geotechnical investigation proposed sewer replacement ... · street and st. jean street, located...

Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. • 32 Steacie Drive • Ottawa, Ontario • K2K 2A9 • www.hceng.ca

Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Sewer Replacement

Laurier Street

Clarence-Rockland, Ontario

Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. • 32 Steacie Drive • Ottawa, Ontario • K2K 2A9 • www.hceng.ca

Submitted to:

CH2M Hill Canada Limited

330 - 1101 Prince of Wales Drive

Ottawa, Ontario

K2C 2W7

Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Sewer Replacement

Laurier Street

Clarence-Rockland, Ontario

May 25, 2016

Project: 61977.85

Report to: CH2M Hill Canada Limited Project: 61977.85 (May 25, 2016)

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

2.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Review of Geology Maps ............................................................................................. 1

2.3 Previous Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................ 1

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

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

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

4.2 Existing Pavement Structure ........................................................................................ 3

4.3 Fill Material .................................................................................................................. 3

4.4 Sand ............................................................................................................................ 4

4.5 Silty Clay ...................................................................................................................... 4

4.6 Groundwater Levels ..................................................................................................... 5

4.7 Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion ........................................................................... 5

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 5

5.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 5

5.2 Proposed Sewer Replacement .................................................................................... 6

5.2.1 Overburden Excavation ........................................................................................ 6

5.2.2 Groundwater Pumping and Management .............................................................. 6 5.2.3 Pipe Bedding ........................................................................................................ 7

5.2.4 Trench Backfill ...................................................................................................... 7

5.2.5 Seepage Barriers .................................................................................................. 8

5.2.6 Winter Construction .............................................................................................. 8

5.2.7 Corrosion of Buried Concrete and Steel ................................................................ 8

5.3 Laurier Street Trench Reinstatement ........................................................................... 9

5.3.1 Pavement Design ................................................................................................. 9

5.3.2 Effects of Soil Disturbance and Construction Traffic.............................................. 9

5.4 Other Considerations ..................................................................................................10

5.4.1 Effects of Construction Induced Vibration ............................................................10

5.4.2 Excess Soil Management.....................................................................................10

5.4.3 Abandonment of Standpipe Piezometer ...............................................................10 5.4.4 Design Review and Construction Observation .....................................................10


iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Key Plan ................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2 Borehole Location Plan ............................................................................ 13

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Record of Borehole Sheets

Laboratory Classification Tests on Soil Samples

Chemical Test Results on Soil Samples


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

replacement along Laurier Street in the City of Clarence-Rockland, Ontario. The purpose of the

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

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

guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the project, including construction

considerations that could influence design decisions.

The subsurface investigation was carried out in general accordance with our proposal dated

April 15, 2016.

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Description

Plans are being prepared to replace a 380 metre long section of sanitary sewer along Laurier

Street in the City of Clarence-Rockland, Ontario (see Key Plan, Figure 1). It is assumed that the

invert depth of the proposed sewer will be, at most, about 5 metres below the roadway surface.

Trench reinstatement along Laurier Street is also included in the scope of this project.

2.2 Review of Geology Maps

Surficial geology maps of the area indicate that the site is underlain by near surface dolostone

bedrock of the Oxford formation. Fill material associated with the existing roadway and services

should also be expected.

2.3 Previous Geotechnical Investigation

A previous geotechnical investigation was carried out by John D. Paterson and Associates

Limited for the replacement of the sanitary forcemain along Laurier Street between Laviolette

Street and St. Jean Street, located about 300 metres southeast of the subject site. The report

titled, “Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Sanitary Forcemain Replacement, Laurier Street

and Laviolette Street, Rockland, Ontario” dated July 10, 2002, was provided to us. The

subsurface conditions encountered as part of the previous geotechnical investigation generally

consist of existing pavement structure and fill material overlying sand, silty sand and sandy

gravel. Bedrock was encountered at depths ranging between about 1.7 and 4.0 metres below

ground surface.

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

The field work for this investigation was carried out on May 9, 2016. At that time, six (6)

boreholes, numbered 16-1 to 16-6, inclusive, were advanced at the site. The boreholes were

advanced to a depth of about 5.2 metres below existing ground surface (elevation 48.1 to 54.0

metres, geodetic datum) using a truck mounted, hollow stem auger drill rig supplied and


2

operated by Marathon Drilling Co. Ltd. All boreholes were located along Laurier Street in the

travelled portion of the east bound lane.

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

encountered were recovered using a 50 millimetre diameter split barrel sampler. The

subsurface conditions encountered in the upper 0.9 metres of the boreholes were identified by

visual and tactile examination of the materials exposed on the sides of the boreholes. Grab

samples of the soils encountered within this depth were recovered manually. One (1) standpipe

piezometer was installed in borehole 16-4 to measure the stabilized groundwater level. The

field work was observed by a member of our engineering staff who directed the drilling

operations, observed the in situ testing and logged the samples and boreholes.

Following the fieldwork, the soil samples were returned to our laboratory for examination by a

geotechnical engineer. Selected samples of the soil were tested for water content, grain size

distribution and Atterberg limits. One (1) soil sample from each of boreholes 16-1 and 16-6

were sent to Paracel Laboratories Ltd. for basic chemical testing relating to corrosion of buried

concrete and steel.

The approximate locations and surface elevations of the boreholes are shown on the Borehole

Location Plan on Figure 2. Descriptions of the subsurface conditions logged in the boreholes

are provided on the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix A. The results of the grain size

distribution and Atterberg limits testing are provided on Figures B1 to B3, inclusive, in Appendix

B. The results of the chemical testing on the soil samples are provided in Appendix C.

The borehole locations were selected by Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. personnel and

positioned at the site relative to existing site features. The locations of the boreholes and

ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were determined using a Trimble R10 GPS

survey instrument. The elevations are referenced to geodetic datum.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 General

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

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

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

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

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

recovery of samples and the uniformity of the subsurface conditions. Subsurface conditions at

areas other than the borehole locations may vary from the conditions encountered in the

boreholes. In addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be

present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties.


3

The groundwater conditions described in this report refer only to those observed at the place

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

consequence of construction activities in the area.

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

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

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

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

The following presents an overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in boreholes 16-1

to 16-6, inclusive, advanced during this investigation.

4.2 Existing Pavement Structure

Asphaltic concrete was encountered from the ground surface at all borehole locations. The

asphaltic concrete has a thickness of about 100 to 200 millimeters and is underlain by granular

base/subbase material. At each of the borehole locations there is no obvious distinction

between the base and subbase materials. The granular base/subbase material is generally

composed of grey brown crushed sand and gravel and gravelly sand and ranges in thickness

from about 410 to 730 millimetres.

The results of grain size distribution testing carried out on two (2) samples of the base/subbase

material recovered from boreholes 16-3 and 16-5 are provided on Figure B1 in Appendix B

along with the grain size distribution envelope for Ontario Provincial Standard Specification

(OPSS) Granular B Type I. The samples obtained from borehole 16-3 and 16-5 exceed the

specified amount of fines (15 and 14 percent passing the 0.075 millimetre sieve, respectively,

compared with the maximum allowable of 8 percent).

Moisture content testing carried out on samples of the roadway base/subbase material indicate

a moisture content of about 3 percent.

4.3 Fill Material

Fill material was encountered beneath the pavement structure in all boreholes at depths ranging

between about 0.6 and 0.9 metres below ground surface (elevation 52.7 to 58.6 metres,

geodetic datum). The fill material is variable in nature and can generally be described as brown

to grey brown sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel. The fill material has a thickness

ranging from about 0.2 to 1.0 metres and extends to depths of about 0.9 to 1.8 metres below

ground surface (elevation 52.2 to 58.3 metres, geodetic datum).

Moisture content testing carried out on one (1) sample of the fill material indicates a moisture

content of about 15 percent.


4

4.4 Sand

Native deposits of brown to grey brown fine grained sand were encountered below the fill

material in boreholes 16-1 to 16-5, inclusive, at depths ranging between about 0.9 and 1.8

metres below ground surface (elevation 53.1 and 58.3 metres, geodetic datum). Layers of silty

sand were encountered within the sand deposits at some of the borehole locations.

Standard penetration testing carried out in the native sand deposits generally gave N values

ranging from 6 to 16 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, which reflects a loose to compact

relative density. One (1) N value of 1 blow per 0.3 metres of penetration was recorded in

borehole 16-2 at a depth of about 1.6 metres below surface grade, which reflects a very loose

relative density.

Where fully penetrated, the sand deposits in boreholes 16-1 and 16-5 have a thickness of about

3.7 and 2.3 metres, respectively, and extend to depths of about 4.6 and 3.2 metres below

ground surface, respectively (elevation 54.6 and 50.9 metres, geodetic datum).

The results of one (1) grain size distribution test carried out on a sample of the sand recovered

from borehole 16-3 are provided on Figure B2 in Appendix B.

The water content of samples of the native sand deposits ranges from about 4 to 7 percent.

Boreholes 16-2 to 16-4, inclusive, were terminated within the sand deposits at a depth of about

5.2 metres below ground surface (elevation 51.1 to 53.3 metres, geodetic datum).

4.5 Silty Clay

Native deposits of silty clay were encountered in boreholes 16-1, 16-5 and 16-6 at depths

ranging from about 1.1 to 4.6 metres below ground surface (elevation 50.9 to 54.6 metres,

geodetic datum). A relatively thin layer (i.e., 80 millimetres) of silty clay was also encountered in

borehole 16-4 at a depth of about 4.7 metres below surface grade.

The upper part of the silty clay is weathered and grey brown to reddish grey brown. The SPT N

values recorded within the weathered silty clay crust generally range from about 3 to 19 blows

per 0.3 metres of penetration, which reflect a stiff to very stiff consistency. One (1) SPT N value

of over 50 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration was recorded in borehole 16-6 at a depth of

about 2.6 metres below ground indicating a very stiff consistency.

Grey silty clay was encountered below the weathered silty clay crust in borehole 16-6 at a depth

of about 5.0 metres below ground (elevation 48.3 metres, geodetic datum).

One (1) Atterberg limit test was undertaken on a sample of the silty clay recovered from

borehole 16-6 at a depth of about 2.6 metres below ground surface. The results show that the


5

sample has a liquid limit of 54 percent and a plastic limit of 25 percent; as indicated on the

plasticity chart on Figure B3 in Appendix B, the sample has a high plasticity.

Moisture content testing carried out on samples of the silty clay indicates a moisture content

ranging from about 42 to 66 percent.

Boreholes 16-1, 16-5, and 16-6, were terminated within the silty clay deposits at a depth of

about 5.2 metres below ground surface (elevation 48.1 to 54.0 metres, geodetic datum).

4.6 Groundwater Levels

The standpipe piezometer installed in borehole 16-4 was dry on May 18, 2016.

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

following periods of precipitation.

4.7 Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion

The results of chemical testing of soil samples from borehole 16-1 and 16-6 are provided in

Appendix C and summarized in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – Results of Chemical Testing of Soil Samples

Parameter Borehole

16-1 16-6

pH 7.66 7.27

Resistivity (Ohm.m) 115 5.61

Chloride Content (µg/g) 40 970

Sulphate Content (µg/g) 12 375

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General

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

and is intended for the design of this project only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the

works should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the

adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of the factual

data as it affects their construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities.


6

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

subsurface conditions. The implications of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination

resulting from previous uses or activities of this site or adjacent properties, and/or resulting from

the introduction onto the site from materials from offsite sources are outside the terms of

reference for this report and have not been addressed.

5.2 Proposed Sewer Replacement

5.2.1 Overburden Excavation

The excavation for the proposed sanitary sewer will be carried out through the existing

pavement structure, fill material and native deposits of sand and silty clay.

In the overburden, the excavation for flexible service pipes should be in accordance with Ontario

Provincial Standard Drawing (OPSD) 802.010 for Type 3 soil. The excavation for rigid service

pipes should be in accordance with OPSD 802.031 for Type 3 soil.

The sides of the excavations within overburden soils should be sloped in accordance with the

requirements in Ontario Regulation 213/91 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

According to the Act, most of the soils at this site can be classified as Type 3 soils. Therefore, for

design purposes, allowance should be made for 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter, excavation

slopes. As an alternative or where space constraints dictate, the service installation could be

carried out within a tightly fitting, braced steel trench box, which is specifically designed for this

purpose.

No unusual constraints are expected in excavating the fill material and sand deposits above the

water level and the silty clay deposits both above and below the groundwater level.

5.2.2 Groundwater Pumping and Management

The standpipe piezometer installed in borehole 16-4 was dry when measured on May 18, 2016.

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

following periods of precipitation.

Based on our previous experience, any groundwater inflow from the overburden deposits into

the excavations should be relatively small and controlled by pumping from filtered sumps within

the excavations. It is not expected that short term pumping during excavation will have a

significant effect on nearby structures and services.

Suitable detention and filtration will be required before discharging the pumped water to any

sewers. The contractor should be required to prepare and submit an excavation and

groundwater management plan for review and approval as part of the contract.


7

5.2.3 Pipe Bedding

The bedding for the proposed sewer should be in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standards

Drawing (OPSD) 802.010 and 802.031 for flexible and rigid pipes in overburden excavations.

The pipe bedding material should consist of at least 150 millimetres of well graded crushed

stone meeting OPSS Granular A. OPSS documents allow recycled asphaltic concrete and

concrete to be used in Granular A material. Since the source of recycled material cannot be

determined, it is suggested, for environmental reasons, that any granular materials used in the

service trench be composed of virgin material only.

In areas where unsuitable fill material (such as existing fill material) exists below the pipe

subgrade level, where the subgrade becomes disturbed, or where very loose sand is

encountered (i.e., in borehole 16-2), the unsuitable/disturbed/very loose material should be

removed and replaced with a subbedding layer of compacted granular material, such as that

meeting OPSS Granular B Type II. To provide adequate support for the pipe in the long term in

areas where subexcavation of material is required below design subgrade level, the excavations

should be sized to allow a 1 horizontal to 2 vertical spread of granular material down and out

from the bottom of the pipe.

Cover material, from pipe spring line to at least 300 millimetres above the top of the pipe, should

consist of granular material, such as OPSS Granular A.

The use of clear crushed stone as bedding or subbedding material should not be permitted.

The subbedding, bedding and cover materials should be compacted in maximum 200 millimetre

thick lifts to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value.

5.2.4 Trench Backfill

To reduce the potential for differential frost heaving between the area over the trench and the

adjacent roadway, acceptable native materials should be used as backfill between the roadway

subgrade level and the depth of seasonal frost penetration (i.e., 1.8 metres below finished

grade). The backfill materials within the zone of frost penetration should match the materials

exposed on the trench walls. Backfill below the zone of seasonal frost penetration could consist

of either acceptable native material or imported granular material conforming to OPSS Granular

B Type I or II.

To minimize future settlement of the backfill the trench backfill should be compacted in

maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density

value.

The native silty clay material is sensitive to changes in moisture content and precipitation.

Depending on the weather conditions encountered during the construction, the specified

densities may not be possible to achieve, and, as a consequence, some settlement of these


8

backfill materials could occur. Consideration could be given to implementing one or a

combination of the following measures to reduce post construction settlement above the trench,

depending on the weather conditions encountered during the construction:

Allow the overburden materials to dry prior to compaction;

Reuse any wet materials in the lower part of the trench and make provision to defer final

paving of surface course (i.e., the Superpave 12.5 asphaltic concrete) above the trench

for 3 months, or longer, to allow the trench backfill settlement to occur and thereby

improve the final roadway appearance.

Avoid reusing any wet materials within the trench. If additional material is required for

trench backfill, consideration could be given to using relatively dry on-site material or

imported fill, such as OPSS Select Subgrade Material or Granular B Type I, below the

zone of frost penetration.

5.2.5 Seepage Barriers

The standpipe piezometer installed in borehole 16-4 was at dry when measured on May 18,

2016. Based on the groundwater conditions observed during the geotechnical investigation,

seepage barriers are likely not required.

5.2.6 Winter Construction

In order to carry out the work during freezing temperatures and maintain adequate performance

of the trench backfill as a roadway subgrade, the service trench should be opened for as short a

time as practicable and the excavations should be carried out only in lengths which allow all of

the construction operations, including backfilling, to be fully completed in one working day. The

materials on the sides of the trench should not be allowed to freeze. In addition, the backfill

should be excavated, stored and replaced without being disturbed by frost or contaminated by

snow or ice.

5.2.7 Corrosion of Buried Concrete and Steel

The measured sulphate concentration in two (2) samples of soil recovered from boreholes 16-1

and 16-6 was 12 and 375 micrograms per gram, respectively. According to Canadian

Standards Association (CSA) “Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction”, the

concentration of sulphate in the soil is in the low range. Therefore any concrete in contact with

the native soil or groundwater could be batched with General Use (GU) cement. The effects of

freeze thaw in the presence of de-icing chemical (sodium chloride) use on the roadway should

be considered in selecting the air entrainment and the concrete mix proportions for any

concrete.


9

Based on the resistivity of the sample, the soil in these areas can be classified as non-

aggressive towards unprotected steel. It is noted that the corrosivity of the soil/groundwater

could vary throughout the year due to the application of sodium chloride for de-icing.

5.3 Laurier Street Trench Reinstatement

5.3.1 Pavement Design

It is understood that following the construction of the sanitary sewer, the roadway above the

trench will be reinstated. For the trench reinstatement on Laurier Street, we recommend that

the asphaltic concrete and granular thicknesses match those exposed in the excavation to

reduce the potential for differential frost heaving, with provision for the following minimum

granular and asphaltic concrete thicknesses:

120 millimetres of asphaltic concrete, over

150 millimetres of OPSS Granular A, over

450 millimetres of OPSS Granular B Type II

The asphaltic concrete should consist of a 50 millimetre surface layer of Superpave 12.5 over

one 70 millimetre thick layer of Superpave 19.0. Performance grade PG 58-34 asphaltic

concrete should be specified. In the absence of traffic data, the superpave asphaltic concrete

mixes should be designed for Traffic Level C.

Suitable tapers should be provided for the granular materials where the new pavement structure

abuts existing pavement structure along Laurier Street.

All imported granular materials should be placed in maximum 200 millimetre thick lifts and

should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value using

suitable vibratory compaction equipment.

5.3.2 Effects of Soil Disturbance and Construction Traffic

The guidelines for the trench reinstatement assume that the trench backfill is adequately

compacted, and prepared as described in this report. If the subgrade surface above the sewer

becomes disturbed or wetted due to construction operations or precipitation, the Granular B

Type II thickness given above may not be adequate and it may be necessary to increase the

thickness of the Granular B Type II subbase and/or to incorporate a woven geotextile separator

between the roadway subgrade surface and the granular subbase material. The adequacy of

the design pavement thickness should be assessed by geotechnical personnel at the time of

construction.

If the granular pavement materials above the trenches are to be used by construction traffic, it

may be necessary to increase the thickness of the Granular B Type II, install a woven geotextile

separator between the subgrade surface and the granular material, or a combination, to prevent


10

pumping and disturbance to the subbase material. The contractor should be made responsible

for their construction access.

5.4 Other Considerations

5.4.1 Effects of Construction Induced Vibration

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

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

source, but may be felt at nearby structures. The magnitude of vibrations will be much less than

that required to cause damage to the nearby structures or services that are in good condition.

Nevertheless, we recommend that preconstruction surveys be carried out on the adjacent

structures and that vibration monitoring be carried out during the construction so that any damage

claims can be addressed in a fair manner.

5.4.2 Excess Soil Management

It should be noted that the soil samples recovered during this investigation were not tested to

assess the presence of contamination, either naturally occurring or due to human activity. This

report does not constitute an excess soil management plan. The disposal requirements for

excess soil from the site have not been assessed.

5.4.3 Abandonment of Standpipe Piezometer

The standpipe piezometer installed as part of this investigation should be decommissioned by a

licensed well technician. The well abandonment could be carried out in advance of or during

the construction.

5.4.4 Design Review and Construction Observation

It is recommended that the final design drawings be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to

ensure that the guidelines provided in this report have been interpreted as intended.

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

recommended to confirm that the subsurface conditions throughout the proposed excavations

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

adversely affect the intent of the design. The subgrade surfaces for the sanitary sewer and

roadway should be inspected by experienced geotechnical personnel to ensure that suitable

materials have been reached and properly prepared. The placing and compaction of earth fill

and imported granular materials should be inspected to ensure that the materials used conform

to the grading and compaction specifications.


11

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

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

Lauren Ashe, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Brent Wiebe, P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer

25 May 2016

2001000

1:5000

300m

32 Steacie Drive, Ottawa, ON

T: (613) 836-1422 | www.hceng.ca | [email protected]

Project

Drwn By DateChkd By Project No.

Drawing

Revision No.

B.V. L.A. MAY, 2016 61977.85 0

FIGURE 1

LAURIER STREET SEWER

REPLACEMENT

KEY PLAN

E

D

W

A

R

D

S

S

T

R

E

E

T

P

O

U

L

I

O

T

T

E

S

T

R

E

E

T

BH 16-1

59.19

BH 16-2

58.43

BH 16-3

57.65

BH 16-4

56.26

BH 16-5

54.04

BH 16-6

53.31

L

A

U

R

I

E

R

S

T

R

E

E

T

0 40 80

1:2000

120m

Rev.

Chkd by

Location

Scale

Date

ProjectClient

Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

32 Steacie Drive

Ottawa, ON

Tel: (613) 836-1422

www.hceng.ca

[email protected]

LEGEND

Drwn by

LAURIER STREET,

CLARENCE-ROCKLAND

CH2M HILL CANADA LTD.

61977.85

FIGURE 2

B.V. L.A.

MAY, 2016

0

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

BH 16-1

59.19

BOREHOLE LOCATION IN PLAN AND ELEVATION

(current investigation by Houle Chevirer Engineering Ltd.)

P:\0. Files\61900\61977.85\Drafting\Drawings\61977.85_FG2_V01_2016-05-12.dwg, 25/05/2016 4:14:50 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3


APPENDIX A

Record of Borehole Sheets

List of Abbreviations and Terminology

1,2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GS +50

D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

Pow

er A

uger

0.10

0.61

0.91

4.62

5.18

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m

24

6

8

8

8

16

4

59.09

58.58

58.28

54.57

54.01

Backfilledwith augercuttings

Asphaltic Concrete

Grey brown, sand and gravel, somesilt (BASE/SUBBASE)

Grey brown sand, some gravel, tracesilt (FILL MATERIAL)

Loose to compact, grey brown, finegrained SAND, trace silt

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

End of Borehole

WATER CONTENT, PERCENT

20

Q -U -

60

-5 -2

80

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

W

ELEV.

20

60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SOIL PROFILE

80

PROJECT: 61977.85

LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2

BORING DATE: May 9, 2016

DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

nat. V -rem. V -

40ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

DEPTH(m)

RECORD OF BOREHOLE 16-1

4020

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 30

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR

STANDPIPEINSTALLATION

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,k, cm/s

80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic

SPT HAMMER: 63 kg drop, 0.76 metres

59.19

DYNAMIC PENETRATIONRESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m

SHEAR STRENGTHCu, kPa

-4

Wp Wl40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

Ground Surface

LOGGED: B.V.

CHECKED:

SAMPLES

10 10 -310 10

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-1

1.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R 2

015.

GD

T 5

-25-

16

1,2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GS +50

D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

Pow

er A

uger

0.10

0.69

0.91

2.64

3.05

5.18

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m

28

6

1

9

8

6

6

58.33

57.74

57.52

55.79

55.38

53.25


Asphaltic Concrete

Grey brown gravelly sand, some silt(BASE/SUBBASE)

Grey brown sand, trace gravel, traceto some silt (FILL MATERIAL)

Very loose to loose, brown, finegrained SAND, trace silt

Grey brown SILTY SAND

Loose, grey brown, fine grainedSAND, trace silt

End of Borehole


20

Q -U -

60

-5 -2

80

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

W

ELEV.

20

60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SOIL PROFILE

80

PROJECT: 61977.85



DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

nat. V -rem. V -

40ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

DEPTH(m)


4020

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 30

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR



80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


58.43



-4

Wp Wl40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

Ground Surface

LOGGED: B.V.

CHECKED:

SAMPLES

10 10 -310 10

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-1

1.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R 2

015.

GD

T 5

-25-

16

1,2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GS +50

D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

Pow

er A

uger

0.13

0.86

1.82

5.18

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m

>50

21

8

8

7

9

9

57.52

56.79

55.83

52.47

Sieve(seeFig.B1)

Sieve(seeFig.B2)


Asphaltic Concrete

Grey brown, gravelly sand, some silt(BASE/SUBBASE)

Grey brown, fine to medium grainedsand, trace to some silt, trace gravel(FILL MATERIAL)

Loose, grey brown, fine grainedSAND, trace silt

End of Borehole


20

Q -U -

60

-5 -2

80

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

W

ELEV.

20

60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SOIL PROFILE

80

PROJECT: 61977.85



DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

nat. V -rem. V -

40ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

DEPTH(m)


4020

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 30

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR



80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


57.65



-4

Wp Wl40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

Ground Surface

LOGGED: B.V.

CHECKED:

SAMPLES

10 10 -310 10

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-1

1.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R 2

015.

GD

T 5

-25-

16

1,2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GS +50

D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

Pow

er A

uger

0.13

0.61

0.91

4.57

4.674.75

5.18

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m

35

12

9

7

15

13

10

56.13

55.65

55.35

51.69

51.08


Bentoniteseal

Filtersand

50 mmdiameter,1.52metre wellscreen

Standpipepiezometerwas drywhenmeasuredon May18, 2016

Asphaltic Concrete

Grey brown gravelly sand, some silt(BASE/SUBBASE)

Brown to grey brown, sand, trace tosome silt, trace gravel (FILLMATERIAL)

Loose to compact, brown to greybrown, fine grained SAND, trace silt,occasional silty sand pockets

Grey SILTY SAND, trace clay

Grey SILTY CLAY, some sand

Loose to compact, grey brown, finegrained SAND, trace to some silt

End of Borehole


20

Q -U -

60

-5 -2

80

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

W

ELEV.

20

60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SOIL PROFILE

80

PROJECT: 61977.85



DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

nat. V -rem. V -

40ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

DEPTH(m)


4020

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 30

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR



80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


56.26



-4

Wp Wl40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

Ground Surface

LOGGED: B.V.

CHECKED:

SAMPLES

10 10 -310 10

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-1

1.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R 2

015.

GD

T 5

-25-

16

1,2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GS +50

D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

Pow

er A

uger

0.15

0.56

0.91

3.18

5.18

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m

38

11

10

12

5

7

3

53.89

53.48

53.13

50.86

48.86

Sieve(seeFig.B1)


Asphaltic Concrete

Grey to grey brown sand and gravel,some silt (BASE/SUBBASE)

Brown, sand, trace silt, trace gravel(FILL MATERIAL)

Compact, brown, fine grained SAND,trace silt

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

End of Borehole


20

Q -U -

60

-5 -2

80

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

W

ELEV.

20

60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SOIL PROFILE

80

PROJECT: 61977.85



DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

nat. V -rem. V -

40ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

DEPTH(m)


4020

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 30

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR



80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


54.04



-4

Wp Wl40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

Ground Surface

LOGGED: B.V.

CHECKED:

SAMPLES

10 10 -310 10

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-1

1.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R 2

015.

GD

T 5

-25-

16

1,2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GS +50

D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

50D.O.

Pow

er A

uger

0.20

0.66

1.07

5.03

5.18

200m

m D

iam

eter

Hol

low

Ste

m

32

12

19

>50

9

7

4

53.11

52.65

52.24

48.28

48.13


Asphaltic Concrete

Grey brown, sand and gravel, somesilt (BASE/SUBBASE)

Brown sand, trace gravel, trace silt(FILL MATERIAL)

Very stiff, grey brown SILTY CLAY(WEATHERED CRUST)

Grey SILTY CLAY

End of Borehole


20

Q -U -

60

-5 -2

80

AD

DIT

ION

AL

LAB

. TE

ST

ING

W

ELEV.

20

60

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SOIL PROFILE

80

PROJECT: 61977.85



DE

PT

H S

CA

LEM

ET

RE

S

BO

RIN

G M

ET

HO

D

nat. V -rem. V -

40ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

DEPTH(m)


4020

DEPTH SCALE

1 to 30

NU

MB

ER

TY

PE

PIEZOMETEROR



80

SHEET 1 OF 1

DATUM: Geodetic


53.31



-4

Wp Wl40 60

DESCRIPTION

BLO

WS

/0.3

m

Ground Surface

LOGGED: B.V.

CHECKED:

SAMPLES

10 10 -310 10

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-1

1.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R 2

015.

GD

T 5

-25-

16


APPENDIX B

Laboratory Classification Tests on Soil Samples

Figures B1 to B3, inclusive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

15

14

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B1

Grain Size, mm

% P

assi

ng

% Gravel % Sand % Silt & ClayBoreholeLegend Depth (m)Sample

0.2 - 0.8

0.1 - 0.6

2

2

16-3

16-5

31

39

55

47

Date: May 2016

Project: 61977.85

SAND

Sieve Size, mm

4.759.5

13.2

19.0

26.5

37.5

50.075.0

.075.150

.180

.250.425.8502.0063.0

CO

BB

LES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SILT AND CLAYGRAVEL

SO

ILS

GR

AIN

SIZ

E G

RA

PH

UN

IFIE

D %

(S

IEV

E)

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-

11.

GP

J H

OU

LE C

HE

VR

IER

FE

B 9

201

1.G

DT

5-

25-1

6

Gradation Envelope: OPSS 1010 - GRANULAR B TYPE I

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

3

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B2

Grain Size, mm

% P

assi

ng

% Gravel % Sand % Silt & ClayBoreholeLegend Depth (m)Sample

2.3 - 2.9516-3 0 97

Date: May 2016

Project: 61977.85

SAND

Sieve Size, mm

4.759.5

13.2

19.0

26.5

37.5

50.075.0

.075.150

.180

.250.425.8502.0063.0

CO

BB

LES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

SILT AND CLAYGRAVEL

SO

ILS

GR

AIN

SIZ

E G

RA

PH

UN

IFIE

D %

(S

IEV

E)

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-

11.

GP

J H

OU

LE C

HE

VR

IER

FE

B 9

201

1.G

DT

5-

25-1

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

"A" LINE

FIGURE B3PLASTICITY CHART

LOW HIGH

"U" LINE

Liquid Limit, %

Pla

stic

ity In

dex,

PI

Legend Borehole Sample Depth (m) LL % PL % PI %

16-6 5 2.3 - 2.9 54.2 25.0 29.2

Project Name: Laurier Street Sewer Replacement

Date: May 2016

Project: 61977.85

HC

E A

TT

ER

BE

RG

LIM

ITS

619

77.8

5_G

INT

LO

GS

_GN

T_V

01_2

016-

05-1

1.G

PJ

HO

ULE

CH

EV

RIE

R F

EB

9 2

011.

GD

T 5

-25-

16

MH or OH

ML or OLCL - ML

CL or OL

CH or OH

7

4

16

Group Symbol

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


APPENDIX C

Chemical Test Results on Soil Samples

Corrosion of Buried Concrete and Steel

Paracel Laboratories Order No. 1621040

www.paracellabs.com1-800-749-1947

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

Attn: Blasco VitayabaskaranKanata, ON K2K 24932 Steacie DriveHoule Chevrier

Certificate of Analysis

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

Paracel ID Client ID

Order #: 1621040

Order Date: 13-May-2016 Report Date: 19-May-2016

Client PO:

Custody: Project: 61977.85

1621040-01 16-1 SA61621040-02 16-6 SA6

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

Lab Supervisor

Mark Foto, M.Sc.

Approved By:

Page 1 of 7

Order #: 1621040

Project Description: 61977.85

Certificate of AnalysisClient:

Report Date: 19-May-2016

Order Date: 13-May-2016

Client PO:

Houle Chevrier

Analysis Summary Table

Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction 18-May-16 18-May-16AnionsEPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 17-May-16 17-May-16pH, soilEPA 120.1 - probe, water extraction 18-May-16 19-May-16ResistivityGravimetric, calculation 18-May-16 18-May-16Solids, %

Page 2 of 7

Order #: 1621040





Client PO:

Houle Chevrier

Client ID: 16-1 SA6 16-6 SA6 - -Sample Date: --09-May-1609-May-16

1621040-01 1621040-02 - -Sample ID:MDL/Units Soil Soil - -

Physical Characteristics

% Solids --67.496.90.1 % by Wt.

General Inorganics

pH --7.277.660.05 pH Units

Resistivity --5.611150.10 Ohm.m

Anions

Chloride --970405 ug/g dry

Sulphate --375125 ug/g dry

Page 3 of 7

Order #: 1621040





Client PO:

Houle Chevrier

Method Quality Control: Blank

Analyte ResultReporting

Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

General InorganicsResistivity ND 0.10 Ohm.m

Page 4 of 7

Order #: 1621040





Client PO:

Houle Chevrier

Method Quality Control: Duplicate


Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 75.2 5 ug/g dry 76.8 202.1Sulphate 1250 5 ug/g dry 1180 205.7

General InorganicspH 7.89 0.05 pH Units 7.91 100.3Resistivity 63.1 0.10 Ohm.m 62.5 201.0

Physical Characteristics% Solids 86.6 0.1 % by Wt. 87.0 250.5

Page 5 of 7

Order #: 1621040





Client PO:

Houle Chevrier

Method Quality Control: Spike


Limit Units SourceResult

%REC %RECLimit

RPDRPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 185 76.8 108 78-1135 ug/g Sulphate 105 ND 105 78-1115 ug/g

Page 6 of 7

Order #: 1621040





Client PO:

Houle Chevrier

Qualifier Notes :None

Sample Data RevisionsNone

Work Order Revisions / Comments :

None

Other Report Notes :

MDL: Method Detection Limit

n/a: not applicable

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

ND: Not Detected

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

Page 7 of 7

experience • knowledge • reliability

geotechnical

environmental

hydrogeology

materials testing & inspection

geotechnical investigation proposed sewer replacement ... · street and st. jean street, located...

Documents