PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION …...PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - 272 ALBERT STREET Project No. 18M-01394-00 2616359 ONTARIO INC. WSP May 2019 Page 2 Four (4) boreholes

PRELIMINARY

GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION 272 ALBERT STREET

WATERLOO, ONTARIO

2616359 ONTARIO INC.

FINAL REPORT (VERSION 1)

PROJECT NO.: 18M-01394-00

DATE: MAY 03, 2019

WSP

SUITE 300

4 HUGHSON STREET SOUTH

HAMILTON, ON, CANADA L8N 3Z1

T: +1 905 529-4414

F: +1 905 521-2699

WSP.COM

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - 272 ALBERT STREET Project No. 18M-01394-00 2616359 ONTARIO INC.

WSPMay 2019

Page i

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

2 SITE AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................. 1

3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ...................... 1

3.1 Drilling Investigation Work and Field Testing ............ 1

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ................................ 2

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................ 2

4.1 Subsoil Conditions ........................................................ 2

4.2 Groundwater Conditions .............................................. 3

5 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL

INTERPRETATION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 5

5.1 Overview of Subsurface Conditions ........................... 5

5.2 Foundations ................................................................... 5

5.3 Floor Slab and Permanent Drainage ........................... 6

5.4 Frost Protection ............................................................. 6

5.5 Excavations and Services ............................................ 6

5.6 Earth Pressures and Basement Walls ......................... 7

5.7 Earthquake Considerations .......................................... 7

5.8 Pavements ...................................................................... 7

6 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................. 8

7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT ............................ 9

7.1 Limited Use .................................................................... 9

7.2 Excerpts ......................................................................... 9

7.3 Info By Others ................................................................ 9

7.4 Standard Of Care ........................................................... 9


WSPMay 2019

Page ii

7.5 Limited Scope ................................................................ 9

7.6 Changes Over Time ..................................................... 10

7.7 Variability Between Test Locations ........................... 10

7.8 Surveying ..................................................................... 10

7.9 Use For Design And Construction ............................ 10


WSPMay 2019

Page iii

TABLES

TABLE 4-1 –GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS FOR CLAYEY SILT ............................. 3

TABLE 4-2 –GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION RESULTS FOR SILT ............................................. 3

TABLE 4-3 – GROUNDWATER DEPTHS AND ELEVATIONS IN MONITORING WELLS ................................................. 4

TABLE 5-1 - BEARING CAPACITY VALUES AND FOUNDING LEVELS OF SPREAD FOOTINGS ON NATIVE SOILS .......... 5

TABLE 5-2 - RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT STRUCTURE THICKNESS ................. 7

APPENDICES

DRAWINGS

DRAWING 1 – BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

DRAWING 2 – DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL

RECOMMENDATIONS

A EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN BOREHOLE LOGS

LOGS OF BOREHOLES (19-1 TO 19-4)

B GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

(FIGURES B-1 AND B-2)

PLASTICITY CHART (FIGURE B-3)


WSPMay 2019

Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) was retained by 2616359 Ontario Inc. to undertake a preliminary geotechnical investigation

at 272 Albert Street (the ‘Site’), in Waterloo, Ontario. The proposed development at the site is an eight-storey mixed

used condominium. The existing site includes five (5) single detached residential house lots, and one (1) single

detached double residential house lot. The total area that the site occupies is approximately 0.42 hectares.

The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to determine the subsurface conditions at four (4) borehole locations

and based on the conditions, make preliminary engineering recommendations for the following:

— Foundations

— Floor slabs and permanent drainage

— Frost protection

— Excavations and backfill

— Earth pressures

— Earthquake considerations

— Pavements

This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented above and on the assumption that the design

will be in accordance with the applicable codes and standards. If there are any changes in the design features relevant

to the geotechnical analysis, or if any questions arise concerning the geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards,

this office should be contacted to review the design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and

reporting before the recommendations of this office can be relied upon.

This investigation did not include evaluation of soil and groundwater environmental quality; however, such data is

required as part of future work.

The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical consultants in

Ontario. The format and content are guided by client specific needs and economics and do not conform to generalized

standards for services. Laboratory testing for the most part, follows ASTM or CSA Standards or modifications of

these standards that have become standard practice.

This report has been prepared for 2616359 Ontario Inc. and its architects and designers. Third party use of this report

without the consent of WSP is prohibited. The limitation conditions presented in this report form an integral part of

the report and they must be considered in conjunction with the report’s contents.

It is expected that additional detail – design stage geotechnical investigations will be required for this site at such a

time as the existing on-site buildings have been demolished and the design for the new structure have progressed.

2 SITE AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY The proposed eight-storey condominium is located at 272 Albert Street, Waterloo Ontario. The Quaternary Geology

in the area is characterized by ice-contact stratified deposits and fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits of silt and clay,

with minor sand and gravel.

3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

3.1 DRILLING INVESTIGATION WORK AND FIELD TESTING

Borehole locations for this investigation were established by WSP personnel in accordance with the requirements of

2616359 Ontario Inc.


WSPMay 2019

Page 2

Four (4) boreholes (19-1 to 19-4) were drilled at the Site on April 2, 2019 to 7.5m below existing ground surface.

Approximate borehole locations are shown on Drawing 1.

Drilling was conducted with hollow stem continuous flight auger equipment by a drilling sub-contractor under the

supervision of WSP personnel. The soil stratigraphy as recorded by observing the quality and changes of augered

materials which were withdrawn from the boreholes, and by sampling the soils at regular intervals of depth using a

50mm O.D. split spoon sampler, in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) method. This

sampling method recovers samples from the soil strata, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler 0.3m

into undisturbed soil (SPT ‘N’-values) gives an indication of the compactness condition or consistency of the sampled

soil material. The SPT ‘N’-values are indicated on the Borehole Logs in Appendix A.

Upon completion of the drilling, the ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were surveyed by WSP and

were referenced to a geodetic benchmark.

Water level observations were made during drilling and in open boreholes upon completion of the drilling operations.

For the monitoring of the long-term groundwater levels, monitoring wells of 50mm dia. were installed in boreholes

19-1 and 19-3.

3.2 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING

The soil samples were taken to our laboratory where they were re-examined. Representative samples were selected

for geotechnical index testing. The testing program consisted of: the measurement of natural moisture contents in all

samples and grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits tests on two (2) selected soil samples. The grain size analysis

and plasticity results are enclosed in Appendix B.

4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

The four (4) boreholes revealed the presence of topsoil and fill deposits overlying deposits of clayey silt, silty clay,

sandy silt, and silt. More specific details on the subsurface conditions at the individual boring locations are given in

the borehole log sheets enclosed in Appendix A. The following notes are, therefore, intended only to summarize the

data and to amplify some of the general characteristic of these deposits.

TOPSOIL

A surficial layer of topsoil was encountered at the surface of all boreholes. The topsoil was 200 to 300mm thick at the

borehole locations, generally dark brown in colour containing an appreciable amount of roots and humus. These

materials are compressible under loads; therefore, the topsoil should not be re-used as structural fill, but can be used

for general landscaping purposes.

FILL

Fill soils were encountered beneath the surficial topsoil at all boreholes and extended to depths of 0.8 to 2.3m below

ground surface. The fill soil consisted of clayey silt mixed with sand, trace gravel, was dark brown in colour, moist,

and was inferred to be very soft to stiff based on SPT ‘N’-values of 1 to 15 blows per 0.3m of penetration. The natural

moisture contents measured from seven (7) samples ranged from 13 to 28%

CLAYEY SILT

Underlying the fill, clayey silt was encountered at all boreholes with the exception of borehole 19-1 where the clayey

silt was encountered beneath a 1.5m thick deposit of silt. The clayey silt extended to depths of 6.1m to the full

exploration depth of boreholes 19-3 and 19-4 (7.5m). This clayey silt layer was brown, contained some sand, trace


WSPMay 2019

Page 3

gravel, and its consistency was inferred to be stiff to hard based on SPT ‘N’-values of 14 to 35 blows per 0.3m of

penetration. The natural moisture contents measured from sixteen (16) samples ranged from 15 to 23%.

One (1) grain size analysis and Atterberg limits test was conducted on a sample of the clayey silt. The test results are

shown in Table 4-1. The grain size distribution curve is presented on Figure B-1 and the Atterberg Limits Results are

shown on Figure B-3, enclosed in Appendix B. Based on the grain size results, the clayey silt has a moderate to high

frost susceptibility.

Table 4-1 –Grain Size Distribution Results for Clayey Silt

SAMPLE ID

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS (%)

GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

Plastic Limit

(PL)

Liquid Limit

(LL)

Plasticity

Index (PI)

19-3/SS9 0 1 80 19 16 21 5

SANDY SILT TO SILT

Underlying the clayey silt, a deposit of sandy silt to silt was encountered at boreholes 19-1 to 19-3. A 1.5m thick

deposit of silt was also encountered above the clayey silt deposit at borehole 19-1. The lower sandy silt to silt extended

beyond the exploration depth of the boreholes (7.5m).

The upper silt deposit was brown and contained trace sand and trace clay. The compactness condition of the upper silt

was inferred to be compact, based on SPT ‘N’-values of 23 and 25 blows per 0.3m of penetration. The natural moisture

content measured from two (2) samples ranged from 18 to 23%.

The lower sandy silt to silt was brown or grey, contained trace to some sand, trace clay, was typically wet to saturated,

and its compactness was inferred to be compact to very dense based on SPT ‘N’-values of 16 to in excess of 50 blows

per 0.3m of penetration. The natural moisture contents measured from six (6) samples ranged from 16 to 26%.

Boulders/cobbles should be expected within the sandy silt.

One (1) grain size analysis and Atterberg limits test was conducted on a sample from the silt deposit. The grain size

analysis and Atterberg Limits test results are shown in Table 4-2. The grain size distribution curves are presented on

Figure B-2 and the Atterberg Limits Results are shown on Figure B-3, enclosed in Appendix B. Based on the grain-

size results, the silt is highly frost susceptible.

Table 4-2 –Grain Size Distribution Results for Silt

SAMPLE ID

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS (%)

GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

Plastic Limit

(PL)

Liquid Limit

(LL)

Plasticity

Index (PI)

19-1/SS7 0 6 86 8 Non-plastic

4.2 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater conditions in all of the four (4) boreholes were observed during and at the completion of drilling.

Groundwater was encountered in all boreholes.

A monitoring well was installed at boreholes 19-1 and 19-3 upon completion of drilling. The groundwater levels

measured in the two (2) wells ranged from at 4.6 to 7.3m below ground surface (Elev. 338.6 to 337.7m). Groundwater

level and elevation measurements are shown in Table 4-3.


WSPMay 2019

Page 4

Table 4-3 – Groundwater Depths and Elevations in Monitoring Wells

BOREHOLE ID

DATE OF WELL

INSTALLATION

DATE OF

MEASUREMENT

GROUNDWATER

DEPTH (m)

GROUNDWATER

ELEVATION (m)

19-1 April 2, 2019

April 15, 2019 4.82 337.69

April 25, 2019 4.65 337.86

19-3 April 2, 2019

April 15, 2019 7.26 338.44

April 25, 2019 7.10 338.60

We would also expect that a perched water table lies within the upper silt deposit and fill soils.

Note that the piezometric levels as indicated in Table 4-3 represent short-term observations only and given the

expected low hydraulic conductivity of the materials into which the wells are screened, the observed water levels may

not be fully equilibrated (i.e. they will likely continue to rise). Additional groundwater level measurements are

recommended.

It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations and in response to major

weather events.


WSPMay 2019

Page 5

5 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL

INTERPRETATION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 OVERVIEW OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

In this section, the subsurface conditions are interpreted as they relate to the design and construction of the proposed

eight-storey mixed use condominium structure. It is assumed that the proposed structure will be a slab-on-grade

structure with one level of basement. The finished floor elevation of the of the proposed building is not known at the

time of this report.

5.2 FOUNDATIONS

The proposed building can be supported on conventional spread and strip footings of footings founded on the

undisturbed native stiff to hard clayey silt or compact silt for a bearing capacity value of 150 to 250kPa at the SLS

(Serviceability Limit State), and for a factored geotechnical resistance of 225 to 375kPa at ULS (Ultimate Limit State)

at depths and elevations shown on Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 - Bearing Capacity Values and Founding Levels of Spread Footings on Native Soils

BOREHOLE MATERIAL

BEARING

CAPACITY AT

SLS (kPa)

FACTORED

GEOTECHNICAL

RESISTANCE AT

ULS (kPa)

FOUNDING

DEPTH AT OR

BELOW EXISTING

GRADE (m)*

AT OR BELOW

FOUNDING

ELEVATION (m)*

19-1 Silt over

clayey silt 150 225 3.0 339.5

19-2 Clayey Silt 250 375 3.0 342.5

19-3 Clayey Silt 250 375 3.0 342.5

19.4 Clayey Silt 250 375 3.0 343.0

*1.4m of soil cover must be maintained for all footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions

Foundations designed to the specified bearing capacity at the Serviceability Limit States (SLS) are expected to settle

less than 25 mm total and 19 mm differential.

All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.4 metres of soil cover for frost protection.

Where it is necessary to place footings at different levels, the upper footing must be founded below an imaginary 10

horizontal to 7 vertical line drawn up from the base of the lower footing. The lower footing must be installed first to

help minimize the risk of undermining the upper footing.

In the vicinity of the existing buried utilities, all footings must be lowered to undisturbed native soils, or alternatively

the services must be structurally bridged.

It should be noted that the recommended bearing capacities have been calculated by WSP from the borehole

information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are necessarily on-going as new information

of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to

conditions between boreholes when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and


WSPMay 2019

Page 6

the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by WSP to validate

the information for use during the construction stage. All foundation bases must be inspected by WSP prior to the

placement of concrete.

5.3 FLOOR SLAB AND PERMANENT DRAINAGE

The floor slab can be supported on grade provided the topsoil and organics are stripped and surficial disturbed and

wet soils are removed and the subgrade proof rolled with a heavy roller. Any soft spots detected and revealed by proof-

rolling must be removed and replaced with select fill material. The fill should be placed in shallow lifts and compacted

to 98 percent of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) under the supervision of WSP personnel.

A capillary break consisting of at least 200 mm of 19 mm clear crushed stone should be installed under the floor slab.

For buildings with one level of basement slab, a perimeter drainage system will be required around the exterior

basement walls. The perimeter drainage system shown on Drawing 2 is recommended for the basement walls where

open cut procedures are used.

Additional groundwater levels are required to assess whether sub-slab drainage piping is also required.

5.4 FROST PROTECTION

All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.4 metres of soil cover for frost protection.

There is no official rule governing the required founding depth for footings below unheated basement floors. Certainly,

it will not be greater than the 1.4 m required in Southern Ontario for exterior footings. Un-monitored experience

indicates that a shallower depth ranging from 0.82 to 0.9 m for interior column footings and 0.4 m for wall footings

has been successful where 2 or more basement levels apply. The 0.82 m depth is believed to be close to the minimum

structural requirement for interior column footings. Adjacent to air shafts and entrance and exit doors, a footing depth

of 1.4 m below floor level is required or, alternatively, insulation protection must be provided.

It is also emphasized that underfloor drainage and/or an adequate free draining gravel base is required to minimize the

risk of floor dampness. Floor dampness could lead to temporary icing and the risk of accidents.

5.5 EXCAVATIONS AND SERVICES

Excavations can be carried out with heavy hydraulic backhoes. Water bearing sandy silt to silt soils were found to be

wet to saturated below the depths of 6.1 m. The groundwater level was measured in monitoring wells at depths ranging

from 4.6 to 7.3m below ground surface (Elev. 338.6 to 337.7m). However, the surficial fill soils and upper silt are also

expected to contain perched groundwater as well. The groundwater table must be lowered to at least 1.0 m below the

deepest excavation base.

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

In accordance with OHSA, the fill material and the native cohesionless deposits of silt and sandy silt can be classified

as Type 3 Soil above groundwater table and Type 4 Soil below groundwater table. The clayey silt can be classified as

Type 2 Soil above the groundwater table and Type 3 Soil below the groundwater table.

Selected inorganic fill and native soils free from topsoil and organics can be used as general construction backfill

where it can be compacted with sheep's foot type compactors. Depending on the time of construction and weather,

some excavated material may be too wet to compact and will require aeration prior to its use. Loose lifts of soil, which

are to be compacted, should not exceed 200 mm.

The excavated soils are not considered to be free draining. Where free draining backfill is required, imported granular

fill such as OPSS Granular B should be used.

Imported granular fill, which can be compacted with hand held equipment, should be used in confined areas.

Underfloor fill should be compacted to at least 98 percent of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).


WSPMay 2019

Page 7

It should be noted that the excavated soils are subject to moisture content increase during wet weather which would

make these materials too wet for adequate compaction. Stockpiles should be compacted at the surface or be covered

with tarpaulins to minimize moisture uptake.

5.6 EARTH PRESSURES AND BASEMENT WALLS

The lateral earth pressures acting on basement walls may be calculated from the following expression:

p = K (γ h +q)

where,

p = Lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth h

K = Earth pressure coefficient, assumed to be 0.45 for vertical walls, and horizontal backfill for

permanent construction

γ = Unit weight of backfill, a value of 21 kN/m3 may be assumed

h = Depth to point of interest in metres

q = Equivalent value of surcharge on the ground surface in kPa

The above expression assumes that the perimeter drainage system prevents the buildup of any hydrostatic pressure

behind the wall. Refer to Drawing 2.

5.7 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the borehole information and according to Table 4.1.8.4.A of OBC 2012, the subject site for the proposed

structure can be classified as ‘Class D’ for seismic site response.

5.8 PAVEMENTS

Based on the borehole information, the recommended pavement structures are provided on Table 5-2. A functional

design life of eight to ten years has been used to establish the pavement recommendations. This represents the number

of years to the first major rehabilitation, assuming regular maintenance is carried out.

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 uniform subgrade moisture and density

conditions are achieved. In addition, the need for adequate drainage cannot be over-emphasized. The finished

pavement surface and underlying subgrade should be free of depressions and should be sloped (preferably at a

minimum grade of two percent) to provide effective surface drainage toward catch basins.

Areas disturbed by demolition of existing residential buildings must be restored and basements backfilled under the

full time inspection of WSP personnel. Basement walls must be fully removed along with floor slabs. Do not place

any demolition rubble in the excavations. Backfill basements with compacted granular fill in max. 300mm lifts to 98%

SPMDD at a placement water content of ±2% of optimum.

Table 5-2 - Recommended Pavement Structure Thickness

PAVEMENT LAYER

COMPACTION

REQUIREMENTS

LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENT

(PARKING FOR CARS)

HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT

(DELIVERY TRUCKS)

Asphaltic Concrete 92% Maximum Relative

Density

40mm OPSS HL3 40mm OPSS HL3

50mm OPSS HL8 80mm OPSS HL8


WSPMay 2019

Page 8

PAVEMENT LAYER

COMPACTION

REQUIREMENTS

LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENT

(PARKING FOR CARS)

HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT

(DELIVERY TRUCKS)

OPSS Granular ‘A’

Base (Crushed

Limestone)

100% SPMDD* 150mm 150mm

OPSS Granular ‘B’,

Type II Sub-base 100% SPMDD* 300mm 300 to 450mm

*Denotes Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, ASTM D698

The subgrade must be compacted to 98% SPMDD for at least the upper 300 mm unless accepted by WSP.

Additional comments on the construction of parking areas and access roadways are as follows:

1 As part of the subgrade preparation, proposed driveway and parking areas should be stripped of the obvious

objectionable material. The subgrade should be properly shaped, crowned then proof-rolled in the full time

presence of a representative of this office. The primary purposes of proof rolling are to identify the soft or spongy

areas, check the subgrade compaction, to carry out the intent of the design, and to provide uniform support for

the pavement structure. Soft subgrade areas that are located should be corrected so that the subgrade density can

be maintained throughout the construction. Soft subgrade areas should be sub-excavated and properly replaced

with suitable approved backfill compacted to 98% SPMDD. Backfill to raise the grade to the subgrade surface

level can consist of inorganic soil, placed in shallow lifts and compacted to 98 percent of Standard Proctor

Maximum Dry density (SPMDD).

2 The locations and extent of sub-drainage required within the paved areas should be reviewed by this office in

conjunction with the proposed lot grading. Satisfactory crossfalls in the order of two percent (2%) should be

provided.

3 Subdrains extending from and between catch basins should be installed to intercept excess subsurface moisture

and prevent subgrade softening. In the event that shallower crossfalls are considered, a more extensive system of

sub-drainage may be necessary and should be reviewed by WSP.

4 The most severe loading conditions on light-duty pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction.

Consequently, special provisions such as restricted access lanes, half-loads during paving, etc., may be required,

especially if construction is carried out during unfavourable weather.

5 It is recommended that WSP be retained to review the final pavement structure designs and drainage plans prior

to construction to ensure that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report.

6 GENERAL COMMENTS This is a preliminary geotechnical report for preliminary design purposes only. Additional subsurface geotechnical

and geo-environmental site investigations are required in support of final design.

The comments given in this report are intended only for the guidance of design engineers for preliminary design

purposes. The number of boreholes and test pits required to determine the localized underground conditions between

boreholes and test pits affecting construction costs, techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, etc., would be

much greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should,

in this light, decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual borehole and test pit

results, so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.


WSPMay 2019

Page 9

7 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT

7.1 LIMITED USE

This Report was prepared for the Client, solely for their exclusive use to provide an Assessment of current

environmental/geotechnical conditions in association with the Site. WSP will not be responsible for any use of this

report by any other party, for any decisions to be made based on it, or for the consequences thereof, unless written

reliance is granted by WSP. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by WSP, it shall not be used to express or imply

warranty as to the suitability of the property for a particular purpose. WSP disclaims responsibility of consequential

financial effects on transactions or property values, or requirements for follow-up actions and costs.

7.2 EXCERPTS

The Report is intended to be used in its entirety. No excerpts may be taken to be representative of the findings in the

assessment.

7.3 INFO BY OTHERS

In evaluating the Site, WSP has relied in good faith on information provided by others, as noted in the Report. WSP

has assumed that the information provided is correct and WSP assumes no responsibility for the accuracy,

completeness or workmanship of any such information.

7.4 STANDARD OF CARE

This project has been carried out using investigation techniques and engineering analysis methods consistent with

those ordinarily exercised by WSP and other engineering/scientific practitioners, working under similar conditions

and subject to the time, financial and physical constraints applicable to this project. The conclusions presented in this

Report are based on Work undertaken by trained professional and technical staff and the reasonable and professional

interpretation using accepted engineering and scientific practices current at the time the work was performed.

Conclusions presented in this report should not be construed as legal advice. WSP makes no other representations

whatsoever, including those concerning the legal significance of its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on

in the Report, including, but not limited to, ownership of any property, or the application of any law to the findings of

the Assessment.

7.5 LIMITED SCOPE

The Report summarizes WSP’s review of available data in accordance with the principal components of the stated

regulations, standards and guidelines and the scope, terms and conditions of the contract or proposal to which the

Assignment was conducted. No other warranties are either expressed or implied with respect to the professional

services provided under the terms of the contract or proposal and represented in this Report. Conditions may exist

which were not detected given the nature of the inquiry WSP was retained to undertake with respect to the Site.

Additional environmental studies and actions may be recommended.


WSPMay 2019

Page 10

7.6 CHANGES OVER TIME

The Report is based on data and information collected at the time of this Assessment, as stated in the Report. Site use

or conditions change and the information and conclusions in the Report may no longer apply following the date of

this Report. If any conditions become apparent that differ significantly from that presented in this Report, we request

that we be notified to reassess the conclusions and recommendations provided herein. WSP disclaims any obligation

to update this Report for conditions that may be identified after the date of this Report; however, WSP reserves the

right to amend or supplement this report based on additional information, documentation or evidence.

7.7 VARIABILITY BETWEEN TEST LOCATIONS

Conclusions are based on the Site conditions observed by WSP at the time the work was performed and may include

information obtained at specific testing and/or sampling locations. It is recognized that overall conditions can only be

extrapolated to an undefined limited area around these testing and sampling locations. The conditions that WSP

interprets to exist between testing and sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. The accuracy of any

extrapolation and interpretation beyond the sampling locations will depend on natural conditions, the history of Site

development and changes through construction and other activities. In addition, analysis has been carried out for the

identified chemical and physical parameters only, and it should not be inferred that other chemical species or physical

conditions are not present. WSP cannot warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities or adverse impacts off-

Site.

7.8 SURVEYING

Benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the

specific testing and/or sampling locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating,

construction, planning, development, etc.

7.9 USE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project and areas as described in the text and

then only if constructed in accordance with the details stated in this report. The comments made in this report on

potential construction issues and possible methods are intended only for the guidance of the designer. The number of

testing and/or sampling locations may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction

methods and costs. For example, the thickness of surficial topsoil or fill layers may vary markedly and unpredictably.

Contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation

of the factual information presented and draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect

their work. We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are

specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time.

Yours very truly,

WSP CANADA INC.

APPENDIX

DRAWINGS DRAWING 1 – BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

DRAWING 2 – DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL RECOMMENDATIONS

D

Y

H

WV

WV

WV

UP-A

WV

WV

WV

RE

TA

IN

IN

G W

ALL

ENTR

ASPH

CONCRETE SIDEWALK

CO

NC

RE

TE

S

ID

EW

AL

K

CN

C S

ID

EW

AL

K

CNC SIDEWALK

CNC SIDEWALK

BR

IC

K S

ID

EW

ALK

RE

TA

IN

IN

G W

ALL

RETAINING WALL

RE

TA

IN

IN

G W

ALL

BALCONY

RETAINING WALL

RETAINING WALL

RE

TA

IN

IN

G W

ALL

ST

EP

S

ENTR

ASPH

ENTR

ASPH

ENTR

ASPH

ST

EP

S

ENTR

ASPH

EN

TR

AS

PH

EN

TR

AS

PH

PORCH

BALCONY

STEPS

DECK

STEPS

STEPS

STEPS

STEPS

STEPS

DECK

STEPS

ST

EP

S

STEPS

BOARD FENCE

DECK

DECK

DECK

FE

NC

E

FE

NC

E

STEPS

STEPS

C

O

N

C

CONC

CONC

FE

NC

E

STEPS

2 STY

BRICK

1 STY

FRAME

1 STY

BRICK

1 STY

BRICK

1 STY

STUCCO

2 STY

GARAGE

2 STY

GARAGE

2 STY

BRICK

2 STY

BRICK

GARAGE

GARAGE

GARAGE

2 STY

BRICK

CONC

CONC

CONC

CONC

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

GRASSGRASS

GR

AS

S

GRASS

GRASS

GRASS

GUTTER

G

U

T

T

E

R

CURB

CU

RB

CU

RB

CU

RB

CU

RB

CURB

CURB

ALBERT STREET

HIC

KO

RY

S

TR

EE

T W

ES

T

HE

DG

E

HE

DG

E

HEDGE

HEDGE

CONC

PIN

22363-0078 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0077 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0076 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0043 (LT

)

N28°19'20"W

20.12 (P2&MS) 15.24 13.72 13.72 15.24 15.24

PIN

22363-0044 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0045 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0046 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0047 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0048 (LT

)

PIN

22363-0049 (LT

)

(P1,P2&MS)

(P2&SET)

42.67 (P1&MS)

18.29 (D1&SET)30.44(MS) (D2&SET)

N61°45'10"E

40

.23

80.55

(P

2&

SE

T)

N28°20'50"W

57.93 (P1&MEAS)

(P

1&

MS

)

19.90

15.24 13.72 11.27 2.45 15.24 19.41(P1&MS)

40.23 (P2&MS)

(D4&SET)

(D4&SET)

(D5&SET)

(D5&SET)(D6&MS)

(D6&MS)13.72

N28°15'50"W

10.98 15.24 18.29(D1&SET)

(D2&SET)

N61°45'10"E

40

.23

N61°45'10"E

40

.23

N61°43'05"E

40

.25

N61°44'55"E

40

.26

N61°40'40"E

40

.23

N61°40'40"E

40

.23

PIN

22363-0322 (LT

)

PIN22363-0042 (LT)

PIN

22364-0002 (LT

)

N61°38'30"E

(P

1)

N61°40'40"E

(P

2)

80.47 (P

2)

(D

4,D

5&

MS

)

(D

5,D

6&

MS

)

(M

S)

40.23 (D

6)

(M

S)

40.23 (D

3)

(D

2,D

3&

MS

)

(D

1,D

2&

MS

)

PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6

BO

AR

D F

EN

CE

BO

AR

D F

EN

CE

BO

AR

D F

EN

CE

BO

AR

D F

EN

CE

BOARD FENCE

FENCE

0.25 S

FENCE

0.05 S

FENCE

0.25 S

FENCE

0.2 S

0.6 W

FENCE

0.15 S

0.4 W

FENCE

0.3 S

FENCE

0.25 S

FENCE

0.15 S

FENCE

0.05S

FENCE

0.35 N

N61°45'10"E

(M

S)

40.23 (P

2&

MS

)

N61°44'10"E

(P

2)

PIN

22363-0134 (LT

)

NORTH WEST CORNER

LOT 63 REGISTERED PLAN 707

CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

WALL

0.08E

WALL

0.04E

30.48 (D3)

121.88 (P1&MS)

CO

NC

RE

TE

R

ET

AIN

IN

G W

ALL

WALL

0.13 N

WALL

0.04 N

9.15

CENTERLINE OF ROAD

9.15

18.29 (P

2)

77.3344.55

30.48 (D3)

(MS)30.39

40.30 (P

1)

40.33 (P

1)

PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING 11.50m

2.35

2.37

1

9

-

1

1

9

-

2

1

9

-

3

1

9

-

4

\\cac

mb2

dat0

1\ca

cmb2

\Pub

lic\C

omm

on fi

les\

0000

WSP

Pro

ject

s\18

1\18

M-0

1394

-00

- GI -

272

Alb

ert S

treet

\CAD

\Bor

ehol

e Pl

an N

ew.d

wg

LEGEND

PROJECT NO: DRAWING NO:

CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:

SCALE:DATE:

ORIGINAL SIZE: REV. #

CLIENT:

TITLE:

PROJECT:

18M-01394-00 1

CC SP

AS SHOWNAPR 29, 2019

LETTER N/A

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - 272 ALBERT STREET, WATERLOO, ON

2616359 ONTARIO INC.

Borehole Location

Monitoring Well Location

300 - 4 HUGHSON STREET SHAMILTON, ONTARIO CANADA L8N 3Z1

TEL.: 905-529-4414 | WWW.WSP.COM

AutoCAD SHX Text

ALBERT STREET

AutoCAD SHX Text

HICKORY STREET

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 63

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 64

AutoCAD SHX Text

INSTRUMENT NO. 913066

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

PART 1 PLAN 56R-13150

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

MUNICIPAL COMPILED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 13 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

AutoCAD SHX Text

PART OF LOT 20

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 65

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 66

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOT 67

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

(BY REGISTERED PLAN 707)

AutoCAD SHX Text

FORCED ROAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

PART OF LOT 20, MUNICIPAL COMPILED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 13 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

AutoCAD SHX Text

45m

AutoCAD SHX Text

30m

AutoCAD SHX Text

15m

AutoCAD SHX Text

0m

AutoCAD SHX Text

15m

cameron.cluett

Typewritten text

18M-01394-00

cameron.cluett

Typewritten text

2

APPENDIX

A EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN BOREHOLE LOGS

LOGS OF BOREHOLES (19-1 TO 19-4)

TOPSOIL: 200mm

FILL: clayey silt mixed with sand,trace gravel, brown to dark brown,moist, very soft to firm

SILT: trace sand, trace clay,brown, moist, very stiff

CLAYEY SILT: trace sand, greyishbrown, trace orange mottling, moist,stiff

SILT: trace sand, trace clay, brown, saturated, very dense

END OF BOREHOLENOTES:1. 50mm diameter monitoring wellinstalled.2. Groundwater levelmeasurements:Date Depth (m)Apr 15/19 4.8Apr 25/19 4.7

86

342.3

340.2

338.7

336.4

335.0

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

3

1

25

23

14

64

61

0

0.2

2.3

3.8

6.1

7.5

6 8

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

342

341

340

339

338

337

336

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

4th3rdGROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT: 272 Albert Street

CLIENT: 2616359 Ontario Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION: Waterloo, Ontario

DATUM: Geodetic, NAD83 UTM Zone 17T, mASL

BH LOCATION: N 4813852 E 537746

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Numbers referto Sensitivity

w

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE 19-1

1st 2nd

Ground Surface

(kN

/m3)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%Strain at Failure

Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

342.5

PLASTICLIMIT

FIELD VANE& Sensitivity

ELEV

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

Method: Hollow Stem Auger

Diameter: 150mm

Date: Apr-02-2019

KW

CC

SP

REF. NO.: 18M-01394-00

ENCL NO.: 1

ORIGINATED BY

COMPILED BY

CHECKED BY

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-2

01

7.G

LB

WS

P S

OIL

LO

G

18

M-0

13

94

-00

.GP

J 1

9-5

-1

Non-Plastic

W. L. 337.9 mApr 25, 2019W. L. 337.7 mApr 15, 2019

TOPSOIL: 200mm

FILL: clayey silt mixed with sand,trace gravel, brown to dark brown,moist, firm to stiff

CLAYEY SILT: trace sand, brown,trace orange mottling, moist, verystiff to hard- 25mm thick layer of sand andgravel

SANDY SILT: trace clay, brownsaturated, compact

END OF BOREHOLENOTES:1. Borehole open and dry uponcompletion of drillng.

345.2

343.1

339.3

337.9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6

7

9

24

33

28

16

26

0.2

2.3

6.1

7.5

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

345

344

343

342

341

340

339

338

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m


DESCRIPTION





BH LOCATION: N 4813812 E 537735

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


w

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface

(kN

/m3)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

345.4

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP


Diameter: 150mm

Date: Apr-02-2019

KW

CC

SP

REF. NO.: 18M-01394-00

ENCL NO.: 2

ORIGINATED BY

COMPILED BY

CHECKED BY

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-2

01

7.G

LB

WS

P S

OIL

LO

G

18

M-0

13

94

-00

.GP

J 1

9-5

-1

TOPSOIL: 300mm

FILL: clayey silt mixed with sand,trace gravel, brown to dark brown,moist, soft

CLAYEY SILT: trace sand, brown,trace orange mottling, moist, verystiff to hard

END OF BOREHOLENOTES:1. 50mm diameter monitoring wellinstalled.2. Groundwater levelmeasurements:Date Depth (m)Apr 15/19 7.3Apr 25/19 7.1

80

345.4

344.9

338.2

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

4

15

27

25

35

24

28

17

19 0

0.3

0.8

7.5

1 19

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

345

344

343

342

341

340

339

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m


DESCRIPTION





BH LOCATION: N 4813795 E 537756

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


w

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface

(kN

/m3)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

345.7

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP


Diameter: 150mm

Date: Apr-02-2019

KW

CC

SP

REF. NO.: 18M-01394-00

ENCL NO.: 3

ORIGINATED BY

COMPILED BY

CHECKED BY

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-2

01

7.G

LB

WS

P S

OIL

LO

G

18

M-0

13

94

-00

.GP

J 1

9-5

-1

W. L. 338.6 mApr 25, 2019W. L. 338.4 mApr 15, 2019

TOPSOIL: 200mm

FILL: clayey silt mixed with sand,trace gravel, brown to dark brown,moist, firm to stiff

CLAYEY SILT: trace sand, brown,moist, very stiff to hard

- 25mm thick layer of coarse sandand gravel

- greyish brown

END OF BOREHOLENOTES:1. Borehole open and dry uponcompletion of drilling.

346.1

344.0

338.8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

5

6

10

19

33

31

28

21

0.2

2.3

7.5

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

346

345

344

343

342

341

340

339

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

SOIL PROFILE

ELE

VA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m


DESCRIPTION





BH LOCATION: N 4813760 E 537764

GR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


w

DEPTH

SA


1st 2nd

Ground Surface

(kN

/m3)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

346.3

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100

WATER CONTENT (%)

wP


Diameter: 150mm

Date: Apr-02-2019

KW

CC

SP

REF. NO.: 18M-01394-00

ENCL NO.: 4

ORIGINATED BY

COMPILED BY

CHECKED BY

WS

P-S

OIL

-RO

CK

-MA

Y-2

9-2

01

7.G

LB

WS

P S

OIL

LO

G

18

M-0

13

94

-00

.GP

J 1

9-5

-1

APPENDIX

B GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES

(FIGURES B-1 AND B-2)

PLASTICITY CHART

(FIGURE B-3)

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Clayey Silt, trace sand4.75mm2.00mm.850mm.425mm.250mm.106mm.075mm

0.0360 mm.0.0259 mm.0.0172 mm.0.0110 mm.0.0081 mm.0.0060 mm.0.0031 mm.0.0013 mm.

100.0100.0

99.999.799.598.998.696.793.883.962.251.341.524.715.8

16 21 5

0.0209 0.0177 0.01040.0078 0.0040

CL-ML A-4(3)

# Lab No: 33-19

271 Albert Street, Waterloo

18M-01394-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Sample Number: BH19-3 SS9Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 79.7 18.9

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00

Particle Size Distribution Report

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Silt, trace clay, trace sand4.75mm 2.00mm.850mm.425mm.250mm.106mm.075mm

0.0425 mm.0.0319 mm.0.0212 mm.0.0127 mm.0.0091 mm.0.0065 mm.0.0032 mm.0.0014 mm.

100.0100.0100.0

99.999.898.494.461.345.530.620.817.814.8

9.96.9

0.0672 0.0612 0.04170.0350 0.0207 0.00660.0033 12.60 3.12

# Lab No: 33-19

271 Albert Street, Waterloo

18M-01394-00

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Sample Number: BH19-1 SS7Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +75mmCoarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.5 86.4 8.0

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00

Particle Size Distribution Report

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MI OR OI

MH OR OH

PLASTICITY CHARTMay 1, 2019

JOB NO.

ML OR OL

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

(%

)

DATE

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

FIGURE NO. B-3

LEGEND

CL - ML

19-3

18M-01394-00

SS 9

CL

CI

CH

"U" Line"A" Line

ML

Non-plastic 19-1 SS7

Documents

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION …...PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - 272 ALBERT STREET Project No. 18M-01394-00 2616359 ONTARIO INC. WSP May 2019 Page 2 Four (4) boreholes