests and torvane tests were conducted simultaneously with the sampling

operation to assess the strength characteristics of the substrata.

The groundwater conditions in the boreholes were monitored during the course of the drilling

operation.

All of the recovered samples were returned to our laboratory for detailed visual examination,

classification and routine moisture content determinations.

3. SUMMARIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Reference is made to the appended Log of Borehole sheets for details of the subsurface

conditions including soil classifications, inferred stratigraphy, standard penetration test N values,


pocket penetrometer and torvane shear strength results, groundwater observations and the

results of laboratory moisture content determinations.

The subsurface stratigraphy revealed in the boreholes typically comprised fill and/or topsoil,

overlying clay underlain by silt till over dolostone bedrock.

3.1 Fill

Silt clay fill was contacted in Boreholes 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The fill layer was 2.1 and 1.7 m thick in

Boreholes 1 and 2 respectively. In Boreholes 5 to 7, the fill layer ranged in thickness from 8.8 to

10.3 m thick. The fill contained organics and was highly variable in consistency and in situ

moisture content.

3.2 Topsoil

Silty clay topsoil was contacted surficially in Boreholes 3 and 4 to depths of 0.3 and 0.7 m

respectively. A 0.4 m thick topsoil layer was encountered at a depth of 1.7 m in Borehole 2. In

Boreholes 5 and 7, the topsoil layer was 0.8 m thick and contacted at the fill / native interface, at

depths of 10.0 and 8.8 m, elevation 178.3 and 177.2, respectively. The topsoil was judged to be

medium organic and in situ moisture content was drier than plastic limit to about plastic limit.

3.3 Clay

Silty clay was encountered beneath the fill and topsoil in all the boreholes. The clay was

contacted at depths ranging from 0.3 to 2.1 m (elevation 178.1 to 177.0) in Boreholes 1 to 4 and

depths ranging from 9.5 to 10.8 (elevation 178.6 to 176.5) in Boreholes 5 to 7. In general, the silty

clay was stiff to very stiff and judged to be drier than plastic limit in the upper clay layer, referred

herein as the clay crust. The clay crust ranged in thickness from 1.9 to 3.3 m. Penetrometer tests

in the clay crust indicated shear strengths greater than 200 kPa.

Below the crust, the silty clay consistency was firm to very soft and judged to be wetter than

plastic limit, with vane shear test strengths ranging from 65 to 120 kPa and penetrometer / torvane

strengths varying from 10 to 50 kPa.


3.4 Silt Till

Very stiff to hard clayey silt till was encountered beneath clay and extended to the borehole

termination depths. The silt till was contacted at depths ranging from 22.5 to 25.6 (elevation 156.6

to 153.7 m) in Boreholes 1 to 4 and depths ranging from 32.4 to 31.2 m (elevation 157.4 154.8).

The moisture content of the till was judged to be drier than plastic limit.

3.5 Bedrock

All boreholes were terminated upon practical refusal to augering at depths ranging from 24.1 to

35.7 m (elevation 154.9 to 151.6). Bedrock is assumed to have been contacted at these depths.

Based on a review of geology maps and our local experience, the bedrock in this area is

dolostone of the Salina Formation.

3.6 Groundwater Conditions

Upon completion of drilling, groundwater was observed at depths ranging from 12.6 to 27.5 m.

Cave was observed at depths ranging from 13.7 to 30.8 m.

4. ENGINEERING DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is understood that a 35.5 ha petroleum tank farm is planned on vacant agricultural land in Port

Colborne, Ontario. The site is bordered by the CNR right of way to the north, the Welland Canal

to the west and Highway 140 to the east. Current plans call for the installation of fifty-eight 36.3 m

diameter tanks with imposed pressure of about 150 kPa. Final site grades were not available at

the time of this report. It is anticipated that significant cut operations will be required in the south

half, to match site grades on a large portion of the site to the existing grade of Highway 140.

Since final details of the project have not been established, the comments and recommendations

provided in this report are considered to be preliminary and suitable for planning and design

purposes only. When final details of the project are known, the recommendations given in this

report should be reviewed to ensure their applicability.


The subsurface stratigraphy revealed in the boreholes typically comprised fill and/or topsoil,

overlying clay underlain by silt till over dolostone bedrock.

For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the tank farm final grade will be near

elevation 180.0.

Existing grade within the area of the proposed tanks ranges from elevation 178.0 to 189.0. Fill

encountered on site ranged in thickness from 1.7 to 2.1 m in the northwest and from 8.8 to 10.3 m

in the south. Fill was not encountered in the northeast. This variability of the fill imposes uneven

surcharge loading and uneven consolidation settlement of the clay below the crust.

Two main foundation options were considered in this report; deep foundations, piles founded on

bedrock; or shallow foundations, raft or ring type foundations. Piles founded on the bedrock are

considered to be the most suitable foundation system from a geotechnical perspective. Raft

foundations or ring type foundations are not considered suitable at this time, further lab testing will

be required to explore the feasibility of raft or ring type foundations.

An engineered structural fill pad below the tanks will be required for the raft or ring foundation

option, bulk fill placed to raise site grades to the design level below the tanks should be

constructed as an engineered fill pad using approved material compacted to 98% standard

Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). The engineered fill pad could consist of imported

granular material or clayey soil indigenous to the local area. If clayey soil is employed to construct

the engineered fill pad, it should have a moisture content within 3% of the optimum moisture

content. Reference is made to Appendix A for additional comments regarding engineered fill

construction. In this regard, it should be noted that the subexcavated area should extend laterally

beyond the tank limits by a distance that is greater than the required depth of fill beneath the tank

as noted in Appendix A.

4.1 Site Grading

Site grading plans should recognize the presence of a large (10 to 12 m high) fill pile at the

location of the proposed south tanks.


As noted previously, it is assumed that the tank farm final grade will be near elevation 180.0. This

will involve removal of up to 12 m of fill in areas of the site. Removal of this surcharge may cause

rebound of the consolidated clay unit below. Therefore, we recommend delaying grading work

after the removal of the surcharge to allow for the rebound to occur. Further comments regarding

estimates of rebound and the time required to achieve rebound can be provided with further

laboratory testing, recommendations for this testing can be found in section 4.4 of this report.

It is understood that a 2.0 to 3.0 m high spill containment berm is to be constructed around the

perimeter of the tanks with on site soils.

Development of the tank farm area should involve stripping of the topsoil, excavation and removal

of fills down to the design site grades. This should be followed by proofrolling of the exposed

subgrade with a heavy roller to ensure uniform adequate support. Excessively loose, soft or

compressible materials revealed during the proofrolling operations should be subexcavated and

replaced with well compacted approved material having a moisture content adjusted to within 3%

of the optimum moisture content. Approved material should comprise of debris free, inorganic

material. The subgrade should be approved by geotechnical personnel prior to placement of bulk

fill to raise site grades.

Bulk fill placed to raise site grades to the design level should be constructed as an engineered fill

pad using approved material compacted to 95% standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD).

The engineered fill pad could consist of imported granular material or clayey soil indigenous to the

local area. If clayey soil is employed to construct the engineered fill pad, it should have a

moisture content within 3% of the optimum moisture content. Reference is made to Appendix A

for additional comments regarding engineered fill construction.

4.2 Foundations

Piles founded on the bedrock are considered to be the most suitable foundation system from a

geotechnical perspective. Raft foundations or ring type foundations are not considered suitable at

this time, further lab testing will be required to explore the feasibility of raft or ring type

foundations.


4.2.1 Piles

4.2.1.1 H-Piles

Use of steel H-piles is the recommended method to support the foundation loads of the proposed

tanks. The piles should be driven to refusal on dolostone bedrock.

Depth to bedrock in the boreholes ranged from 24.1 to 35.7 m (elevation 154.9 to 151.6).

Recommended values for factored axial resistance at ultimate limits states (ULS) for typical pile

sections driven to practical refusal in the dolostone bedrock anticipated at the depths indicated

above are presented:

Pile Section Factored Resistance at ULS (kN)

Dolostone

HP 310 x 79 1,255

HP 310 x 110 1,775

The recommended capacity is based on steel with a yield strength of 350 MPa.

4.2.1.2 Pipe Piles

Closed end, concrete filled, steel pipe piles are also considered feasible for foundation loads. It is

anticipated that the piles will meet practical refusal on bedrock at depths ranging from 24.1 to

35.7 m (elevation 154.9 to 151.6).

The recommended design capacity of two pile sections driven to an adequate set (penetration

per blow) is provided in the table below:

Pile Diameter (mm / in.)

Wall Thickness (mm / in.)

Factored Axial Resistance at Ultimate Limit State

(kN)

324 / 12.75 9.5 / 0.375 1,950

273 / 10.75 13 / 0.5 1,550


The recommended capacity is based on a steel pile section filled with structural concrete having a

compressive strength of 30 MPa and steel with a yield strength of 350 MPa.

4.2.1.3 General Pile Comments

The resistance at serviceability limit states typically allows for 25 mm of compression of the pile

and the founding medium. The design is not expected to be governed by settlement since the

loading required to produce 25 mm of compression will be much larger than the factored

resistance at ULS.

It has been our experience that the impact force and transferred energy of the equipment provided

by some contractors to drive piles is relatively high and causes the top of the pile to mushroom

when driving. It is recommended therefore, that the specifications call for the contractors to

mobilize equipment that is compatible with the pile to be driven to minimize the potential for

damage.

The following comment is intended to provide guidance in this regard and is provided for

preliminary design and planning purposes only. The hammer type and corresponding set will be

subject to the pile driving contractor’s equipment and procedures.

The piles should be driven with a hammer transferring at least 30,000 ft./lb. of energy

to the pile to a set of 20 blows per in. and rising for the last 3 in. of driving. The

required set will be dictated by the pile section selected, the design capacity/axial

resistance as well as the transferred energy and impact force on the piles of the

hammer selected to install the piles. The actual set should be reviewed when design

details are established and confirmed adequate by dynamic analysis during pile

installation. Further recommendations regarding the set can be provided when the

pile capacity and type of driving equipment are established.

Driving shoes should be provided (OPSD 3302.000 Type I, for pipe piles and OPSD 3000.100

Type I for H-piles) to minimize the potential for damage when driving into the till and bedrock.


Pile caps in nonheated areas should be provided with the normal 1.2 m of earth cover or

equivalent thermal insulation as protection against frost action. A 25 mm thick layer of

polystyrene insulation is thermally equivalent to 1.2 m of soil cover.

Pile installation operations should be inspected on a full time basis by qualified geotechnical

personnel to ensure the uniformity of set, founding elevation, alignment, plumbness and properly

spliced welds.

4.2.2 Raft Foundation/Ring Type Foundation

Raft foundations or ring type foundations are not considered suitable at this time, due to the

imposed loads of the tanks inducing consolidation settlement of the soft to firm clay below the

upper crust. Further lab testing will be required to explore the feasibility of raft or ring type

foundations and to estimate the degree of consolidation across the site. It is expected that the

large fill berm on the south portion of the site is likely to have introduced uneven consolidation

across the site.

The performance of a raft slab or ring type foundation is governed by both shear failure (bearing

capacity) and settlement criteria. The clay is considered to be capable of supporting the bearing

pressure for the tanks; consequently a bearing capacity failure is unlikely.

Total settlement tank raft or ring type foundations due to consolidation of the underlying soft clay

can be estimated upon completion of the recommended additional field work and laboratory

testing program.

The detrimental effect of the settlement could be minimized by:

1. Provisions are made in the design of the tanks to allow for jacking are re-leveling

as consolidation settlement occurs.

2. Using flexible ‘connections’ between the mechanical and structural elements of

the facility that can accommodate some differential movement.


3. Delaying connection of the elements as long as possible to reduce the

magnitude of consolidation settlement after the facility is put into service.

4.3 Excavation and Ground Water Control

4.3.1 Excavation

Excavation through the fill and clay is expected to be relatively straight forward using conventional

equipment.

The in situ soil is classified as Type 3 soil according to the Occupational Health and Safety Act

criteria. Therefore, for open cut excavations, the sideslopes should be cut at an inclination of

1H:1V (1 horizontal to 1 vertical) from the bottom of the excavation. It may be necessary to flatten

the sideslopes if excessively loose/soft conditions or concentrated seepage zones are

encountered locally.

All work should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ontario

Regulation 213/91) and with local regulations.

4.3.2 Ground Water Control

Upon completion of drilling, groundwater was observed at depths ranging from 12.6 to 27.5 m.

Cave was observed at depths ranging from 13.7 to 30.8 m. Observed groundwater levels may

fluctuate subject to seasonal variations and precipitation patterns.

In general, it is expected that seepage or surface water that enters foundation excavations can be

adequately handled by conventional sump pumping techniques. The possibility of encountering

concentrated seepage from permeable layers within the fill and native soil requiring additional or

high capacity pumps should not be overlooked.

4.4 Re-use of Site Material

It is anticipated that the excavated material will generally consist of silty clay fill and silty clay.

Much of the clay fill expected to be removed from the site is too wet and will require drying before


it is suitable for re-use. Limited portions of the fill and native clay are considered suitable for re-

use as backfill, subject to evaluation at time of construction. Depending on seasonal conditions,

some moisture content adjustments to the backfill materials may be required. The on site soils

are frost susceptible and are considered unsuitable for use where free draining backfill is required.

In general, backfill should comprise inorganic, debris free material having a moisture content

within 3% of the optimum value. Further, should construction extend into the winter season,

particular attention must be given to ensure that frozen material is not used as backfill.

Organic soil, topsoil, deleterious or excessively wet material should not be used as backfill.

In areas that underlie floor slabs (i.e. interior foundation wall backfill), pavements and walkways,

the foundation and service trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95% SPMDD. In

landscaped areas, compaction to at least 90% SPMDD will be adequate.

It should be noted that the excavated clay material will tend to retain a voided structure when

placed as engineered fill, including foundation wall and trench backfill. It will be important to

ensure that sufficient compaction effort is applied to thoroughly break down all lumps/clods within

the backfill soil matrix to achieve a nonvoided condition. Significant post construction settlement

could otherwise result. The native on site soil is frost susceptible, and should not be used where

frost related movements or heave could present a concern.

Full time site observation should be carried out by PML to examine and approve backfill material,

to carefully inspect placement operations, and to verify the compaction by in situ density testing

using nuclear gauges.

4.5 Recommended Additional Work

Prior to the detailed design of the tank farm and once site grades are known we recommend an

additional field program to further investigate the onsite soil conditions and retrieve samples for a

laboratory testing program to and engineering analysis to investigate the consolidation of the soft

to firm clay below the crust.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

Standard Penetration Resistance N: - The number of blows required to advance a standard split spoonsampler 0.3 m into the subsoil. Driven by means of a 63.5 kg hammer falling freely a distance of 0.76 m.

Dynamic Penetration Resistance: - The number of blows required to advance a 51 mm, 60 degree cone, fittedto the end of drill rods, 0.3 m into the subsoil. The driving energy being 475 J per blow.

DESCRIPTION OF SOIL

The consistency of cohesive soils and the relative density or denseness of cohesionless soils are described inthe following terms:

CONSISTENCY N (blows/0.3 m) c (kPa) DENSENESS N (blows/0.3 m)

Very Soft 0 - 2 0 - 12 Very Loose 0 - 4Soft 2 - 4 12 - 25 Loose 4 - 10Firm 4 - 8 25 - 50 Compact 10 - 30Stiff 8 - 15 50 - 100 Dense 30 - 50Very Stiff 15 - 30 100 - 200 Very Dense > 50Hard > 30 > 200WTPL Wetter Than Plastic LimitAPL About Plastic LimitDTPL Drier Than Plastic Limit

TYPE OF SAMPLE

SS Split Spoon TW Thinwall OpenWS Washed Sample TP Thinwall PistonSB Scraper Bucket Sample OS Oesterberg SampleAS Auger Sample FS Foil SampleCS Chunk Sample RC Rock CoreST Slotted Tube Sample

PH Sample Advanced HydraulicallyPM Sample Advanced Manually

SOIL TESTS

Qu Unconfined Compression LV Laboratory VaneQ Undrained Triaxial FV Field VaneQcu Consolidated Undrained Triaxial C ConsolidationQd Drained Triaxial

PML-GEO-508A Rev. 2004-01

8

8

4

16

22

5

4

3

4

5

4

0.7

1.4

2.1

2.9

4.0

FILL: Firm, brown silty clay fill, tracesand and gravel, DTPL; with bluishgrey fissures infilled with silt,occasional rootlets and organics

occasional shale fragments

APL

CLAY: Stiff, brown silty clay, tracesand, low plastic, DTPL; with ironstaining and bluish grey fissures

becoming very stiff

becoming soft, APL to WTPL

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

178.4

177.7

177.0

176.2

175.1

164.1

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

1 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT

(%) STRAIN AT FAILURE

SOIL PROFILE

May 15, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT

Continuous Flight Hollow Stem Augers

12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONSTANDARD PENETRATION TEST

ENGINEER

Tank Farm Site Appraisal

SHEAR STRENGTH kPa

LOG OF BOREHOLE NO. 1

179

178

177

176

175

174

173

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645052E 4757666N

Numbers refer toSensitivity

20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters

POCKET PENETROMETER/TORVANE

UNCONFINED FIELD VANE

/

Ground Surface

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION

M. D. St. DenisHighway 140, Port Colborne

PROJECT

METRIC

179.1 kN/m3

PML- BH LOG GEO 12HF011 BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ ON_MOT.GDT 6/25/2012 9:23:01 AM

2

2

2

2

2

2

>>

>>

>>

3

3

0*

20

* Weight of hammer

Upon completion ofaugering, free water at22.7 m, cave to 22.9 m

15.0

22.5

24.8

CLAY: Very soft to soft, brown siltyclay, trace sand, low plastic, WTPL

SILT TILL: Very stiff, brown clayey silttill, sandy, some gravel, DTPL

BOREHOLE TERMINATED AT24.8 m UPON PRACTICAL REFUSALTO AUGER ON PROBABLEBEDROCK.

SS

SS

SS

SS

12

13

14

15

156.6

154.4

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

2 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 15, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

164.1

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


164

163

162

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645052E 4757666N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


8

8

5

15

19

5

3

3

3

4

3

0.7

1.7

2.1

2.9

4.0

5.7

8.7

FILL: Firm, brown silty clay fill, tracesand and gravel, DTPL; occasionalrootlets

with fissures infilled with white crystals

TOPSOIL: Firm, brown silty claytopsoil, trace sand, medium organic,APL; occasional rootlets

CLAY: Very stiff, brown silty clay,trace sand, low plastic, DTPL; with ironstaining and bluish grey fissures

with fissures infilled with coarse sand

becoming firm, APL; with grey andreddish brown layering

becoming soft, WTPL

with silt seams

SS

SS

SSSS

SS

SS

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

1

2

3A3B

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

178.6

177.7

177.2

176.4

175.3

173.6

170.6

164.3

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

1 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 23 & 24, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


179

178

177

176

175

174

173

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645299E 4757666N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

Ground Surface

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

179.3 kN/m3


2

2

2

2

2

2

>>

>>

>>

3

2

2

3

48


15.0

25.6

27.8

CLAY: Very soft to soft, brown siltyclay, trace sand, low plastic, APL toWTPL

SILT TILL: Hard, brown clayey silt till,sandy, some gravel, DTPL


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12

13

14

15

16

153.7

151.6

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

2 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 23 & 24, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

164.3

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


164

163

162

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

154

153

152

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645299E 4757666N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


>>

4

8

16

19

11

7

4

4

4

4

4

0.7

1.4

2.9

4.0

5.7

TOPSOIL: Soft, brown silty claytopsoil, trace sand, medium organic,APL; occasional rootlets

CLAY: Stiff, brown silty clay, tracesand and organics, low plastic, DTPL;with iron staining and bluish greyfissures

becoming very stiff

becoming stiff

becoming firm, with grey layering

becoming soft, WTPL

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

178.1

177.4

175.9

174.8

173.1

163.8

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

1 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 17, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


178

177

176

175

174

173

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

164

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645661E 4757663N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

Ground Surface

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

178.8 kN/m3


2

2

2

2

2

2

>>

>>

3

3

3

50/25mmand

bouncingUpon completion ofaugering, free water at22.0 m, cave to 22.5 m

15.0

22.5

24.1

CLAY: Soft, brown silty clay, tracesand, low plastic, WTPL



SS

SS

SS

SS

12

13

14

15

156.3

154.7

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

2 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 17, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

163.8

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


163

162

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645661E 4757663N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


>>

4

11

18

12

5

3

2

3

4

3

3

0.3

1.4

2.1

2.9

5.7

7.2

TOPSOIL: Soft, brown silty claytopsoil, trace sand, medium organic,APL; occasional rootlets

CLAY: Stiff, brown silty clay, tracesand, low plastic, DTPL; with ironstaining and bluish grey fissures

becoming very stiff

becoming stiff, with grey layering

becoming soft, APL to WTPL

becoming very soft

becoming soft

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

SS

FV

1A

1B

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

176.7

176.0

175.2

172.4

170.9

163.1

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

1 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 14, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


178

177

176

175

174

173

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

164

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645992E 4757694N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

Ground Surface

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

178.1 kN/m3


3

2

1

1

2

2

>>

>>

63.2

0*

2

3

52

* Weight of hammer


15.0

22.5

25.1

CLAY: Very soft to soft, brown siltyclay, trace sand, low plastic, WTPL

SILT TILL: Very dense, brown clayeysilt till, sandy, some gravel, DTPL


SS

SS

SS

SS

12

13

14

15

155.6

153.1

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

2 of 2

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 14, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

163.1

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


163

162

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

154

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645992E 4757694N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


10

7

7

4

3

11

5

4

9

7

23

2.1

4.0

6.2

8.5

10.0

10.8

13.5

FILL: Stiff to firm, brown silty clay fill,trace sand and gravel, DTPL;occasional rootlets

soft, APL

stiff, DTPL; with silt seams

firm to soft, brown and black mottledsilty clay fill, trace sand, traceorganics, DTPL; with iron staining,bluish grey layers and occasionalrootlets

sitff, brown silty clay fill, trace sand,DTPL; with iron staining and bluishgrey fissures

TOPSOIL: Firm, black silty clay topsoil,trace sand, medium organic, APL;occasional rootlets

CLAY: Very stiff, brown silty clay,trace sand, low plastic, DTPL; withbluish grey fissures

becoming soft, APL

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SSSS

SS

SS

SSSS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7A7B

8

9

10A10B

11

186.2

184.3

182.1

179.8

178.3

177.5

174.8

173.3

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

1 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 22 & 23, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


188

187

186

185

184

183

182

181

180

179

178

177

176

175

174

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645329E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

Ground Surface

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

188.3 kN/m3


>>

>>

>>

3

2

3

2

3

15.0

25.5

CLAY: Very soft to soft, brown siltyclay, trace sand, low plastic, WTPL;with grey and reddish brown layering

with silt seams

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12

13

14

15

16

162.8

158.3

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

2 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 22 & 23, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

173.3

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


173

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

164

163

162

161

160

159

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645329E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


1

52


30.0

32.4

35.7

CLAY: Very soft, brown silty clay,trace sand, low plastic, WTPL; withgrey and reddish brown layering



SS

SS

17

18

155.9

152.6

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

3 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT

158.3


SOIL PROFILE

May 22 & 23, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


158

157

156

155

154

153

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645329E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

35.0

36.0

37.0

38.0

39.0

40.0

41.0

42.0

43.0

44.0

45.0

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


>>

9

6

4

9

7

6

7

4

7

6

10

22

4.4

7.0

10.3

11.3

FILL: Stiff to firm, brown silty clay fill,trace sand and gravel, DTPL; withgrey fissures infilled with silt,occasional rootlets

some sand

trace rootlets, with iron staining andbluish grey fissures

CLAY: Stiff, brown silty clay, tracesand, low plastic, APL; with ironstaining

becoming very stiff

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

FV

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

184.6

181.9

178.7

177.7

173.9

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

1 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 16 & 17, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


188

187

186

185

184

183

182

181

180

179

178

177

176

175

174

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645606E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

Ground Surface

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

188.9 kN/m3


2

>>

>>

8

3

3

4

1

15.0

16.5

CLAY: Firm, brown silty clay, tracesand, low plastic, APL; with grey andreddish brown layering

becoming very soft to soft, WTPL

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

13

14

15

16

17

172.4

158.9

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

2 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 16 & 17, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

173.9

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


173

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

165

164

163

162

161

160

159

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645606E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


4

60/275mm


30.0

31.5

34.1

CLAY: Soft, brown silty clay, tracesand, low plastic, WTPL; with grey andreddish brown layering



SS

SS

18

19

157.4

154.9

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

3 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT

158.9


SOIL PROFILE

May 16 & 17, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


158

157

156

155

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645606E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

35.0

36.0

37.0

38.0

39.0

40.0

41.0

42.0

43.0

44.0

45.0

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


>>

8

8

8

5

4

18

12

5

12

19

8

1.4

2.1

4.0

5.5

7.0

8.8

9.6

11.3

13.5

FILL: Firm, brown silty clay fill, tracesand and gravel, DTPL; occasionalrootlets

silt seams

APL to WTPL

very stiff, with iron staining and bluishgrey fissures

stiff, brown and black mottled silty clayfill, trace sand, trace organics anddecayed wood fragments, DTPL; withiron staining, bluish grey and blacklayers

firm

TOPSOIL: Stiff, black silty clay topsoil,trace sand, medium organic, DTPL;occasional rootlets

CLAY: Very stiff, brown silty clay,trace sand, low plastic, DTPL; withbluish grey layering

becoming stiff

becoming soft, APL

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

184.6

183.9

182.0

180.5

179.0

177.2

176.4

174.8

172.5

171.0

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

1 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 17 & 18, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


185

184

183

182

181

180

179

178

177

176

175

174

173

172

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645624E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

Ground Surface

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

186.0 kN/m3


>>

>>

4

2

4

3

4

15.0

22.5

CLAY: Very soft to soft, brown siltyclay, trace sand, low plastic, WTPL;with grey and reddish brown layering

with silt seams

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12

13

14

15

16

163.5

156.0

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

2 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT


SOIL PROFILE

May 17 & 18, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

171.0

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


170

169

168

167

166

165

164

163

162

161

160

159

158

157

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645624E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0Cont'd

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


3

Upon completion ofaugering, free water andcave at 15.6 m

30.0

31.2

32.9

CLAY: Soft, brown silty clay, tracesand, low plastic, WTPL; with grey andreddish brown layering



SS17

154.8

153.2

wL

PLASTICLIMIT

wP

:

SI

TECHNICIAN

3 of 3

ELEV

BORING DATE

5

DEPTH

15

SAMPLESNATURAL

MOISTURECONTENT

156.0


SOIL PROFILE

May 17 & 18, 2012

UN

IT

WE

IGH

T

TY

PE

WATER CONTENT (%)

50 100 150 200

"N"

VA

LUE

S

5

BORING METHOD

LOCATION

LIQUIDLIMIT


12HF011

ELE

VA

TIO

N S

CA

LE

10

ST

RA

T P

LOT

REMARKS

&

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION


ENGINEER


SHEAR STRENGTH kPa


155

154

,

OUR PROJECT NO.

SA

17T 0645624E 4757491N


20 40 60 80

NU

MB

ER

207

CL

w

in meters



/

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

35.0

36.0

37.0

38.0

39.0

40.0

41.0

42.0

43.0

44.0

45.0

K. Furbacher

10 20 30 40 GR

DESCRIPTION


PROJECT

METRIC

kN/m3


Geotechnical Investigation, Tank Farm Site Appraisal, Highway 140, Port Colborne PML Ref.: 12HF011, Report: 1 June 21, 2012

Appendix A

Engineered Fill

ENGINEERED FILL

Appendix A, Page 1 of 4

Revised 2007-08

The information presented in this appendix is intended for general guidance only. Site specificconditions and prevailing weather may require modification of compaction standards, backfill type orprocedures. Each site must be discussed, and procedures agreed with Peto MacCallum Ltd. prior tothe start of the earthworks and must be subject to ongoing review during construction. This appendixis not intended to apply to embankments. Steeply sloping ravine residential lots require specialconsideration.

For fill to be classified as engineered fill suitable for supporting structural loads, a number ofconditions must be satisfied, including but not necessarily limited to the following:

1. Purpose

The site specific purpose of the engineered fill must be recognized. In advance of construction, allparties should discuss the project and its requirements and agree on an appropriate set of standardsand procedures.

2. Minimum Extent

The engineered fill envelope must extend beyond the footprint of the structure to be supported. Theminimum extent of the envelope should be defined from a geotechnical perspective by:

• at founding level, extend a minimum 1.0 m beyond the outer edge of the foundations,greater if adequate layout has not yet been completed as noted below; and

• extend downward and outward at a slope no greater than 45° to meet the subgrade

All fill within the envelope established above must meet the requirements of engineered fill in order tosupport the structure safely. Other considerations such as survey control, or construction methodsmay require an envelope that is larger, as noted in the following sections.

Once the minimum envelope has been established, structures must not be moved or extendedwithout consultation with Peto MacCallum Ltd. Similarly, Peto MacCallum Ltd. should be consultedprior to any excavation within the minimum envelope.

3. Survey Control

Accurate survey control is essential to the success of an engineered fill project. The boundaries ofthe engineered fill must be laid out by a surveyor in consultation with engineering staff from PetoMacCallum Ltd. Careful consideration of the maximum building envelope is required.

During construction it is necessary to have a qualified surveyor provide total station control on thethree dimensional extent of filling.

ENGINEERED FILL


Revised 2007-08

4. Subsurface Preparation

Prior to placement of fill, the subgrade must be prepared to the satisfaction of Peto MacCallum Ltd.All deleterious material must be removed and in some cases, excavation of native mineral soils maybe required.

Particular attention must be paid to wet subgrades and possible additional measures required toachieve sufficient compaction. Where fill is placed against a slope, benching may be necessary andnatural drainage paths must not be blocked.

5. Suitable Fill Materials

All material to be used as fill must be approved by Peto MacCallum Ltd. Such approval will beinfluenced by many factors and must be site and project specific. External fill sources must besampled, tested and approved prior to material being hauled to site.

6. Test Section

In advance of the start of construction of the engineered fill pad, the Contractor should conduct a testsection. The compaction criterion will be assessed in consultation with Peto MacCallum Ltd. for thevarious fill material types using different lift thicknesses and number of passes for the compactionequipment proposed by the Contractor.

Additional test sections may be required throughout the course of the project to reflect changes in fillsources, natural moisture content of the material and weather conditions.

The Contractor should be particularly aware of changes in the moisture content of fill material. Sitereview by Peto MacCallum Ltd. is required to ensure the desired lift thickness is maintained and thateach lift is systematically compacted, tested and approved before a subsequent lift is commenced.

7. Inspection and Testing

Uniform, thorough compaction is crucial to the performance of the engineered fill and the supportedstructure. Hence, all subgrade preparation, filling and compacting must be carried out under the fulltime inspection by Peto MacCallum Ltd.

All founding surfaces for all buildings and residential dwellings or any part thereof (including but notlimited to footings and floor slabs) on structural fill or native soils must be inspected and approved byPML engineering personnel prior to placement of the base/subbase granular material and/orconcrete. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure the subgrade soils are capable of supportingthe building/house foundation and floor slab loads and to confirm the building/house envelope doesnot extend beyond the limits of any structural fill pads.

ENGINEERED FILL


Revised 2007-08

8. Protection of Fill

Fill is generally more susceptible to the effects of weather than natural soil. Fill placed and approvedto the level at which structural support is required must be protected from excessive wetting, drying,erosion or freezing. Where adequate protection has not been provided, it may be necessary toprovide deeper footings or to strip and recompact some of the fill.

9. Construction Delay Time Considerations

The integrity of the fill pad can deteriorate due to the harsh effects of our Canadian weather. Hence,particular care must be taken if the fill pad is constructed over a long time period.

It is necessary therefore, that all fill sources are tested to ensure the material compactability prior tothe soil arriving at site. When there has been a lengthy delay between construction periods of the fillpad, it is necessary to conduct subgrade proof rolling, test pits or boreholes to verify the adequacy ofthe exposed subgrade to accept new fill material.

When the fill pad will be constructed over a lengthy period of time, a field survey should becompleted at the end of each construction season to verify the areal extent and the level at which thecompacted fill has been brought up to, tested and approved.

In the following spring, subexcavation may be necessary if the fill pad has been softened attributableto ponded surface water or freeze/thaw cycles.

A new survey is required at the beginning of the next construction season to verify that randomdumping and/or spreading of fill has not been carried out at the site.

10. Approved Fill Pad Surveillance

It should be appreciated that once the fill pad has been brought to final grade and documented byfield survey, there must be ongoing surveillance to ensure that the integrity of the fill pad is notthreatened.

Grading operations adjacent to fill pads can often take place several months or years aftercompletion of the fill pad.

It is imperative that all site management and supervision staff, the staff of Contractors and earthworkoperators be fully aware of the boundaries of all approved engineered fill pads.

Excavation into an approved engineered fill pad should never be contemplated without the fullknowledge, approval and documentation by the geotechnical consultant.

If the fill pad is knowingly built several years in advance of ultimate construction, the areal limits ofthe fill pad should be substantially overbuilt laterally to allow for changes in possible structurelocation and elevation and other earthwork operations and competing interests on the site. Theoverbuilt distance required is project and/or site specified.

ENGINEERED FILL


Revised 2007-08

Iron bars should be placed at the corner/intermediate points of the fill pad as a permanent record ofthe approved limits of the work for record keeping purposes.

11. Unusual Working Conditions

Construction of fill pads may at times take place at night and/or during periods of freezing weatherconditions because of the requirements of the project schedule. It should be appreciated therefore,that both situations present more difficult working conditions. The Owner, Contractor, DesignConsultant and Geotechnical Engineer must be willing to work together to revise site constructionprocedures, enhance field testing and surveillance, and incorporate design modifications asnecessary to suit site conditions.

When working at night there must be sufficient artificial light to properly illuminate the fill pad andborrow areas.

Placement of material to form an engineered fill pad during winter and freezing temperatures has itsown special conditions that must be addressed. It is imperative that each day prior to placement ofnew fill, the exposed subgrade must be inspected and any overnight snow or frozen materialremoved. Particular attention should be given to the borrow source inspection to ensure onlynonfrozen fill is brought to the site.

The Contractor must continually assess the work program and have the necessary spreading andcompacting equipment to ensure that densification of the fill material takes place in a minimumamount of time. Changes may be required to the spreading methods, lift thickness, and compactiontechniques to ensure the desired compaction is achieved uniformly throughout each fill lift.

The Contractor should adequately protect the subgrade at the end of each shift to minimize frostpenetration overnight. Since water cannot be added to the fill material to facilitate compaction, it isimperative that densification of the fill be achieved by additional compaction effort and an appropriatereduced lift thickness. Once the fill pad has been completed, it must be properly protected fromfreezing temperatures and ponding of water during the spring thaw period.

If the pad is unusually thick or if the fill thickness varies dramatically across the width or length of thefill pad, Peto MacCallum Ltd. should be consulted for additional recommendations. In this case,alternative special provisions may be recommended, such as providing a surcharge preload for alimited time or increase the degree of compaction of the fill.

Date post:	05-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dothu
View:	257 times
Download:	8 times

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TANK FARM SITE APPRAISAL ...

Documents