nortrax canada inc. - argue construction...jun 18, 2013 · date: june 18, 2013 ex-i executive...

Nortrax Canada Inc.

Geotechnical Investigation

Type of Document Final

Project Name Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Nortrax Sales and Service Facility 130 David Manchester Road, City of Ottawa, Ontario

Project Number OTT-00210567-A0

Prepared By: Zohra Guetif, ing., Ph.D.

Reviewed By: Ismail M. Taki, M.Eng., P.Eng.

exp Services Inc. 100-2650 Queensview Drive Ottawa, ON K2B 8H6 Canada

June 18, 2013

exp Services Inc.

Client: Nortrax Canada Inc. Project Name: Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Commercial Development 130 David Manchester Road, City of Ottawa, Ontario

Project Number: OTT-00220567-A0 Date: June 18, 2013

Legal Notification This report was prepared by exp Services Inc. for the account of Nortrax Canada Inc. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Exp Services Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this project.

exp Services Inc.




EX-i

Executive Summary Exp Services Inc. (exp) is pleased to present the results of the geotechnical investigation completed for the proposed Nortrax sales and service facility to be located at the property registered by the street address of 130 David Manchester Road in the City of Ottawa, Ontario. Authorization to proceed with this work was provided by Nortrax via Purchase Order Number: 23-868369. The proposed development will consist of approximately 3,136 m2 pre-engineered steel-frame one-storey building. Paved and gravel-covered surface parking facilities and access roadways are also to be constructed as part of the proposed development. A concrete slab-on-grade apron is proposed to be constructed around three sides of the building. The facility will be serviced by private well and septic system. A preliminary grading plan for the development prepared by Zebroski Associates Ltd Architect for the subject site indicated that the proposed finished floor slab of the building will be set at Elevation 139 m that will result in a grade raise at the building location of up to 3.4 m. The finished grades along the exterior of the building of 137.5 m and 139 m. The grades along the proposed access roadways and parking areas are expected to range between 137 m and 137.5 m. The fieldwork for this investigation consisted of drilling seven boreholes (Borehole Nos. 1 to 7 inclusive) to termination depths ranging between 0.5 m and 4.1 m, i.e. Elevation 132.4 to 136.3 m. The investigation has revealed that beneath 150 mm to 350 mm of topsoil, fill extends to a depth of 0.85 m to 1.5 m, i.e. Elevation 135.0 m to 136.1 m. The fill is a mixture of sand with variable proportions of silt, gravel, clay and topsoil. The presence of rootlets, cobbles, boulders, rock fragments was also observed within the fill matrix. Beneath the topsoil in Borehole Nos. 1, 6 and 7 and the fill in Borehole No. 3, compact to very dense gravelly sand till was encountered and extends to the surface of the bedrock/weathered bedrock. The presence of cobbles, boulders and fractured bedrock fragments was also noted within this matrix. A transition layer of weathered bedrock interbedded with silty sand to bouldery till mantling limestone bedrock was contacted in all the boreholes at depths ranging between 0.15 m and 2.4 m, i.e. Elevation 133.9 m and 137 m. The bedrock underlying the site comprised of limestone with shale partings of the Ottawa formation. The bedrock was contacted and core drilled in Borehole Nos. 3, 4 and 6 at depths ranging between 0.4 m to 2.6 m, i.e. Elevation 133.9 m to 136.7 m. The bedrock quality within the cored depth was classified as “very poor” to “fair”. Groundwater measurement taken in the standpipes installed in Borehole Nos. 3 and 7, 18 days and 21 days following the completion of the fieldwork indicated the water table at depths ranging from 0.6 m to 0.9 m below the existing ground surface, i.e. Elevations 135.9 m to 136.3 m. The groundwater table is subject to seasonal fluctuations and may be at a higher level during wet weather periods.

exp Services Inc.




EX-ii

Based on the results of the investigation and prevailing subsurface conditions encountered, it is considered that the proposed grade raise is acceptable from a geotechnical point of view. The investigation has revealed that the geotechnical conditions at the site are suitable to found the proposed structure on square and strip footings set on the natural till deposit, sound bedrock surface or on an engineered fill pad prepared as per the following recommendation. All existing fill should be sub-excavated from the building envelope to the underlying native soils or bedrock. The sub-excavation should be sufficiently large to accommodate an engineered fill pad that extends at least 1 m beyond the periphery of the buildings and is thereafter sloped at an inclination of 1H:1V. The exposed subgrade should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer. Following approval, engineered fill conforming to Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS) for Granular B, Type II should be placed in 300 mm lift thicknesses to the proposed underside of footings and each lift compacted to 100 percent of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). Following the construction of the footings, OPSS 1010 Granular B should be placed in 300mm lifts and each lift compacted to 98 percent of the SPMDD to the underside of the floor slab. Footings set on the native sandy gravel till or on engineered fill pad, prepared as described above, may be designed for a Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and factored Ultimate Limit State (ULS) bearing pressures of 150 kPa and 225 kPa respectively. Footings set on sound bedrock below any fractured or weathered zone may be designed for factored ULS bearing pressure of 1,000 kPa. The SLS bearing pressure of the bedrock, required to produce 25 mm settlements of the structure, will be much larger than the recommended value for factored bearing capacity at ULS. Therefore, the factored bearing capacity at ULS governs the design. The SLS and ULS coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.67 and 0.55 respectively for sound limestone bedrock. Settlements of footing set on the native sandy gravel till and designed for the recommended SLS bearing pressure of 150 kPa and properly constructed are expected to be within the normally tolerated limits of 25 mm total and 19 mm differential movements. Settlements of footing set on the bedrock are expected to be less than 10 mm. The floor of the proposed basementless building may be constructed as a slab-on-grade set on an engineered fill pad. It should be set on a bed of well-compacted 19 mm clear stone at least 200 mm thick. Excavations at the site for installation of the footings are expected to extend to the surface of the till or sound bedrock, i.e. depth of 0.2 m and 1.5 m below the existing ground surface. However, excavations for installation of any septic tanks or other installation i.e. service pits, etc… may extend to deeper levels and may extend through the bedrock. Excavation of the overburden soils at the site may be undertaken by conventional mechanical equipment. Above the prevailing groundwater table, the excavation sides in the overburden soils are expected to be stable for the construction period when cut back at a slope of 1H to 1V. Below the groundwater table, the excavations of the overburden soils are expected to slough and may eventually stabilize at a slope of 2H:1V.

exp Services Inc.




EX-iii

Based on our observations made, it would be possible to excavate the upper levels of the weathered and cap bedrock by large mechanical equipment, i.e. a powerful hydraulic excavator. If additional excavation of the bedrock is required, it may be undertaken with near vertical sides. Excavation of the limestone bedrock would require the use of blasting. The blasting operations would have to be carefully planned and closely monitored. It is recommended that the blasting contractor should retain the services of a blast specialist to provide him with a blasting plan. The contractor should have a licensed blaster on site at all times during the blasting and a vibrations engineer on retainer. Prior to commencement of the blasting operations, the contractor’s proposed plan should be reviewed by this office. Depending on excavation depths, seepage of water into the excavations should be anticipated. However, it should be possible to collect the water entering the excavations in perimeter ditches and to remove it by pumping. Pumping of groundwater is expected to be required during the placement and compaction of the engineered fill. The existing fill is not considered suitable for backfilling purposes. However, it can be used for general grading purposes in the landscaped areas provided any debris is removed from it. The sandy gravel till may be used as backfill service trenches situated outside the buildings provided that any cobbles and boulders are removed from it and its moisture control is maintained within +/- two percent of the optimum value. It is anticipated that the material required for backfilling would be limited in site and therefore would have to be imported and should preferably conform the recommendation stated in this report. Based on the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site and other information available in the area, the site has been classified as Class C in accordance with requirements of Table 4.1.8.4A, Site Classification for Seismic Site Response, Ontario Building Code, 2006. A higher class may be available at the site if shear wave velocity measurements is undertaken in the upper 30 m of the overburden (soil) and bedrock. The subgrade for the proposed heavy-duty asphalt and gravel roadways and access roadways as well as the proposed concrete apron should be prepared as per the recommendation stated in this report. The recommended structure for each facility is provided below:

Asphalt pavement - 90 mm of asphaltic concrete underlain by 150 mm of Granular A base and 450mm of Granular ‘B’ Type II sub-base

Gravel Pavement - 300 mm of Granular A base underlain by 500 mm of Granular B Type II sub-base.

Concrete Apron – 150 mm concrete over 150 mm of Granular A and 400 mm of Granular B

Type II. The above and other related considerations are discussed in greater detail in the main body of this report.

exp Services Inc.




i

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. EX-i

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

2 Site Description ..................................................................................................................... 3

3 Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 4

4 Subsurface Soil Condition ..................................................................................................... 5

5 Groundwater Conditions ....................................................................................................... 7

6 Site Grading .......................................................................................................................... 8

7 Foundation Considerations ................................................................................................... 9

7.1 Foundation on Till or Engineered Fill Pad ................................................................... 9

7.2 Foundations on Sound bedrock .................................................................................. 9

7.3 General Comments ..................................................................................................... 9

7.4 Foundation Frost Cover Requirement ....................................................................... 10

8 Floor Slab and Drainage Requirement ................................................................................ 11

9 Seismic Site Classification .................................................................................................. 12

10 Excavations ......................................................................................................................... 13

11 Backfilling Requirements and Suitability of On-Site Soils for Backfilling Purposes ............. 15

12 Subsurface Concrete Requirements ................................................................................... 16

13 Pavement Structures Design .............................................................................................. 17

14 Additional Comments .......................................................................................................... 20

15 General Comments ............................................................................................................. 21

List of Tables

Page

Table No. I: Unconfined Compressive Strength of the Bedrock .................................................... 6 Table No. II: Chemical Laboratory Test Result ............................................................................. 16 Table No. III: Recommended Asphalt Pavement Structure Thicknesses for Heavy‐Duty Traffic 17 Table No. IV: Recommended Structure for Gravel Access Roadway ........................................... 17 Table No. V: Recommended Concrete Pavement Thicknesses for Heavy Duty Traffic ............... 18

exp Services Inc.




ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Borehole Location Plan

Figures 3 to 9: Borehole Logs

Figure 10: Grain-Size Analysis

Appendices

Appendix A: Photos of Bedrock Samples

Appendix B: Chemical Analysis

exp Services Inc.




1

1 Introduction

Exp Services Inc. (exp) is pleased to present the results of the geotechnical investigation completed for the proposed Nortrax sales and service facility to be located on the property registered by the street address of 130 David Manchester Road in the City of Ottawa, Ontario. Authorization to proceed with this work was provided by Nortrax via Purchase Order Number: 23-868369. The proposed development will consist of approximately 3,136 m2 pre-engineered steel-frame one storey building with no basement which will house office space, sales and display areas as well as a 12-bay service garage for construction, farm equipment and two 5-tonne interior overhead cranes. It is understood that the design loads for exterior columns will range from 335 to 670 kN (75 to 150 kips), interior column loads in the mezzanine will be 670 kN (150 kips) with remaining column loads less than above-noted design loads. Anticipated floor loads will be 7 kPa (150 psf) in the display and office areas and 12 kPa (250 psf) in the shop area. Paved and gravel surface parking facilities and access roadways for employees and customers are also to be constructed as part of the proposed development. A concrete apron is proposed to be constructed along three sides of the building. The facility will be serviced by private well and septic system. The finished floor slab of the proposed building will be set at Elevation 139 m whereas the exterior grades close to the building and access roadways will be set at elevations ranging between 137 m and 139 m. The investigation was undertaken to:

(a) Establish the subsurface soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions at the site at the location of

the boreholes;

(b) Comment on grade-raise restrictions;

(c) Make recommendations on the most suitable type of foundations and recommend bearing pressure at Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of the founding soils/bedrock for the sales and service building;

(d) Discuss floor slab construction and drainage requirements;

(e) Comment on excavation conditions and de-watering requirements;

(f) Assess backfilling requirements and suitability of on-site soils for backfilling purposes;

(g) Comment on backfilling requirements and suitability of the on-site soils for backfilling purposes;

(h) Assess site classification for seismic site response in accordance with requirements of 2006 Ontario Building Code (OBC) and comment on the liquefaction potential of onsite soils during a seismic event;

exp Services Inc.




2

(i) Concrete on subsurface concrete requirements;

(j) Recommend pavement structure for access roads, parking areas and concrete apron; and

(k) Comment on subsurface concrete requirements.

The comments and recommendations given in this report are based on the assumption that the above-described design concept will proceed into construction. If changes are made either in the design phase or during construction, this office must be retained to review these modifications. The result of this review may be a modification of our recommendations or it may require additional field or laboratory work to check whether the changes are acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint.

exp Services Inc.




3

2 Site Description

The site of the proposed facility is a 4.99-hectares parcel of land registered by the street address of 130 David Manchester Road in the City of Ottawa, Ontario (Figure No. 1). The site is bounded by Trans-Canada Highway 7 to the east, David Manchester Road to the west, a hydro right of way to the north and by a vacant land under development to the south. Tree lines are situated along the northern, western, and part of the southern boundaries of the property. The ground surface elevations at the site range between 135.6 and 138 m.

exp Services Inc.




4

3 Procedure

The fieldwork for the geotechnical investigation was undertaken on January 4th and 7th, 2013 and consisted of drilling seven boreholes using a CME-55 track-mounted drill rig (Borehole Nos. 1 to 7 inclusive), to termination depths ranging between 0.5 m to 4.1 m. The fieldwork was supervised on a full-time basis by representatives from exp. The locations and elevations of the boreholes were established in the field by Annis O’Sullivan Vollebekk Ltd. and are shown on Site Plan Figure No. 2. Standard penetration tests were performed in the overburden at 0.75 m depth intervals and soil samples retrieved by split barrel sampler. The bedrock was core drilled using NQ-size core barrel in Borehole Nos. 3, 4 and 6. Standpipes were installed in Borehole Nos. 3 and 7 to monitor the groundwater table at the site. The installation configuration is documented on the respective boreholes logs. On completion of the fieldwork, all the boreholes were backfilled. The boreholes were logged and representative soil samples were collected, placed in plastic bags and identified. The rock cores were identified and placed in core boxes. All the soil and rock samples were visually examined in the field, logged and identified. On completion of the fieldwork, all the soil and rock samples were transported to the exp laboratory in the City of Ottawa where they were examined by a geotechnical engineer and boreholes logs prepared. Laboratory testing comprised of performing moisture content on all the soil samples, grain-size analyses, uniaxial compression test and chemical tests (pH/sulfate) on selected samples.

exp Services Inc.




5

4 Subsurface Soil Condition

A detailed description of the geotechnical conditions encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site is given on the boreholes logs, Figures 3 to 9 inclusive. The boreholes logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times indicated. Subsurface conditions and water levels at other locations may differ from conditions at the locations where sampling was conducted. The passage of time also may result in changes in the conditions interpreted to exist at the locations where sampling was conducted. It should be noted that the soil boundaries indicated on the boreholes logs are intended to reflect approximate transition zones for the purpose of geotechnical design and should not be interpreted as exact planes of geological change. The “Notes on Sample Descriptions” preceding borehole logs form an integral part of this letter report and should be read in conjunction with this letter report. A review of Figure Nos. 3 to 9 inclusive indicates that the surficial soils at the site comprised of topsoil ranging in thickness between 150 mm and 350 mm. The topsoil in Borehole Nos. 2 and 3 is underlain by heterogeneous fill, which extends to depths ranging between 0.85 m to 1.6 m, i.e. Elevation 135 m to 136.1 m. The fill is a mixture of sand with variable proportions of silt, gravel and clay. The presence of rootlets, cobbles, boulders, rock fragments was also observed in the fill. Its natural moisture content ranges between 16.7 and 19.9 percent. Beneath the fill in Borehole No. 3 and beneath the topsoil in Borehole Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7, gravelly sand till was encountered and extends to the surface of the weathered bedrock. The result of one grain-size analysis performed on a till sample from Borehole No. 7 is given on Figure 10. A review of this figure indicates that a soil composition of 18 percent sand, 73 percent gravel and 9 percent silt and clay. The till consists of gravelly sand with variable proportions of silt and contains cobbles, boulders and rock fragments. The relative density of the till based on the Standard Penetration Test index is compact to very dense. Its natural moisture content varies between 4.7 and 19.4 percent. A transition layer of weathered bedrock interbedded with silty sand and gravel to bouldery till, ranging in thickness between 0.2 m to more than 0.8 m was encountered in all the boreholes. Underling the overburden soils layers (topsoil, fill, till) and/or weathered bedrock, limestone bedrock was encountered and proven by core drilling in Boreholes Nos. 3, 4 and 6 at depths ranging between 0.4 m and 2.6 m, i.e. Elevation 133.9 m and 136.7 m. A review of the recovered cores within the depth investigated revealed the bedrock to comprise of limestone with shale partings of the Ottawa Formation. A Total Core Recovery (TCR) and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of 100 percent and 0 to 71 percent respectively were obtained. On this basis, the bedrock quality may be defined as “very poor” to “fair” within the depth investigated. The unconfined compressive strength of the bedrock at the site was established to vary between 105 MPa and 118 MPa. Based on these values, the rock can be classified with respect to intact strength, as “very strong”, (Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th edition, 2006). The unit weight of the

exp Services Inc.




6

bedrock ranged between 26.7 and 26.9 kN/m3. A summary of the laboratory tests results obtained by exp is presented in Table No. I.

Table No. I: Unconfined Compressive Strength of the Bedrock

Borehole No. Rock sample

depth (m) Compressive Strength

(MPa) Unit Weight of Bedrock

(kN/m3)

3 3.5 – 4.0 105 26.9

6 1.8 – 2.0 118 26.7

exp Services Inc.




7

5 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater measurement taken in the standpipes installed in the Borehole Nos. 3 and 7, 18 and 21 days following the completion of the fieldwork indicated the water table at depths ranging from 0.6 m to 0.9 m below the existing ground surface, i.e. Elevations 135.9 m to 136.3 m.

Water levels were made in the exploratory boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated in the scope of services. These data were reviewed and exp’s interpretation of them discussed in the text of the report. Note that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to seasonal variation such as precipitation, snowmelt, rainfall activities, and other factors not evident at the time of measurement and therefore may be at a higher level during wet weather periods.

exp Services Inc.




8

6 Site Grading

A preliminary grading plan for the site prepared by Zebroski Associates Ltd. Architect was provided to exp as reference material. The plan proposed a finished floor slab at Elevation 139 m and finished grades along the exterior of the building of 137.5 m and 139 m. The grades along the proposed access roadways and parking areas are proposed to range between 137 m and 137.5 m. Based on the existing site grades that range from Elevations 135.5 m to 137.7 m, a grade raise of up to 3.4 m is anticipated at the site. Based on the subsurface condition encountered, the design-site grades raise are considered acceptable. As part of the site preparation, all the fill and organic soils should be removed from the area of the proposed building and replaced with well-compacted engineered fill. The excavation for the removal of the fill, should extend to a sufficient distance beyond the limits of the proposed building and concrete apron to accommodate a 1.0 m wide bench of engineered fill around the perimeter of the structure, which is thereafter sloped at an inclination of 1H to 1V. The exposed native subgrade or rock should be examined by a geotechnical engineer. Following approval, free draining Granular B, Type II fill should be placed in 300 mm lift thickness and each lift compacted to 100 percent of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). The placement and compaction of the engineered fill can in this way be undertaken to the founding level. From the footing level to the underside of the floor slab, OPSS 1010 Granular B Type II fill should be used and should be placed in 300 mm lifts and each lift compacted to 98 percent of the SPMDD. The engineered fill should be placed under the full-time supervision of a geotechnician working under the direction of a geotechnical engineer. In-place density tests should be undertaken on each lift of the engineered fill to ensure that it is properly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lift. Along the proposed parking areas and access roadways, all topsoil and organic matter should be removed and the area proof-rolled using a heavy vibratory roller (10 tonnes) in the presence of a geotechnical engineer. Lowering the groundwater table to below the subgrade level will be required during the compaction of the subgrade and the upper levels of the engineered fill to meet the compaction requirements. Any soft areas detected should be sub-excavated and replaced with approved material that should be placed in 300 mm lifts and each lift compacted to 95 percent of the SPMDD. Test pits should be excavated along the proposed roadways to establish the composition of the fill remaining in place and whether any additional removal/replacement will be required. Following approval of the subgrade, approved fill should be placed and compacted using the same procedure provided above (refer to Section 11).

exp Services Inc.




9

7 Foundation Considerations

The investigation has revealed the site to be underlain by topsoil, fill that extends to 0.2 m to 1.5 m depth at the locations of the boreholes, i.e. Elevation 135 m to 137.1m. These overburden soils is mantling till, weathered bedrock/bedrock at these depths. Spread and/or strip footings for the proposed building can be set on natural undisturbed sandy gravel till, engineered fill pad or on the sound limestone bedrock. Footings should not be founded partly on the overburden/engineered fill and partly on the bedrock. Based on a finished floor slab elevation of 139 m, the footings for the proposed building are anticipated to be set at Elevation 137.5 m. Any service pits, etc, will be set at lower levels.

7.1 Foundation on Till or Engineered Fill Pad The proposed structures may be founded on spread and strip footings set on the till deposit or on engineered fill pads prepared as described in Section 6.0 and designed for a Serviceability Limit State (SLS) bearing pressure and factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of 150 kPa and 225 kPa respectively. Settlements of the footings designed for the allowable bearing pressure recommended above and properly constructed are expected to be within the normally tolerated limits of 25 mm total and 19 mm differential movements. Any soft or loose zones of the native soils noted at the footing beds should also be removed and replaced by well compacted engineered fill material.

7.2 Foundations on Sound bedrock The proposed building may be founded also on spread and strip footings designed to bear on sound limestone bedrock beneath any cap or weathered rock and designed for a factored ULS bearing pressure of 1,000 kPa. A higher factored ULS bearing pressure of the bedrock may be available but requires additional inspection and testing during construction. This can be provided by exp if requested. The SLS bearing pressure of the bedrock, required to produce 25 mm settlements of the structure, will be much larger than the recommended value for factored bearing capacity at ULS. Therefore, the factored bearing capacity at ULS will govern the design. The SLS and ULS coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.67 and 0.55 respectively for sound limestone bedrock.

7.3 General Comments All the footing beds should be examined by a geotechnical engineer to ensure that all soft/loose soils are removed and to map any minor fault zones, which may contain fractured bedrock and require special foundation treatment. Where fractured rock is encountered in a fault zone, sub-excavation may be

exp Services Inc.




10

undertaken to the underlying more competent bedrock. Alternatively, the footings may be redesigned to a reduced allowable bearing pressure. In areas where the footings will be founded partly in the bedrock and partly in the till/engineered fill, it is recommended that a transition zone be provided at the interface to minimize high stress concentration. The transition zone treatment may consist of sub-excavating 600 mm of the bedrock at a slope of 10H:1V and backfilling the area with Granular A fill compacted to 100 percent SPMDD.

The recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by exp from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field monitoring provided by an experienced geotechnical engineer to validate the information for use during the construction stage.

7.4 Foundation Frost Cover Requirement A minimum of 1.5 m of earth cover should be provided to all the exterior footings of heated structures founded on the till deposit or on engineered fill to protect them from damage due to frost penetration. Footings of unheated structures should be provided with a cover of 2.1 m if snow would not be cleared from their vicinity. If the snow would be cleared from the vicinity of the footings, they should be provided with 2.4 m of earth cover. For footing founded on bedrock, the requisite earth cover may be reduced to 1.2 for heated structure and 1.5 m for unheated structures.

Where earth cover is less than the minimum required, an equivalent combination of earth fill and rigid polystyrene insulation (e.g. Styrofoam HI-60) should be provided. The Styrofoam should be placed along the exterior foundation wall from the finished exterior grade to top of footing, on top and sides of the footing and should extend laterally for a sufficient distance from the edge of the footings. Additional design data on the required thickness and extend of the required insulation can be provided by exp once the final design grades have been finalized.

exp Services Inc.




11

8 Floor Slab and Drainage Requirement

The floor of the proposed basementless building may be constructed as a slab-on-grade provided it is set on a bed of well compacted 19 mm clear stone at least 200 mm thick placed on the engineered fill pad prepared as described in Section 6.0 of this report. The clear stone would prevent the capillary rise of moisture to the floor slab. Adequate saw cuts should be provided in the floor slab to control cracking.

Based on the groundwater conditions and the proposed finished floor elevation, perimeter or underfloor drainage system will not be required for the proposed structure; however, the finished exterior grade should be sloped away from the building at an inclination of two percent to prevent surface ponding of water close to the exterior walls.

exp Services Inc.




12

9 Seismic Site Classification

The subsoil and groundwater information at the site has been examined in relation to Section 4.1.8.4 of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) 2006. The subsoils (topsoil, fill, till) at this site extends to the weathered bedrock/bedrock surface which is expected at depths varying between 0.4 m and 2.6 m depth (Elevation 134 m and 136.7 m) below the existing ground surface. The site can be classified as Class C for seismic site response in accordance with the OBC. A higher class is likely available but requires that a shear wave velocity measurements be undertaken at the site for the upper 30 m of the overburden (soil) and bedrock. In addition, the on-site soils are not considered liquefiable in a seismic event.

exp Services Inc.




13

10 Excavations

Excavations at the site for installation of the footings are expected to extend to surface of the till or sound bedrock, i.e. depth of 0.2 m and 1.5 m below the existing ground surface. Excavations for installation of the septic tanks, etc., may extend to deeper levels and may extend through the bedrock. Excavation of the overburden soils at the site may be undertaken with conventional mechanical equipment. The majority of the soil to be excavated from the site is sandy gravel to gravelly sand with different proportions of silt and clay mixed with cobbles and boulders, rock fragments. Excavations at the site should comply at all times with the requirements of the latest edition of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects, Ontario Regulations 213/91. Above the prevailing groundwater table, the excavation sites are expected to be stable for the construction period when cut back at a slope of 1H to 1V. Excavations below the prevailing groundwater table are expected to slough and may eventually stabilize at a slope of 2H:1V. If space restrictions prevent open cut excavation, the excavations for installation of the services may be undertaken within the confines of a prefabricated support system (e.g. trench box). Any weathered bedrock and loose fragments must be removed from the bedrock surface in the areas of the proposed footings. Based on our observations, the weathered bedrock removal may be possible using mechanical equipment, i.e. a powerful hydraulic excavator. If additional excavation of the bedrock is required, it may be undertaken with near vertical sides. Excavation of the limestone bedrock would require the use of blasting. The blasting operations would have to be carefully planned and closely monitored. It is recommended that the blasting contractor should retain the services of a blast specialist to provide him with a blasting plan. The contractor should have a licensed blaster on site at all times during the blasting and a vibrations engineer on retainer. Prior to commencement of the blasting operations, the contractor’s proposed plan should be reviewed by this office. A condition survey of all the existing structures and services in the vicinity of the site should be undertaken prior to commencement of construction. Vibration monitoring should be carried out in the adjacent structures during blasting operations. The blast charge should be such that the peak particle velocity should not exceed 50 mm per second at the property lines. For temporary excavation slopes, the contractor is responsible for their stability as well as safety of the workers, and neighbouring structures when this safety depends on the stability of the temporary slopes. Materials and vehicular traffic should not be parked or placed on top of the slope within minimum distance equivalent to the excavation depth.

exp Services Inc.




14

Many geologic materials deteriorate rapidly upon exposure to meteorological elements. Unless otherwise specifically indicated in this report, walls and floors of excavations must be protected from moisture, desiccation, and frost action throughout the course of construction. Seepage of surface and sub-surface water into the excavations should be anticipated. However, it should be possible to collect any water entering the excavations in ditches and to remove it by pumping from sumps. It is noted that continuous pumping may be required during placement and compaction of the engineered fill to maintain the groundwater table below the excavation base at all times. Although this investigation has estimated the groundwater levels at the time of the field work and commented on dewatering and general construction problems, conditions may be present that are difficult to establish from standard boring techniques and which may affect the type and nature of dewatering procedures used by the contractor in practice. These conditions include local and seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater table, erratic changes in the soil profile, thin layers of soil with large or small permeabilities compared with the soil mass, etc. Only carefully controlled tests using pumped wells and observation wells will yield the quantitative data on groundwater volumes and pressures that are necessary to adequately engineer construction-dewatering systems.

exp Services Inc.




15

11 Backfilling Requirements and Suitability of On-Site Soils for Backfilling Purposes

The backfill in footing trenches and service trenches inside the building should conform to Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications for Granular B, Type II. The backfill in service trenches outside the building and any fill required to raise the grade at the site should be compactable (free of organics, debris, cobbles and boulders) and with a moisture content which is within two percent of the optimum value. All backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the SPMDD. The on-site fill is not suitable for backfilling purposes in the interior of the building. However, it can be used for general grading purposes in the landscaped areas provided any debris is removed from it. The on-site sandy gravel till, which is free of cobbles, boulders and bedrock fragments, may be used for backfilling of trenches outside the building areas and as subgrade fill provided its natural moisture content is maintained within +/- two percent of the optimum value. Based on the observations made, it is considered that the amount of material that may be available for site grading and backfilling at the site is expected to be of limited quantity and would require be imported. It should comply with the following Ontario Provincial Standard specifications (OPSS).

Engineered fill under footings - OPSS 1010 Granular ‘B’, Type II

Underfloor fill and backfill in footing trenches and service trenches inside the building and Exterior of building

- OPSS 1010 Granular ‘B’, Type I or II

Trench backfill outside the building and subgrade fill for access roads and parking areas

- OPSS 1010 Select Subgrade Material (SSM)

exp Services Inc.




16

12 Subsurface Concrete Requirements

One soil sample was submitted for laboratory analysis to assess the potential of the attack of sulphates in the subsoils on subsurface concrete. A summary of the laboratory test results are summarized in Table No. II and the full results can be found in Appendix B.

Table No. II: Chemical Laboratory Test Result

Borehole No. Depth (m) Soil Type pH Sulphate (%)

3 1.5 – 2.1 Till 8.1 <0.01

The test results indicate the soil has a negligible potential for sulphate attack on concrete. Therefore, it is recommended that the subsurface concrete selected for this project be in accordance with the current Canadian Standards Association (CSA - A23-09).

exp Services Inc.




17

13 Pavement Structures Design

The subgrade soil at the site is expected to be existing fill and/or engineered fill. It is understood that both the asphalt and gravel access roadway and parking areas will be exposed to heavy-duty truck traffic. The recommended asphalt and gravel pavement structures for access roadways and parking areas are given on Table Nos. III and IV respectively whereas the concrete apron structure around the building is provided on Table No. V. The recommendations are based upon the assumption that the subgrade will be prepared as recommended in Section 6.0 and assuming a functional design life of eight to ten years. The proposed functional design life represents the number of years to the first rehabilitation, assuming regular maintenance is carried out. It is anticipated maintenance of the gravel access roadway may be required on a periodic basis over time and may include the placement and compaction of additional surface granular.

Table No. III: Recommended Asphalt Pavement Structure Thicknesses for Heavy-Duty Traffic

Pavement Layer

Compaction Requirements

Computed Pavement Structure (mm) Heavy-Duty

Driveways and Parking Areas

Asphaltic Concrete – PG 58-34 92-96% Maximum Relative Density

40 mm SC2 50 mm BC3

OPSS Granular A Base (crushed limestone)

100% SPMDD1 150

OPSS Granular B Sub-Base 100% SPMDD1 450

Notes:

1. SPDD denotes Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, ASTM, D-698.

2. SC Denotes Surface course asphalt and should comprise of Superpave OPSS 1151 SP 12.5 mm Mix (Category C).

3. BC Denotes Base course asphalt and should comprise of Superpave OPSS 1151 SP 19 mm Mix (Category C).

4. Any subgrade fill must be compacted to 95 percent SPMDD for at least the upper 300 mm.

Table No. IV: Recommended Structure for Gravel Access Roadway

Pavement Layer Compaction

Requirements Computed Structure (mm)


100% SPMDD1 300

OPSS Granular B Type II Sub-base

100% SPMDD1 500

Notes: 1. SPMDD denotes Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, ASTM, D-698. 2. The upper 300 mm of subgrade fill must be compacted to 98% SPMDD.

exp Services Inc.




18

Table No. V: Recommended Concrete Pavement Thicknesses for Heavy Duty Traffic

Pavement Layer

Compaction Requirements

Computed Pavement Structure (mm)

Heavy Duty Driveways and Parking Areas

Concrete apron2 - 150


100% SPMDD1 150

OPSS Granular B Type II Sub-base

100% SPMDD1 400

Notes:

1. SPDD denotes Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, ASTM, D-698.

2. Concrete pavement should be Class C-2 - 32 MPa concrete, Max w/c ratio of 0.45, Air content of 6.5 +/- 1.5, Slump

between 80 +/- 30 mm.

3. Any subgrade fill must be compacted to 95 percent SPMDD for at least the upper 300 mm.

The concrete apron consists of plain concrete slabs with random longitudinal and transverse joints in order to minimize cracking. Designs of the concrete apron should have tie bars or hook bolt dowels at longitudinal joints whereas the transverse joints remain un-dowelled. The wire mesh reinforcement is also recommended. It must be noted that the rigid pavement structure provided above (Table No. V) does not provide full protection of the subgrade from frost penetration, therefore, the pavement slabs must be separated from any building structures.

The foregoing design assumes that construction would be undertaken during dry periods and that the subgrade will be stable under the load of construction equipment. If construction is carried out during wet weather, and heaving or rolling of the subgrade is experienced, additional thickness of granular material may be required. Additional comments on the construction of parking areas and access roadways are as follows:

1. Subgrade preparation should be undertaken as per the recommendations stated in Section 6.0. 2. The long-term performance of the pavement structure is highly dependent upon the subgrade

support conditions. Stringent construction control procedures should be maintained to ensure that uniform subgrade moisture and density conditions are achieved. The need for adequate drainage cannot be over-emphasized. Sub-drains or drainage ditches must be installed to intercept excess subsurface moisture and to prevent subgrade softening.

3. The most severe loading conditions on the subgrade may occur during construction.

Consequently, special provisions such as restricted lanes, half-loads during paving, etc., may be required, especially if construction is carried out during unfavourable weather.

exp Services Inc.




19

4. The finished pavement surface should be free of depressions and should be sloped (preferably at a minimum cross fall of two percent) to provide effective surface drainage towards catch basins. Surface water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to the outside edges of paved areas.

5. The granular materials used for pavement construction should conform to OPSS for Granular A

and Granular B, Type II and should be compacted to 100 percent of the SPMDD. The asphaltic concrete used and its placement should meet OPSS requirements. It should be compacted to 97 percent of the Marshall Density or 92 to 96 of the maximum relative density.

It is recommended that exp be retained to review the final pavement structure design and drainage plans prior to construction to ensure that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report.

exp Services Inc.




20

14 Additional Comments

All earthwork activities from placement and compaction of fill in the service trenches to subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of granular materials and asphaltic concrete should be inspected by qualified geotechnicians to ensure that construction of the sewers and pavement proceeds according to the specifications. All the footing beds should also be examined by a geotechnical engineer to ensure that the design bearing pressure is available at the founding level and that the footing beds have been properly cleaned. It is also recommended that an additional investigation should be performed if deemed required once the final design at the site has been completed. The purpose of the additional investigation would be to collect additional data on the elevation of the bedrock at the site.

exp Services Inc.




21

15 General Comments

The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of design engineers. The number of boreholes required to determine the localized underground conditions, between boreholes affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., would be much greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should, in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well, as their own interpretations of the factual borehole results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them. The information contained in this report is not intended to reflect on environmental aspects of the soils. Should specific information be required, including for example, the presence of pollutants, contaminants or other hazards in the soil, additional testing may be required. We trust that the information contained in this report will be satisfactory for your purposes. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

exp Services Inc.




Figures

SITE LOCATION PLAN

NORTRAX CANADA INC.1:20,000

JAN. 2013

M.N.

OTT-00210567-A0

FIG 1

project no.CLIENT:

TITLE:

scale

date

drawn by

SITE LOCATION

t: +1.613.688.1899 | f: +1.613.225.73372650 Queensview Drive, Suite 100Ottawa, ON K2B 8H6, Canada

exp Services Inc. www.exp.com

r:\21

0000

\210

000\

2105

67-a

0 no

rtrax

\201

3-01

-17\

p3 -

bore

hol

es 1

2121

6.dw

g

1/17

/201

3 12

:13:

19 P

Mom

m p

en s

ettin

g 16

-249

bla

ck.c

tb1/

17/2

013

12:1

1:39

PM

Pen

Tab

le::

Last

Plo

tted:

Last

Sav

ed:

File

nam

e:

Plo

tted

by:

nuge

ntm

130 DAVID MANCHESTER ROAD, OTTAWA, ONTARIO

exp Services Inc.




TOPSOIL, 200 mmMixed with gravelly sand, some rootlets,dark brown.

TillGravelly sand, brown, dry.Presence of rock fragments.WEATHERED LIMESTONE BEDROCKInterbedded with silty sand and gravel.

Auger Refusal at 1 m Depth

137.1

137.0

136.3

Combustible Vapour Reading

Natural Moisture Content

Atterberg Limits

Split Spoon Sample

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Dynamic Cone Test

Shelby Tube

Undrained Triaxial at% Strain at Failure

Shear Strength byPenetrometer Test

Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:

Logged by: Shear Strength byVane Test S

'January 7, 2013

Geodetic

S. Bilan Checked by: ZG

:Location: 130 David Manchester Road, Ottawa, Ontario

CME-55 Track Mount

SYMBOL

SAMPLES

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

3

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)

CORE DRILLING RECORD

kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

1.0

NOTES:

1

NaturalUnit Wt.kN/m3

Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0

Geotechnical investigation - Proposed Industrial Development

Natural Moisture Content %Atterberg Limits (% Dry Weight)

Standard Penetration Test N Value

137.3

RunNo.

20 40 60

Combustible Vapour Reading (ppm)

1

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

0

1

Upon completion dry

Log of Borehole BH 1

1.Borehole data requires interpretation by exp. beforeuse by others

2.Borehole Backfilled Upon Completion of drilling

3.Field work supervised by an exp representative.

4.See Notes on Sample Descriptions

5.This Figure is to read with exp. Services Inc. reportOTT-00210567-A0

LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

50/150mm

50/75mm

TOPSOIL, 300 mmMixture of gravelly sand and silty clay,brown, some rootlets.

FILLSilty gravelly sand, occasional rockfragments, cobbles and boulders, somerootlets, dark brown, moist.

WEATHERED LIMESTONE BEDROCKInterbedded with silty sand and gravel.

Auger Refusal at 1.1m Depth

136.6

136.1

135.8



Atterberg Limits

Split Spoon Sample

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Dynamic Cone Test

Shelby Tube



Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:


'January 7, 2013

Geodetic



CME-55 Track Mount

SYMBOL

SAMPLES

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

4

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)


kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

1.1

NOTES:

1


Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0




136.9

RunNo.

20 40 60


1

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

0

1

Upon completion 1.1







LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

5

50/140mm

TOPSOIL, 350 mmMixed with sand, some rootlets, black

FILLMixture of sand, gravel and silty clay,occasional cobbles and boulders, somerootlets, dark brown, moist.

TILLSilty gravelly sand, dry to wet, very dense

POSSIBLE WEATHERED BEDROCK TOBOULDERY TILL

LIMESTONE BEDROCKGrey, fair quality.

135.9

136.2

135.0

134.1

133.9



Atterberg Limits

Split Spoon Sample

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Dynamic Cone Test

Shelby Tube



Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:


'January 4, 2013

Geodetic

A. Neguss Checked by: ZG


CME-55 Track Mount

SYMBOL

Continued Next Page

SAMPLES

1

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

5

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)


kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

2.4 - 4.1

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

2.6

2.6

NOTES:

2


100

Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0




136.5

RunNo.

20 40 60


1

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

0

1

2

3

71Upon completion

21 days

1.2

0.6



2.A 13mm slotted standpipe was installed in theBorehole Upon Completion




LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

3

50/100mm

65

50/150mm

Run 1

LIMESTONE BEDROCKGrey, fair quality. (continued)

Borehole Terminated at 4.1m Depth 132.4

SYMBOL

SAMPLES

1

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

5

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)


kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

2.4 - 4.1

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

2.6

2.6

NOTES:

2


100

Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0




133.5

RunNo.

20 40 60


2

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

3

4

71Upon completion

21 days

1.2

0.6







LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

Run 1

TOPSOIL, 150 mm.


WEATHERED LIMESTONE BEDROCK

Borehole Terminated at 1m Depth

137.0

136.7

136.1



Atterberg Limits

Split Spoon Sample

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Dynamic Cone Test

Shelby Tube



Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:


'January 4, 2013

Geodetic



CME-55 Track Mount

SYMBOL

SAMPLES

1

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

6

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)


kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

0.4 - 1

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

1.0

NOTES:

1


100

Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0




137.1

RunNo.

20 40 60


1

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

0

1

0Upon completion dry







LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

50/75mm

TOPSOIL, 150 mm.Mixed with sand and gravel

WEATHERED BEDROCK

Auger Refusal at 0.5 m Depth

136.3

135.9



Atterberg Limits

Split Spoon Sample

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Dynamic Cone Test

Shelby Tube



Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:


'January 7, 2013

Geodetic



CME-55 Track Mount

SYMBOL

SAMPLES

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

7

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)


kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

0.5

NOTES:

1


Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0




136.4

RunNo.

20 40 60


1

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

0

Upon completion 0.5







LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

50/75mm

Run 1

Run 2

TOPSOIL, 150 mm

TILLSilty gravelly sand, occasional cobbles andboulders, moist, compact to dense.

WEATHERED LIMESTONE BEDROCK

LIMESTONE BEDROCKGrey, fair quality.

Borehole Terminated at 2.6 m Depth

135.7

135.0

134.8

133.2



Atterberg Limits

Split Spoon Sample

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Dynamic Cone Test

Shelby Tube



Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:


'January 4, 2013

Geodetic



CME-55 Track Mount

SYMBOL

SAMPLES

1

2

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

8

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)


kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

0.8 - 1.1

1.1 - 2.6

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

2.6

NOTES:

1


100

100

Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0




135.8

RunNo.

20 40 60


1

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

0

1

2

0

53

Upon completion 0.9







LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

50/75mm

TOPSOIL, 300 mm.Some rootlets, black

TILLSilty gravelly sand, occasional cobbles andboulders, moist to wet, compact.


Auger Refusal at 1.6 m Depth

136.3

136.9

135.8

135.6



Atterberg Limits

Split Spoon Sample

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Dynamic Cone Test

Shelby Tube



Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:


'January 7, 2013

Geodetic



CME-55 Track Mount

SYMBOL

SAMPLES

Shear Strength

50 100 150 200

20 40 60 80

ElapsedTime

RQD %

9

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Hole OpenTo (m)


kPa

of

Figure No.

GWL

Depth

% Rec.

Geodetic

m

1.6

1.6

NOTES:

1


Depth(m)

Page.

WaterLevel (m)

OTT-00210567-A0




137.2

RunNo.

20 40 60


1

250 500 750

WATER LEVEL RECORDS

Project No:

Project:

0

1

Upon completion

18 days

1.2

0.9







LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE

LOG

S O

F B

OR

EH

OLE

S.G

PJ

TR

OW

OT

TA

WA

.GD

T

2/15

/13

24

11

50/75mm

Exp Services Inc.

2650 Queensview Drive - Unit 100

Ottawa, ON K2B 8H6

Method of Test for Sieve Analysis of AggregateMTO Test Method LS - 602, Rev. No. 23/ASTM C 136

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

% P

assi

ng

Grain Size Distribution Curve

BH 7-SS3

Date Sampled :

OTT-000210567-AO

Client :

SS3

Proposed Nortrax Facility

130 David Manchester Road, Ottawa, Ontario

Sample No.:

SILT

Fine Medium

Modified M.I.T. Classification

SAND GRAVEL

CoarseMediumMediumCLAY

Fine Coarse FineCoarse

Figure : 10Sample Description : Fine to Medium Gravel, Some Sand, trace silt

Nortrax

January 7, 2013

Exp Project No.:

0.75 to 1.4Depth (m) :Bore Hole No.:

Project Name :

Project Location :

7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000

%

Grain Size, mm

BH 7 Gran. "B" Type I- Max. Gran. "B" Type I - Min.

www.trow.com

exp Services Inc.




Appendix A: Photos of Bedrock Samples

exp Services Inc.




Bedrock samples- Borehole BH-3

exp Services Inc.





exp Services Inc.




Appendix B: Chemical Analysis

EXOVA OTTAWA Certificate of Analysis

Dear Zohra Guetif:

Please find attached the analytical results for your samples. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call (613-727-5692).

Report Number: 1300897 Date Submitted: 2013-01-15Date Reported: 2013-01-17Project: OTT-210467COC #: 166263

APPROVAL:

Inorganic Laboratory Supervisor

Lorna Wilson

Page 1 of 3

Exova (Ottawa) is certified and accredited for specific parameters by:CALA, Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (to ISO 17025), OMAF, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (for farm soils), Licensed by Ontario MOE for specific tests in drinking water.

Exova (Mississauga) is accredited for specific parameters by:SCC, Standards Council of Canada (to ISO 17025)

Please note: Field data, where presented on the report, has been provided by the client and is presented for informational purposes only.

Client: exp. (Ottawa) 100-2650 Queensview Dr. Ottawa, ON K2B 8H2Attention: Ms. Zohra GuetifPO#: Invoice to: exp.

Report Comments:




Lab I.D.Sample MatrixSample TypeSampling DateSample I.D.

Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline

8.1

<0.01 %0.01 SO4General Chemistry 2.0 pHAgri. - Soil

1007414Soil

2013-01-15BH3 SS3 5'-7'

Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline

Lab I.D.Sample MatrixSample TypeSampling DateSample I.D.

Page 2 of 3146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1

** = Analysis completed at Mississauga, Ontario.Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted.Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request.

Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective.




QC % Rec

BlankAnalyte

QC Summary

QCLimits

244880Run No Analysis Date 2013-01-16 Method Ag Soil

101 90-110pH

83 70-130SO4 <0.01 %

Page 3 of 3146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1

** = Analysis completed at Mississauga, Ontario.Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted.Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request.

Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective.

exp Services Inc.




List of Distribution Report Distributed To: Mr. Cam Tyhurst Nortrax Canada Inc. ............................................. [email protected] Gary Zebroski Zebroski and Associates ..................................... [email protected] Sheila Clarke exp Services Inc., Civil Division .......................... [email protected]

nortrax canada inc. - argue construction...jun 18, 2013 · date: june 18, 2013 ex-i executive...

Documents