SHAD & ASSOCIATES INC. GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND MATERIALS CONSULTING ENGINEERS 83 Citation Drive, Unit 9 Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z6 Tel: (905) 760-5566 Fax: (905) 760-5567 www.shadinc.ca
April 2, 2018 Ref. No.: T17674 Majestic Edge Estates Inc. 250 Lesmill Road Toronto, Ontario M3B 2T5 Attention: Mr. Bruno Nazzicone, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Vice President, Land Development Dear Mr. Nazzicone, RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION &
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXISTING VACANT PROPERTY LAKESHORE ROAD WEST, WEST OF SHOREWOOD PLACE
OAKVILLE, ONTARIO Please find enclosed the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared for the above mentioned project. Should you have any questions or require any clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We thank you for giving us this opportunity to be of service to you. Sincerely, Shad & Associates Inc.
Houshang Shad, Ph.D., P. Eng. Principal
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION & SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EXISTING VACANT PROPERTY
LAKESHORE ROAD WEST, WEST OF SHOREWOOD PLACE OAKVILLE, ONTARIO
Submitted to:
Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
250 Lesmill Road Toronto, Ontario
M3B 2T5
Attention:
Mr. Bruno Nazzicone, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Vice President, Land Development
Submitted by:
Shad & Associates Inc. 83 Citation Drive, Unit 9
Vaughan, Ontario, L1K 2Z6 Canada
Tel: (905) 760-5566 Fax: (905) 760-5567
April 2, 2018
T17674
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page (i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 1 3.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 2
3.1 Topsoil and Fill .................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Native Cohesionless Deposits ............................................................................. 2 3.3 Clayey Sandy Silt Till .......................................................................................... 3 3.4 Weathered Shale ................................................................................................ 4 3.5 Groundwater Conditions ..................................................................................... 4
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 5 4.1 Site Grading ........................................................................................................ 6 4.2 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 6 4.3 Earthquake Considerations ................................................................................. 7 4.4 Engineered Fill .................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Excavating and Dewatering ................................................................................ 9 4.6 Basement Slab Construction ..............................................................................10 4.7 Backfill, Perimeter Drainage and Basement Floor Drainage ...............................10 4.8 Sewers and Watermain ......................................................................................11
4.8.1 Trenching ...............................................................................................11 4.8.2 Bedding ..................................................................................................12 4.8.3 Backfill ....................................................................................................12
4.9 Sewage Pumping Station ...................................................................................13 4.10 Pavement Thickness ..........................................................................................14
4.10.1 Pavement Structure ................................................................................14 4.10.2 Construction Comments .........................................................................15
4.11 Slope Stability Analysis ......................................................................................16 5.0 CLOSURE .....................................................................................................................19 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Plan Figure 2 Borehole Location Plan Figure 3 Assumed Sections for Slope Stability Analysis Figure 4 Long-Term Stable Top of Bank Line (no toe erosion by armouring the toe of bank) Figure 5 Long-Term Stable Top of Bank Line (Assuming a toe erosion setback allowance)
RECORD OF BOREHOLES RECORD OF BOREHOLES (BH 1 to 15) EXPANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS ENCLOSURES Enclosure A Laboratory Test Results Enclosure B Slope Stability Analysis
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Shad & Associates Inc., was retained by Majestic Edge Estates Inc. (‘Client’) to carry out a preliminary geotechnical investigation for a proposed residential development to be constructed on an existing vacant property located on Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, in Oakville, Ontario, as shown in Figure 1. The development will occur on tableland with an 8 to 10 m high bank slope along the south end of the site that leads to Lake Ontario. Slope stability analysis is also carried out for the bank slope to assess the setback requirements for a stable slope. According to the preliminary information provided to us by the client, we understand that the residential development will consist of eighteen detached dwellings with associated underground services and a paved road. However, the exact invert details were not available for our review at the time of preparation of this report. The purpose of the current geotechnical investigation was to obtain some information about the
subsurface conditions at the site by means of a number of boreholes. Based on our interpretation
of the data obtained, some recommendations are provided on the geotechnical aspects of design
for the proposed development.
This report contains the findings of our geotechnical investigation, together with our
recommendations and comments. These recommendations and comments are based on factual
information and are intended only for use by the design engineer.
We recommend on-going liaison with Shad & Associates Inc. during the design and construction
phases of the project to ensure that the recommendations provided in this report are applicable
and/or correctly interpreted and implemented. Also, any queries concerning the geotechnical
aspects of the proposed project should be directed to Shad & Associates Inc. for further
elaboration and/or clarification.
2.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
The fieldwork for the investigation was performed during the period of February 7 to 9, 2017, and
it consisted of drilling and sampling altogether fifteen boreholes down to depths ranging from
approximately 5.0 m to 12.3 m below the existing ground surface. The borehole locations were
stake-out by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, who also provided with
their ground surface elevations. We understand the elevations to be geodetic. The approximate
borehole locations are shown in Figure 2.
The boreholes were advanced using solid stem continuous flight augers, with a track-mounted drilling rig, under the full-time supervision of geotechnical personnel from our office. Soil samples were taken at 0.76 to 1.5 m intervals for the full depth of the investigation and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed in accordance with ASTM D1586. This consists of freely
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 2
dropping a 63.5 kg (140 lbs) hammer a vertical distance of 0.76 m (30 inches) to drive a 51 mm (2 inches) diameter o.d. split-barrel (split spoon) sampler into the ground. The number of blows of the hammer required to drive the sampler into the relatively undisturbed ground by a vertical distance of 0.30 m (12 inches) is recorded as the SPT ‘N’-value of the soil and this gives an indication of the consistency or the relative density of the soil deposit.
Upon completion of boreholes, the soil samples were transported to our Soils Laboratory for
further examination and laboratory testing. Soil laboratory testing, consisting of moisture content
determination and gradation analysis (Sieve and Hydrometer tests), was performed on selected
representative soil samples. The results of the in-situ and laboratory tests are presented on the
corresponding Record of Borehole Sheets as well as in Enclosure A.
Samples obtained during this investigation will be stored in our Soils Laboratory for three months and will be disposed thereafter.
3.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations drilled at the property,
below the surficial topsoil and some fill, the site is predominantly underlain by cohesionless fine
sand and/or silty find sand with occasional layers/interbeddings of sandy silt or silt. However,
these deposits were found to be in turn underlain by clayey sandy silt till and weathered shale at
lower elevations at some borehole.
The stratigraphic units and groundwater conditions are briefly discussed in the following sections.
For more detailed information, reference should be made to the Record of Borehole Sheets.
3.1 Topsoil and Fill At the time of our investigation, the property was generally covered with grass and all the
boreholes encountered a surficial layer of topsoil that was underlain by fill predominantly
consisting of silty fine sand with some organic stains, that extended down to depths generally
ranging from approximately 0.7 to 1.5 m below existing ground surface. However, at Borehole 7,
the fill was found to extend deeper, down to a depth of about 2.2 m below existing grade.
It should however be noted that the thickness and quality of topsoil and fill can vary significantly
in between and beyond the borehole locations. Considering this, the extent of fill at the site, the
limited size of an auger hole as well as time of fieldwork, we recommend that allowance be made
for possible variations when making estimates. Alternatively, the depth and quality of topsoil and
fill could be further investigated by test pitting.
3.2 Native Cohesionless Deposits The fill at all borehole locations was underlain by native cohesionless deposits, generally
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 3
consisting of fine sand with trace to some silt and silty fine sand that extended down to the
completion of Boreholes 1 to 3 and 7 to 11 as well as down to depths ranging from about 4.0 m
to 8.5 m below existing ground surface at the remaining boreholes. However, occasional layers
or interbeddings of silt and sandy silt were also encountered at Boreholes 1 to 3 and 6.
Standard Penetration Tests were performed at the site and the recorded 'N'-values within the fine
sand with trace to some silt were found to range widely from 10 to 57 blows/0.3 m penetration,
indicating a compact to very dense, but generally compact to dense relative density. Samples
from this deposit were also tested for natural moisture content and the results were found to
generally range from 3 to 11 with a higher value of 20% measured in Borehole 4. Considering
these results as well as visual and tactile examination of the recovered soil samples, the fine sand
with trace to some silt was found to be generally damp and occasionally moist.
Representative samples from the fine sand deposit were tested for gradation analysis. The results
are presented on the Record of Boreholes as well as in Enclosure A and they are summarized
below:
BH 2:S3 BH 8:S4 BH 13:S6 BH 15:S3
Gravel: 0% 0% 1% 0%
Sand: 90% 91% 87% 87%
Silt and Clay: 10% 9% 12% 13%
The recorded ‘N’-values within the silty fine sand layers ranged from 20 to more than 50 blows/0.3
m, indicating a compact to very dense, but generally compact to dense relative density. Samples
from this deposit were also tested for moisture content and the results were found to generally
range from 12 to 23%. Based on these results as well as visual and tactile examination of the
recovered soil samples, the silty fine sand deposit was generally moist or moist to wet.
The sandy silt and silt layers or interbeddings encountered at Boreholes 1 to 3 and 6 were
compact to dense and damp to moist with recorded ‘N’-values of 18 to 50 blows/0.3 m and
measured moisture content values of 15 to 19%. A representative sample from the silt with trace
to some sand deposit was analyzed for gradation. The results are shown in Enclosure A and they
are summarized below:
BH 6:S5A
Gravel: 0%
Sand: 11%
Silt: 82%
Clay: 7%
3.3 Clayey Sandy Silt Till Clayey sandy silt till was contacted near the completion of Boreholes 4 to 6 and also at depths
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 4
ranging from about 6.4 to 8.5 m at Boreholes 12 to 15. The measured ‘N’-values within the glacial
deposit were found to generally range from 27 to more than 30 blows/0.3 m with a lower value of
15 blows/0.3 m measured at Borehole 12 where a silt/clayey silt seam was contacted. Samples
from this deposit were also tested for moisture content and the results were found to range from
10 to 16%. Considering these results as well as visual and tactile examination of the recovered
soil samples, the clayey sandy silt till was generally very stiff to hard and damp.
Representative samples from the clayey sandy silt till deposit were analyzed for gradation. The
results are shown in Enclosure A and they are summarized below:
BH 5:S6 BH 14:S(8)
Gravel: 3% 4%
Sand: 29% 17%
Silt: 44% 58%
Clay: 24% 21%
It should be noted that the occurrence of cobbles and boulders should always be expected when
working in glacial till deposits.
3.4 Weathered Shale
Weathered shale was encountered near the completion of the deeper Boreholes 13, 14 and 15
at a depth of about 10.3 m below existing ground surface. Practical refusal to augering was
reached at depths ranging from 10.5 to 12.3 m below existing ground surface, possibly due to
less-weathered shale or limestone seams/interbeddings.
The recorded ‘N’-values within the weathered shale deposit were all well in excess of 50 blows/0.3
m.
It should however be noted that the condition and the surface elevation of the weathered shale
as described in the borehole logs should be considered as approximate only, as this was inferred
from the observations during drilling rather than proven by rock coring.
3.5 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater conditions were monitored during and upon the completion of drilling as well as by installing standpipe piezometers in eight of the boreholes. The results are summarized in Table 1.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 5
Table 1: Measured Groundwater data
Borehole Geodetic Ground Surface Elevation (m)
Measured Groundwater Depth / Elevation (m)
Upon Completion Feb.17, 2017 Feb.24, 2017
BH 1 89.3 4.5 / 84.8 3.3 / 86.0 3.3 / 86.0
BH 2 88.8 3.9 / 84.9 2.7 / 86.1 2.7 / 86.1
BH 3 88.0 4.0 / 84.0 N/A N/A
BH 4 87.1 3.5 / 83.6 N/A N/A
BH 5 86.8 2.9 / 83.9 N/A N/A
BH 6 85.8 2.7 / 83.1 1.6 / 84.2 1.5 / 84.3
BH 7 87.4 3.8 / 83.6 N/A N/A
BH 8 86.7 3.9 / 82.8 N/A N/A
BH 9 86.3 3.7 / 82.6 N/A N/A
BH 10 85.3 3.8 / 81.5 3.1 / 82.2 3.3 / 82.0
BH 11 85.8 4.3 / 81.5 3.3 / 82.5 3.4 / 82.4
BH 12 85.4 4.1 / 81.3 N/A N/A
BH 13 86.0 10.1 / 75.9 5.6 / 80.4 5.7 / 80.3
BH 14 85.4 Dry 5.7 / 79.7 5.8 / 79.6
BH 15 85.0 Dry 5.2 / 79.8 5.4 / 79.6
It should be mentioned that the groundwater at the site would fluctuate seasonally and can be
expected to be somewhat higher during the spring months and in response to major weather
events. Furthermore, a perched water condition may also exist within the fill deposit.
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
According to the preliminary information provided to us, we understand that eighteen detached dwellings with associated underground services and a paved road will be constructed at the site. We also understand that a sanitary pumping station may be built on the west part of the site (near Borehole 12). However, the exact project details were not available for our review at the time of preparation of this report. For the purpose of our current analysis, we have assumed the houses to consist of two-storey structures with one level of basement. Furthermore, the development will occur on tableland with an 8 to 10 m high slope located along the south end of the site that leads to Lake Ontario. Slope stability analyses were carried out for the bank slope to assess the setback requirements for a stable slope. Considering the above information and the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations, some discussions and recommendations are provided in this section. However, they should be considered as preliminary and will need to be reviewed and confirmed once the exact project details are known.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 6
4.1 Site Grading
The development of the site will require clearing and stripping of all topsoil and fill. Since all areas
could be developed as either residential lots or road/driveways, it is recommended that all fill be
placed as engineered fill to provide competent subgrade. Prior to placement of engineered fill, all
the surficial topsoil and fill should be stripped from planned fill areas to expose the inorganic
subgrade. The exposed subgrade should then be proof-rolled with a suitably heavy roller to
identify weak areas. Any weak or excessively wet zones identified during proof-rolling should be
sub-excavated and replaced with compacted competent material to establish stable and uniform
conditions. Prior to placement of engineered fill, the subgrade should be inspected and approved
by a geotechnical engineer. Reference is made to Section 4.4 for recommendations regarding
engineered fill placement.
Provided the above recommendations are followed, and all topsoil and compressible materials
are stripped or sub-excavated, the existing deposits are not considered to be highly compressible
and long-term settlements should be minimal.
4.2 Foundations
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at Boreholes 1 to 12 drilled for the subdivision
elements, the footings would need to be extended down to the competent undisturbed native
deposits or be placed on properly compacted engineered fill. The recommended spread footing
depths and allowable soil bearing pressures are given in the following table.
Table 2: Recommended Soil Bearing Capacity Values
Borehole
Depth Below Existing Grade (m)
Recommended Geotechnical Reaction at SLS * (kPa)
Factored Geotechnical Resistance at ULS (with a Geotechnical Resistance Factor of 0.5), (kPa)*
BH 1 1.7 150 225
BH 2 1.8
2.4
125 150
190 225
BH 3 1.7 150 225
BH 4 0.9 150 225
BH 5 1.1 150 225
BH 6 1.5 150 225
BH 7 2.4
3.2
100 150
150 225
BH 8 1.6 150 225
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 7
BH 9 1.8 150 225
BH 10 1.5 150 225
BH 11 1.5 150 225
BH 12 1.8 to 4.6 Below 4.6
200 150
300 225
* Higher Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity values are available at some boreholes, if required.
Considering the above information and relatively high groundwater level at the site, we would
recommend to keep the footings as high as possible to minimize the need for any temporary
construction dewatering as well as for subfloor weeping tiles.
The minimum footing sizes, footing thickness, excavations and other footing requirements should
be designed in accordance to the latest edition of the Ontario Building Code.
The footing subgrade should be inspected and evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
concreting to ensure that the footings are founded on competent subgrade capable of supporting
the recommended design pressure. It should be noted that the sandy deposits are easily disturbed
through construction foot traffic and weathering. We would recommend that once the footing
subgrade has been inspected and approved, it should be protected by a 50 mm thick (minimum)
layer of non-shrinkable concrete.
Design frost penetration depth for the general area is 1.2 m. Therefore, a permanent soil cover
of 1.2 m or its thermal equivalent is required for frost protection of foundations. All exterior footings
and footings beneath unheated areas should have at least 1.2 m of earth cover or equivalent
synthetic insulation for frost protection.
Where necessary, the stepping of the footings at different elevations should be carried out at an
angle no steeper than 2 horizontal (clear horizontal distance between footings) to 1 vertical
(difference in elevation) and no individual footing step should be greater than 0.6 m and may have
to be as low as 0.3 m if weaker soils are encountered.
For footings designed and constructed in accordance with the above criteria, total and differential
settlements should be less than 25 mm and 15 mm, respectively. These values are usually within
tolerable limits for most types of structures.
4.3 Earthquake Considerations
In conformance to the Criteria in Table 4.1.8.4.A, Part 4, Division B of the National Building Code
(NBC 2005), for footings designed as recommended in Section 4.2, the subject site is classified
as Site Class “D-Stiff Soil”. The four values of the Spectral Response Acceleration Sa(T) for the
different periods and the peak ground acceleration (PGA) can be obtained from Table C-2 in
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 8
Appendix C, Division B of the NBC (2005). The design values of Fa and Fv for the project site
should be calculated in accordance to Table 4.1.8.4.B and C.
4.4 Engineered Fill
Depending on the proposed grades for the site, engineered fill may be required to replace the fill
as well as to raise the site grades for the possible support of footings and floor slabs. Engineered
fill could be placed after stripping all topsoil, any soils containing excessive organics and
otherwise unsuitable soils, within an area extending at least 2.5 m beyond the perimeter of the
footprint of the proposed structures. Engineered fill would then be suitable to support the
foundations including the slab provided that the following criteria are strictly followed. Engineered
fill may also be carried out to raise the existing grades below the proposed road.
The following placement procedure is recommended.
(i) The areal extent of engineered fill should be controlled by proper surveying techniques to
ensure that the top of the engineered fill extends a minimum of 2.5 m beyond the perimeter
of the buildings to be supported. Where the depth of engineered fill exceeds 1.5 m, this
horizontal distance of 2.5 m beyond the perimeter of the building should be increased by
at least 1.0 m for each 1.0 m depth of fill.
(ii) The area to receive the engineered fill should be stripped of any topsoil, fill and other
compressible, weak and deleterious materials. After stripping, the entire area should be
inspected and approved by the geotechnical engineer. Spongy, wet or soft/loose spots
should be sub-excavated to stable subgrade and replaced with compactable approved
soil, compatible with subgrade conditions, as directed by the geotechnical engineer.
(iii) The fill material should be placed in thin layers not exceeding approximately 200 mm when
loose. Oversize particles (cobbles and boulders) larger than 120 mm should be discarded,
and each fill layer should be uniformly compacted with heavy compactors, suitable for the
type of fill used, to at least 98% of its Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density.
The on-site inorganic soils are generally acceptable for use as engineered fill, provided
they are not contaminated with the overlying organic rich deposits and any organic
inclusions are removed. Depending on the construction season, the on-site soils may
require some reconditioning. It should be noted that the fine sands and specially the silty
deposits are sensitive to moisture and they will require strict control on the moisture
content during compaction.
(iv) Full-time geotechnical inspection and quality control (by means of frequent field density
and laboratory testing) are necessary for the construction of a certifiable engineered fill.
Compaction procedures and efficiency should be controlled by a qualified geotechnical
technician.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 9
(v) The engineered fill should not be frozen and should be placed at a moisture content within
2% of the optimum value for compaction. The engineered fill should not be performed
during winter months when freezing ambient temperatures occur persistently or
intermittently.
The allowable soil bearing pressure is 150 kPa for footings supported by at least 1.0 m of
engineered fill constructed in accordance with the above recommendations. We also recommend
that the footing subgrade be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing the formwork.
It is recommended to increase the rigidity of foundations of structures erected over engineered
fill, and this is generally achieved by making the footings at least 0.5 m wide, and adding nominal
reinforcing to the footings and walls. This measure helps to bridge over eventual weak spots in
the fill.
All footings should have at least 1.2 m of earth cover or equivalent artificial insulation for frost
protection.
For footings designed and constructed in accordance with the above criteria, total and differential
settlements should be less than 25 mm and 15 mm, respectively. These values are usually within
tolerable limits.
4.5 Excavating and Dewatering
All temporary excavations should be carried out in accordance with the Ontario Health and Safety
Regulations. The soils to be excavated can be classified as follows:
-Topsoil / Fill Type 4
-Compact to Very Dense Fine Sand, Silty Fine Sand, Sandy Silt
(above groundwater level or when dewatered) Type 3
Accordingly, for Type 3 Soils, a side slope of 1H:1V is required for excavations in accordance with
the Ontario Health and Safety Regulations. Within Type 4 Soils, the side slope of the excavation
would need to be flattened to at least 3H:1V. Below the groundwater level, all excavations within
the non-glacial silty and sandy deposits should only be attempted after proper advance
dewatering.
Stockpiles of excavated materials should be kept at least 5 m away from the edge of the
excavation to avoid slope instability. This distance should be increased to at least 25 m for any
stockpiling along the top of the existing bank slope. Care should also be taken to avoid
overloading of any underground services/structures by stockpiles.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boreholes, within the recommended depth
for footings provided in Table 2, we anticipate all house footing excavations to be above the
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 10
measured groundwater levels, either in engineered fill or within native deposits. Considering this,
we do not anticipate major dewatering problems for house excavations, although some
dewatering may have to be carried out for excavations due to surface runoff, from any perched
water within the fill layer or groundwater seepage. We are of the opinion that these should be
manageable by pumping from temporary sumps protected against erosion. Such sumps should
be dug outside the footprint of the buildings to minimize disturbance to the footing grade. However,
increased seepage should be expected when excavating in the vicinity of Boreholes 3, 5 and 6
and also if the house footings are extended deeper, where increased number of filtered sump
pumps or more elaborate dewatering measures may be required. We recommend that once the
house footing invert information are known and prior to construction, the groundwater conditions
at the site to be further assessed by test pitting at the presence of the Project Hydrogeologist /
specialist dewatering contractor to review and confirm our recommendations as well as to ensure
that the most suitable dewatering scheme is employed.
4.6 Basement Slab Construction
Concrete basement floor slab may be built on properly prepared subgrade or engineered fill. If
the existing fill is left underneath the basement slab, long-term settlement and/or cracks may
occur. The existing fill materials should be removed and replaced with compacted engineered fill
in order to support the basement floor slab. For engineered fill subgrade, Section 4.4 should be
followed.
Underneath the slabs, a 150 mm thick base course consisting of 20 mm size clear stone or OPSS
Granular A should be placed to improve the support for the floor slab and function as drainage
layer. This base course should be compacted with vibratory equipment to a uniform high density.
If the subgrade is wet, the clear stone or OPSS Granular A base should be separated from the
subgrade by an approved filter fabric (e.g. non-woven geotextile, with FOS of 75 - 150 μm, Class
II).
4.7 Backfill, Perimeter Drainage and Basement Floor Drainage
The basement walls of the buildings should be backfilled with granular material placed in 125 mm
thick loose lifts that can be compacted with light equipment to avoid damaging the basement
walls. Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated along basement walls, especially
when the walls are unsupported at their top. The backfill should not be over-compacted to avoid
damage to basement walls. Due to its high permeability, the granular material will permit quick
drainage of water to perimeter drains, but in order to reduce the quantity of water percolating into
the backfill, the uppermost 0.5 m of the backfill should consist of clayey soils.
Due to their rigidity and unyielding character, basement walls should be designed for the at-rest
earth pressure condition calculated in accordance with the Canadian Foundation Engineering
Manual, 4th Edition. The following parameters may be adopted:
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 11
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure = 0.45
Bulk unit weight of retained soils = 21 kN/m3
We recommend that for basements, a permanent drainage system consisting of weeping tiles,
damp-proofing and an underfloor granular drainage layer as indicated in Section 4.6 be installed.
Weeping tiles should be installed along the perimeter of the buildings to prevent accumulation of
water in the backfill and possible dampness of floor slabs. The weeping tile system should be
installed to provide a positive discharge to a non-frost susceptible sump or outlet. The weeping
tiles should be surrounded by a designed graded granular filter or wrapped with an approved
geotextile to prevent migration of fines into the system.
In areas where the basements are placed below the groundwater level or within the natural
groundwater fluctuation depth of about 1 m above the permanent groundwater level, a subfloor
drainage system consisting of weeping tiles (at about 3 m spacing) will be required to permanently
depress the groundwater level or the building walls and slabs would need to be designed against
hydrostatic pressures and would need to be watertight. Alternatively, the slab inverts should be
raised to at least 1 m above the permanent groundwater level. We recommend that once the
invert information are known, we should be given the opportunity to review and assess the need
for these measures.
The upper 0.5 m of backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable clayey soil, which will
minimize the ingress of surface water. The site should be graded for drainage away from
foundations. A minimum cross fall of three percent (3%) immediately adjacent to foundations is
recommended to allow for some settlement and promote good surface drainage.
4.8 Sewers and Watermain
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations, assuming the pipes
to be installed within 3 to 4 m of the existing ground surface, the pipes would be predominantly
placed on fine sand with trace to some silt and/or silty fine sand. The following discussion is based
on this assumption.
4.8.1 Trenching
Trench excavations should be carried out as per the Safety Regulations of the Province of Ontario.
The boreholes show that below the surficial topsoil and fill, trench excavations will be
predominantly dug in fine sand with trace to some silt and/or silty fine sand deposits. These are
classified in Section 4.5 in accordance with the Ontario Health and Safety Regulations. Within
these soils, above the groundwater level the side slopes of excavations are expected to be
temporarily stable at 1H:1V. However, flatter slopes would be required in Type 4 Soils, in surficial
topsoil and fill deposits as well as if the excavations are extended to below the measured
groundwater levels. Properly designed temporary shoring systems may be used to limit the extent
of the excavation, if required.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 12
Considering the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations, within the assumed
depth for trenching of 3 to 4 m below existing ground surface, increased seepage should be
expected with increased depth. The groundwater seepage for the proposed site servicing down
to a depth of about 2 m or so should generally be minor and manageable by gravity drainage and
pumping from filtered sumps, if required. However, increased seepage may occur from perched
water within the fill or surface water flow, which may require a series of sumps and pumps. Below
this depth, the trenches would generally be dug in moist to wet fine sand with trace to some silt
and/or silty fine sand where substantial amount of seepage could occur and prior temporary
dewatering in the form of well points may be required. We recommend that once the pipe inverts
are known, the groundwater condition at the site to be further assessed by test pitting in the
presence of the Project Hydrogeologist / specialist dewatering contractor to ensure that the most
effective and economical dewatering methodology is chosen. It should also be noted that as the
trenching would be carried out near existing houses to the east and infrastructures, extra attention
(such as dewatering inside closed temporary shoring systems, etc.) is recommended. To prevent
disturbance of the soil at the bedding level, the groundwater table must be lowered to at least 0.8
m below the invert of the trench. In no case should the pipes be placed on dilated or disturbed
subsoil.
Normal excavation equipment will be suitable for making trenches within soils in which the
proposed underground services will be installed. The terms describing the compactness
(compact, dense, very dense) of soil strata give an indication of the effort needed for excavation.
4.8.2 Bedding
The boreholes show that the sewer pipes will be predominantly laid within competent native
deposits which are considered to be suitable to support the pipes provided that they are not
disturbed during excavation or by groundwater seepage. The recommended minimum thickness
of granular bedding for normal Class ‘B’ Type of bedding (i.e., compacted granular bedding
material – OPSD-802) below the invert is 150 mm. The thickness of the bedding may, however,
have to be increased depending on the pipe diameter or if wet or weak subgrade conditions are
encountered.
4.8.3 Backfill
Based on the visual and tactile examination of the soil samples, the on-site excavated inorganic
soils could be re-used as backfill in service trenches. The moisture contents at the time of
construction should be at or near optimum. It should be noted that the silty and sandy deposits
are sensitive to moisture and they would require strict control during backfilling. The backfill should
be placed in maximum 200 mm thick layers at or near (+2%) their optimum moisture content, and
each layer should be compacted to at least 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density. This
value should be increased to at least 98% within 0.6 m of the road subgrade surface.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 13
The excavated native deposits may require reconditioning (e.g., wetting or drying) prior to reuse.
The on-site excavated deposits should not be used in confined areas (e.g., around catch-basins
and laterals under roadways) where heavy compaction equipment cannot be operated. The use
of good backfill together with an appropriate frost taper would be preferable in confined areas.
Unsuitable materials such as organic soils, boulders, cobbles, frozen soils, etc., should not be
used for backfilling.
We recommend that frost tapers be provided at backfilled trenches to ensure gradual transition from the frost-free materials to the frost susceptible natural soil, otherwise differential frost heaving may occur. Frost taper would not be necessary if the backfill material can be matched within the frost zone (i.e. within about 1.5 m depth below the pavement surface) with subgrade-type material. The need for anti-seepage collar should be assessed during site servicing.
4.9 Sewage Pumping Station According to the preliminary information provided to us, we understand that a sewage pumping station may be constructed near Borehole 12. However, the exact details were not available for our review. According to subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 12, below the surficial topsoil and fill, the excavation for the well should occur within a compact to very dense fine sand with trace to some silt. This deposit was then underlain by very stiff clayey sandy silt till. The groundwater level on borehole completion was measured at 4.1 m below existing ground surface. Considering the above subsurface information, provided that the bottom of the well is within 1.5 to 4.6 m below existing ground surface, the well slab could be designed with a soil bearing capacity at SLS of 200 kPa and ULS of 300 kPa. Below this depth, the soil bearing capacity should be reduced to 150 kPa at SLS and 225 kPa at ULS. Underneath the slab, a 200 mm thick base course consisting of OPSS Granular ‘A’ should be placed to improve the support for the well slab. This base course should be compacted with vibratory equipment to 100% of material’s Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density value. If the subgrade is wet, OPSS Granular ‘A’ base should be separated from the subgrade by an approved filter fabric (e.g. non-woven geotextile, with FOS of 75 - 150 μm, Class II). Assuming these, the total settlements should be less than 25 mm.
The foundation subgrade should be inspected and evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer prior
to concreting to ensure that the well slab is founded on competent subgrade capable of supporting
the recommended design pressure.
The well structure should be checked for buoyant uplift assuming that it has minimum loading and that the groundwater is at the ground level. To resist uplift forces, the friction between the concrete walls and the granular surround should be assumed as 0.35. If necessary additional resistance could be provided by increasing the dead weight of the structure by projecting the base slab beyond the outside face of the walls and utilizing the weight of the soil above the base slab. Assuming that granular backfill is used, the unit weight of the backfill may be taken as 19.6 kN/m3 (less the buoyancy).
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 14
The well should be designed for the condition when it is empty and the external water level is at the ground level. The earth pressure diagram should be assumed to be triangular to which hydrostatic pressure should be added. It is assumed that both the slab and the walls of the structure are watertight and designed to resist the full hydrostatic pressure. The lateral earth pressure on the wall should be calculated with the aid of the following formula (assuming granular backfill): P = Ko (Ɣ’ z + q) + Ɣ w z where Ko =0.5, Coefficient of earth pressure at rest Ɣ w=Unit weight of water, use 9.8 kN/m3 Ɣ’=12.2 kN/m3 (below the water table) z=Depth below finished grade (m) q=Surcharge on the ground surface (kPa) Considering the subsurface conditions encountered at the Borehole 12, provided that the
excavation is kept to above the measured groundwater level, no major dewatering problems are
anticipated and the discharge should be manageable by pumping from filtered sumps. We would
however recommend that once the well details are known, the groundwater conditions should be
further assessed by test pitting prior to excavation to ensure that the most efficient dewatering
method is chosen. No major excavation difficulties are foreseen but allowance should be made
for boulders and cobbles if the excavation is extended below into the clayey sandy silt till.
4.10 Pavement Thickness
4.10.1 Pavement Structure
The native undisturbed deposits or properly placed engineered fill may be used as subgrade.
Using good engineering and construction practice, the following minimum pavement structure
may be used:
Table 3: Recommended Pavement Thickness
PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
COMPACTION LOCAL- RESIDENTIAL
(mm)
HL-3 Asphaltic Concrete HL-8 Asphaltic Concrete
97% Marshall Density
40 50
Granular ‘A’ Base 100% 150
Granular ‘B’ Sub-base 100% 300
NOTE: HL-3 and HL-8 asphaltic concrete to conform to OPSS Form 1150 and 310.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 15
To ensure the longevity of the pavement, the roadbed should be well drained at all times. We
recommend that full-length perforated sub-drain pipes of 150 mm diameter be installed along both
sides of the road, below the roadbed level, to ensure effective drainage. The sub-drain pipes
should be surrounded by 20 mm size clear stone drainage zone of minimum 150 mm thickness,
which should have non-woven geotextile (non-woven geotextile, with FOS of 75 – 150 μm, Class
II) wraparound to minimize infiltration of fines in pipes which would reduce their effectiveness.
The granular materials should be compacted as per American Society for Testing and Material’s
Number D698. The placing, spreading and rolling of the asphalt should be in accordance with
Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications Form 310, or equivalent.
Construction traffic over exposed subgrade materials should be minimized, and temporary
construction hauling routes should be established. If these routes coincide with future paved
areas, adequately reinforced haul roads (increased thickness of granular base, use of geo-fabrics,
etc.) should be constructed to reduce disturbance to the subgrade soils. These provisions are
particularly important if the construction is scheduled during wet and cold seasons.
4.10.2 Construction Comments In order to provide a durable pavement structure, the following pavement construction method is
recommended.
The subgrade should be adequately prepared to receive the sub-base course. Any disturbed and
wet subgrade materials should be removed and the top of the subgrade should then be inspected
and approved, by proof-rolling, by qualified geotechnical personnel. Cavities created by the
removal of unsuitable materials should be backfilled with approved, inorganic fill materials similar
to the existing subgrade material. All new fill should be placed in maximum 200 mm loose lifts
within 2% of its optimum moisture content, and each lift compacted with suitable equipment to
minimum 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, before placing the next lift.
The uppermost zones of the roadfill, within 600 mm of the roadbed, should be compacted to
minimum 98% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density. If construction of the roadfill is carried
out in wet weather, the thickness of the sub-base course should be increased.
Special attention should be paid to proper grading of the subgrade surface. Depressions and
undulations should be eliminated and, to permit quick drainage, the subgrade surface should be
sloped towards ditches, sub-drains and/or catch-basins.
It is recommended that a programme of geotechnical/material inspection and testing be carried
out during the construction phase of the project to confirm that the conditions exposed in the
excavations are consistent with those encountered in the boreholes and the design assumptions,
and to confirm that the various project specifications and materials requirements are being met.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 16
4.11 Slope Stability Analysis
According to the topographic survey plan provided to us by the Client (prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors (plan dated December 19, 2016), the proposed development will occur on tableland with an 8 to 10 m high bank slope located along the south end of the site that leads to Lake Ontario. Slope stability analyses were carried out for the bank slope to assess the setback requirements for a stable slope.
We wish to mention that according to the latest information provided to us by GEO Morphix Limited (email dated January 31, 2018 and telephone conversations), we were asked to provide our geotechnical recommendations on the location of the stable top of bank by assuming each of the following two conditions:
-Condition (a): no toe erosion by armouring the toe of bank; and
-Condition (b): a toe erosion setback allowance of 20 m for 100-year erosion rate.
The slope was visited by senior staff from our office on November 23, 2017. During this time, the slope was noted to be generally covered with low vegetation and some vertical standing young and occasional mature trees. However, some inclined and uprooted trees were also noted. The side slope was noted to be around 1H:1V with occasional steeper slopes.
Boreholes 13 to 15 were drilled close to the bank slope. According to these boreholes, below the surficial topsoil and fill (extending down to depths ranging from about 0.9 to 1.1 m below existing grade), the site is underlain by a compact to very dense fine sand with trace to some silt, overlying dense to very dense silty fine sand, down to depths ranging from about 7.1 to 8.5 m below existing ground surface. These non-glacial deposits were then underlain by very stiff to hard clayey sandy silt till that was in turn underlain by weathered shale that extended to the completion of all three boreholes at 10.5 to 12.3 m below existing grade where practical refusal to augering was reached. The groundwater level was monitored during drilling, upon borehole completion as well as by installing standpipe piezometers in all three boreholes and the highest groundwater depth was measured at 5.6 m, 5.7 m and 5.2 m below existing grade at Boreholes 13, 14 and 15, respectively.
Considering the above information, the stability of the existing slope was assessed by assuming three representative cross-sections 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3, as shown in Figure 3. The sections were then analysed by assuming conservative soil parameters, as summarized in Table 4, based on the borehole information, the field and laboratory tests performed, our experience with similar site conditions as well as published geotechnical data.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 17
Table 4: Assumed Geotechnical Parameters
Soil Type Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m3)
Shear Strength Parameters
C’ (kPa)
’ (degree)
Cu (kPa)
u
(degree)
Topsoil 16.0 0 17 25 0
Silty Fine Sand Fill 16.5 0 18 0 17
Compact to Dense Fine Sand, trace to some silt /
Silty Fine Sand 18.5 0 30 0 29
Very Dense Fine Sand, trace to some silt /
Silty Fine Sand 19.0 0 32 0 30
Very Stiff to Hard Clayey Sandy Silt Till
21.5 5 32 90 10
For slope stability analysis, computer program Slope/W 2012 and the Bishop’s Simplified method for the calculation of the factor of safety for slip surface were used. For a slope to be assessed as being stable, a minimum Factor of Safety (FOS) of 1.5 is normally required.
The assumed cross-sections were analysed for short-term (undrained) and long-term (drained) conditions. For a conservative analysis, an elevated groundwater level was assumed for short-term undrained analysis. The results are shown in Enclosure B for each of the two toe erosion conditions and they are discussed below: Condition (a): No Toe Erosion by Armouring the Toe of Slope Section 1-1: At this section, located near the east end of the site, the bank slope is about 10 m high and it slopes at about 1H:1V. The valley slope was analysed under drained and undrained conditions using the subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 13 and the results as shown in Enclosures 1 and 2, indicate calculated FOS values of less than the recommended value of 1.5. Considering these results, flatter side slopes were assumed, modelled and analysed until the recommended FOS value of 1.5 m was reached. Some of the analysis results are shown in Enclosures 3 to 7. Based on our analysis, we recommend the slope stable at this section to be at about 14.6 m behind the assumed existing top of bank. Section 2-2: At this section, located near the centre of the site, the bank slope is about 8 m high and it slopes at about 0.8H:1V. The valley slope was analysed under drained and undrained conditions using the subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 14 and the results as shown in Enclosures 8 and 9, indicate calculated FOS values of less than the recommended value of 1.5. Considering these results, flatter side slopes were assumed, modelled and analysed until the recommended FOS value of 1.5 m was reached. Some of the analysis results are shown in Enclosures 10 to 12. Based on our analysis, we recommend the slope stable at this section to be at about 12.6 m behind the assumed existing top of bank.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 18
Section 3-3: At this section that is located near the west end of the site, the bank slope is about 8.5 m high and it slopes at about 1.1H:1V. The valley slope was analysed under drained and undrained conditions using the subsurface conditions encountered at Borehole 15 and the results as shown in Enclosures 13 and 14, indicate calculated FOS values of less than the recommended value of 1.5. Considering these results, flatter side slopes were assumed, modelled and analysed until the recommended FOS value of 1.5 m was reached. Some of the analysis results are shown in Enclosures 15 to 17. Based on our analysis, we recommend the slope stable at this section to be at about 9.2 m behind the assumed existing top of bank. Considering the above slope stability analysis results, the recommended long-term stable top of bank line based on armouring the toe of bank and consequently no toe erosion setback allowance is presented in Figure 4. Condition (b): Assuming 20 m of Toe Erosion Setback Allowance Section 1-1: The section was reanalysed by assuming a toe erosion setback allowance of 20 m. Some of the results are shown in Enclosures 18 to 21. Based on our analysis, for a stable slope with a minimum safety factor of 1.5, the stable top of bank is located at 33.6 m beyond the assumed existing top of bank. Section 2-2: Some of the re-analysis results by assuming a toe erosion setback allowance of 20 m are shown in Enclosures 22 to 25. The results indicate that the stable top of bank is located at 33.0 m beyond the assumed existing top of bank. Section 3-3: By assuming a toe erosion setback allowance of 20 m, the bank slope was re-analysed, and some of the results as shown in Enclosures 26 to 29. The results indicate that the stable top of bank is located at 29.4 m beyond the assumed existing top of slope. Considering the above slope stability re-analysis results, the recommended long-term stable top of bank line is presented in Figure 5. We recommend the vegetation on the bank slope to be maintained and enhanced on as needed
basis.
Majestic Edge Estates Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Slope Stability Analysis Proposed Residential Development Existing Vacant Property, Lakeshore Road West, west of Shorewood Place, Oakville, Ontario Reference Number: T17674 April 2, 2018
…/… Page 19
5.0 CLOSURE
We recommend that once the development details are finalized, our recommendations should be reviewed for their specific applicability. The attached Report Limitations are an integral part of this report. Sincerely, Shad & Associates Inc.
Stephen Chong, P. Eng. Houshang Shad, Ph. D., P. Eng. Senior Engineer Principal
STATEMENT OF LIMITATION
The conclusions and recommendations given in this report are based on information obtained at
the testhole locations. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the
testholes may differ from those encountered at the testhole locations, and conditions may
become apparent during construction which could not be detected or foreseen at the time of the
site investigation.
The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environmental aspects of the project,
unless stated otherwise.
The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation
differences between the testhole locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as
planning, grading, excavating, etc.
The design recommendations given in this report are project as well as site specific and then
only if constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report. We
recommend, therefore, that we be retained during the final design stage to review the design
drawings and to verify that they are consistent with our recommendations or the assumptions
made in our analysis.
The comments given in this report on potential construction problems and possible methods are
intended only for the guidance of the designer. The number of the testholes may not be
sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. The
contractors bidding on this project or undertaking 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 recommend that we be retained during construction to confirm that the subsurface
conditions throughout the site do not deviate materially from those encountered in the testholes.
Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made
based on it, is the responsibility of such third party. We accept no responsibility for damages, if
any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.
FIGURES
April, 2018
April, 2018
& Slope Stability Analysis3
BH 11
BH 12
BH 10
BH 13
Section1-1
BH 14
BH 15
Section 2-2
Section 3-3
Recommended Setback
for Stable Slope 14.6m
Recommended Setback
for Stable Slope 12.6m
Recommended Setback
for Stable Slope 9.2m
CLIENT:
SHAD & ASSOCIATES INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND MATERIALS CONSULTING ENGINEERS
83 Citation Drive, Unit 9
Vaughan, Ontaruio, L4K 2Z6
Tel: (905) 760-5566
Fax: (905) 760-5567
www.shadinc.com
Checked By: H.S.
Drawn By: M.Z.
Datum: -
Projection: -
TITLE:
PROJECT:
Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
Recommended Long-Term Stable Top of Bank Line
(No Toe Erosion by Armouring the Toe of Bank)
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
& Slope Stability Assessment
Existing Vacant Property
Lakershore Road West, West of Shorewood Place
Oakville, Ontario
Date: April, 2018
Project No.: T17674
Figure No.:
4
Scale: N.T.S.
E
W S
N
NOTES:
1. All Borehole locations are
approximate.
2. Drawing not to scale.
3. The base plan was
provided by the Client.
4. The drawing should be
read in conjunction with
the associated report by
Shad & Associates Inc.,
T17674.
LEGEND:
BH
Slope Boreholes
BH
Subdivision Boreholes
SHAD & ASSOCIATES INC.
Assumed Sections
Recommended Stable
Top of Bank
BH 11
BH 12
BH 10
BH 13
Section1-1
BH 14
BH 15
Section 2-2
Section 3-3
33.6m
33.0m
29.4m
CLIENT:
SHAD & ASSOCIATES INC.
GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND MATERIALS CONSULTING ENGINEERS
83 Citation Drive, Unit 9
Vaughan, Ontaruio, L4K 2Z6
Tel: (905) 760-5566
Fax: (905) 760-5567
www.shadinc.com
Checked By: H.S.
Drawn By: M.Z.
Datum: -
Projection: -
TITLE:
PROJECT:
Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
Recommended Long-Term Stable Top of Bank Line
(Assuming the Toe Erosion Setback Allowance of 20 m)
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
& Slope Stability Assessment
Existing Vacant Property
Lakershore Road West, West of Shorewood Place
Oakville, Ontario
Date: April, 2018
Project No.: T17674
Figure No.:
5
Scale: N.T.S.
E
W S
N
NOTES:
1. All Borehole locations are
approximate.
2. Drawing not to scale.
3. The base plan was
provided by the Client.
4. The drawing should be
read in conjunction with
the associated report by
Shad & Associates Inc.,
T17674.
LEGEND:
BH
Slope Boreholes
BH
Subdivision Boreholes
SHAD & ASSOCIATES INC.
Assumed Sections
Recommended Long
Term Stable Top of
Bank Line
RECORD OF BOREHOLES
Record of Boreholes (BH 1 - 15)
Explanation of Borehole Logs
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 9, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
1
89.3
89.0
88.0
86.6
85.3
84.3
Ground Surface
Topsoil
brown, occ. rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
light brownFine Sandsome silt
damp, compact
reddish brownSandy Silt
damp, compact
reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: 4.5m
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 3.3mFebruary 24, 2017: 3.3m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
33
23
33
28
30
30
3
4
22
23
21
39
Feb
ruar
y 9,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
31
18
13
7
9
19
20
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 201
7
Feb
ruar
y 24
, 201
7
moist
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 9, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
2
88.8
88.5
87.6
86.7
85.8
83.8
Ground Surface
Topsoil
brown, occ. rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
brownFine Sand
trace to some siltdamp, compact
reddish brownSandy Silttrace clay
damp to moist, compact
reddish brownSilty Fine Sandmoist, compact
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: 3.9m
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 2.7mFebruary 24, 2017: 2.7m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
33
30
28
30
35
35
4
9
13
18
29
48
Feb
ruar
y 9,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
34
16
16
9
15
18
20greyish brown
moist to wet, dense
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
Gradation Analysis,S(3):
0 90 10
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 9, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
3
88.0
87.7
86.6
86.2
83.0
Ground Surface
Topsoil
some organic stains
brown, occ. mottled brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
damp
reddish brownSandy Silt
damp, compact
compact
brownSilty Fine Sand
moist, dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: 4.0m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
35
28
30
35
41
28
4
6
24
39
33
35
Feb
ruar
y 9,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
26
14
13
20
20
18
23greyish brown, moist to wet
reddish brown
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 9, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
4
87.1
86.8
86.4
85.0
82.3
82.1
Ground Surface
Topsoil
mottled brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
reddish brownFine Sandsome silt
damp, compact
reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, dense
greyClayey Sandy Silt Till
damp, hard
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: 4.3mGroundwater Depth on Completion: 3.5m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
28
28
30
35
30
33
5
27
28
36
33
35
Feb
ruar
y 9,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
22
16
10
20
21
18
18
10
moist
moist to wet
Groundsurface frozen at the time offieldwork
moist
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 9, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
5
86.8
86.5
85.7
82.8
81.8
Ground Surface
Topsoil
brown, occ rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
brownSilty Fine Sandmoist, compact
greyClayey Sandy Silt Till
damp, hard
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: 4.0mGroundwater Depth on Completion: 2.9m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
28
28
35
38
35
25
2
16
26
36
39
36
Feb
ruar
y 9,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
22
14
16
19
19
20
12
dense
reddish brownsome silty seams, moist to wet
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
Gradation Analysis,S(6):
3 29 44 20
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 9, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
6
85.8
85.5
84.7
83.0
82.5
81.0
80.8
Ground Surface
Topsoil
brown, occ. rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
moist, compact
brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, dense
greyish brownSilt
trace to some sanddamp to moist, dense
reddish brown, occ greysih brown Silty Fine Sand
moist to wet, dense
greyClayey Sandy Silt Till
damp, very dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: 3.8mGroundwater Depth on Completion: 2.7m
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 1.6mFebruary 24, 2017: 1.5m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
18
18
23
30
25
30
4
9
44
48
50
52
Feb
ruar
y 9,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
28
17
20
20
23
17
18
10
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 201
7
Feb
ruar
y 24
, 201
7
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
Gradation Analysis,S(5A):
0 11 82 7
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 8, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
7
87.487.4
85.2
84.2
82.4
Ground Surface
Topsoil
some gravel
reddish brown
reddish dark brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
brownFine to Medium Sand
trace siltdamp, compact
reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
moist, dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: 3.8m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
23
30
30
35
38
33
6
7
5
13
33
22
Feb
ruar
y 8,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
30
9
15
15
6
15
18
brownish greymoist, compact
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 8, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
8
86.7
86.4
85.2
83.8
81.7
Ground Surface
Topsoil
brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
brownFine Sand
trace siltdamp, compact
reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
some sandy silt seamsmoist, very dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: None Groundwater Depth on Completion: 3.9m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
25
30
30
41
35
38
1
3
26
38
64
74
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
20
10
15
9
6
15
23
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
damp, dense
wet
Gradation Analysis,S(4):
0 91 9
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 8, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
9
86.3
86.0
84.9
83.7
81.3
Ground Surface
Topsoil
rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, trace rootletsdamp
reddish brownFine to Medium Sand
trace silt damp, compact
reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: None Groundwater Depth on Completion: 3.7m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
23
25
30
30
38
30
2
3
17
39
40
44
Feb
ruar
y 8,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
29
14
12
7
9
18
17
greyish brown
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 8, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
10
85.3
85.0
83.9
82.7
80.3
Ground Surface
Topsoil
some organic stains, trace topsoil
rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
damp
light brownFine to Medium Sand
trace siltdamp, dense
greyish reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
wet, dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: None Groundwater Depth on Completion: 3.8m
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 3.1mFebruary 24, 2017: 3.3m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
25
30
35
30
35
41
1
8
44
40
40
42
Feb
ruar
y 8,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
26
12
14
5
11
22
18
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 201
7
Feb
ruar
y 24
, 201
7
moist to wet
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
moist
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 8, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
11
85.8
85.5
85.1
83.4
80.8
Ground Surface
Topsoil
rusty brown to brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, trace topsoildamp
brownFine Sand
damp, compact
damp to moist
brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, dense
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: None Groundwater Depth on Completion: 4.3m
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 3.3mFebruary 24, 2017: 3.4m
1
2
3
4
5
6
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
35
30
35
38
41
35
1
18
36
40
44
75
Feb
ruar
y 8,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
26
15
8
5
12
20
13
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 201
7
Feb
ruar
y 24
, 201
7
greymoist, very dense
dense
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 8, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
12
85.4
85.0
83.9
82.5
79.0
Ground Surface
Topsoil
rusty brown Silty Sand Fill
some organic stains, damp
rusty brownFine Sand
trace to some siltdamp, compact
reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
some clayey silt seamsdamp, compact
greyClayey Sandy Silt Till
damp, very stiff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
14
23
28
30
28
30
15
3
7
20
30
20
65
22
Feb
ruar
y 8,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
16
14
15
11
7
18
16
17
14
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
moist, very dense
compact
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 8, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
12
76.6
End of Borehole
Cave-in Depth on Completion: None Groundwater Depth on Completion: 4.1m
8
9
SS
SS
30
41
15
39
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
16
11
silt/clayey silt seamsmoist to wet, stiff to very stiff
damp, hard
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 7, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
13
86.0
85.7
84.9
80.5
Ground Surface
Topsoil
rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, trace rootletsdamp
compact
brownFine Sandsome silt
damp, dense
greyish reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, dense
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
23
20
23
30
30
38
35
6
10
31
28
31
32
37
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
20
11
10
4
3
5
8
17
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 201
7
Feb
ruar
y 24
, 201
7
compact
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
Gradation Analysis,(S6):
1 87 12
dense
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 7, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
13
77.5
75.7
75.5
greyClayey Sandy Silt Till
damp, hard
greyWeathered Shale
End of Borehole
Practical auger refusal at ~10.5m
Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: 10.1m
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 5.6mFebruary 24, 2017: 5.7m
8
9
10
SS
SS
SS
38
28
5
45
35
Feb
ruar
y 7,
201
7
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
17
11
6
50/3cm
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 7, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
14
85.4
85.1
84.5
81.4
78.3
Ground Surface
Topsoil
rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, trace rootletsdamp
compact
reddish brownFine Sandsome silt
damp, dense
reddish brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, very dense
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
28
25
28
30
30
30
38
3
16
30
33
57
62
46
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
31
11
8
7
4
4
19
12
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 201
7
Feb
ruar
y 24
, 201
7
very dense
Groundsurface frozen at the time offieldwork
greymoist, dense
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 7, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
14
75.0
73.1
greyWeathered Shale
End of Borehole
Practical auger refusal at ~12.3m
Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: Dry
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 5.7mFebruary 24, 2017: 5.8m
8
9
10
11
SS
SS
SS
SS
23
20
8
5
32
27
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
15
11
7
650/5cm
50/13cm
Gradation Analysis,(S8):
4 17 58 21
greyClayey Sandy Silt Till
damp, hard
very stiff
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 7, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
15
85.0
84.8
83.9
80.3
Ground Surface
Topsoil
rusty brownSilty Fine Sand Fill
some organic stains, trace rootletsdamp
reddish brownFine Sandsome silt
damp, dense
reddish greyish brownSilty Fine Sand
moist to wet, very dense
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
25
25
28
35
25
30
35
3
9
38
36
54
33
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
26
12
12
6
3
5
20
17
Feb
ruar
y 17
, 201
7
Feb
ruar
y 24
, 201
7
82/28cm
very dense
Groundsurface frozen at the time of fieldwork
Gradation Analysis,S(3):
0 87 13
dense
RECORD OF BOREHOLE
Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2Z683 Citation Dr, Unit 9,
CLIENT: Majestic Edge Estates Inc.
LOCATION: Oakville, Ontario
ORIGINATED BY: M.Z.Project No.: T17674
BOREHOLE TYPE: Solid Stem Auger
COMPILED BY: M.Z.
DATUM: Geodetic
DATE: February 7, 2017
CHECKED BY: H.S.
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES
EL
EV
AT
ION
(m
etre
s)
DE
PT
H S
CA
LE
(m
etre
s)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DESCRIPTION
ST
RA
TA
PL
OT
SA
MP
LE
NU
MB
ER
TY
PE
RE
CO
VE
RY
(cm
)
" N
" V
AL
UE
S
GR
OU
ND
WA
TE
R
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
WATER CONTENT
(%)MONITORING
WELL
REMARKS AND
GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION
(%)
GR SA SI CL
15
77.2
74.6
74.3
greyClayey Sandy Silt Till
damp, very stiff
greyWeathered Shale
End of Borehole
Practical auger refusal at ~10.7m
Cave-in Depth on Completion: NoneGroundwater Depth on Completion: Dry
Measured Groundwater Depth in Standpipe Piezometer:
February 17, 2017: 5.2mFebruary 24, 2017: 5.4m
8
9
10
SS
SS
SS
35
30
2
30
29
20 40 60 80 100
SHEAR STRENGTH kPa
20 40 60 80 100RESISTANCE PLOT
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
5 15 25 35
17
10
10
50/13cm
EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOG
This form describes some of the information provided on the borehole logs, which is based primarily on examination of the recovered samples, and the results of the field and laboratory tests. It should be noted that materials, boundaries and conditions have been established only at the borehole locations at the time of investigation and are not necessarily representative of subsurface conditions elsewhere across the site. Additional description of the soil/rock encountered is given in the accompanying geotechnical report.
GENERAL INFORMATION Project details, borehole number, location coordinates and type of drilling equipment used are given at the top of the borehole log.
SOIL LITHOLOGY
Elevation and depth This column gives the elevation and depth of inferred geologic layers. The elevation is referred to the datum shown in the Description column.
Lithology Plot This column presents a graphic depiction of the soil and rock stratigraphy encountered within the borehole.
Description This column gives a description of the soil stratums, based on visual and tactile examination of the samples augmented with field and laboratory test results. Each stratum is described according to the following classification and terminology (Ref. Unified Soil Classification System):
The compactness condition of cohesionless soils (SPT) and the consistency of cohesive soils (undrained shear strength) are defined as follows (Ref. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual):
Compactness of Cohesionless Soils
SPT N-Value Consistency of Cohesive Soils
SPT N-Value Undrained Shear Strength
kPa psf
Very loose 0 to 4 Very soft 0 to 2 0 to 12 0 to 250
Loose 4 to 10 Soft 2 to 4 12 to 25 250 to 500
Compact 10 to 30 Firm 4 to 8 25 to 50 500 to 1000
Dense 30 to 50 Stiff 8 to 15 50 to 100 1000 to 2000
Very Dense > 50 Very stiff 15 to 30 100 to 200 2000 to 4000
Hard > 30 Over 200 Over 4000
Soil Sampling Sample types are abbreviated as follows:
SS Split Spoon TW Thin Wall Open (Pushed) RC Rock Core
AS Auger Sample TP Thin Wall Piston (Pushed) WS Washed Sample
Additional information provided in this section includes sample numbering, sample recovery and numerical testing results.
Field and Laboratory Testing Results of field testing (e.g., SPT, pocket penetrometer, and vane testing) and laboratory testing (e.g., natural moisture content, and limits) executed on the recovered samples are plotted in this section.
Instrumentation Installation Instrumentation installations (monitoring wells, piezometers, inclinometers, etc.) are plotted in this section. Water levels, if measured during fieldwork, are also plotted. These water levels may or may not be representative of the static groundwater level depending on the nature of soil stratum where the piezometer tips are located, the time elapsed from installation to reading and other applicable factors.
Comments This column is used to describe non-standard situations or notes of interest.
*The soil of each stratum is described using the Unified Soil Classification System (Technical Memorandum 36
prepared by Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Corps of Engineers, U.S Army. Vol. 1
March 1953.) modified slightly so that an inorganic clay of "medium plasticity" is recognized.
MAJOR DIVISION GROUP SYMBOL
CO
AR
SE
GR
AIN
ED
SO
ILS
(M
OR
E T
HA
N H
AL
F B
Y W
EIG
HT
L
AR
GE
R T
HA
N 7
5µ
m)
GR
AV
EL
S M
OR
E T
HA
N
HA
LF
TH
E
CO
AR
SE
F
RA
CT
ION
LA
RG
ER
TH
AN
4
.75
mm
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(TRACE OR NO
FINES)
GW
GP
DIRTYGRAVELS
(WITH SOME OR
MORE FINES)
GM
GC
SA
ND
S M
OR
E T
HA
N H
AL
F
TH
E C
OA
RS
E F
RA
CT
ION
S
MA
LL
ER
TH
AN
4.7
5m
m
CLEAN SANDS
(TRACE OR NO
FINES)
SW
SP
DIRTY SANDS
(WITH SOME OR
MORE FINES)
SM
SC
FIN
E-G
RA
INE
D S
OIL
S (
MO
RE
TH
AN
HA
LF
BY
WE
IGH
T S
MA
LL
ER
T
HA
N 7
5µ
m)
SIL
TS
BE
LO
W “
A”
LIN
E N
EG
LIG
IBL
E
OR
GA
NIC
CO
NT
EN
T
WL < 50% ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT
WL < 50% MH INORGANIC SILTS,
CL
AY
AB
OV
E “
A”
LIN
E
NE
GL
IGIB
LE
O
RG
AN
IC C
ON
TE
NT
WL < 30% CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
30% < WL < 50% CI
WL < 50% CH
OR
GA
NIC
S
ILT
S &
CL
AY
S
BE
LO
W “
A”
LIN
E
WL < 50% OL
WL < 50% OH
HIGH ORGANIC SOILS Pt
SOIL COMPONENTS
FRACTION U.S STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
DEFINING RANGES OF PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF
MINOR
GR
AV
EL
COARSE
PASSING RETAINED
76 mm 19 mm
FINE 19 mm 4.75 mm
SA
ND
COARSE 4.75 mm 2.00 mm
MEDIUM 2.00 mm 425 µm
FINE 425 µm 75 µm
FINES (SILT OR CLAY BASED ON
PLASTICITY)
75 µm
OVERSIZED MATERIAL
ROUNDED OR SUBROUNDED: COBBLES 76 mm TO 200 mm
BOULDERS > 200 mm ROCKS> 0.76 CUBIC METRE IN
Note 1: Soils are classified and described according to their engineering properties and behavior.Note 2: The modifying adjectives used to define the actual or estimated percentageCanadian Geotechnical Society, 1992)
MODIFIED * UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS
The soil of each stratum is described using the Unified Soil Classification System (Technical Memorandum 36-357
prepared by Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Corps of Engineers, U.S Army. Vol. 1
March 1953.) modified slightly so that an inorganic clay of "medium plasticity" is recognized.
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATOR
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND
MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- SILT MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 4
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 7
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT
PLASTICITY
CLASSIFICATION IS BASED UPON PLASTICITY CHARTINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM PLASTICITY, SILTY CLAYS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
WHENEVER THE NATURE OF THE FINES CONTENT HAS NOT
BEEN DETERMINED, IT IS
SF IS A MIXTURE OF SAND WITH SILT OR CLAYORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, AND OFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE
DEFINING RANGES OF PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF
MINOR COMPONENTS
PERCENT DESCRIPTOR
35-50
20-35
10-20
1-10
AND
Y/EY
SOME
TRACE
NOT ROUNDED:
ROCK FRAGMENTS > 76 mm
ROCKS> 0.76 CUBIC METRE IN
VOLUME
engineering properties and behavior. Note 2: The modifying adjectives used to define the actual or estimated percentage range by weight of minor components are consistent with the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual ( 3
Pla
stic
ity
In
de
x,
l p (%
)
Plasticity Chart for Soil Passing 425 Micron
Liquid Limit, W
CL-ML
CL
CL
OL
ML
WL
WL
=50
=30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
60
50
40
30
20
10
LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
C� ����
���
4; C� � D����
D�� x D��
� 1 to 3
NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS
ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I. MORE THAN 4
ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I. MORE THAN 7
C� ����
���
6; C� � D����
D�� x D��
� 1 to 3
NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS
ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 4
ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I MORE THAN 7
CLASSIFICATION IS BASED UPON PLASTICITY CHART
(SEE BELOW)
WHENEVER THE NATURE OF THE FINES CONTENT HAS NOT
BEEN DETERMINED, IT IS DESIGNATED BY THE LETTER "F", E.G
SF IS A MIXTURE OF SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY
STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, AND OFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE
range by weight of minor components are consistent with the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual ( 3rd
Edition,
Plasticity Chart for Soil Passing 425 Micron Sieve
Liquid Limit, WL (%)
OH
MH
CH
=50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20) Ip=0.73 (WL -
ENCLOSURES
Enclosure A: Laboratory Test Results
Pro
ject :
Pro
ject N
o.:
Clie
nt:
ww
w.s
ha
din
c.c
a
Te
l: 90
5) 7
60
-55
66
Fa
x: (9
05
) 76
0-5
56
7
SH
AD
& A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
INC
.
GR
AIN
SIZ
E A
NA
LY
SIS
T17674
83
Cita
tion
Driv
e, U
nit 9
Geo
tech
nic
al In
vestig
atio
n
Va
ug
ha
n, O
nta
rioR
em
ark
s:
L4
K 2
Z6
Maje
stic
Ed
ge E
sta
tes In
c.
2 2 m m
3 3 m m
4 4 m m5 5 m m
10 10 m m
20 20 m m
30 30 m m
40 40 m m
270 53 m m
200 75 m m
140 106 m m
100 150 m m
60 250 m m
50 300 m m
30 600 m m
40 425 m m
20 850 m m
16 1.18 mm
10 2.00 mm
8 2.36 mm
4 4.75mm
3/8" 9.5 mm
1/2" 13.2 mm
3/4" 19.0 mm
1" 26.5 mm
1.5" 37.5 mm
2" 53.0 mm
2.5" 63.0 mm
3" 75.0 mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
FINEG
rainSize in M
illimeters
CLAY & SILT
FINE
MEDIU
MCO
ARSE
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVED
ESIGN
ATION
(metric)
Grain
Size in Microm
eters
SIEVE DESIG
NATIO
N (Im
perial)
1
SAMPLE DATA
Date Sampled :
February 9, 2017Sam
ple Location: BH 2-SS3Lab N
o.:S1773/1
Gravel:0 %
Sand:90
%Silt &
Clay :10
%
Pro
ject :
Pro
ject N
o.:
Clie
nt:
ww
w.s
hadin
c.c
a
T17674
SH
AD
& A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
INC
.
83 C
itatio
n D
rive, U
nit 9
Vaughan, O
nta
rio
L4K
2Z
6
Ma
jes
tic E
dg
e E
sta
tes
Inc
.
Fax: (9
05) 7
60-5
567
GR
AIN
SIZ
E A
NA
LY
SIS
Tel: 9
05) 7
60-5
566
Ge
ote
ch
nic
al In
ve
stig
atio
n
2 2 m m
3 3 m m
4 4 m m5 5 m m
10 10 m m
20 20 m m
30 30 m m
40 40 m m
270 53 m m
200 75 m m
140 106 m m
100 150 m m
60 250 m m
50 300 m m
30 600 m m
40 425 m m
20 850 m m
16 1.18 mm
10 2.00 mm
8 2.36 mm
4 4.75mm
3/8" 9.5 mm
1/2" 13.2 mm
3/4" 19.0 mm
1" 26.5 mm
1.5" 37.5 mm
2" 53.0 mm
2.5" 63.0 mm
3" 75.0 mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
FINEG
rainSize in M
illimeters
CLAY & SILT
FINE
MEDIU
MCO
ARSE
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVED
ESIGN
ATION
(metric)
Grain
Size in Microm
eters
SIEVE DESIG
NATIO
N (Im
perial)
1
SAMPLE DATA
Date Sampled : February 9, 2017
Sample Location: BH 5-SS6
Lab No.:
S1774/2Gravel:
3 %Sand:
29 %Silt :
44 %Clay:
24 %
Pro
ject :
Pro
ject N
o.:
Clie
nt:
ww
w.s
hadin
c.c
a
T17674
SH
AD
& A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
INC
.
83 C
itatio
n D
rive, U
nit 9
Vaughan, O
nta
rio
L4K
2Z
6
Ma
jes
tic E
dg
e E
sta
tes
Inc
.
Fax: (9
05) 7
60-5
567
GR
AIN
SIZ
E A
NA
LY
SIS
Tel: 9
05) 7
60-5
566
Ge
ote
ch
nic
al In
ve
stig
atio
n
2 2 m m
3 3 m m
4 4 m m5 5 m m
10 10 m m
20 20 m m
30 30 m m
40 40 m m
270 53 m m
200 75 m m
140 106 m m
100 150 m m
60 250 m m
50 300 m m
30 600 m m
40 425 m m
20 850 m m
16 1.18 mm
10 2.00 mm
8 2.36 mm
4 4.75mm
3/8" 9.5 mm
1/2" 13.2 mm
3/4" 19.0 mm
1" 26.5 mm
1.5" 37.5 mm
2" 53.0 mm
2.5" 63.0 mm
3" 75.0 mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
FINEG
rainSize in M
illimeters
CLAY & SILT
FINE
MEDIU
MCO
ARSE
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVED
ESIGN
ATION
(metric)
Grain
Size in Microm
eters
SIEVE DESIG
NATIO
N (Im
perial)
1
SAMPLE DATA
Date Sampled : February 9, 2017
Sample Location: BH 6-SS5A
Lab No.:
S1775/3Gravel:
0 %Sand:
11 %Silt :
82 %Clay:
7 %
Pro
ject :
Pro
ject N
o.:
Clie
nt:
ww
w.s
ha
din
c.c
a
Te
l: 90
5) 7
60
-55
66
Fa
x: (9
05
) 76
0-5
56
7
SH
AD
& A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
INC
.
GR
AIN
SIZ
E A
NA
LY
SIS
T17674
83
Cita
tion
Driv
e, U
nit 9
Geo
tech
nic
al In
vestig
atio
n
Va
ug
ha
n, O
nta
rioR
em
ark
s:
L4
K 2
Z6
Maje
stic
Ed
ge E
sta
tes In
c.
2 2 m m
3 3 m m
4 4 m m5 5 m m
10 10 m m
20 20 m m
30 30 m m
40 40 m m
270 53 m m
200 75 m m
140 106 m m
100 150 m m
60 250 m m
50 300 m m
30 600 m m
40 425 m m
20 850 m m
16 1.18 mm
10 2.00 mm
8 2.36 mm
4 4.75mm
3/8" 9.5 mm
1/2" 13.2 mm
3/4" 19.0 mm
1" 26.5 mm
1.5" 37.5 mm
2" 53.0 mm
2.5" 63.0 mm
3" 75.0 mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
FINEG
rainSize in M
illimeters
CLAY & SILT
FINE
MEDIU
MCO
ARSE
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVED
ESIGN
ATION
(metric)
Grain
Size in Microm
eters
SIEVE DESIG
NATIO
N (Im
perial)
1
SAMPLE DATA
Date Sampled :
February 9, 2017Sam
ple Location: BH8-SS4Lab N
o.:S1776/4
Gravel:0 %
Sand:91
%Silt &
Clay :9
%
Pro
ject :
Pro
ject N
o.:
Clie
nt:
ww
w.s
ha
din
c.c
a
Te
l: 90
5) 7
60
-55
66
Fa
x: (9
05
) 76
0-5
56
7
SH
AD
& A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
INC
.
GR
AIN
SIZ
E A
NA
LY
SIS
T17674
83
Cita
tion
Driv
e, U
nit 9
Geo
tech
nic
al In
vestig
atio
n
Va
ug
ha
n, O
nta
rioR
em
ark
s:
L4
K 2
Z6
Maje
stic
Ed
ge E
sta
tes In
c.
2 2 m m
3 3 m m
4 4 m m5 5 m m
10 10 m m
20 20 m m
30 30 m m
40 40 m m
270 53 m m
200 75 m m
140 106 m m
100 150 m m
60 250 m m
50 300 m m
30 600 m m
40 425 m m
20 850 m m
16 1.18 mm
10 2.00 mm
8 2.36 mm
4 4.75mm
3/8" 9.5 mm
1/2" 13.2 mm
3/4" 19.0 mm
1" 26.5 mm
1.5" 37.5 mm
2" 53.0 mm
2.5" 63.0 mm
3" 75.0 mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
FINEG
rainSize in M
illimeters
CLAY & SILT
FINE
MEDIU
MCO
ARSE
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVED
ESIGN
ATION
(metric)
Grain
Size in Microm
eters
SIEVE DESIG
NATIO
N (Im
perial)
1
SAMPLE DATA
Date Sampled :
February 9, 2017Sam
ple Location: BH13-SS6Lab N
o.:S1777/5
Gravel:1 %
Sand:87
%Silt &
Clay :12
%
Pro
ject :
Pro
ject N
o.:
Clie
nt:
ww
w.s
hadin
c.c
a
T17674
SH
AD
& A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
INC
.
83 C
itatio
n D
rive, U
nit 9
Vaughan, O
nta
rio
L4K
2Z
6
Ma
jes
tic E
dg
e E
sta
tes
Inc
.
Fax: (9
05) 7
60-5
567
GR
AIN
SIZ
E A
NA
LY
SIS
Tel: 9
05) 7
60-5
566
Ge
ote
ch
nic
al In
ve
stig
atio
n
2 2 m m
3 3 m m
4 4 m m5 5 m m
10 10 m m
20 20 m m
30 30 m m
40 40 m m
270 53 m m
200 75 m m
140 106 m m
100 150 m m
60 250 m m
50 300 m m
30 600 m m
40 425 m m
20 850 m m
16 1.18 mm
10 2.00 mm
8 2.36 mm
4 4.75mm
3/8" 9.5 mm
1/2" 13.2 mm
3/4" 19.0 mm
1" 26.5 mm
1.5" 37.5 mm
2" 53.0 mm
2.5" 63.0 mm
3" 75.0 mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
FINEG
rainSize in M
illimeters
CLAY & SILT
FINE
MEDIU
MCO
ARSE
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVED
ESIGN
ATION
(metric)
Grain
Size in Microm
eters
SIEVE DESIG
NATIO
N (Im
perial)
1
SAMPLE DATA
Date Sampled : February 9, 2017
Sample Location: BH 14-SS8
Lab No.:
S1778/6Gravel:
4 %Sand:
17 %Silt :
58 %Clay:
21 %
Pro
ject :
Pro
ject N
o.:
Clie
nt:
ww
w.s
ha
din
c.c
a
Te
l: 90
5) 7
60
-55
66
Fa
x: (9
05
) 76
0-5
56
7
SH
AD
& A
SS
OC
IAT
ES
INC
.
GR
AIN
SIZ
E A
NA
LY
SIS
T17673
83
Cita
tion
Driv
e, U
nit 9
Geo
tech
nic
al In
vestig
atio
n
Va
ug
ha
n, O
nta
rioR
em
ark
s:
L4
K 2
Z6
Maje
stic
Ed
ge E
sta
tes In
c.
2 2 m m
3 3 m m
4 4 m m5 5 m m
10 10 m m
20 20 m m
30 30 m m
40 40 m m
270 53 m m
200 75 m m
140 106 m m
100 150 m m
60 250 m m
50 300 m m
30 600 m m
40 425 m m
20 850 m m
16 1.18 mm
10 2.00 mm
8 2.36 mm
4 4.75mm
3/8" 9.5 mm
1/2" 13.2 mm
3/4" 19.0 mm
1" 26.5 mm
1.5" 37.5 mm
2" 53.0 mm
2.5" 63.0 mm
3" 75.0 mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
COARSE
SAND
GRAVEL
FINEG
rainSize in M
illimeters
CLAY & SILT
FINE
MEDIU
MCO
ARSE
PERCENT PASSING
SIEVED
ESIGN
ATION
(metric)
Grain
Size in Microm
eters
SIEVE DESIG
NATIO
N (Im
perial)
1
SAMPLE DATA
Date Sampled :
February 7, 2017Sam
ple Location: BH 15-SS3Lab N
o.:S1779/7
Gravel:0 %
Sand:87
%Silt &
Clay :13
%
Enclosure B: Slope Stability Analysis
1.089
Cross Section 1-1
Nearest Borehole: BH13
Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 1
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle
No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3)
1 16.0 0 17
2 16.5 0 18
3 18.5 0 30
4 21.5 5 32
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.158
Cross Section 1-1
Nearest Borehole: BH13
Short-term Analysis ( Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 2
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle
No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3)
1 16.0 25 0
2 16.5 0 17
3 18.5 0 29
4 21.5 90 10
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.131
Cross Section 1-1
Nearest Borehole: BH13
Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 3
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle
No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3)
1 16.0 0 17
2 16.5 0 18
3 18.5 0 30
4 21.5 5 32
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
1.5H1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.309
Cross Section 1-1
Nearest Borehole: BH13
Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 4
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle
No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3)
1 16.0 0 17
2 16.5 0 18
3 18.5 0 30
4 21.5 5 32
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.0H
1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.424
Cross Section 1-1
Nearest Borehole: BH13
Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 5
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle
No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3)
1 16.0 0 17
2 16.5 0 18
3 18.5 0 30
4 21.5 5 32
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.25H1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.531
Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 6
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 21.5 5 32
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.5H1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.503
Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Short-term Analysis ( Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 7
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 21.5 90 10
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.5H1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.042
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 8
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.293
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Short-term Analysis (Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 9
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.336
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 10
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
6- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2H1V
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.501
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 11
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.25H1V
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.542
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Short-term Analysis ( Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 12
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.25H1V
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Distance
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.151
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 13
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.165
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Short-term Analysis (Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 14
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.343
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 15
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
3- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2H1V
4- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.511
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 16
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense , Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
2.25H1V
3- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
4- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.575
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Short-term Analysis ( Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 17
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense , Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
2.25H1V
3- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
4- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Distance
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.347
Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 18
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 21.5 5 32
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.0H
1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (Geo Morphix)
Assumed Toe of Slope
Distance
-25 -23 -21 -19 -17 -15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.443
Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 19
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 21.5 5 32
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.25H
1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (Geo Morphix)
Assumed Toe of Slope
Distance
-25 -23 -21 -19 -17 -15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.510Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 20
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 21.5 5 32
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.4H
1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (Geo Morphix)
Assumed Toe of Slope
33.6m
Distance
-25 -23 -21 -19 -17 -15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.514
Cross Section 1-1Nearest Borehole: BH13Short-term Analysis (Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 21
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 21.5 90 10
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
1-Topsoil
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
4- hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.4H
1V
Edge of Water
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (Geo Morphix)
Assumed Toe of Slope
33.6m
Distance
-25 -23 -21 -19 -17 -15 -13 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.338
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 22
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2H1V
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.433
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Long-term Analysis ( Drained Condition)
Enclosure 23
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.2H1V
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.518
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Long-term Analysis (Drained Condition)
Enclosure 24
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.25H1V
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
33.0m
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.516
Cross Section 2-2Nearest Borehole: BH14Short-term Analysis ( Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 25
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.) (kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- compact, Fine Sand, some silt
Edge of Water
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
5- very stiff to hard, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Assumed Top of Bank
2.25H1V
3- dense, Silty Fine Sand
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
33.0m
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.346
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Long-term Analysis (Drained Condition)
Enclosure 26
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
3- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2H1V
4- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.458
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Long-term Analysis (Drained Condition)
Enclosure 27
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30 4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
3- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2.2H1V
4- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.518
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Long-term Analysis (Drained Condition)
Enclosure 28
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 0 17 2 16.5 0 18 3 18.5 0 30
4 19.0 0 32 5 21.5 5 32
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
3- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2.25H1V
4- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
29.4m
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
1.508
Cross Section 3-3Nearest Borehole: BH15Short-term Analysis (Undrained Condition)
Enclosure 29
Soil Layer Bulk Unit Cohesion Friction Angle No. Weight (kPa) (Deg.)
(kN/m^3) 1 16.0 25 0 2 16.5 0 17 3 18.5 0 29 4 19.0 0 30 5 21.5 90 10
1- Topsoil
4- very dense, Silty Fine Sand
2- Silty Fine Sand Fill
3- dense, Fine Sand, some silt
Assumed Top of Bank
5- very stiff, Clayey Sandy Silt Till
Weathered Shale
Edge of Water
3- very dense, Fine Sand, some silt
2.25H1V
4- dense, Silty Fine Sand
Assumed Toe of Slope
20m Recommended Toe Erosion Setback Allowance (GEO Morphix)
29.4m
Distance
-22 -20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Elevation
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86