SAMT Group Ltd.

99 University Ave
Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6
April 3, 2019
Chris Elvidge, M.Sc. (Eng.), P.Eng.
Principal, Materials, Inspection and Testing
Terraprobe
11 Lindell Lane
Brampton, Ontario, L6T 3Y3

Re: Geotechnical and Shoring Design in an Urban Environment (Final Report)

Mr. Elvidge,
SAMT Group is pleased to submit the attached Final Report detailing the completed preliminary
geotechnical design including shoring wall and foundation system design, water management
plan and initial costing estimate for the proposed high-rise development in the Greater Toronto
Area.
Included in this report is a definition of the problem, stakeholders and scope of work, as well as
a summary of known site conditions and relevant background information. Finalized design
calculations of the shoring walls for the entirety of the East Property are included alongside
preliminary design calculations for a shallow foundation system. For the shoring wall, secant
caisson walls were selected for the majority of the site and a diaphragm wall was selected in
areas where settlement and vibrations were of concern. A groundwater management plan was
also established for the construction and operational phases of the site.
Thank you very much for your frequent communication and assistance throughout the entirety
of the project. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions,
concerns, or comments regarding the content of this Final Report.

Regards,

Ryan Schaaf
Team Leader
SAMT Group Ltd.
14jrs13@queensu.ca
 Final Report
CIVL 460
Civil Engineering Design and Practice IV
April 3, 2019

SAMT Group Ltd. (Group P)

Thomas Asma | 10178646
Jonathan MacAskill | 10126527

Ryan Schaaf | 10186725

Andrew Troup | 10193634

Following professional engineering practice, we bear the burden of proof for original work. We
have read the Policy on Academic Integrity posted on the Faculty of Engineering and Applied
Science website and confirm that this work is in accordance with the Policy. Our signatures
below attest that this submission is our original work.

Signed: April 3, 2019

Executive Summary
SAMT Group has been tasked with the development of a preliminary geotechnical design for a
high-rise development including foundation design, shoring schematic, and preliminary
groundwater management plan by Terraprobe. The proposed development consists of multiple
high-rise buildings in an urban environment within the Greater Toronto Area. This report includes
an investigation of existing subsurface conditions, a preliminary foundation design, a detailed
shoring schematic for the East Property, a conservative foundation design, and a groundwater
management plan for the excavation operational phases of the development.
Background research pertaining to soil parameters, groundwater and hydrotechnical theory,
foundation design, earth pressure, shoring wall systems, shoring wall bracing systems, and
shoring wall design methods has been performed. Numerous calculations have been conducted.
These were completed to evaluate the feasibility of four foundation options (shallow foundation,
bored pile system, driven pile system, and a mat foundation), design of the shoring wall system
(structural and geotechnical) with tieback anchors, and to recommend a groundwater
management plan for the site.
Weighted evaluation matrices were used to evaluate design options. This process was used to
select the optimal foundation and shoring wall designs. A set of relevant design criteria was
identified, and each was assigned a weight to develop a final score for each design.
A shallow foundation was selected and analyzed using an iterative design process. The restraints
on this process were soil properties, bearing capacity, the building loads, and the column layout.
The optimal design under these constraints for the shallow foundation was determined to be 46
platforms spaced approximately 7.5 m apart for the largest building within the development. The
dimension of each base was chosen to be square to simplify the analysis and was determined to
be 4.29 m by 4.29 m. Finally, the governing bearing capacity of the soil was determined to be
approximately 690 kPa.
Two shoring wall designs have been selected to be implemented. The team identified the need
for two different matrices to be constructed. The first was for the region of the site where it was
most important to limit deflections and vibrations. For these areas, a permanent diaphragm
shoring wall was selected. The second matrix was for the remainder of the site and a secant
caisson shoring wall was chosen. For the design of both of the walls, the ‘hinge method’ was
employed utilizing a lateral apparent soil pressure profile. The difference in the analysis between
caisson and diaphragm sections was the coefficients of lateral earth pressures and surcharge
values. This design method provided tieback forces, shear force and bending moments diagrams,
and the embedment depth.
The analysis for the diaphragm wall yielded a factored embedment depth for the diaphragm wall
was determined to be 7.5 m below the dredge line. Structural design was performed using the
maximum moment determined from the ‘hinge method’. This maximum moment across the span
was determined to be 1243 kNm. The wall was designed as a column with the aid of an interaction
chart. The final design of the wall yielded a thickness of one metre with 8-55M bars used as
longitudinal reinforcement. The reinforcement will be tied with 15-M bars and there will be a 75
mm concrete cover applied to the section. The compressive strength of concrete was selected as
30 MPa and the yield strength of the steel shall be 400 MPa.
For the secant wall, the factored embedment depth was found to be 3.5 m. The same process
was used for determining the structural specifications as the diaphragm wall. The maximum
design moment was found to be 389 kNm. The piles were designed using a conservative tributary
area approach which yielded a wall diameter of one metre with 8-35M longitudinal
reinforcement bars spaced evenly around the cross-section. The reinforcement will be tied
spirally with 15-M bars and there will be a 75 mm concrete cover. The concrete and steel were
also designed with strengths of 30 MPa and 400 MPa, respectively.
The hinge method also provides the anchor tieback requirements for the wall. First the placement
had to be selected. It was selected based on restrictions, industry standards, and judgement. For
both the diaphragm and secant walls, the vertical spacing used was 4 m, 4.65 m, 4.65 m, 4 m,
and 4 m from top to bottom. The secant wall requires anchors horizontal spaced at three metres,
whereas the diaphragm wall requires spacings of one metre. This discrepancy was due to the
greater forces imposed across the diaphragm wall. Recommendations were also provided for the
construction method of the tiebacks. The tiebacks will be constructed with pressurized grout and
will be angled at 65o from the vertical. They will have a length of 7.5 m and a diameter of 200
mm.
A groundwater management plan was also outlined for the construction and operational phases
of the development. This plan outlines recommendations for 25 pumping wells in two rows
across the entire site with 10 m spacing. They will have a diameter of 12.7 cm, depth of 28.8 m
below the surface, and pump 14,170 L/day. The residual drawdown will be 1.2 m below the base
of the excavation.
To date, preliminary geotechnical design specifications have been completed. A final design
should be developed pending the completion of detailed architectural and structural design
drawings. Following the completion of the geotechnical design, final costing can be performed,
and a construction management plan should be assembled to determine the construction
sequencing timeline.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Definition ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.0 Site Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Proposed Development .............................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Lithology .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 Background Information ................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Excavation in the Urban Environment ........................................................................................ 4
3.2 Soil Investigation ........................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1 SPT Test ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Tests ...................................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Foundation Systems ................................................................................................................. 10
3.4.1 Shallow Foundation ................................................................................................................................. 11
3.3.2 Driven Piles .............................................................................................................................................. 13
3.3.3 Bored Piles Bearing on Bedrock ............................................................................................................... 15
3.3.4 Mat Foundations ...................................................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Shoring Systems ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.5.1 Shoring Wall Design ................................................................................................................................. 21
3.5.2 Bracing Systems ....................................................................................................................................... 26
3.5.3 Hinge Method .......................................................................................................................................... 28
3.6 Dewatering Systems ................................................................................................................. 29
3.6.1 Deep Well Systems................................................................................................................................... 29
3.6.2 Deep Well System Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 30
3.7 Soil Pressure Distributions........................................................................................................ 31
3.8 Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 34
3.8.1 Wall Type ................................................................................................................................................. 34
3.8.2 Construction Method ............................................................................................................................... 35
4.0 Design Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 36
4.1 Design Criteria.......................................................................................................................... 36
4.1.1 Functionality ............................................................................................................................................ 36
4.1.2 Stiffness .................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.1.3 Water Resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 36
4.1.4 Ease of Construction ................................................................................................................................ 37
4.1.5 Labour Required....................................................................................................................................... 37
I
 4.1.6 Material Required .................................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.7 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.8 Impact to Existing Structures ................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.9 Public Impact............................................................................................................................................ 38
4.1.10 Innovation .............................................................................................................................................. 38
4.2 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 38
4.2.1 Foundation Systems ................................................................................................................................. 39
4.2.2 Shoring Wall Systems ............................................................................................................................... 40
5.0 Final Design .................................................................................................................... 42
5.1 Soil Parameters ........................................................................................................................ 42
5.1.1 SPT-N Bearing Strength ............................................................................................................................ 42
5.2 Load Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 44
5.2.1 Building Loads .......................................................................................................................................... 44
5.2.2 Tributary Area .......................................................................................................................................... 46
5.2.3 Soil Pressure Distributions ....................................................................................................................... 46
5.3 Foundation System .................................................................................................................. 51
5.4 Shoring Wall System ................................................................................................................ 53
5.4.1 Secant Shoring Walls ................................................................................................................................ 53
5.4.2 Diaphragm Walls ...................................................................................................................................... 58
5.5 Bracing System ......................................................................................................................... 63
5.6 Dewatering Plan ....................................................................................................................... 66
5.6.1 Hydraulic Conductivities .......................................................................................................................... 66
5.6.2 Dewatering System Design ...................................................................................................................... 67
5.7 Innovation ............................................................................................................................... 67
5.7.1 Innovation Incorporated in Preliminary Geotechnical Design ................................................................. 67
5.7.2 Potential for Future Innovation ............................................................................................................... 68

6.0 Costing............................................................................................................................ 68
6.1 Shoring Wall............................................................................................................................. 68
6.2 Dewatering System .................................................................................................................. 69
7.0 Group Dynamics .............................................................................................................. 70
8.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 71
9.0 Recommendations for Future Work ................................................................................. 72
9.1 Foundation System .................................................................................................................. 72
9.2 Shoring Wall System ................................................................................................................ 73
9.3 Groundwater Management Plan .............................................................................................. 73
9.4 Final Costing............................................................................................................................. 73
References ............................................................................................................................ 75

II
Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic ................................... i
Appendix B: Calculations ........................................................................................................ ii
B1: Preliminary Shallow Foundation Calculation ............................................................................. iii
B1.1: Total Stress Analysis.................................................................................................................................... v
B1.1: Effective Stress Analysis .............................................................................................................................. x
B1.2: Effective Stress Analysis ........................................................................................................ xii
B2: Preliminary Driven Pile Calculation ............................................................................................ v
B3: Preliminary Bored Pile Calculation ...........................................................................................viii
B4: Preliminary Mat Foundation Calculation .................................................................................... x
B5: Borehole Log Analysis and Soil Pressure Calculation................................................................. xii
B6: Secant Caisson and Diaphragm Shoring Wall Final Stress Analysis ............................................xiii
B7: Secant Caisson Shoring Wall Structural Design ....................................................................... xxix
B8: Diaphragm Shoring Wall Structural Design ........................................................................... xxxiv
B9: Dewatering Plan Residual Drawdown Calculations ................................................................ xxxv
Appendix C: Sample Dewatering Pricing Documents ......................................................... xxxvi
Appendix D: Gantt Chart .................................................................................................. xxxvii
Appendix E: Logbook ............................................................................................................. xl
Appendix F: Terraprobe Documents ...................................................................................... lvi
F1: Borehole Location Plan .............................................................................................................lvii
F2: Proposed Development ...........................................................................................................lviii
F3: Borehole Logs ........................................................................................................................... lix
F4: Rock Core Logs .......................................................................................................................... lx
F5: Rising Head Test Data ............................................................................................................... lxi
F6: Laboratory Data .......................................................................................................................lxii

III
List of Figures
Figure 1: Key Map of Proposed Development ................................................................................ 3
Figure 2: Split Spoon Sampler [2] ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Rising Head Test Schematic [5]: Rising Head Test Schematic [5] .................................... 7
Figure 4: Spread Footing Schematic [4] ........................................................................................ 11
Figure 5: Expressions for the Factors Associated with the Terzaghi Approach [4] ....................... 12
Figure 6: End Bearing for Driven Piles [4] ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 7: Bearing Pressure from Rock Core Data [13] .................................................................. 16
Figure 8: Equation for Ksp [13] ...................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9: Aperture of Discontinuities [14] .................................................................................... 17
Figure 10: Typical Mat Foundation Design Strip Schematic [17] .................................................. 20
Figure 11: Typical Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Plan View Schematic [19] ................................. 21
Figure 12: Less Stiff Flexible Wall [4] ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 13: Typical Sheet Piling Joints [20] .................................................................................... 23
Figure 14: Tangent Pile Plan View Schematic [21] ....................................................................... 24
Figure 15: Secant Pile Plan View Schematic [22] .......................................................................... 24
Figure 16: Typical Concrete Diaphragm Wall Plan View Schematics [19] .................................... 25
Figure 17: Typical Tieback Side View Schematic [28] ................................................................... 26
Figure 18: Specified Minimal Vertical Depth to first Anchor ........................................................ 27
Figure 19: Typical Raker Side View Schematic [19] ...................................................................... 28
Figure 20: Photo of a Strut Bracing System [26]: Photo of a Strut Bracing System [26]............... 28
Figure 21: Hinge Method for Multiple Tiebacks Levels [30] ......................................................... 29
Figure 22: Deep Well Dewatering System .................................................................................... 30
Figure 23: Mohr's Circle for At-Rest, Active and Passive Stress States [4] ................................... 32
Figure 24: Lateral Pressure Distributions for cantilever walls without restraints [4] ................... 33
Figure 25: Apparent Earth Pressure Distribution [30] .................................................................. 34
Figure 26: Elements of Top Down Construction [26] ................................................................... 35
Figure 27: Correlation between SPT-N values and Angle of Internal Friction for Soils ................ 43
Figure 28: East Property Horizontal Earth Pressure Distributions ................................................ 50
Figure 29: West Property Horizontal Earth Pressure Distributions .............................................. 50
Figure 30: Preliminary Shallow Foundation Design ...................................................................... 52
Figure 31: Apparent Lateral Soil Acting on Secant Caisson Wall .................................................. 54
Figure 32: Shear Force Diagram for the Secant Wall .................................................................... 55
Figure 33: Bending Moment Diagram for the Secant Wall ........................................................... 56
Figure 34: Driving and Resisting Pressure Distribution for Diaphragm Wall Sections .................. 59
Figure 35: Diaphragm Wall Shear Force Diagram ......................................................................... 60
Figure 36: Diaphragm Wall Bending Moment Diagram................................................................ 61

IV
List of Tables
Table 1: Discontinuity Spacing for Ksp [13] ................................................................................... 16
Table 2: Field Strength Index for Rock Cores [15] ........................................................................ 18
Table 3: Maximum Column Spacing for Rigid Mat Foundation .................................................... 20
Table 4: Weighted Evaluation Matrix Scoring Description ........................................................... 39
Table 5: Foundation System Weighted Evaluation Matrix ........................................................... 39
Table 6: Shoring Near Existing Structures Weighted Evaluation Matrix ...................................... 40
Table 7: General Shoring Weighted Evaluation Matrix ................................................................ 41
Table 8: Effective Overburden Stress ........................................................................................... 42
Table 9: Building 3 Load Analysis .................................................................................................. 45
Table 10: Typical Values of Unit Weight for Soils [4] .................................................................... 47
Table 11: Ranges of Friction Angles for Soils [4]........................................................................... 48
Table 12: At Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient Summary Table ...................................................... 48
Table 13: Active and Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient Summary Table .................................... 49
Table 14: Footing Dimensions and Bearing Capacity of Surrounding Soil for each Depth ........... 51
Table 15: Soil Properties Used to Design Shoring Walls ............................................................... 53
Table 16: Secant Wall Bending Moment Summary Table ............................................................ 57
Table 17: Secant Wall Specifications Summary Table .................................................................. 58
Table 18: Diaphragm Wall Bending Moment Summary Table ..................................................... 62
Table 19: Diaphragm Wall Specifications Summary Table ........................................................... 62
Table 20: Tieback Load Components and Resultant Loads .......................................................... 64
Table 21: Estimation of Capacity for Pressure-Grouted Anchors (after FHWA 1984) [19] ........... 65
Table 22: Anchor Specification Summary Table ........................................................................... 66
Table 23 Calculated Hydraulic Conductivities .............................................................................. 66
Table 24: Quantity Take-off of Shoring Design ............................................................................. 68
Table 25: General Costs for Shoring Works [C. Elvidge, email communication, March 11, 2019]
...................................................................................................................................................... 69
Table 26: Cost Based on Square Metre Unit Price [C. Elvidge, email communication, March 11,
2019] ............................................................................................................................................ 69
Table 27: Approximate Pricing of Dewatering System ................................................................. 70

V
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition
A mixed-use residential and commercial high-rise development has been proposed in an urban
region within the Greater Toronto Area. The development proposes to build multiple towers of
up to 25-storeys, complete with 5 underground parking levels. The site has an overall area of
approximately 5600 m2 and includes multiple heritage buildings that will remain in-place. To
facilitate the excavation of the site, a shoring system capable of retaining soil and resisting
surcharge loads must be implemented. SAMT Group has been tasked with preparing a
preliminary geotechnical design of the shoring system.
The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary geotechnical design and shoring wall
schematic. Relevant background information pertaining to the design and decision-making
process is described. Additionally, the determination of soil parameters, preliminary foundation
design calculations, shoring wall calculations, de-watering plan and preliminary costing estimate
are reviewed. Drawings are provided detailing the preliminary geotechnical design, along with a
reflection on group dynamics and a review of recommendations for future works during the
design and construction of the proposed development.
1.2 Scope of Work
Prior to construction, a preliminary geotechnical design is required. This includes a review of
borehole logs, rock core logs, rising head tests and laboratory testing results to determine
subsurface conditions and soil strength parameters. Soil strength parameters were applied to
propose a preliminary foundation system design for the high-rise development and develop a
schematic shoring design to facilitate the excavation. A dewatering plan for the proposed
excavation has also been developed. Important design considerations while determining soil
parameters and developing designs for foundation and shoring systems include:
- Composition of existing subsurface conditions;
- Limitations of determining soil parameters using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results;
- Groundwater conditions;
- Location of surcharge loads from existing structures;
- Constructability;
- Material and construction cost; and,
- Environmental impact.

1
1.3 Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder in the development of this preliminary geotechnical report is the client
Terraprobe. Furthermore, the owner of the proposed development is an important stakeholder
because results and designs proposed will be applied during the construction process. Cyclists,
pedestrians and motor traffic are also stakeholders in this work as sidewalks and roadways may
be blocked or diverted during construction. Additional stakeholders include future and current
tenants and business owners at neighbouring properties as their day-to-day lives will be impacted
by the construction and the finished development. Therefore, it is critical that the geotechnical
design be safe and feasible while accommodating the needs of the stakeholders involved.
Developing a design that will allow the structure to serve the community is paramount for the
development to improve the lives of those who live and work in the surrounding community.

2.0 Site Conditions

2.1 Proposed Development
The proposed development is at the north-west corner of Yonge St. and Charles St. in Toronto,
Ontario, and includes an East and a West Property on either side of Clark Alley. The development
consists of 5 buildings with footprints ranging from approximately 1080 m2 to 2750 m2. The West
Property contains only Building 1 while the East Property contains the remaining buildings.
Building 1 is seven stories tall (approximately 23 m) and extends two stories (approximately 9 m)
below ground. This excavation will be largely separate from the excavation of the East Property.
All of the buildings on the East Property are proposed to be built over a parking garage
substructure that occupies the entire footprint of the property and will require one large
excavation. Building 3 is the largest building on the East Property with a structure that reaches a
height of 25 stories (approximately 87 m) and extends five stories (approximately 19 m) below
ground. Building 3 will be used as the governing structure when assessing and designing the
foundation system for the preliminary geotechnical design.
The site also contains six heritage buildings in the north-west corner of the East Property facing
Clark Alley and one existing structure on the south side of the East Property facing Charles St.
Existing structures remaining on the site will be of particular importance during when assessing
and designing the shoring wall system for the preliminary geotechnical design. A key map of the
site is shown in Figure 1 and the detailed Site Layout Plan is shown in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary
Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic’.

2
 Figure 1: Key Map of Proposed Development

2.2 Lithology
Soil lithology information was supplied by Terraprobe via borehole logs. Drilling equipment and
sampling method details are given in the borehole logs in ‘Appendix F3: Borehole Logs’.
Information from the borehole logs was compiled to create two hydrogeological cross-sections
of the subject property. Cross-section A-A’ dissects the property from north to south whereas
Cross-section B-B’ dissects the property from east to west. These cross-sections are shown in
‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic’. The surface elevation of
the subject properties ranges from 112.5 m to 113.1 m above sea level. The cross-sections
identify nine notable soil types: construction rubble, sand, sandy silt, clayey silt, gravelly sand,
silt, sand and silt, fill, and silty sand. A qualitative examination of the borehole logs indicates that
the lithology in the area of the proposed development consists primarily of sandy and clayey silts.
Bedrock information was supplied by Terraprobe via rock core logs. Drilling equipment and
sampling method details are given in the rock core logs in ‘Appendix F4: Rock Core Logs’. As
shown in these logs, the bedrock on the subject property is part of the Georgian Bay Formation.
The bedrock is composed of primarily shale, with limestone making up about 10% to 30% of the
composition.

3
2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater information was supplied by Terraprobe via borehole logs and rising head tests, as
shown in ‘Appendix F3: Borehole Logs’ and ‘Appendix F5: Rising Head Test Data’. Groundwater
elevations were obtained from 50mm diameter monitoring wells located on site. All monitoring
wells found on site are have three-meter screened intervals. Monitoring well locations are shown
in the Site Layout Plan found in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring
Schematic’. Monitoring well groundwater elevations were measured on various sampling dates
throughout April, May, and June of 2017, varying from well to well. Groundwater elevation
information for late April 2017 and well construction details are shown in the two
hydrogeological cross-sections found in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and
Shoring Schematic’. Specific ground water elevations for all wells can be found in ‘Appendix E3:
Boreholes Logs’. As shown in the hydrogeological cross sections, all the monitoring wells are
overburden wells. Two aquifers are present on site- an unconfined aquifer over a partially
confining silt layer over a leaky confined aquifer. Additionally, based on supplied groundwater
data, there is a possibility for a groundwater regime within the bedrock as a leaky confined or a
fully confined aquifer. This groundwater regime was not examined within the scope of this
report. It is also shown in the cross-sections that the approximate location of the groundwater
table ranges from approximately 112 m to 105 m above sea level within the subject properties.
Groundwater on-site appears to flow predominately east to west upon initial observations from
the hydrogeological cross-sections.

3.0 Background Information

3.1 Excavation in the Urban Environment
Developing high-rise buildings that will transmit large loads to bearing soils introduces additional
geotechnical design challenges compared to smaller buildings, particularly in the urban
environment. This is the most significant constraint to consider when developing the preliminary
geotechnical design for this site. High-rise buildings in the urban environment that include
multiple stories of underground substructure must be constructed by digging vertically without
sloped excavation walls. Shoring wall systems are used to excavate vertically by retaining soil,
supporting adjacent structures and providing a safe access to the workspace during construction
[1].

4
3.2 Soil Investigation
3.2.1 SPT Test
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a simple approach to testing and measuring the bearing
capacity of a soil. It is widely used to determine the in-situ properties of the soil. The test involves
driving a split spoon sampler into the soil through a borehole, as shown below in Figure 2. It is
driven through the soil by a hammer that is repeatedly dropped onto the sampler. The hammer
weighs 63.5 kg and is dropped from a height of 750 mm. The parameter taken from the test is
the SPT-N value, which represents the number of blows it takes to drive the sampler 300mm into
the soil. To avoid placement errors, the first 150 mm of penetration are disregarded. Therefore,
the N value represents the number of blows to drive the sampler from 150 mm to 450 mm [2].
These tests occur in increments of 150 mm throughout the borehole. The blows are often are
restricted to a maximum of 50 if there is significant refusal from the soil. This represents the
upper limit of soil strength and preserves the boring and sampling equipment [C. Elvidge,
personal communication, October 18, 2018]. With that being said, evidence of refusal can also
suggest that the test is not effectively providing the nature of the soil strata. Due to its simplicity,
the SPT has many pitfalls. These include energy inefficiency problems, the test does not represent
a continuous soil sample (test done at intervals), the soil is partially disturbed through the
previous blows, its unable to produce accurate results for soft clays and silts, and its high
variability and uncertainty [3].

Figure 2: Split Spoon Sampler [2]

The SPT test does not account for factors such as groundwater conditions, overburden pressures,
energy, equipment inconsistencies, and variability in field procedures, therefore correction
factors can be applied to the recorded SPT-N value [2]. Only groundwater and overburden
pressure correction factors will be considered in this report. It must be noted that these

5
correction factors are only applicable to effective stress analysis of cohesionless soils. The
expression for groundwater correction is provided below in Equation 1.
Equation 1: Groundwater SPT-N Correction Factor

1 '
!" = +
2 2()* + +)
Defined as follows:
' = -./0ℎ2 24 562.7 869:. ;74< =>7;6!.
)* = ?442/@0 ).A2ℎ
+ = ?442/@0 5/B2ℎ

The overburden pressures factor is used to consider the penetration resistance from the
overburden pressures. This penetration resistance increases with depth. As this factor is
empirical, there are multiple variations. The factor most commonly used in industry is provided
below in Equation 2 [4].
Equation 2: Overburden Pressure SPT-N Correction Factor

95.8 M/O
!" = C K L ; !Q ≤ 2
HIJ
3.2.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Tests
3.2.2.1 Rising Head Tests
The purpose of a rising head test is to determine the hydraulic conductivity of a given medium.
In accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 under the Ontario Water Resources Act R.R.O 1990
[5], the following outlines the procedures for a rising head test. A known volume of water is
removed from the well causing the level in the well to drop below the static water level. The
initial drop in water level is measured alongside the water level with time as the level in the well
returns to the static water level. Measurements for this test are normally conducted using a
pressure sensor and data logger, but measurements can also be taken manually with a static tape
or other measuring device. A diagram of a rising head test is shown below in Figure 3.

6
 Figure 3: Rising Head Test Schematic [5]: Rising Head Test Schematic [5]

The figure above shows the general procedure of a rising head test. Outlining the procedure with
respect with respect to the diagram, the initial known volume of water would be first removed
from the well with a bailer. The static water level is indicated by the dotted line labeled S.W.L,
and the initial drop in elevation is represented by wo. The dashed interval represents the well
casing. A pressure transducer is located at the bottom of the well attached to a data logger to
measure well level recovery with time.
3.2.2.2 Hvorslev Solution Method
Various methods exist to determine hydraulic conductivity from a rising head test. The data from
rising head tests for the wells existing in the unconfined aquifer (BH1-3) supplied by Terraprobe
were given a trend line using the Hvorslev method, as shown in the graphs of rising head test
data found in ‘F5: Rising Head Test Data’. Since this was the method used in the supplied rising
head tests, the Hvorslev method will be used to determine the required parameters from the
rising head tests in the unconfined aquifer in this report. Hvorslev’s equation is shown below in
Equation 3 [6].

7
Equation 3: Hvorslev's Equation for a Partially Penetrating Well

Defined as follows:
- = )/SA:6!.<.@2 62 2/<. 2
-T = U@/2/6: )/SA:6!.<.@2 62 2/<. 2 = 0
WX = Y6B/6: -ZB76>:/! [4@B>!2/\/2Z
WI = ].72/!6: -ZB76>:/! [4@B>!2/\/2Z
^ = =!7..@ ^.@02ℎ
7_ = `4</@6: [6S/@0 Y6B/>S
7" = 5.:: Y6B/>S
2 = a:6AS.B 8/<. =/@!. U@/2/62/4@ 4; 2ℎ. 8.S2

It must be noted that the value of rw in this equation is typically taken as the borehole radius
extending to the outer edge of the sand packing, not the radius of the well casing and that
Equation 3 shown above for partially penetrating wells. Hvorslev’s method has can be further
used for a well abutting a confining unit and a fully penetrating well using Equation 4 and
Equation 5, respectively [6].
Equation 4: Hvorslev's Equation for a Well Abutting a Confining Unit

Equation 5: Hvorslev's Equation for a Fully Penetrating Well

8
The above equations used for Hvorslev’s method are designed for non-leaky confined aquifers.
However, these equations can yield approximate estimations of hydraulic conductivity in an
unconfined aquifer providing the well screen is not near the water table [6]. Upon examination
of the hydrogeological cross-sections found in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan
and Shoring Schematic’, it was noted that most of the screened intervals are several metres
below the groundwater table. Therefore, Hvorslev’s method can be applied to this site. By
extension, Hvorslev’s method can be effectively used to analyze the horizontal and vertical
hydraulic conductivity from the applicable supplied borehole logs and rising head test graphs
found in ‘Appendix F5: Rising Head Test Data’.
3.2.2.3 Bouwer and Rice Solution Method
Additional methods can be used to calculate the hydraulic conductivity from rising head tests in
leaky confined aquifers. The data from rising head tests for the wells existing in the leaky-
confined aquifer (BH107 and BH114) supplied by Terraprobe were given a trend line using the
Bouwer and Rice method. This was shown in the graphs of rising head test data found in ‘F5:
Rising Head Test Data’. Since this was the method used in the supplied rising head tests, the
Bouwer and Rice method will be used to determine the required parameters from the rising head
tests in the leaky confined aquifer in this report. The Bouwer and Rice equation is shown below
in Equation 6 [7].

9
Equation 6: Bouwer and Rice Solution for Water Level Recovery During a Slug Test in an Unconfined Aquifer

Defined as follows:
- = )/SA:6!.<.@2 62 2/<. 2
-T = U@/2/6: )/SA:6!.<.@2 62 2/<. 2 = 0
WX = Y6B/6: -ZB76>:/! [4@B>!2/\/2Z
WI = ].72/!6: -ZB76>:/! [4@B>!2/\/2Z
^ = =!7..@ ^.@02ℎ
@b = a;;.!2/\. c474S/2Z (SA.!/;/! Z/.:B) 4; 2ℎ. ?/:2.7 c6!d
7_ = `4</@6: [6S/@0 Y6B/>S
7" = 5.:: Y6B/>S
Yb = ae2.7@6: 4; a;;.!2/\. Y6B/>S 4; 2ℎ. 8.S2
2 = a:6AS.B 8/<. =/@!. U@/2/62/4@ 4; 2ℎ. 8.S2

It must be noted that the value of rw in this equation is typically taken as the borehole radius
extending to the outer edge of the sand packing not the radius of the well casing, and that the
term ln(Re/rwe) found in Equation 6 is an empirical quantity which can be determined utilizing an
analog model which accounts for well-aquifer geometry. The above equations used for the
Bouwer and Rice method are designed for unconfined aquifers. However, these equations have
been noted to be effective for analyzing rising head tests in leaky confined aquifers as well [7].
The Bouwer and Rice method can be effectively used to analyze the horizontal and vertical
hydraulic conductivity from the applicable supplied borehole logs and rising head test graphs
found in ‘Appendix F5: Rising Head Test Data’.
3.4 Foundation Systems
Shallow foundations, friction and end-bearing driven piles, bedrock end-bearing bored piles and
a mat foundation were all considered as potential foundation systems for the proposed

10
development. Preliminary calculations were performed for all four potential foundation systems
to properly evaluate their feasibility for the proposed development.
3.4.1 Shallow Foundation
A shallow foundation, or spread footing, is installed at a shallow depth that is able to support
loads from the structure [8]. The building’s columns extend into a base slab which spreads the
loads across the bearing soil. Spread footings can also be installed with overlapping bases that
act together rather than separately. This tactic is used when the columns are close together,
causing the bases of the footing to be in close proximity with each other. These are referred as
strip footings. In this report only spread footings for shallow foundations will be considered. A
spread footing with a square base is shown below in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Spread Footing Schematic [4]

The Terzaghi approach can be applied to determine the bearing capacity of the soil surrounding
a spread footing. This method considers the geometric and load properties of the footing, soil
type and type of stress analysis required (total or effective). A total stress analysis (TSA) is a short-
term condition which only applies for fine-grained soils whereas an effective stress analysis (ESA)
is applicable for all soils over the entire life of the structure [4]. Terzaghi expressions for the TSA
and ESA analysis are shown below in Equation 7 and Equation 8, respectively.
Equation 7: Terzaghi Expression for a Total Stress Analysis

fg = 5.14Sg S_ B_ /_ 9_ 0_

11
Equation 8: Terzaghi Expression for an Effective Stress Analysis

fg = i)* j`k − 1mSk Bk /k 9k 0k + 0.5i+K `n Sn Bn 9n 0n

The factors associated with the two methods are defined below in Figure 5. As the expressions
that contain all of the factors are in the general form, variations of the Terzaghi expressions can
be further simplified for specific cases. For example, a vertical centric load applied to a horizontal
footing resting on a horizontal surface simplifies the above expressions to
Equation 9 and Equation 10 below [4].
Equation 9: Terzaghi Expression for a Vertical Centric Load only on a Horizontal Footing Resting on a Horizontal Surface (TSA)

fg = 5.14Sg S_ B_
Equation 10: Terzaghi Expression for a Vertical Centric Load only on a Horizontal Footing Resting on a Horizontal Surface (ESA)

fg = i)* j`k − 1mSk Bk + 0.5i+K `n Sn Bn

Figure 5: Expressions for the Factors Associated with the Terzaghi Approach [4]

Analysis was conducted using both the TSA and ESA method and the smallest bearing capacity
was taken as the governing condition. These analyses were conducted at three overburden
depths between the bottom of the slab and the top of foundation; 0.5 m, 1.0 m, and 1.5 m. This

12
was done to determine if the increasing the depth would significantly alter the bearing capacity
achieved.
To determine the bearing capacity of the soil and the foundation dimensions, estimated load
requirements were developed by assuming the square footing dimensions and checking against
the estimated building loads. Building loads are described in detail later in ‘5.2.1 Building Loads’.
This approach resulted in multiple iterations until the assumed dimensions matched
approximately with the calculated dimensions.
The Terzaghi method of calculating the bearing capacity for a shallow foundation applied starting
from the initial footing size estimate. As minimal data was provided on the loads, it was assumed
that the acting load was vertical centric, acting on a horizontal footing resting on a horizontal
surface to simplify the analysis. The estimated individual column point load was then divided by
the Terzaghi bearing capacity to produce a required footing area. As an assumption was made
that the footing was square, the area was square rooted to produce the length and width of the
footing. If this value did not match the assumed dimensions, another iteration of the same
procedure was performed using the calculated dimensions produced by the Terzaghi bearing
capacity.
3.3.2 Driven Piles
Driven pile foundations are characterized as shallow or deep depending on the pile used. Driven
piles have been used as building foundations for a very extensive period and the installation
process is considered crude and brutal as stated By Professor R. B. Peck. Piles are installed by
hammering them into the ground. Currently, the most widely used hammer is the resonant
hammer [9]. These types of hammers function by driving the pile using high-frequency vibration
at the pile’s resonant frequency, thereby maximizing driving pile acceleration and force [10].
Interactions between the piles and surrounding soil are extremely complex as pile insertion alters
the soil creating intense strain at the piles [9] As a result, driven pile design often uses practical
semi-empirical methods for design, focusing only on the most significant factors. To determine
the shaft friction as well as end bearing resistance of the driven piles design in this report, the
procedures outlined in the Budhu Textbook for Soil Mechanics and Foundations were used. A
summary of the calculations used from Table 10.4 of Budhu are shown in Figure 6 [4].

13
 Figure 6: End Bearing for Driven Piles [4]

By applying the procedure outlined by Budhu using the soil parameters and site conditions, the
total bearing capacity of a theoretical driven pile can then be determined using Equation 11 [4].
Equation 11: Bearing of a driven pile

r
o = p (;q ! B') + ;s tu
T

Driven piles were designed using Borehole Log 103 from ‘Appendix F3: Borehole Logs’. This was
chosen since it provided the least amount of overburden before bedrock and would give a
conservative driven pile design for evaluation. The pile design used a one-foot (0.305 m) diameter
closed pipe pile as it is a common pile design used in industry and was recommended by C. Elvidge
[personal communication, November 15, 2018]. Closed pipe piles were selected instead of a steel
H-piles since the pile would need to support a large amount of loading from the building, and

14
steel H-piles rely solely on shaft friction and supply no end bearing resistance, which was deemed
inadequate for this building’s foundation design [9].
To perform a preliminary analysis, specific weights of silt and sand, gravelly sand, and sandy
gravel were assumed to be 18.9 kN/m3, 19.8 kN/m3 and 18.9 kN/m3 respectively [11]. The angle
of internal friction was assumed to be 40° according to C. Elvidge [personal communication,
November 15, 2018].
Using the techniques from Budhu for determining bearing capacity detailed above, it was
determined that a one-foot diameter closed pipe would have an ultimate bearing resistance
approximately of 522 kN and an allowable bearing resistance of approximately 174 kN. Under
Building 3 loading, each pile would be able to support a tributary area of 0.77 m2, thereby
requiring 0.88 m on center pile spacing. It should be noted that this pile spacing is impractical
and would require many piles across the site. Furthermore, it should be noted that 120 blows per
300 mm in an SPT test is considered driven pile refusal conditions by industry standard hammer
manufacturers [9]. Based on the observed values of hammer blows versus depth in the borehole
logs found in ‘Appendix F3: Borehole Logs’, the possibility of reaching the 120 blows per 300mm
threshold due to dense soils on site is high creating the possibility of driven pile refusal.
3.3.3 Bored Piles Bearing on Bedrock
Bored piling is a type of deep foundation that involves boring a circular excavation, installing steel
reinforcement and filling the borehole with concrete to form a pile. Boring is conducted to a
required depth by either a crawler-crane rotary boring unit or a hydraulic drilling machine [12].
Bored piling has several advantages, namely that boring generates less noise and vibration than
driven piles. The bored piles considered for this design consist of drilling into sound bedrock with
a rotary boring bit to provide an end bearing surface for the piles.
To determine the end bearing resistance of a pile on in bedrock several factors must be
considered. According to the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), the bearing
pressure can be determined from rock core data, given in Terraprobe geotechnical documents in
’Appendix F4: Rock Core Logs’. The allowable stress for a rock structure can be determined from
the unconfined compressive strength of the rock core, an empirical factor Ksp and a depth factor
d, as shown in Figure 7.

15
 Figure 7: Bearing Pressure from Rock Core Data [13]

The factor Ksp in the above equation is the allowable stress factor, which takes into account a
global factor of safety of three. As given in Table 1, Ksp is also known as the coefficient of
discontinuity spacing and typical values range from 0.1 to 0.4 [13].
Table 1: Discontinuity Spacing for Ksp [13]

To calculate the actual value of Ksp, additional data regarding both the rock and pile design is
required, as shown in Figure 8. This equation includes the width, or in this case the diameter of
the pile, spacing of discontinuities and the aperture of the discontinuities.

16
 Figure 8: Equation for Ksp [13]

The apertures of the discontinuities are typically given in millimetres based on whether the
features are closed, gapped or open, as shown in Figure 9. This general classification was given
in the rock core logs and used to estimate Ksp.

Figure 9: Aperture of Discontinuities [14]

The final variable that is required to calculate the allowable stress is the unconfined compressive
stress (UCS) that the rock can sustain. Using the rock quality designation and the field strength
index, the UCS can be estimated. Piles are designed to be placed in the R3 strength index which
as seen in Table 2 below.

17
 Table 2: Field Strength Index for Rock Cores [15]

Considering the above assumptions and the rock core data, the allowable stress of a pile can be
estimated using Equation 12, Equation 13 and Equation 14 below. The total allowable load is
computed by multiplying the allowable stress by the cross-sectional area of the pile.
Equation 12: Allowable stress of a pile in end bearing on rock

fv = H_ dqw B
Equation 13: Coefficient of Discontinuity

!
3 + y+ z
dqw =
}
10 ∗ |1 + 300 y ! z

Equation 14: Depth Factor of the Pile

^q
B = 1 + 0.4( ) ≤ 3
+q
The bearing capacity of a single pile was determined to be in the range of 7.5 - 15 MPa. For a pile
with a diameter of one metre this yielded a load of between approximately 5890 kN and 11, 700
kN depending on compressive strength of an R3 rock quality designation which is between 25
MPa and 50 MPa. See ‘Appendix B3: Preliminary Bored Pile’ for a detailed sample calculation.
3.3.4 Mat Foundations
Mat foundations are large concrete slabs capable of supporting loading from multiple columns
or walls. Mat foundations act as one large footing to support a building, reducing the unit
pressure on the soil compared to a shallow foundation system. Furthermore, the bearing capacity
of the supporting soil can be increased and settlement can be decreased when mat foundations
are used below grade [16].

18
A mat foundation is often specified when large building loads are applied, or weak soils are
present. In such cases, slab foundations are beneficial compared to shallow foundations as they
eliminate the need for many large spread footings, increasing the constructability of the design
[17]. Mat foundations are also less sensitive to differential settlement than pile and shallow
foundation systems [16].
Mat foundations can be analyzed and designed as using a rigid or elastic method depending on
the rigidity of the system. The elastic method considers the mat foundation as a flexible plate
and is more complex than the rigid method [17]. The elastic method requires computer analysis
using a finite element model and is not within the scope of this preliminary geotechnical design
project, therefore only rigid mat design will be considered.
Mats are considered rigid if the following criteria are met [17]:
• Adjacent column loads vary by 20% or less;
• Column spacing does not vary by more than 20%, and;
M.~
• Column spacing is less than Ä
.

Where Equation 15 and Equation 16 are used:

Equation 15: Stiffness Evaluation Factor

Wq T.O
Å=C L
4a_ U
Equation 16: Spring Constant

Wq = dq +K
Defined as follows:
Å = =2/;;@.SS a\6:>62/4@ ?6!247
Wq = =A7/@0 [4@S26@2 4; =4/:
a_ = Ç4B>:>S 4; a:6S2/!/2Z 4; [4@!7.2.
U = Ç4<.@2 4; U@.72/6 4; ).S/0@ =27/A
dq = Ç4B>:>S 4; =>9076B. Y.6!2/4@
+K = 5/B2ℎ 4; ).S/0@ =27/A

19
If the mat is determined to be rigid, it can be divided into independent design strips, as shown in
Figure 10, which can be designed similarly to shallow foundations under the cumulative column
loading within each strip [17].

Figure 10: Typical Mat Foundation Design Strip Schematic [17]

Using the rigid method described above, the minimum column spacing required to achieve a rigid
mat was calculated to be 3.32 m using the material and section properties given in Table 3.
Table 3: Maximum Column Spacing for Rigid Mat Foundation

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete (MPa) 24648

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (kg/m3) 4152000
Mat Thickness (mm) 400
Design Strip Width (mm) 8000
Moment of Inertia of Design Strip (mm4) 42666666667
Spring Constant (MPa) 325.85
Stiffness Evaluation Factor 0.000528
Maximum Rigid Column Spacing (m) 3.32

20
A column spacing of only 3.32 m will limit vehicle access in the parking garage, therefore design
of a mat foundation using the rigid method is not feasible for the proposed development and an
elastic analysis is required. As stated in above, an elastic mat foundation analysis is outside of the
project scope for this preliminary geotechnical design. Full preliminary calculations are provided
in ‘Appendix B4: Preliminary Mat Foundation CalculationB4: Preliminary Mat Foundation’.
3.5 Shoring Systems
3.5.1 Shoring Wall Design
Shoring walls are large scale retaining walls designed to provide vertical excavation walls and
support existing adjacent structures at urban construction sites. Shoring walls must be strong
enough to retain a height of soil equal to the depth of the foundation. Settlement of existing
structures is controlled by limiting the allowable deflection of the shoring system [1]. Four
shoring wall systems were researched and evaluated for use during excavation: soldier pile and
lagging walls, sheet pile walls, secant/tangent pile walls, and diaphragm walls.
3.5.1.1 Soldier Piles with Lagging
These piles provide intermittent support for retained soil and are installed before the excavation
begins. Soldier pile and lagging walls consist of soldier pile column members designed for
strength connected by sheet lagging members spanning between columns to retain soil, as
shown in Figure 11 [13]. Wood or concrete lagging sections can be used depending on stiffness
requirements. Steel columns are typically inserted into drilled holes and backfilled with concrete
[18]. Wall stiffnesses of 450 MPa to 6, 250 MPa can be achieved for excavation depths up to 25
m [19].

Figure 11: Typical Soldier Pile and Lagging Wall Plan View Schematic [19]

Soldier piles typically act as a less stiff flexible wall that has yielded. This results in an action called
“soil arching”. Soil arching causes a redistribution of stresses as the soil attempts to establish
equilibrium. The supports (the piles) induce “soil arching” between supports. This then leads to
localized soil movements near the “bulges” of the lagging, this can be seen below in Figure 12.
The “bulge” results in a significant reduction of lateral pressure than what is calculated using the

21
Rankine Coulomb methods, however soil arching creates a much larger disturbing moment that
must then be accounted for [4].

Figure 12: Less Stiff Flexible Wall [4]

Spacing of soldier piles are an important issue depending on soil type. Soils prone to arching
would need a much lower spacing requirement especially if those soils are adjacent to a structure
that is sensitive to any settlement. Typical spacing is two to three in strong soils with no sensitive
structures, while spacing with weaker soils near structures sensitive to settlements is between
one to two metres [19].
The installation of soldier piles can be done in one of two ways: driven or placed in pre-drilled
holes. Driven piles are discussed below in ‘Section 3.5.1.2 Sheet Pile Walls’ and can lead to issues
with settlement caused by the vibrations needed to install the piles. Pre-drilled piles must be
backfilled to the ground surface with either grout or concrete. However, when performing pre-
drilled holes for these piles, groundwater conditions must be considered to ensure bore stability.
To prevent the collapse of the hole temporary casings, slurries or water must be added to the
hole in order to maintain the stability of the boring [19].
3.5.1.2 Sheet Pile Walls
Sheet metal piles are the shoring method of choice in retaining open water excavations such as
cofferdams or waterfront construction. Uses also extend to retaining soils that are below the
water table, which is the case on this site. Sheet piles are particularly useful in retaining soft clays
that have little to no shear strength [20]. Additionally, sheet piles are advantageous due to their
ability to interlock with one another and create a watertight fit. This limits the inflow of both
water and sediments into the excavation. Typical joints used in sheet piling are shown below in
Figure 13.

22
 Figure 13: Typical Sheet Piling Joints [20]

While sheet pile walls provide waterproofing, they are typically used in cases where the
temporary shoring walls are small. Their uses are often limited by loading conditions due to
excessive deflection caused by insufficient stiffness [19]. This makes them prone to soil arching,
similar to what was discussed in ‘Section 3.5.1.1 Soldier Piles with Lagging’.
Other disadvantages are apparent during the installation phase. Sheeting is typically driven into
place, and strata such as boulders, cobbles and very dense soils can significantly decrease their
effectiveness [19]. Considering the site of the proposed development has several SPT tests that
reached refusal, sheet piling may not be effective on this site.
Further concerns include the use of these piles in urban areas due to disturbance and potential
settlement for neighbouring facilities because of the vibrations. Excess vibrations could disrupt
and damage heritage buildings surrounding the site, which is a major element of design
considerations. Finally, another issue with sheet piling is the voids that are left post construction.
When construction of the subsurface is complete and piling is removed, adhesive soil to the piling
often gets removed with the sheet. This causes voids in the strata and is particularly problematic
when the sheet extends past the base of the excavation [19].
3.5.1.3 Secant/Tangent Caisson Pile Walls
Pile walls are split into two types; secant walls and tangent walls. The difference between the
two is the way the piles are constructed. For example, as the name suggests tangent walls are
placed so they are only to be touching at one point. Each pile adjacent to the next are identical
and constructed such that results in no overlap. A visual is provided below in Figure 14.

23
 Figure 14: Tangent Pile Plan View Schematic [21]

However, secant piles are constructed with primary (male) and secondary (female) piles. Instead
of meeting at a singular point like the tangent piles, the drilled shafts are interlocked by the use
of the two different piles. The primary pile is defined as a reinforced circular pile, similar to an
individual tangent pile whereas the secondary pile is the interlocking pile that creates the
watertight barrier within the caissons. A visual is provided below in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Secant Pile Plan View Schematic [22]

The difference between the two piles are that the tangent piles are unable to act as a barrier for
water. This means they are inadequate for any scenario where shoring is required for below the
water table. As there is a requirement for the entirety of the wall to be shored and the water
table is above this depth throughout the site, only secant walls will be applicable for the nature
of the site. For the remainder of this document, only secant piles will be referenced and analyzed.
Secant walls also cause limited obstruction to surrounding buildings and areas. Secant piles are
able to be constructed within close vicinity of adjacent structures and in a quick manner. The
construction process has limited vibration and can be constructed relatively quickly which results
in a less disruptive process for the surrounding business owners and community members. For
example, a single pass method can be chosen which is where the concrete is pumped
continuously through the auger hole after it has dug the intended depth [23]
Secant piles are also able to be catered to the different site conditions. This can be accomplished
through differing the construction processes. For example, in cases where there is no saturated
soil present, smaller soil pressures develop, and the secondary piles can be installed a shallower
depth to save resources. For cases where higher strength is required, considerations can be
applied to the construction process to meet these requirements. For example, greater structural
capacity can be achieved through adding more reinforcement in the primary piles or even adding
reinforcement into the secondary piles [22]. Another method to increase the structural strength

24
is to increase the compressive strength of the concrete in the piles. For example, for cases where
water retention is vital, the concrete mix requires a compressive strength of at least 20 MPa [24].
To ensure sufficient strength and functionality, secant piles must be constructed to tight drilling
tolerances to ensure both structural support and establishing a groundwater cut-off system. With
that being said, to ensure success, secant piles must be constructed with adherence to small
tolerances. As there is overlap involved, this overlap must be continuous and constant across the
entire depth of the pile. If it does not meet this requirement, it can result in an unsafe wall which
will require repair [25].
3.5.1.4 Diaphragm Walls
Concrete diaphragm walls are concrete walls reinforced with structural steel piles or reinforcing
bars, as shown in Figure 16. Diaphragm walls are more expensive compared to caisson walls and
soldier pile lagging walls and require specialty equipment during installation. However, they
provide greater stiffness with values ranging from 47, 000 MPa to 250, 000 MPa for excavation
depths up to 30 m. This shoring wall system may also be installed permanently and incorporated
into the final design of a proposed structure [19].

Figure 16: Typical Concrete Diaphragm Wall Plan View Schematics [19]

Diaphragm wall installation occurs before the excavation has been opened by digging a trench to
the desired depth before inserting reinforcing and pouring concrete. As the trench is cut, a
mineral polymer known as slurry is pumped into the opening to stabilize the trench walls. When
the concrete is poured, the slurry is displaced and collected to be removed from the site [22]. In
addition to stabilizing the trench, the slurry in contact with the trench walls forms a
waterproofing membrane between the soil and the concrete wall. If best construction practices
are followed, a diaphragm wall can limit moisture penetration through the wall and act as a
watertight permanent structural member of a development [26].
25
Diaphragm wall installation can also be advantageous in urban environments because vibration
during installation is minimized relative to techniques that required structural members to be
driven into the soil. By minimizing soil disturbance during installation and providing high wall
stiffness upon completion, diaphragm walls are effective at mitigating the settlement
experienced at adjacent properties [26].
3.5.2 Bracing Systems
Bracing systems prevent shoring walls from buckling and limit deflections. Three systems
commonly used to brace shoring walls include tiebacks, rakers and struts [1].
3.5.2.1 Tiebacks
Tiebacks brace shoring walls by anchoring them to the soil they support. Structural tensile
strength is provided by pre-stressed steel cables that are cast in concrete and driven at an angle
into the excavation walls, as shown in Figure 17. Tiebacks are advantageous because they provide
a fully accessible site, however they protrude into adjacent properties and permission from
neighbouring property owners is required before they can be implemented [27].

Figure 17: Typical Tieback Side View Schematic [28]

While they do not restrict access to the site, vertical and horizontal spacing must be considered
when designing tiebacks. A minimum 4.5 m meter spacing is required below the ground surface
to the centre of the anchor bond zone. This is applicable to pressure grouted anchors as there is
a risk of grout leakage and heave at the ground surface if the minimum depth is not applied, as
shown in Figure 18. Horizontal spacing depends on type of beam. For soldier piles, typical
horizontal spacing is 1.5 - 3 m. There are also restrictions on the minimum horizontal spacing
between anchors. This ensures that the group effects between adjacent anchor are minimal and
that the anchor’s will not intersect due to faulty drilling methods [29]. The minimum centre-to-
centre spacing of the anchors is that it must be at least 4 times the anchor diameter [19]

26
 Figure 18: Specified Minimal Vertical Depth to first Anchor

There are two methods of transmitting the tieback force into the soil strata with grout; tremi-
grouting (gravity induced) and pressurized grouting. Tremi-grouting is typically used in cases
where smaller tieback forces are present whereas pressurized grouting is used in situations of
higher load requirements. Pressurized grout is more favourable for higher load cases is due to its
increased surface area. When the grout is pressurized into the soil, it does not stay cylindrical but
spreads out. This spreading forms ‘fingers’ which in turn increases the surface area and results in
higher transfer of loads to the soil [19].
3.5.2.2 Rakers
Rakers brace shoring walls within the limits of the site using the ground at the base of the
excavation for support. Rakers are typically made of steel beams placed at an angle, as shown in
Figure 19. Unlike tiebacks, rakers occupy space inside the excavation and can present accessibility
issues [27].

27
 Figure 19: Typical Raker Side View Schematic [19]

3.5.2.3 Struts
Struts provide bracing by connecting adjacent shoring walls and bracing them against each other,
as shown in Figure 20. This form of bracing is similar to the raker system as bracing occupies
space within the excavation and can also limit site accessibility during construction [27].

Figure 20: Photo of a Strut Bracing System [26]: Photo of a Strut Bracing System [26]

3.5.3 Hinge Method

The hinge method is the mode of analysis used to study the loading of pile wall that is restrained
from deflection with either struts or anchors. This method uses the apparent lateral pressure
distribution discussed in section ‘3.7 Soil Pressure Distributions’. The method is particularly useful

28
when solving multiple levels of tieback systems. The basis of the model is derived from the spans
between anchors, as well as force and moment equilibriums [30].
The analysis of multiple tiebacks involves the assumption that the wall is simply supported
between each set of tiebacks (except for the span between the ground surface and the first
tieback). Moments are taken about the upper tieback to solve for the moment at tieback 1. There
is an imposed moment at the first tieback as the upper portion of the wall is cantilevered,
therefore the first tieback must support a moment. All other tiebacks are simply supported and
support no moment [30]. The rest of the tiebacks, with the exception of the bottom tieback, are
calculated using the combination of the moment at tieback 1 and the tributary area of each
tieback. The embedment depth of the pile is found using this method by taking moments about
the last tieback and setting the driving moment equal to the resisting moment. The bottom
tieback load is then found using force equilibrium. Forces acting on each section of the wall
according to the hinge method are shown below in Figure 21 [30].

Figure 21: Hinge Method for Multiple Tiebacks Levels [30]

3.6 Dewatering Systems

3.6.1 Deep Well Systems
Based on the groundwater conditions on site, a deep well pumping system is ideal for dewatering
the proposed excavation. Deep well systems are used to remove water from lithology formations
beneath the excavation depth. A deep well system can also be employed under artesian
conditions to remove the artesian pressure beneath the ground area of an excavation [31].

29
Additionally, the excavation depth of 20 m (19 m for parking with an additional meter allotted
for the foundation system) makes a standard well point system inadequate as these wells are
restricted to five to six metres of drawdown compared to a deep well system which is only limited
by well depth [32]. A typical deep well system features a parallel line of wells on either side of
the excavation spaced at 10 - 60 m. These systems also include a water collection system, a
settlement tank, a discharge pipe, and a power source, as shown in Figure 22 [32].

Figure 22: Deep Well Dewatering System

3.6.2 Deep Well System Analysis

The proposed dewatering system that will be used is a system with two lines of partially
penetrating well points. Due to excavation depths on site, the deep well system will be under
artesian conditions. The flowrate required by this type of system can be calculated as shown
below using Equation 17 [33].
Equation 17: Pumping Rate and Residual Drawdown in a Partially Penetrating Well System Under Artesian Flow Conditions

30
It must be noted that Equation 17 is accurate for one row well systems. To calculate the residual
drawdown created for a two row well system under artesian conditions, the residual drawdown
equation must be altered as shown below in Equation 18 [33].
Equation 18: Residual Drawdown Calculation for a Two Row Well Partially Penetrating System Under Artesian Flow Conditions:

3.7 Soil Pressure Distributions

To evaluate the loading conditions that the proposed shoring wall will be subjected to, an
understanding of lateral pressures is required. Three lateral pressure conditions exist depending
largely upon deformations of the shoring wall. Under at-rest conditions, where no deformation
occurs, an at-rest lateral pressure coefficient is used. This value, Ko, is the ratio of horizontal
principal effective stress to the vertical principal effective stress and depends on the critical state
angle of shear strength, f’cs. It can be approximated using Equation 19 below for soils with an
over consolidation ratio of one [4].
Equation 19: At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficient

W4 = 1 − S/@É′!S

Using the at-rest earth pressure coefficient results in the greatest lateral forces. As such, at-rest
pressures are very conservative in design. An average of at-rest and active pressures will be used

31
to design stiffer wall elements, such as diaphragm walls, since deformations are extremely
limited, subjecting the wall to larger lateral earth pressures [26].
Conversely to at-rest soil pressures, active and passive soil pressures are used when an earth-
retaining structure deflects away and towards the backfill, respectively. The pressure is the ratio
between the lateral and vertical effective stresses at limiting state [4]. This can be seen in Figure
23 below which depicts the transformation of Mohr’s circle from at-rest to active and passive
states.

Figure 23: Mohr's Circle for At-Rest, Active and Passive Stress States [4]

Active coefficient and passive lateral earth pressure coefficient are calculated using Equation 20
and Equation 21, respectively. It can be seen that that Ka is the inverse of Kp.
Equation 20: Active earth pressure coefficient

1 − S/@É K
Wv =
1 + S/@É K
Equation 21: Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient

1 + S/@É K
Ww =
1 − S/@É K

For homogenous layers, lateral earth pressure increases linearly with depth as shown in Figure
24. Active and passive coefficients are applied only to the effective stresses. As a result, soil
distributions typically have a triangular geometry. However, layered strata cause variations in the
32
stress distribution slopes. It should be noted that this pressure distribution does not hold true for
braced earth retaining structures. To properly model the lateral pressures imposed onto a braced
earth retaining structure, an empirical apparent earth pressure model must be used [30].

Figure 24: Lateral Pressure Distributions for cantilever walls without restraints [4]

Apparent earth pressures convert the triangular pressure distribution into a trapezoidal shape.
This method considers a flexible analysis, which is required on all walls that are over five metres
in height and have bracing applied to their structure. Generally, earth pressures increase with
depth, but with an anchored wall this is not the case. This design is based upon envelopes of
maximum design stresses by distributing strut loads over a tributary area. This method of
apparent earth pressures incorporates design factors such as construction staging and soil type
[19]. Figure 25 displays the pressure distributions seen using apparent stresses.

33
 Figure 25: Apparent Earth Pressure Distribution [30]

3.8 Innovation
Standard industry practice in the Greater Toronto Area is to apply pile shoring walls with tiebacks
as temporary shoring and waterproofing during the excavation. Following the excavation, the
permanent structure is then erected from the lowest floor upwards until completion [C. Elvidge,
personal communication, February 6, 2019]. This method of design and construction has proven
effective to date, but new technologies and methods may offer technical advantages leading to
more cost-effective solution. The primary aspects within the scope of the preliminary
geotechnical design that innovative changes may affect are the type of wall selected, or the
construction method applied to implement the selected wall. It must also be noted that the
practicality of innovative design options must be properly considered during the evaluation stage
prior to the selection of a final design.
3.8.1 Wall Type
Shoring wall systems are typically designed as temporary structures, meant to retain soil while
restricting settlement and water penetration during excavation and construction and are not
integrated into the permanent structure of the development [1]. If a wall system can be designed
to be integrated into the final structure it will eliminate the need to build a permanent structural
wall within the shoring system, reducing the labour and material cost of the development and
potentially speeding up the construction process.

34
3.8.2 Construction Method
The method of construction directly impacts the time required to perform excavation and
construction works, which will determine the final cost to develop the site. An innovative solution
would allow excavation and construction to be performed more quickly or in tandem without
negatively impacting functionality or safety. One such method is the top-down construction
model.
Top-down construction is a construction technique that requires that the external wall of the
structure and foundation system be bored and installed to their full depth before beginning the
excavation process. Basement levels are then excavated from ground surface downwards
individually. Floor slabs are poured at each level before excavation continues beneath.
Consequently, each slab that is poured acts as a bracing system for the excavation that is shored
by the external wall that was cast before digging, as shown in Figure 26. This method is ideal for
confined sites with little space for storing equipment and can also reduce material costs by
eliminating the need for temporary shoring and bracing [26].

Figure 26: Elements of Top Down Construction [26]

35
4.0 Design Evaluation
4.1 Design Criteria
Weighted evaluation matrices were constructed to evaluate and select a foundation system and
a shoring wall system. Foundation designs were evaluated against five criteria and shoring wall
systems were evaluated against nine design criteria. Each criterion was assigned a weight
between 0 and 1 according to its importance. The completed weighted evaluation matrices are
given in ‘Section 4.2 Evaluation’.
To ensure that existing structures and heritage buildings are preserved during the excavation,
the shoring wall segment directly adjacent to existing structures was selected using a separate
evaluation matrix than the remainder of the site. This was accomplished by modifying the
weighting of the Impact to Existing Structures criterion for walls that will be used to shore the
faces of the excavation closest to existing structures within the site.
4.1.1 Functionality
Functionality was used as a design criterion in the evaluation of foundation design options only
as the functionality of the shoring wall system can be divided into two criteria: stiffness and water
resistance, as discussed in Sections ‘4.1.1 Functionality’ and ‘4.1.2 Stiffness’.
Functionality is paramount in the selection of a foundation design and has been assigned a weight
of 1. The proposed foundation must be capable of transferring the building load safely to the soil
while limiting settlement.
4.1.2 Stiffness
The stiffness of the shoring wall directly correlates to its performance and it is essential that the
shoring wall be stiff enough to limit soil movement behind the wall and provide adequate access
to the excavation within the site. Wall stiffness has been assigned a weight of 1.
4.1.3 Water Resistance
In addition to wall stiffness, the ability of the wall to resist water penetration and leakage is a
major component related to the shoring system’s overall performance. The final shoring wall
system should be as watertight as possible to minimize the cost and scale of the dewatering
efforts required during the excavation. Furthermore, if a sufficiently waterproof system can be
constructed, it may be able to be implemented permanently into the final structure, creating
additional savings during the construction process. Water resistance has been assigned a weight
of 1.

36
4.1.4 Ease of Construction
The ease of construction refers to the level of coordination and specialized equipment required
to construct the proposed wall and foundation systems. A design with a greater ease of
construction will require smaller or less equipment to construct, improving site accessibility and
expediting the construction process, thereby lowering the final cost. Site accessibility is necessary
to properly construct the proposed development and is a major concern given the confined
nature of the site, therefore this criterion has been assigned a weight of 0.75.
4.1.5 Labour Required
The labour requirement during the construction of the proposed geotechnical design will also
affect the cost of construction. A smaller labour requirement will also improve site accessibility
as there will be fewer workers and less equipment required. Preference will be given to solutions
that are less labour intensive, however since the labour requirement does not impact the
effectiveness of the chosen solution this criterion has been assigned a weight of 0.5.
4.1.6 Material Required
The amount of material required can vary significantly between functional design options. By
limiting the material requirements of the final design, both cost and environmental impact of the
project will be reduced. Since this criterion does not impact the overall effectiveness of the
proposed geotechnical design and has little impact on site accessibility this criterion has been
assigned a weight of 0.25.
4.1.7 Project Scope
The selected systems must be adequately designed by SAMT Group prior to the deadline on
March 15th, 2019. Further modelling and analysis required must be feasible given the background
knowledge of the team and time constraints associated with the project, therefore this criterion
has been given a weight of 1 to ensure that the chosen shoring wall system is within the scope of
the project.
4.1.8 Impact to Existing Structures
The impact of the design on the existing and heritage structures on the site was only used in the
evaluation of the shoring wall system since the effectiveness of the wall will determine the
degree to which the existing heritage buildings are affected by the excavation.
The selected shoring design must be able to successfully mitigate damage to existing structures
that will remain on site while supplying the required force to withstand the soil, water and
surcharge forces. As mentioned previously, this criterion is of particular importance to specific
regions within the site where existing structures are directly adjacent to the proposed building
37
development. To account for this, the evaluation matrix for shoring near existing structures uses
a weight of 1 for this category. However, this is less of a concern elsewhere on the site and was
weighted 0.25 for the second evaluation matrix of the remaining of the site.
4.1.9 Public Impact
While the on-site heritage buildings are in closest proximity to the excavation and construction
activities that will be undertaken, the general public will also be impacted in the area surrounding
the development site. Potential shoring wall systems were evaluated against this criterion
because they are larger systems whose impact is more likely to extend beyond the confines of
the site.
Factors included when considering public impact include deflections of the wall, potential for
settlement, vibrations during construction, noise, type and amount of equipment used and road
closures. Since this criterion has little significance on the structural performance of the shoring
wall it was assigned a weight of 0.25.
4.1.10 Innovation
Some degree of innovation will be required in for the shoring wall solution due to the constraints
of the site, including the confined space, soil conditions and the presence of heritage buildings
that will remain intact. Once again, this metric has been assigned different weights for each of
the shoring wall evaluation matrices. Firstly, it was determined that the heritage zone will require
a more innovative solution due to the tight tolerances associated with the proximity of the
heritage buildings to the site. Meanwhile, a more conventional solution will likely result in cost
savings and may be more appropriate for the remainder of the site. Innovation was assigned a
weight of 0.75 and 0.25, for segments of shoring wall near the heritage zone and elsewhere on
the site, respectively.
4.2 Evaluation
Each criterion was assigned a score between 1 and 4, which was then multiplied by the weight
factor to determine the final score of each foundation option. A general description of each score
is given in Table 4.

38
 Table 4: Weighted Evaluation Matrix Scoring Description

Score Definition
1 Design does not efficiently meet requirements related to the design criteria.
Design is satisfactory and is capable of satisfying the minimum requirements related
2
to the design criteria.
3 Design efficiently meets all requirements of the design criteria.
4 Design is optimized and exceeds requirements of the design criteria.

4.2.1 Foundation Systems

Using the weighted design criteria developed in ‘Section 4.1 Design Criteria’ and the scoring
system given above, the weighted evaluation matrix given in Table 5 was completed to select a
foundation design.
Table 5: Foundation System Weighted Evaluation Matrix

Foundation Options
Shallow
Design Criterion Weight Bored Piles Driven Piles Mat Foundation
Foundation
Score Score Score Score

Functionality 1 3 4 1 2
Ease of
Construction 0.75 4 2 3 4

Labour Required 0.5 2 2 4 3

Material
Required 0.25 3 3 1 2

Scope of Project 1 4 4 4 1
Total Factored Score: 11.75 11.25 9.5 8

39
As seen in Table 5, a shallow foundation is the recommended foundation system for the proposed
development.
4.2.2 Shoring Wall Systems
4.2.2.1 Shoring Near Existing Structures
As mentioned previously, shoring walls in closest proximity to existing structures were evaluated
separately from general shoring wall sections around the site. The existing structures are located
on the north west corner and south side of the East Property. The completed weighted evaluation
matrix for shoring near existing structures is given in Table 6.
Table 6: Shoring Near Existing Structures Weighted Evaluation Matrix

Shoring Wall Options

Soldier Piles Sheet
Design Criterion Weight Secant Wall Diaphragm Wall
with Lagging Piling
Score Score Score Score
Stiffness 1 2.5 1 3 4

Water Resistance 1 1 4 3 3.5

Ease of
Construction 0.75 3.5 4 3 1.5

Labour Required 0.5 3 3.5 2.5 2

Material Required 0.25 3 3.5 2.5 2

Scope of Project 1 4 4 4 3
Impact to Existing
Structures 1 1.5 1 3 3.5

Public Impact 0.25 3 3 2.5 1

Innovation 0.75 1 1 2.5 4
Total Factored Score: 15.375 17.125 19.625 19.875

40
As seen in Table 6, a diaphragm wall was selected for shoring near existing structures on site.
4.2.2.2 General Shoring
As the rest of the perimeter shoring walls on site are not directly constrained, another evaluation
matrix was conducted to ensure an appropriate solution is selected for all shoring walls required.
Since the general shoring wall system involves a more typical set of constraints and will not be as
crucial in limiting settlement to existing structures, industry standards are well adapted to this
case and the weighting of both Heritage Impact and Innovation have been lowered to 0.25.
Table 7: General Shoring Weighted Evaluation Matrix

Shoring Wall Options

Soldier Piles Sheet
Design Criterion Weight Secant Wall Diaphragm Wall
with Lagging Piling
Score Score Score Score
Stiffness 1 2.5 1 3 4

Water Resistance 1 1 4 3 3.5

Ease of
Construction 0.75 3.5 4 3 1.5

Labour Required 0.5 3 3.5 2.5 2

Material Required 0.25 3 3.5 2.5 2

Scope of Project 1 4 4 4 3
Impact to Existing
Structures 0.25 1.5 1 3 3.5

Public Impact 0.25 3 3 2.5 1

Innovation 0.25 1 1 2.5 4
Total Factored Score: 13.75 15.875 16.125 15.25

As seen in Table 7, a secant caisson wall was selected as the general shoring system for the site.
41
5.0 Final Design
5.1 Soil Parameters
As the soil strata are heterogeneous across the site, various boreholes were required to analyze
the different soil layers and associated parameters. Drilling numerous boreholes across the site
ensures that the worst-case scenario is identified and designed for.
Three properties of the soil investigation were taken from the borehole logs provided by the
Terraprobe. These were the SPT-N values, the soil classification, and the water table information.
The SPT-N values were applied to the bearing capacity analysis to determine the soil parameters.
Soil classification and water table information was extrapolated and used to produce cross-
sections outlining the various soil layers and how the water table varies across the layers.
Additionally, each soil layer was assigned an assumed bulk unit weight (g) [11]. These cross-
sections are shown in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic’.
5.1.1 SPT-N Bearing Strength
5.1.1.1 Correction Factors
As discussed in ‘3.2.1 SPT Test’, correction factors are required only when conducting an effective
stress analysis. As the footings will be installed at 19 m below the surface and the water table is
located in the range of 0.5 m to 7 m below the surface (as shown in ‘Appendix A’), this factor
satisfies the condition that the water table must be at least the width of the foundation below
the groundwater table [4]. The factor must be positive; therefore the ‘z’ value will be taken as
zero since the foundation is below the water table (negative ‘z’ depth). Using Equation 1, this will
result in a constant groundwater factor of 0.5 for the site.
As the selected foundation depth was one metre under the bottom slab of the structure, the
effective overburden stress, given in Table 8, was used to determine the overburden correction
factor.
Table 8: Effective Overburden Stress

Overburden Unit Weight [kN/m2] 20

Unit Weight of Water [kN/m2] 9.81
Total Effective Overburden [kPa] 10.19

Using the total effective overburden pressure, Equation 2 was used to determine that the
overburden pressure correction factor for Building 3 is approximately 3. As this exceeds the limit
42
of 2 for Equation 2, the overburden pressure will be assumed to be negligible and the correction
factor will not be applied [4].
To determine the corrected N value (N1), the SPT-N values obtained from the boreholes were
multiplied by the groundwater correction factor, resulting in a corrected N of 25. As the lower N
value governs, this SPT-N value was used for the ESA analysis.
5.1.1.2 Shallow Foundation Correlation
To relate the SPT-N field data, to the shallow foundation design, empirical correlations were used.
A different correlation was used for TSA and ESA analysis. For the TSA analysis, the SPT-N value
was used to determine the undrained shear strength of the fine-grained soil (Su). The correlation
used for TSA was derived by Terzaghi and Peck [34]. It is provided below in Equation 22. This
relation was chosen compared to the other correlations as it applies to all fine-grained soils and
not a specific soil type. As the soil lithology analysis yielded varying strata throughout the site,
using a correlation that is more general is favoured. Since the correction factors cannot be
applied for a TSA analysis, the undrained shear strength used for the analysis was calculated with
a SPT-N of 50, resulting in a Su of approximately 313 kPa.
Equation 22: TSA Empirical Correlation to determine the Undrained Shear Strength

=g = 6.25`

For the ESA analysis, the SPT-N value could be correlated to the angle of internal friction (Ü′). The
angle of internal friction is the ability for a soil stratum to withstand shear stress [4]. The
correlation used was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and is shown below in
Figure 27 [35].

Figure 27: Correlation between SPT-N values and Angle of Internal Friction for Soils

43
As the corrected SPT-N value can be applied to an effective stress analysis, the N of 25 was used
to determine the angle [2]. From the figure, an SPT-N value of 25 falls in the range of 35o-40o.
The angle of 36o was chosen to develop a conservative design within this range.

5.2 Load Analysis

5.2.1 Building Loads
To determine the bearing capacity of the soils under different foundation systems, the
anticipated load contribution from the site’s structure is required. To produce a conservative
foundation design, the largest building was analyzed when evaluating foundation systems. In the
case of the proposed development, this is Building 3.
The loading applied from Building 3 was calculated by approximating building loads for the 25-
storey building. It was assumed that the dead load of the substructure would comprise 400 mm
thick, normal density concrete slabs and that the building’s superstructure would carry a dead
load of approximately 1.2 kPa. Conservative live loads of 4.8 kPa were applied to all building floors
for the basis of the preliminary evaluation and a snow load of 1.12 kPa was applied to the roof
based on climate data for Toronto (National Building Code of Canada Structural Commentary
2015). In this analysis, unfactored building loads were applied and a global factor of safety of
three was applied to all ultimate soil bearing capacities to determine allowable bearing strengths
for design unless inherently embedded design process. This ensures the mitigation of risk
involved with the foundation process through the assumptions made and the error in the field
data.
From the site map show in ‘Appendix F2: Proposed Development’, the height of Building 3 is 25-
storeys (approximately 197 m) with five-storeys (approximately 19 m) of substructure. Taking
into consideration all of the loads, the total stress applied by the structure will be approximately
224 kPa. A summary of the building loads applied is given in Table 9.

44
 Table 9: Building 3 Load Analysis

Building 3 Properties
Area of Tallest High-Rise [m^2] 2880
Height [m] 196.6
Depth [m] 19
Loads [kPa]
Live 4.8
Dead above ground 1.2
Dead below ground 9.4
Snow 1.12
Live at Roof 1
Floor Count
Above Ground 25
Below Ground 5
Roof 1
Stress [kPa]
Above ground 150
Below ground 71
Roof 3.32
Total [kPa] 224.32

45
5.2.2 Tributary Area
To determine the bearing capacity of the soil from the foundation design, the number of load
bearing columns are required. For simplicity, it is assumed that the columns will be spaced equally
across Building 3. As Building 3’s dimensions are not directly compatible with this assumption,
the tributary area will be taken as one of the interior columns. Although the exterior and corner
columns will have ½ and ¼ tributary areas relative to interior columns, respectively, only interior
column loading was examined during the preliminary analysis. This assumption results in a more
conservative load. As the spacing is approximately 7.5 m in each direction across the interior
columns, the tributary area of the columns was determined to be 56.6 m2. The layout of the
assumed columns on the building’s footprint is given in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical
Site Plan and Shoring Schematic’.
To determine the effect of the stress on each column, the total building stress was multiplied by
the tributary area of an individual column. This yielded the applied point load from the building
to each column. It was determined that the non-eccentric point load per column is 12,696 kN.
This calculation is given below.
c4/@2 ^46B A.7 [4:><@ = 8426: +>/:B/@0 =27.SS ∗ 87/9>267Z t7.6 4; .6!ℎ [4:><@
c4/@2 ^46B A.7 [4:><@ = 224.32dc6 ∗ 56.6<O
c4/@2 ^46B A.7 [4:><@ = 12696.51d`
5.2.3 Soil Pressure Distributions
Boreholes near each wall of the proposed development were selected to develop earth pressure
distributions for the perimeter excavation walls of both the East and West property. As
mentioned in ‘Section 3.7 Soil Pressure Distributions’ retaining walls are typically designed using
active and passive earth pressure coefficients, however due to their increased stiffness,
diaphragm walls should be designed for higher loads [26]. Therefore, to design the caisson wall
for active driving pressures and the diaphragm wall for an average of at-rest and active driving
pressures, both at-rest and active earth pressure coefficients were applied to develop pressure
distributions for the soil at the perimeters of the site.
Surface surcharge loading was also incorporated into the horizontal pressure distributions. At-
rest pressures developed for use near existing structures conservatively assume that existing
structures were built to apply the maximum allowable bearing stress to the soil at the level of
their foundation after a applying a global factor of safety of three. To determine the allowable
bearing capacity, the SPT data one storey (3 m) below ground was applied to develop an
allowable bearing strength. The active stress distributions used to design caisson walls

46
incorporate a standard compaction surcharge load of 12 kPa per the Canadian Highway Bridge
Design Code since they will be retaining soil with road construction at the surface [36].
Once a pressure distribution was determined for each wall, it was noted that there was very little
deviation between the pressure distributions within each property. Therefore, the horizontal
pressure distribution with the largest resultant loading was selected to apply to all perimeter
walls within each property. Soil pressure sample calculations can be found in ‘Appendix B5:
Borehole Log Analysis and Soil Pressure Calculation’.
5.2.3.1 Unit Weights of Soils
Before determining soil pressures, each borehole layer was analyzed and approximated based on
soil type. Sand, silts and clays corresponding to unit weights based on the saturated unit weight
ranges provided by Budhu in Table 10. The largest unit weight values within each range were
applied to develop a conservative estimate of soil pressures.
Table 10: Typical Values of Unit Weight for Soils [4]

47
5.2.3.2 At-Rest Earth Pressure Coefficients
At-rest earth pressures were developed using the ranges critical state angle of friction values
provided by Budhu in Table 11.
Table 11: Ranges of Friction Angles for Soils [4]

Layers were assigned a critical state angle of friction at the bottom of their respective range to
develop a conservative estimate of soil pressures since at-rest earth pressure coefficients are
inversely proportional to critical state angles of friction. Using each layer’s approximate critical
state angle of friction and an assumed over consolidation ratio (OCR) of 1 [C. Elvidge, personal
communication, March 28, 2019], at-rest earth pressure coefficients were calculated, as shown
in Table 12.
Table 12: At Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient Summary Table

Soil Unit Weight Critical State Angle of At Rest Earth Pressure

Type (kN/m3) Friction, f’cs Coefficient, K0
Sand 20 27 0.546
Silt 20 24 0.593
Clay 22 15 0.741

48
5.2.3.3 Active and Passive Earth Pressure Coefficients
To determine the active and passive earth pressure coefficients of each soil layer, the average
SPT-N blow count was used to approximate an angle of internal friction using the ranges provided
in Figure 27. The lowest values within each range were selected to develop a conservative soil
pressure distribution estimate since active and passive earth pressures are inversely proportional
to the angle of internal friction of a soil. Using the angles of internal friction, active and passive
earth pressures could be calculated, as shown in Table 13.
Table 13: Active and Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient Summary Table

Average SPT-N Angle of Internal Active Earth Pressure Passive Earth Pressure
Blows Friction, f’ Coefficient, Ka Coefficient, Kp
4-10 30 0.333 3.00
10-30 35 0.271 3.69
30-50 40 0.217 4.60
50+ 45 0.172 5.83

5.2.3.4 Soil Pressure Distribution Diagrams

Using the at-rest and active earth pressure coefficients, earth pressure distributions were
calculated using by taking into account the unit weight of each layer. Pressure distributions were
plotted to the bottom of the layer nearest to the base of the wall both the East and West
Property, as shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29, respectively. Passive pressures were not plotted
on these axes because they only act below the wall embedment in the direction opposite the
active pressures.

49
 East Property Horizontal Earth Pressures (BH109)
0

-5
Depth Below Surface (m)

-10

At Rest Pressure
-15
Active Pressure

-20

-25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Horizontal Pressure (kPa)

Figure 28: East Property Horizontal Earth Pressure Distributions

West Property Horizontal Earth Pressures (BH115)

0

-2
Depth Below Surface (m)

-4

-6

-8 At Rest Pressure
Active Pressure
-10

-12

-14
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Horizontal Pressure (kPa)

Figure 29: West Property Horizontal Earth Pressure Distributions

50
5.3 Foundation System
To determine the effective bearing of the shallow foundation the same iterative procedure was
used for both the TSA and ESA methods. As mentioned above in ‘3.4.1 Shallow Foundation’, the
difference between the two approaches are the inputs in the equations. The varying parameters
between the two are the bearing capacity factors, shape factors, depth factors, and assumptions
made. For example, only for the ESA the footing was assumed to be rough instead of smooth.
Sample calculations for both methods are shown in ‘Appendix B1.1: Total Stress Analysis’ and
‘Appendix B1.1: Effective Stress Analysis’. Results of the preliminary shallow foundation analysis
are shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Footing Dimensions and Bearing Capacity of Surrounding Soil for each Depth

Footing Parameters TSA ESA

Depth (Df)= 0.5m

Length and Width of Footing
4.36 4.54
[m]
Bearing Capacity [kPa] 666.71 617.23
Depth (Df)= 1.0m
Length and Width of Footing
[m] 4.29 3.98

Bearing Capacity [kPa] 691.21 800.41

Depth (Df)= 1.5m
Length and Width of Footing
[m] 4.21 3.55

Bearing Capacity [kPa] 715.17 1009.79

To evaluate the ideal overburden depth (Df) below the bottom of the slab, the two factors taken
into consideration were the constructability of the foundation and the resources required. It was
determined that the ideal depth of the footing will be at 1.0 m below the bottom of the slab. This
was because constructing the foundation at a depth of 0.5 m is not ideal for constructability and

51
the benefit of constructing the footing at 1.5 m does not justify the extra resources needed to
build it at a greater depth.
Therefore, based on the largest dimension of footing developed through iterations, the
preliminary footing base dimension shall be 4.29 m by 4.29 m, as shown in Figure 30. This
foundation design will have a factored bearing capacity of approximately 690 kPa. As previously
discussed, the foundation will be constructed at an overburden depth of 1.0 m below the bottom
of the concrete slab. This was determined to be the optimal depth as it ensured constructability
while maintaining economic feasibility. The design was conservatively based upon Building 3 as
it produces the largest loads to be transferred to the soil. The minimum number of footings across
the footprint of Building 3 will be 46 with maximum centre to center column spacing of 7.5 m. A
visual of the spacing and layout is provided below in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site
Plan and Shoring Schematic’.

Figure 30: Preliminary Shallow Foundation Design

Further development of the foundation system design, including final column spacing, footing
thickness, reinforcing requirements and concrete specifications. This should be performed by a
licensed structural engineer. Loading applied to the soil shall not exceed the recommended safe
bearing capacity of the soil based on a global factor of safety of three of approximately 690 kPa.

52
5.4 Shoring Wall System
As mentioned in ‘Section 4.0 Design Evaluation’ a constant shoring wall will not be applied across
the entire site. Instead, a secant caisson shoring wall will be applied to most of the site, and a
diaphragm wall will be constructed in the proximity of the existing structures on site that may be
more vulnerable to settlement. For both of these wall systems, the ‘hinge method’ was applied
with an apparent lateral soil pressure behaviour developed from the soil pressure distributions
discussed in ‘Section 5.2.3 Soil Pressure Distributions’. This pressure distribution was then used
to determine the imposed forces and moments across the wall. To apply this method, the tieback
anchor layout must be preliminarily selected. This process is outlined in more detail in the
subsequent sections. Governing soil properties used to design the shoring wall system are given
in Table 15.
Table 15: Soil Properties Used to Design Shoring Walls

Soil Properties
Ka 0.217
Kp 4.608
Ko 0.546
Unit Weight (kN/m3) 22

5.4.1 Secant Shoring Walls

The apparent stress method was applied to determine the lateral earth pressures acting on the
shoring walls from the borehole analysis discussed in ‘Section 5.2.3 Soil Pressure Distributions’.
Using the apparent stresses, the hinge method could be used to determine the shear forces and
bending moments along the height of the wall. Lateral soil pressures were developed using the
active and passive lateral earth coefficients outlined in Table 15. Sample calculations are provided
in ‘Appendix B6: Secant Caisson and Diaphragm Shoring Wall Final Stress Analysis’. Provided
below in Figure 31 is a plot showing these pressures acting across the entirety of the shoring wall.
As previously mentioned, the apparent pressure distribution follows a trapezoidal profile above
the dredge line and the active pressures remain on the same side of the wall throughout the
depth of the wall.

53
 Lateral Soil Pressure [kPa]
-300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
0

t HáM = 87.6kPa
5
Depth Below Surface [m]

10
Active Pressure
Passive Pressure
15

+
Dredge Line (Base of Excavation) 20
HáO = 104.3 kPa
Háà = 120.1 kPa
HâM = 258.52 kPa 25

30

Figure 31: Apparent Lateral Soil Acting on Secant Caisson Wall

The main design parameters determined using the apparent pressures and hinge method were
the effective embedment depth, actual embedment depth, maximum moments across the wall,
tieback placement and tieback loads. Moment and force equilibriums were used to determine
the effective embedment depth of the secant wall below dredge line, as shown in ‘B6: Secant
Caisson and Diaphragm Shoring Wall Final Stress Analysis’. Analysis was performed using the
effective depth; however, the ‘hinge method’ recommends that a factor of safety of 1.3 by
applied to the effective depth, rather than the global factor of safety of three previously applied
to the foundation system [37]. Therefore, the design embedment depth was recommended to
be 3.5 m for the secant shoring walls.

54
The effective embedment depth was determined to be 2.55 m. This depth was then used to
model and determine the shear and bending moment forces across the entire shoring wall. The
shear force is provided below in Figure 32.

0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

-5

-10
Depth Below Surface [m]

-15

-20

-25

-30
Shear Force [kN]

Figure 32: Shear Force Diagram for the Secant Wall

55
The bending moment diagram developed for the secant caisson wall is provided in Figure 33.

0
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

-5

-10
Dpeth below Surface [m]

-15

-20

-25

-30
Bending Moment [kNm]

Figure 33: Bending Moment Diagram for the Secant Wall

56
A summary table of maximum moments by span is given in Table 16. As shown, the maximum
moment across the entire span was found to be approximately 389 kNm. This will be the design
moment.
Table 16: Secant Wall Bending Moment Summary Table

Design Moments
Parameter Location Value
Imposed Moment [kNm] Tieback 1 301.06
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 1 & 2 388.59
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 2 & 3 211.25
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 3 & 4 156.32
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 4 & Base 166.62
Maximum Moment [kNm] Along Span 388.59

Regarding the structural design of the secant caisson wall, the design loads considered in the
analysis was the design moment (Mr) and the axial load due to self-weight (Pf). A short column
analysis was performed and is outlined below in ‘B7: Secant Caisson Shoring Wall Structural
Design’. As previously mentioned, the column analysis was performed based upon the maximum
unsupported span between anchors. The self-weight was taken as the that of the entirety of the
wall section, approximately 1296 kN.
As the secant wall section is difficult to model (due to the male and female parts mentioned in
‘3.5.1.3 Secant/Tangent Caisson Pile Walls’), a tributary area was selected and designed as if it
was only a male secant wall section. The tributary area selected was three metres horizontally.
This was applied in both the moment and the axial load calculations.
In the design, some parameters had to be selected with judgement. For example, for the
reinforcing steel, the grade was selected as 400 MPa. Other values in the analysis required
checking against specifications and codes. As the concrete compressive strength was required
(fc’), this had to be above 20 MPa in accordance to the international association of foundation
drilling [24]. With this in mind, a concrete compressive strength of 30 MPa was selected. Other
considerations and judgement in the design include the lateral reinforcement spacing and
specifications, the lateral ties, and the concrete cover.
The caisson was designed in accordance with CSA A23.3 Design of Concrete Structures [38]. A
summary of the secant caisson wall specifications is given in Table 19. Sample calculations are
shown in ‘Appendix B7: Secant Caisson Shoring Wall Structural Design’. The schematic of the
proposed secant shoring design is shown in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and
Shoring Schematic’.
57
Table 17: Secant Wall Specifications Summary Table

Secant Wall Specification Summary

Item Specification
Minimum Embedment Beneath Excavation 3.5 m
Wall Diameter (Male Portion) 1000 mm
Concrete 28 Day Compressive Strength 30 MPa
Reinforcing Bar Strength 400 MPa
Longitudinal Reinforcing Bars (per linear m) 8-35M Diameter Bars
Lateral Ties 15-M Diameter Ties Spaced circularly
Clear Cover to Reinforcing 75 mm
Lateral Anchor Spacing 3000 mm on Center

5.4.2 Diaphragm Walls

Diaphragm walls were designed using the same procedure as the secant caisson walls but with
the increased loading discussed in ‘Section 5.2.3 Soil Pressure Distributions’. Using the average
of at-rest and active as a driving (active) pressure coefficient and the passive earth pressure
coefficient as resisting coefficient below the base of the excavation, moment equilibrium could
be established. Moment equilibrium was applied to determine that the wall requires a minimum
embedment of 5.77 m prior to applying a factor of safety (D’). Using lateral earth pressure
coefficients and the minimum embedment depth, the pressure distribution shown in Figure 34
was developed. Sample calculations pertaining to pressures, forces and moments exerted on the
shoring walls can be found in ‘Appendix B6: Secant Caisson and Diaphragm Shoring Wall Final
Stress Analysis’.

58
 Lateral Soil Pressure [kPa]
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
0

5
HáM = 236.22kPa
Depth Below Surface [m]

10
Active Pressure
Passive Pressure
15

Dredge Line (Bottom of Excavation) 20

HáO = 282.16 kPa

25
Háà = 330.59 kPa
HâM = 584.98 kPa
30

Figure 34: Driving and Resisting Pressure Distribution for Diaphragm Wall Sections

Both shoring wall systems are designed for the same vertical anchor spacing using the hinge
method, however diaphragm wall sections have been designed using a centre to centre
horizontal spacing between anchors of only one metre. Based on the pressure distribution in
Figure 34 and the lateral anchor spacing, the shear force diagram for diaphragm wall sections
was developed, as shown in Figure 35.

59
 Diaphragm Shear Force Diagram

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

-3

-8
Depth Below Surface (m)

-13

-18

Dredge Line (Base of Excavation)

-23

-28
Shear Force (kN)

Figure 35: Diaphragm Wall Shear Force Diagram

60
Using the shear force diagram, it was possible to calculate the bending moments along the length
of the wall, as shown in Figure 36.

Diaphragm Wall Bending Moment Diagram

-3

-8
Depth Below Surface (m)

-13

-18

Dredge Line (Base of Excavation)

-23

-28
-1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500
Bending Moment (kNm)

Figure 36: Diaphragm Wall Bending Moment Diagram

61
A summary table of maximum moments by span is given in Table 18.
Table 18: Diaphragm Wall Bending Moment Summary Table

Diaphragm Wall Design Moments

Parameter Location Value
Imposed Moment [kNm] Tieback 1 909.87
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 1 & 2 1174.43
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 2 & 3 638.45
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 3 & 4 472.43
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 4 & Base 1242.45
Maximum Moment [kNm] Along Span 1242.45

Similarly to the secant caisson wall, the structural design of the diaphragm wall was performed
based on the maximum bending moment that would occur in the wall. Additionally, the cross
section of the wall was designed for the maximum unsupported length of 4.65 m between
anchors and a maximum point load equivalent to the entire self-weight per linear meter of wall.
Wall sections were designed as beam column bending and compression members in accordance
with CSA A23.3 Design of Concrete Structures [38]. A summary of the diaphragm wall
specifications is given in Table 19.
Table 19: Diaphragm Wall Specifications Summary Table

Diaphragm Wall Specification Summary

Item Specification
Minimum Embedment Beneath Excavation 7.5 m
Wall Thickness 1000 mm
Concrete 28 Day Compressive Strength 30 MPa
Reinforcing Bar Strength 400 MPa
Longitudinal Reinforcing Bars (per linear m) 8-55M Diameter Bars
Lateral Ties 10M Diameter Ties at 500 mm On Center
Clear Cover to Reinforcing 75 mm
Lateral Anchor Spacing 1000 mm On Center

62
Sample calculations are shown in ‘Appendix B6: Secant Caisson and Diaphragm Shoring Wall Final
Stress Analysis’, ‘Appendix B7: Secant Caisson Shoring Wall Structural Design’ and ‘Appendix B8:
Diaphragm Shoring Wall Structural Design’. A schematic of the shoring design can be found in
‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic’.
5.5 Bracing System
A tieback bracing system was selected for the site to maximize accessibility during the
construction process. As discussed in ‘Section 3.5.2 Bracing Systems’ tiebacks do not obstruct site
access, but the installation of tiebacks requires permission from property owners to establish
easements onto neighbouring properties. It was determined that such easements would be
granted for this site and that design could proceed using a tieback bracing system to maximize
accessibility [C. Elvidge, personal communication, February 6, 2019].
The vertical tieback spacing was selected as the same for both the secant and diaphragm walls.
This spacing was selected based upon the required 4.5 m minimum overburden over the centre
of the anchor bond zone discussed in ‘3.5.2.1 Tiebacks’. The selected depth to satisfy this
condition was 4 m. This increment was then equally applied across the entire span for the spacing
between anchors. As 21.3 m is not evenly divisible by four, two spans were selected to be greater
than four metres. This was done with constructability in mind, As installing the anchors to the
nearest centimeter on site is a difficult task, having increments rounded to the nearest meter
where possible is preferred.
Horizontal spacing was arbitrarily taken to satisfy the consideration mentioned above in ‘3.5.2.1
Tiebacks’. As the anchor diameter was selected to be 200 mm, this meant that the minimum
spacing must be 800 mm. Unlike the vertical spacing, different horizontal spacings were selected
for the secant and diaphragm walls. For the secant walls, a spacing of three metres was used and
for the diaphragm walls a spacing of one metre was used. The reason why these distances were
selected was because not only were they integer values (constructability), but also relative to
each other they had similar tieback loads. This is shown below in Table 20. Please note that loads
at each tieback were determined by summing the components and multiplying them by the
horizontal tributary distance (spacing). Tiebacks will be designed for the maximum estimated
load for each wall type.

63
 Table 20: Tieback Load Components and Resultant Loads

Tieback Loads
Location Distance from Surface [m] Secant Loading Diaphragm Loading
T1Upper [kN/m] 233.48 629.91

T1Lower [kN/m] 4 276.09 744.88

T1 [kN] 1528.72 1374.79

T2Upper [kN/m] 131.04 353.53

T2Lower [kN/m] 8.65 203.57 549.21

T2 [kN] 1003.81 902.74

T3Upper [kN/m] 203.57 549.21

T3Lower [kN/m] 13.3 175.11 472.43

T3[ kN] 1136.03 1021.64

T4Upper [kN/m] 175.11 472.43

T4Lower [kN/m] 17.3 208.17 710.02

T4 [kN] 1149.84 1182.45

The required embedment depth of the anchors was determined using estimated ultimate load
transfers recommended by CFEM, given in Table 21. These load transfer values are based on
pressurized grouted anchors. Pressurized grouted anchors were selected due to their ability to
greater transfer the forces.

64
 Table 21: Estimation of Capacity for Pressure-Grouted Anchors (after FHWA 1984) [19]

The estimated ultimate load transfers provided in Table 21 are valid provided the following
conditions are met [19]:
- The nominal diameter of the anchor is between 150 mm and 200 mm;
- Grout is injected using a positive pressure of about one megapascal;
- And the center-to-center spacing of the anchors in the bond zone is more than four times
the anchor diameter or 20% of the bond zone length.
Based on the large SPT blow counts encountered on site, anchor strength was approximated
using the load transfer strength of 190 kN/m for compact sand, yielding anchor lengths of 7.5 m
for both the secant caisson wall and the diaphragm wall sections.
The angle of inclination of the anchors is based on the angle of the active failure plane that was
used to develop the active earth pressure coefficient [19], as discussed in ‘Section 3.7 Soil
Pressure Distributions’. Based on an angle of internal friction of 40°, the angle of the active failure
plane is 25°. To intersect the active failure plane at 90°, the anchors must be inclined at 65°
relative to the wall. Complete anchor specifications are summarized in Table 22.

65
Table 22: Anchor Specification Summary Table

Tieback Anchor Specification Summary

Item Specification
Length 7.5 m
Diameter 200 mm
Angle from Vertical 65°
Grout Pressure 1 MPa
Secant Caisson Wall Lateral Spacing 3m
Diaphragm Wall Lateral Spacing 1m

5.6 Dewatering Plan

5.6.1 Hydraulic Conductivities
The hydraulic conductivities present on the subject property were calculated using applicable
Horslev analysis methods for BH1, BH2 and BH3, and the Bouwer and Rice method for BH107 and
BH114. The slope of the curve was calculated from the rise over run of the rising head tests found
in ‘Appendix F5: Rising Head Test Data’. All required values of well construction were given
‘Appendix F3: Borehole Logs’ except for diameter of well casing (including sand) which was
assumed to be 10 cm [39]. A table of the calculated hydraulic conductivities for each borehole
are shown below in Table 23.
Table 23 Calculated Hydraulic Conductivities

Borehole ID Hydraulic Conductivity [m/s]

BH1 2.46*10-6
BH2 1.15*10-6
BH3 1.76*10-6
BH107 2.41*10-8
BH114 1.00*10-7

66
5.6.2 Dewatering System Design
The final design for the dewatering system features two rows of wells, one on the north side and
one on the south side of the excavation. A spacing of 10 m between pumping wells was selected
as this is the minimum spacing and will produce a conservative design [32]. The pump layout
features 25 pumping wells of the minimum recommended approximately 13 cm (5”) diameter
[33] complete with submersible pumps, a water collection system, settlement tank, and
discharge pipe. The discharge pipe will discharge into the Toronto storm water sewers as is
current engineering practice in the city [C. Elvidge, personal communication, February 6, 2019].
The deep well dewatering ring design can be seen in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site
Plan and Shoring Schematic’. All pumping wells extend to a depth of 32 m below ground surface.
This depth of well extends 3.2 m beyond the maximum excavation depth of 28.8 m being required
for the diaphragm wall on the south wall of the west property. The wells were designed to
produce a residual drawdown of two metres, lowering the water table to 1.2 m below the base
of the excavation, at a calculated pumping rate of approximately 436 L/d as per the methods
discussed in ‘3.6.2 Deep Well System Analysis’. All calculations required for dewatering system
can be found in ‘Appendix B9: Dewatering Plan Residual Drawdown Calculations’ and a cross-
section of the drawdown created by the dewatering system from north to south across the site
can be found in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic’.
It must also be noted that the calculated pumping rate is only valid for steady state conditions
and must be able to accommodate an increase of approximately 30% in pumping rate to reach
those conditions [33]. This factor is applied as unsteady conditions will occur as a result of rain
loading and must be able to be accounted for. The standard pumping rate creates an outflow of
10,900 L/d, and the increased pumping rate for non-steady state conditions is 567 L/d creating
an outflow of 14,170 L/d. No information was provided pertaining to the groundwater chemistry
required for calculating the settlement time and tank size. Therefore, the design of the
settlement tank for the proposed dewatering system must be finished once groundwater
chemistry is known.
5.7 Innovation
5.7.1 Innovation Incorporated in Preliminary Geotechnical Design
To ensure stability of the existing structures on site, a diaphragm wall has been specified at critical
locations around the site. This will mitigate settlement of heritage buildings and provide a shoring
structure that be potentially integrated by structural engineers into the final design of the
proposed development. Furthermore, tieback anchors were used throughout the site to
maximize accessibility during construction.
67
5.7.2 Potential for Future Innovation
The preliminary shoring wall design has been developed around worst case conditions on the
East Property. This ensures safety and functionality across the entire site; however, the West
Property contains only one building and is much smaller and shallower than the East Property.
The top-down construction model with complete diaphragm wall perimeter discussed in ‘Section
3.8.2 Construction Method’ would be more applicable to the West Property than the larger East
Property.
The confined nature of the West Property footprint limits accessibility and complicates the
application of more conventional construction sequencing strategies for excavating, shoring and
constructing. Furthermore, since there is only one building within the footprint of the West
Property, the diaphragm wall shoring system required to facilitate the top down construction
model could make up the entire substructure of the finalized building design. The preliminary
design drawings in ‘Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic’
include a diaphragm wall on the West Property pending the completion of the final geotechnical
design.

6.0 Costing
6.1 Shoring Wall
Based upon the proposed shoring wall plans, a quantity take-off was performed to determine
cross sectional area of shoring needed as shown in Table 24. This was performed by using site
documents provided by Terraprobe. These documents can be seen in ‘Appendix F2: Proposed
Development’.
Table 24: Quantity Take-off of Shoring Design

Quantity Take-off
Type Perimeter (m) Depth of Excavation (m) Depth of Embedment (m) Area (m²)
Secant Wall 437 21.3 3.5 11800
Diaphragm Wall 161 21.3 7.5 4700

The general costs seen in Table 25 below were supplied by C. Elvidge of Terraprobe [Email
communication, March 11th, 2019]. It should be noted that pricing based on time and materials
would be more extensive than the seven items listed below. Time and materials were not used
to estimate the cost of the shoring design as more investigation into site conditions and logistics
would need to be completed to get a complete detailed estimation of project schedule and
timing.
68
 Table 25: General Costs for Shoring Works [C. Elvidge, email communication, March 11, 2019]

General Costs
No. Description Unit Price Unit
1 Superintendent $ 800.00 day
2 Operator $ 600.00 day
3 Labourer $ 500.00 day
4 Helper $ 450.00 day
5 Certified Welder $ 700.00 day
6 Tiebacks $ 220.00 m
7 Drill Rig $ 2,500.00 day

To develop an initial estimate of the cost for the shoring wall system, a unit price for caisson walls
was also provided. The unit price typical for that of caisson walls used in urban GTA by Terraprobe
is $1200/m2. This includes all encompassing tiebacks, labour and equipment that is outlined in
general costs [C. Elvidge, Email communication, March 11th, 2019]. This unit price was also used
to get a rough preliminary estimate of the cost for a diaphragm wall. This is not entirely accurate
as diaphragm shoring walls are typically more expensive, but due to their ability to be
incorporated into the final design of the building, their long-term cost is less as their cost can be
subtracted from cost the future foundation wall. A preliminary estimate of total cost for the
preliminary geotechnical shoring design is given in Table 26.
Table 26: Cost Based on Square Metre Unit Price [C. Elvidge, email communication, March 11, 2019]

Total Cost
No. Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost
8 Secant Wall $ 1,200.00 sqm 11800 $ 14,160,000.00
9 Diaphragm Wall $ 1,200.00 sqm 4700 $ 5,640,000.00
Total Cost $ 19,800,000.00

6.2 Dewatering System

Sample well installation quotes and invoices were supplied by ASC Environmental [39] and can
be found in ‘Appendix C: Sample Dewatering Pricing Documents’. The water collection system
was assumed to be 5” schedule 40 PVC piping priced at $57.50 per 5 ft ($37.73/m) [40]. This
diameter was selected as it matches well diameter. An approximate costing of the deep well ring
system was created and is shown below in Table 27.

69
 Table 27: Approximate Pricing of Dewatering System

Total Cost
No. Description Unit Price Unit Quantity Cost
Well Drilling
(including Labour and $ 195.00 m 800 $ 156,000.00
10 Equipment)
Well Supplies
$ 130.00 well 25 $ 3,250.00
11 (Risers, Screens, Caps)
12 Submersible Pumps $ 1,500.00 pump 25 $ 37,500.00
13 Water Collection Piping $ 37.73 m 392 $ 14,790.16
Total Cost $ 211,540.16

It should be noted that this estimate does not account for the power supply or the settlement
tank and is only a rough estimation based on available information. The settlement tank was not
provided in estimate because the final settlement tank design has not been determined for the
system per ’Section 5.6.2 Dewatering System Design’. Additionally, both items require quotes
based on sizing, availability, site location, duration of equipment requirement, and more.
Furthermore, the current cost of discharging storm water into the Toronto storm water sewer
system is $1.85/m3 [C. Elvidge, personal communication, February 6, 2019]. This would add an
additional cost of $10.90 per day at standard pump rate or $14.17 per day at elevated pump rate
to the system for the duration of the time the dewatering system is in use.

7.0 Group Dynamics

Our group was able to act as a well-structured real team and exhibited a broad set of
complementary skills over the course of this project. We were able to work efficiently and
productively towards the common goal of completing and recommending an applicable shoring
and foundation design as well as discuss environmental and groundwater characteristics for the
site. We each had set performance goals for our team and were able to hold each other mutually
accountable.
Reflecting on our design, we were able to provide a feasible in-depth solution to the problem
definition. With that being said, there were some room for improvement. For example, it was
evident that our time management could have been improved throughout the project. Being able
to enforce internal deadlines from the project schedule would allow us to pace and spread work
better throughout the semester. The project schedule was amended several times throughout

70
the semester because of this. This meant that our project vision and goals were constantly
changing as time permitted. Subsequently, this meant that the scope of work that the group
undertook was altered.
The group had very little to no conflict. This meant that resolution tactics were not used. One
reason why this was limited was because during key decision periods for the project, evaluation
matrixes were compiled. These assisted the group in selecting the major components of the
project without bias. For smaller decisions, general discussions were used. Due to the team
dynamic, these went almost always fluently, and the team always reached a sound conclusion.
Additionally, all group members were good listeners during group discussions that recognized all
members voices and strategies. Leadership was a key trait displayed by all group members as
each member provided vision, strategy, and a work-friendly attitude.
Overall the team was able to successfully achieve its goals that was initially established at the
beginning of the course. The group members personalities and skills were very complementary
to one another to provide an environment and team structure that encouraged creativity and
contributions from all members.

8.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, SAMT group was able to finalize preliminary designs for a shallow foundation in
bearing, which is still subject to structural design from a licensed structural engineer, as well as
secant caisson wall and a concrete diaphragm wall for earth retainment. Additionally, the group
was also able to provide recommendations based on environmental and groundwater
characteristics for the site via a preliminary ground water management plan for the construction
and operational life of the project.
The optimal design preliminary shallow foundation of Building 3 was determined to be 46
platforms spaced approximately a maximum of 7.5 m apart. The dimension of each base was
chosen to be square to simplify the analysis and was determined to be 4.29 m by 4.29 m based
on a maximum safe bearing capacity of 690 kPa using a global factor of safety of three.
To design the shoring wall structures, the apparent stresses were used to apply the ‘hinge
method’ and calculate the lateral pressure distributions, tieback forces, shear forces and bending
moment distribution across the entirety of each wall. This also allowed the embedment depth
for both the caisson and diaphragm wall to be determined. The embedment for the caisson wall
shall be 3.5 m below the dredge line and 7.5 m below the dredge line for the diaphragm wall
based on a factor of safety of 30%.

71
The maximum moments determined using the ‘hinge method’ were used to develop a structural
design for the retaining structures. For the secant caisson wall this yielded a maximum moment
of 389 kNm. To resist this moment piles of one metre in diameter should be used with 8-35M
bars of longitudinal reinforcement. The reinforcement is to be tied with 15-M bars and there is
to be a 75 mm concrete cover. The compressive strength of concrete shall be 30 MPa and the
yield strength of the steel was designed for 400 MPa.
The diaphragm wall was designed using a similar process. However, due to the limited
deflections, soil pressures were calculated using an average of at-rest and active soil pressures
rather than the active soil pressures alone. As a result, the wall thickness shall be one metre with
8-55M diameter longitudinal reinforcing bars with 15M diameter ties at 500 mm on center. The
clear cover to reinforcement shall be 75 mm.
For both the diaphragm and secant walls, the vertical spacing for tiebacks were selected as the
same intervals throughout the wall. These intervals are 4 m, 4.65 m, 4.65 m, 4 m, and 4 m
between one another from the surface down. The longitudinal spacing for the secant wall shall
have anchors horizontal spaced at three metres, whereas the diaphragm wall shall have spacings
of one metre from center-to-center. Tiebacks shall be grouted with pressurized grout with a
strength of one megapascal. The tiebacks will be installed at an angle of 65° relative to the vertical
plane.
In addition to the design of the tieback the final design for the dewatering system features two
rows of wells, one on the north side and one on the south side of the excavation. A spacing of 10
m between pumping wells has been selected as this is the minimum spacing and will produce a
conservative design. This well system will ensure that the hydrostatic level of groundwater is kept
underneath the depth of the excavation.

9.0 Recommendations for Future Work

9.1 Foundation System
This report outlines only a preliminary foundation system and the analysis required to develop
the maximum safe bearing capacity of the soil. Full architectural drawings are required to
complete the structural design and finalize the foundation system. The final foundation system
should take into account the detailed building loads and vary in footing dimension where
appropriate based on varying vertical loading throughout the proposed development.

72
9.2 Shoring Wall System
The proposed shoring wall system has been developed based on the worst-case depth and
loading conditions present on the East Property. Moving forward, the shoring wall system could
be refined in greater detail by evaluating the in detail the varying wall height and embedment
requirements throughout the site to conserve material and produce a more efficient design. Prior
to further refining the shoring wall system heights, more detailed architectural drawings must be
produced to indicating the depth of the substructure throughout the site. To-date the preliminary
shoring wall has been developed with only general knowledge of the proposed structures and
their layout.
The shoring wall system applied to the West Property only extends two storeys below the surface
and will only facilitate the excavation required for one building. As such, it is recommended that
the feasibility of integrating a diaphragm shoring wall system into the final design and applying a
top down construction sequencing model be investigated. With inter-discipline collaboration
between geotechnical engineers, structural engineers and the architect, this innovative method
of construction may succeed in expediting the construction process and saving money.
9.3 Groundwater Management Plan
There are several tasks that must be conducted as future work in order to finalize the excavation
dewatering plan. More data needs to be collected to characterize the groundwater chemistry
and the necessary calculations need to be conducted to finalize the design of the settlement tank
required to facilitate discharge into the Toronto storm water sewers. The design of a power
source needs to be finalized once the power requirement for the submersible pumps is
determined. The current system allots for one large power source in the same area as the
settlement tank, however several smaller power sources could be used at different points across
the site if that is determined to be a more effective power system. Neither of these two systems
were present in the cost analysis, so it is important in the future these systems be quoted and
costed following their design. Finally, the entire deep well ring dewatering plan that was designed
for this report was done so very conservatively both in terms of well spacing and residual
drawdown across the site being determined by only a short span of diaphragm wall present in
one section. As a result, in the future the design should be examined and optimized in order to
create a more cost friendly, but still effective, dewatering plan.
9.4 Final Costing
The preliminary geotechnical costing estimate performed takes into account only the unit cost
per square metre of caisson wall. Once the architectural and geotechnical designs have been
finalized and detailed comprehensively, a final costing estimate could be obtained. With a more
73
detailed technical design, quantities should be more accurately estimated, and construction
sequencing planning must be performed. Once a construction sequencing timeline has been
developed, a final cost estimate will be feasible.

74
References
[1] Michael Diez de Aux, “More on Shoring | SkyriseCities,” Skyrise Cities, 09-Nov-2016. [Online].
Available: https://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/11/more-shoring. [Accessed: 01-Oct-2018].
[2] Md Manzur Rahman, “Foundation Design using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value,”
2018.
[3] P. W. Mayne, “Standard Penetration Test.” Georgia Institue of Technology, 2016.
[4] M. Budhu, “Soil Mechanics and Foundations (3rd Edition).”
[5] “13.Water Level Measurements, Aquifer Testing & Discharge Water Handling,” Ontario.ca,
06-Jun-2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.ontario.ca/document/test-holes-and-
dewatering-wells-requirements-and-best-management-practices/13water-level-
measurements-aquifer-testing-discharge-water-handling. [Accessed: 22-Nov-2018].
[6] M. J. Hvorslev, “Time Lag and Soil Permeability in Ground-Water Observations,” Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 36, 1951.
[7] H. Bouwer, “Bouwer and Rice Slug Test Solution for Unconfined Aquifers.” 1989.
[8] G. Mishra, “Types of Shallow Foundations and their Uses,” The Constructor, 18-Mar-2013.
[Online]. Available: https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/shallow-foundations-
types/5308/. [Accessed: 19-Nov-2018].
[9] P. J. Hannigan and et al., “Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations Volume I,” U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-NHI-16-009-FHWA
GEC 12-Volume I, Jul. 2016.
[10] M. Janes, “Sonic Pile Driving: The History and the Resurrection of Vibration Free Pile
Driving,” Vancouver, Canada.
[11] “Densities of Different Soil Types,” StructX, 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://structx.com/Soil_Properties_002.html. [Accessed: 22-Nov-2018].
[12] “Bored-Piling.” Keller.
[13] “Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual,” in Chapter 18: Geotechnical Design of Deep
Foundations, .
[14] L. Zhang, Ed., “4 Rock discontinuities,” in Elsevier Geo-Engineering Book Series, vol. 4,
Elsevier, 2006, pp. 53–97.
[15] “Geotechnical Report for Canaport Marine Terminal.” 2015.

75
[16] E. Tsudik, “7.1 Introduction,” in Analysis of Structures on Elastic Foundations, J. Ross
Publishing, Inc.
[17] P. D. David A. Fanella S. E. .. P. E. .. F. ASCE. F. AC., “Foundations,” in Reinforced Concrete
Structures: Analysis and Design, Second Edition, McGraw Hill Professional, Access
Engineering, 2016.
[18] P. E. Akbar Tamboli F. ASC., “Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering,” in Tall and
Supertall Buildings: Planning and Design, McGraw Hill Professional, Access Engineering,
2014.
[19] Canadian Geotechnical Society, “Chapter 26: Supported Excavations and Flexible Retaining
Structures,” in Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th ed., Bitech Publishers, 2006,
pp. 397–439.
[20] Alan Macnab, “TYPES OF SHORING SYSTEMS,” in Earth Retention Systems Handbook,
McGraw Hill Professional, Access Engineering, 2002.
[21] FINE Civil Engineering Software, “Tangent Pile Walls Design | Excavation design | Fine.”
[Online]. Available: https://www.finesoftware.eu/geotechnical-
software/solutions/excavation-design/tangent-pile-wall-design/. [Accessed: 15-Mar-2019].
[22] Alan Macnab, “TYPES OF SHORING SYSTEMS,” in Earth Retention Systems Handbook,
McGraw Hill Professional, Access Engineering, 2002.
[23] Helical Geotechnical Design/Build, “Earth Retention / Permanent Foundation Wall: Secant
Piles.” Helical Geotechnical Design/Build.
[24] The International Association of Foundation Drilling, “Specifications for the Construction of
Secant and Tangent Pile Wall Systems using Drilled Shafts.” ADSC.
[25] R. Jameson and E. Lindquist, “Secant Pile Shaft Construction,” Tunnel Business Magazine,
27-Mar-2014. .
[26] P. D. Robert T. Ratay P. E., “DIAPHRAGM/SLURRY WALLS,” in Temporary Structures in
Construction, Third Edition, McGraw Hill Professional, Access Engineering, 2012.
[27] Michael Diez de Aux, “How Tiebacks, Rakers, and Struts Support Shoring Walls |
SkyriseCities,” Skyrise Cities, 14-Dec-2016. [Online]. Available:
https://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/12/how-tiebacks-rakers-and-struts-support-shoring-
walls. [Accessed: 01-Oct-2018].
[28] B. M. Das, “6.9.3.5 Anchor Plates and Beams (Deadman),” in Geotechnical Engineering
Handbook, J. Ross Publishing, Inc.
76
[29] P. J. Sabatini, D. G. Pass, and R. C. Bachus, “Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems,”
Technical Report Documentation 4, Jun. 1999.
[30] California Department of Transportation, “DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRENCHING
AND SHORING MANUAL,” Textbook, 2011.
[31] Neenu Arjun, “Deep Well Systems for Dewatering of Excavations.” 2014.
[32] Shubbam Parab, “Construction Dewatering.” Nov-2015.
[33] John A. Wickham Jr, et al., “Dewatering and Groundwater Control.” Departments of the
Army, The Navy, and the Air Force, 1985.
[34] K. Terzaghi and R. B. Peck, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,” New York, 1967.
[35] U.S. Department of Transportation, “Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual.” Feb-2015.
[36] CSA Group, “CSA S6-14 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.” CSA Group, Jul-2017.
[37] Offices of Structure Construction, “Trenching and Shoring Manual.” State of California
Department of Transportation.
[38] CSA Group, “CSA Standard A23.3 Design of Concrete Structures.” CSA Group, Jun-2014.
[39] Ashley Hosier P. Eng, “Well Installation Inquiry,” 07-Mar-2019.
[40] “Schedule 40 PVC Pipe.” PVC Fittings Online, 2019.
[41] P. D. Indranil Goswami P. E., “Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” in Civil Engineering All-In-One PE
Exam Guide: Breadth and Depth, Third Edition, McGraw Hill Professional, Access
Engineering, 2015.

77
Appendix A: Preliminary Geotechnical Site Plan and Shoring Schematic

i
 LEGEND
East Property
N

West Property EDGE OF ROAD

Yonge St. SUBJECT PROPERTY

B BUILDING FOOTPRINT

BH101 BOREHOLE LOCATION AND

ID
BH201 BH202 BH207 BH208
BH112
BH101
BH103 BH104
Building BH2
Building
1 BH113 Building
A 2
3 A'
BH114
BH1 BH105
BH115
BH106
BH210
NOTES
Market BH108

BH206 BH209

BH205
Clark Alley

DRAWING TITLE
Site Layout Plan

BH214 FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY

01 T. Asma
Building BH107

Charles St.
PROJECT
5 BH111 CAPSTONE - Shoring Design
BH203
BH212
BH109
Building CLIENT
BH211 Terraprobe
4
ADDRESS
BH204 BH301 North-West Corner, Yonge St.
BH110
BH102 BH213 and Charles St, Toronto, ON
BH302
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
BH3 CIVL460-P 0 METRES 18.3

DATE
13-Mar-19

B' 58 University Avenue,

Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9
John St.
(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 LEGEND
GROUND SURFACE

CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE

SAND

SANDY SILT

CLAYEY SILT

GRAVELLY SAND

SILT
East Property
Boundary

Boundary
West Property
Facing South SAND AND SILT

FILL
BH101

BH212

BH110
BH107
BH105

BH108
SILTY SAND
BH2

North South GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION

114 114
BH101 BOREHOLE ID AND SECTION
LINE OFFSET
112 112
WATER LEVEL APR. 2017

110 110 BOREHOLE

108 108 MONITORING WELL

CONSTRUCTION

106 106 NOTES

ELEVATION (MASL)

No water elevation data for

104 104 BH212 or BH110
Surface ashpalt and concrete
102 102 were not included cross-section
Soil lithology interpolated
100 100
between boreholes
DRAWING TITLE
98 98
East-West Hydrogeological
96
Cross-Section (B-B`)
96
FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY
94 94 02 T. Asma

92 92 PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design
90 90 CLIENT
Terraprobe
88 88
ADDRESS
86 86 North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
84 84
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
CIVL460-P H: 0 METRES 18.4
82 82
B B' DATE
5.9
80 80 13-Mar-19 V: 0 METRES
50

0
0

25

75

5
10
00

12

15

17
+
+

+
+

+
0

58 University Avenue,
0

0
0

0
METERS Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 LEGEND
GROUND SURFACE

CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE

SAND

SANDY SILT

CLAYEY SILT

GRAVELLY SAND

SILT
North Property
Boundary

Boundary
South Property
Facing East SAND AND SILT

FILL
BH114

BH115

BH113

BH105
BH106
SILTY SAND

BH1
North South GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION
114 114
BH101 BOREHOLE ID AND SECTION
LINE OFFSET
112 112
WATER LEVEL APR. 2017
110 110 BOREHOLE

108 108 MONITORING WELL

CONSTRUCTION

106 106 NOTES

ELEVATION (MASL)

No water elevation data for

104 104 BH212 or BH110
Surface ashpalt and concrete
102 102 were not included cross-section
Soil lithology interpolated
100 100
between boreholes
DRAWING TITLE
98 98
East-West Hydrogeological
96 96
Cross-Section (B-B`)
FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY
94 94 03 T. Asma

92 92 PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design
90 90 CLIENT
Terraprobe
88 88
ADDRESS
86 86 North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
84 84
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
CIVL460-P H: 0 METRES 18.4
82 82
A A' DATE
5.9
80 80 13-Mar-19 V: 0 METRES

25 75
0

50

5
0

5
00

15
10

17
12

+ +
+

0 0
+

+
+

+
+
0

58 University Avenue,
0

0
0

0
METERS
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 LEGEND
East Property
N

Yonge St. Building 3 EDGE OF ROAD

SUBJECT PROPERTY

BUILDING FOOTPRINT

BH101 BOREHOLE LOCATION AND

ID

SHALLOW FOUNDATION
FOOTING

Building
2
NOTES

DRAWING TITLE
Building 3 Foundation Layout
Plan

Charles St.
FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY
04 T. Asma
PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design

CLIENT
Terraprobe
Market
ADDRESS
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
CIVL460-P 0 8.22
METRES
DATE
13-Mar-19

58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 LEGEND
GROUND SURFACE

CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE

SAND

SANDY SILT
Boundary
North Property

Boundary
South Property
Facing East CLAYEY SILT

GRAVELLY SAND

SILT

SAND AND SILT

South North FILL

95 95 SILTY SAND

GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION

SHALLOW FOUNDATION
FOOTING

94 94

NOTES
Soil lithology past 150m south
ELEVATION (MASL)

was extrapolated from

cross-section

93 93 DRAWING TITLE
Building 3 Foundation
Cross-Section (A-A`)
FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY
05 T. Asma
PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design
92 92
CLIENT
Terraprobe

ADDRESS
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
A A' and Charles St, Toronto, ON
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
91 91
CIVL460-P H: 0
0

60

0
METRES 5.33
13

14

15

17

18
+1
+

+
DATE
0
0

0
0.71
13-Mar-19 V: 0 METRES

METERS
58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 LEGEND
GROUND SURFACE

CONSTRUCTION RUBBLE

SAND

SANDY SILT
East Property
Boundary

Boundary
West Property
Facing South CLAYEY SILT

GRAVELLY SAND

SILT

SAND AND SILT

South North FILL

95 95 SILTY SAND

GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION

SHALLOW FOUNDATION
FOOTING

94 94

NOTES
ELEVATION (MASL)

93 93 DRAWING TITLE
Building 3 Foundation
Cross-Section (B-B`)
FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY
06 T. Asma
PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design
92 92
CLIENT
Terraprobe

ADDRESS
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
B B'
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
91 91
00 16 64 80 CIVL460-P H: 0
32

48

METRES 8.53
+ + + +
+

0 0 0 0 DATE
0

0.71
13-Mar-19 V: 0 METRES

METERS
58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 LEGEND
West Property East Property
Yonge St.
N

EDGE OF ROAD

SUBJECT PROPERTY
PW1 PW14
BUILDING FOOTPRINT

PW101PUMPING WELL LOCATION

PW2 PW15 AND ID

EXCAVATION LIMITS

GROUNDWATER
PW3 PW16 COLLECTION PIPING

SETTLEMENT TANK AND

POWER SOURCE ALLOTED
PW4 PW17 AREA

PW5 PW18

NOTES
PW6 PW19
Clark Alley

PW7 PW20
C C' DRAWING TITLE
Dewatering Ring Layout Plan
PW8
FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY
07 T. Asma
PW9 PW21

Charles St.
PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design

PW10 PW22
CLIENT
Terraprobe
PW11 PW23
ADDRESS
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
PW12 PW24 and Charles St, Toronto, ON
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
CIVL460-P 0 15.7
METRES
PW13 PW25 DATE
13-Mar-2019

58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9
John St.
(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 0

0
0

0
METERS LEGEND

GROUND SURFACE

PW101 PUMPING WELL ID AND

LOCATION

GROUNDWATER LEVEL

PUMPING WELL
CONSTRUCTION
Boundary
North Property

Boundary
South Property
Facing East

EXCAVATION LIMITS

PW21
PW4 DIAPHRAGM WALL

PW9
North South
114 114

112 112

110 110

108 108
NOTES
106 106 Pumping Wells extend 32m
ELEVATION (MASL)

below ground surface with a

104 104
diameter of 12.7cm and a well
102 102
screen length of 1.5m. Well
diameter in figure is not to scale
100 100

98 98 DRAWING TITLE
North-South Dewatering Plan
96 96 Cross-Section (C-C`)
FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY
94 94
08 T. Asma
92 92 PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design
90 90
CLIENT
88 88 Terraprobe

86 86
ADDRESS

84 84
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
82 82 PROJECT NO. SCALE:
C C' CIVL460-P H: 0 METRES 18.4
80 80
00
0 50 15
0 DATE
5

5
0
75
25

10

12

17
+ + + 5.9
+
+

0 14-Mar-19 V: 0 METRES
+

+
0 0
0

0
METERS
58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
 LEGEND
West Property East Property
Yonge St.
N

EDGE OF ROAD

SUBJECT PROPERTY

BUILDING FOOTPRINT

SECANT WALL

DIAPHRAGM WALL

SECANT WALL TIEBACK

c/w 3.0m O.C. ANCHORS (TYP.)

NOTES

DIAPHRAGM WALL
c/w 1.0m O.C. ANCHORS (TYP.)

DRAWING TITLE
Shoring Layout Plan

FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY

09 T. Asma

Charles St.
PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design

CLIENT
Terraprobe

ADDRESS
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
CIVL460-P 0 15.7
METRES
DATE
13-Mar-2019

58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9
John St.
(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
LEGEND

DIAPHRAGM WALL

GROUND SURFACE

TIEBACK

STIRRUP

EXCAVATION LIMITS

REINFORCING STEEL

OVERBURDEN SOIL

NOTES
All measurements in meters
unless specified otherwise

DRAWING TITLE
Diaphragm Wall Schematic

FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY

10 T. Asma
PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design

CLIENT
Terraprobe

ADDRESS
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
CIVL460-P Not to Scale
DATE
13-Mar-2019

58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
LEGEND

SECANT WALL

GROUND SURFACE

TIEBACK

STIRRUP

EXCAVATION LIMITS

REINFORCING STEEL

OVERBURDEN SOIL

NOTES
All measurements in meters
unless specified otherwise

DRAWING TITLE
Secant Wall Schematic

FIGURE NO. DRAWN BY

11 T. Asma
PROJECT
CAPSTONE - Shoring Design

CLIENT
Terraprobe

ADDRESS
North-West Corner, Yonge St.
and Charles St, Toronto, ON
PROJECT NO. SCALE:
CIVL460-P Not to Scale
DATE
13-Mar-2019

58 University Avenue,
Kingston, ON, K7M 3N9

(519)860-9712
14tja1@queensu.ca
Appendix B: Calculations

ii
B1: Preliminary Shallow Foundation Calculation
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Shallow Foundation (Spread Footing) Dimensions and Bearing Capacity
Description/Objectives: Terzaghi’s method of determining the bearing capacity of the soil
surrounding a shallow foundation. Both a total stress analysis (TSA) and effective stress
analysis (ESA) will be conducted. These calculations will yield the depth of footing,
dimensions of the base of the foundation, and the bearing capacity for the governing case.
This will be determined through an iterative approach.
Method of Checking:
Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
X Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools:
Microsoft Excel
Key Assumptions:
Footing Properties
- Base of foundation is square to simplify analysis
- Building columns directly feed into shallow foundation
- Assumed rough footing for `n calculation
Load and Building Properties
- Vertical centric load only on a horizontal footing resting on a horizontal surface
(minimizes factors applied)
- Columns spread evenly across building’s section. Won’t be the case due to
serviceability and aesthetics
- Assumed loading of building
Soil Properties
- Undrained shear strength taken as constant (312.5)
- Phi-dash taken as 36o for all soils. Assumed from corrected SPT-N (18)
- SPT-N correction factors only apply to ESA analysis
- Assume soil unit weight of 20kN/m3
- Factor of safety of 3 applied to bearing capacity to ensure conservatism

References:
- Budhu Soil Mechanics and Foundations 3rd edition [4]
- Structural Load Combinations (Annex C of A23.3) [38]
- C. Elvidge, personal communication, September-November, 2018

iii
Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:
No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Shallow 14 R. R.S. 11/14/18 J. J.M. 11/18/18
Foundation Schaaf MacAskill
Dimensions &
Bearing
Capacity

iv
B1.1: Total Stress Analysis
Sample Calculation for the first iteration of Df=0.5m (Assume B=L=1m)
TSA bearing capacity equation:
fg = 5.14Sg S_ B_ /_ 9_ 0_
As it is assumed that the load applied on the footing is only vertical centric and on a horizontal
footing resting on a horizontal surface, the above expression simplifies to:
fg = 5.14Sg S_ B_
Where,
fg = ä:/2<62. +.67/@0 [6A6!/2Z
Sg = ä@B76/@.B =ℎ.67 =27.@02ℎ = 312.5dc6
+
S_ = =ℎ6A. ?6!247 = 1 + 0.2 ∗ = 1 + 0.2 ∗ 1 = 1.2
^
)* 0.5
B_ = ).A2ℎ ?6!247 = 1 + 0.33 tanéM = 1 + 0.33 tanéM = 1.15
+ 1
∴ fg = 5.14 ∗ 312.5 ∗ 1.2 ∗ 1.15 = 2222.41dc6
fg
∴ fv = = êëí. ìíîïñ
3
Now using the point load on each column determined from the load analysis, confirm if the
dimensions (B=L=1m) are adequate for the allowable bearing capacity:
c4/@2 ^46B 4@ /@B/\/B>6: !4:><@
t7.6 4; ?4>@B62/4@ +6S. =
fv
12696.51d`
t7.6 4; ?4>@B62/4@ +6S. = = 17.14<O
740.80dc6

As it was assumed that the base of the foundation was square, take the root of the area to
determine the dimensions (B & L):
)/<.@S/4@ 4; ?4>@B62/4@ +6S. = òt7.6 4; ?4>@B62/4@ +6S.

)/<.@S/4@ 4; ?4>@B62/4@ +6S. = ò17.14<O = 4.14<

Therefore, as the dimension of the foundation base determined through the load on each column
does not equate to the assumed dimensions, another iteration is required. For the second
iteration, instead of using B=L=1 m, use B=L=4.14 m. During this next iteration, the only factor
that changes will be dc as the base of the foundation was assumed to be square.

v
Table A-1: Total Stress Analysis for Shallow Foundation

TSA
Ultimate Allowable
Width of Length of Depth of Undrained
Shape Depth Bearing Bearing
Design # footing (B) footing (L) footing Shear Strength
Factor (sc) Factor (dc) Capacity (qu) Capacity (qa)
[m] [m] (Df) [m] (su) [kPa]
[kPa] [kPa]
1 1 1 0.5 312.5 1.2 1.15 2222.41 740.80
2 4.14 4.14 0.5 312.5 1.2 1.04 2003.95 667.98
3 4.36 4.36 0.5 312.5 1.2 1.04 2000.13 666.71
4 4 4 1 312.5 1.2 1.08 2083.32 694.44
5 4.28 4.28 1 312.5 1.2 1.08 2073.63 691.21
6 4 4 1.5 312.5 1.2 1.12 2155.71 718.57
7 4.20 4.20 1.5 312.5 1.2 1.11 2145.52 715.17

vi
Table A-2: TSA for Footing Depth of 0.5m

Depth (Df)= 0.5m

Iteration #1
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 740.80
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 17.1
Square dimensions [m] 4.14
Iteration #2
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 667.98
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 19.0
Square dimensions [m] 4.36
Iteration #3
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 666.71
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 19.0
Square dimensions [m] 4.36

vii
Table A-3: TSA for Footing Depth of 1.0m

Depth (Df)= 1.0m

Iteration #1
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 694.44
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 18.3
Square dimensions [m] 4.28
Iteration #2
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 691.21
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 18.4

Square dimensions [m] 4.29

viii
Table A-4: TSA for Footing Depth of 1.5m

Depth (Df)= 1.5m

Iteration #1
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 718.56
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 17.7
Square dimensions [m] 4.20
Iteration #2
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 715.17
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.512
SF Min Area [m2] 17.8
Square dimensions [m] 4.21

ix
B1.1: Effective Stress Analysis
Sample Calculation for the third iteration of Df=1.0m. From The second iteration, B=L=4.01m
ESA bearing capacity equation:
!" = $%& '() − 1,-) .) /) 0) 1) + 0.5$67 (8 -8 .8 08 18
As it is assumed again that the load applied on the footing is only vertical centric and on a
horizontal footing resting on a horizontal surface, the above expression simplifies to:
!" = $%& '() − 1,-) .) + 0.5$67 (8 -8 .8
Where,
!" = 9:/;<=;> 6>=@/A1 B=C=D/;E
G(
$ = 6F:G 9A/; H>/1ℎ; JK LJ/: = 20 N
<
%& = %>C;ℎ JK OJJ;/A1 = 0.5< ;J 1.5< KJ@ =A=:E-/-
V ^_7 36
() = 6>=@/A1 B=C=D/;E OFAD;/JA = > PQRSTU tanZ (45] + ) = > PQRSNa tanZ (45] + )
2 2
() = 37.75
V P
(8 = 6>=@/A1 B=C=D/;E OFAD;/JA = 0.1054> e.aTU = 0.1054> e.a∗Na∗ghi = 43.90
6 4.01
-) = Lℎ=C> O=D;J@ = 1 + tan ^_7 = 1 + tan 36 = 1.73
k 4.01
6 4.01
-8 = Lℎ=C> O=D;J@ = 1 − 0.4 = 1 − 0.4 = 0.60
k 4.01
%&
.) = %>C;ℎ O=D;J@ = 1 + 2 tan ^_7 (1 − sin ^_7 )Z tanng o p
6
1.0
.) = 1 + 2 tan 36(1 − sin 36 tanng o p = 1.06
4.01
.8 = %>C;ℎ O=D;J@ = 1.0
∴ !" = 20 ∗ 1.0 ∗ (37.75 − 1) ∗ 1.73 ∗ 1.06 + 0.5 ∗ 20 ∗ 4.01 ∗ 43.90 ∗ 0.60 ∗ 1.0
= 2401.22Gr=
!"
∴ !R = = stt. uvwxy
3
Now using the point load on each column determined from the load analysis, confirm if the
dimensions (B=L=4.01m) are adequate for the allowable bearing capacity:
rJ/A; kJ=. JA /A./{/.F=: DJ:F<A
z@>= JK OJFA.=;/JA 6=-> =
!R
12696.51G(
z@>= JK OJFA.=;/JA 6=-> = = 15.86<Z
800.41Gr=

As it was assumed that the base of the foundation was square, take the root of the area to
determine the dimensions (B & L):
%/<>A-/JA JK OJFA.=;/JA 6=-> = }z@>= JK OJFA.=;/JA 6=->
%/<>A-/JA JK OJFA.=;/JA 6=-> = }15.86<Z = 3.98<

x
Therefore, as the dimension of the foundation base determined through the load on each
column is approximately the same value as the previous iteration (3.98≈4.01), no other
iterations are required. This means for an effective stress analysis and a depth of foundation
(Df) of 1.0 m, the dimension of the foundation base will be 3.98 m and the allowable bearing
capacity of the soil will be 800.41 kPa.

xi
 B1.2: Effective Stress Analysis

Table A-5: Effective Stress Analysis for Shallow Foundation

ESA

Specific Ultimate Allowable

Bearing Bearing Depth
Soil Width of Length of Shape Depth Shape Depth Bearing Bearing
Iteration Phi Dash Capacity Capacity of
Weight footing footing (L) Factor Factor Factor Factor Capacity Capacity
# (!') [°] Function Function footing
(") [kN/ (B) [m] [m] (sq) (dq) (s") (d") (qu) (q_a)
Nq N" 3 (Df) [m]
m] [kPa] [kPa]
1 36 37.75 43.90 20 1.00 1.00 0.5 1.73 1.11 0.60 1.00 970.53 323.51
2 36 37.75 43.90 20 6.26 6.26 0.5 1.73 1.02 0.60 1.00 2297.02 765.67
3 36 37.75 43.90 20 4.07 4.07 0.5 1.73 1.03 0.60 1.00 1726.19 575.40
4 36 37.75 43.90 20 4.70 4.70 0.5 1.73 1.03 0.60 1.00 1888.35 629.45
5 36 37.75 43.90 20 4.49 4.49 0.5 1.73 1.03 0.60 1.00 1834.79 611.60
6 36 37.75 43.90 20 4.56 4.56 0.5 1.73 1.03 0.60 1.00 1851.69 617.23
7 36 37.75 43.90 20 4.50 4.50 1 1.73 1.05 0.60 1.00 2522.76 840.92
8 36 37.75 43.90 20 3.89 3.89 1 1.73 1.06 0.60 1.00 2371.36 790.45
9 36 37.75 43.90 20 4.01 4.01 1 1.73 1.06 0.60 1.00 2401.22 800.41
10 36 37.75 43.90 20 4.00 4.00 1.5 1.73 1.09 0.60 1.00 3125.68 1041.89
11 36 37.75 43.90 20 3.49 3.49 1.5 1.73 1.10 0.60 1.00 3013.70 1004.57
12 36 37.75 43.90 20 3.56 3.56 1.5 1.73 1.10 0.60 1.00 3027.53 1009.18
xii
Table A-6: ESA for Footing Depth of 0.5m Part 1/2

Depth (Df)= 0.5m

Iteration #1
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 323.51
Trib Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 39.2
Square dimensions [m] 6.26
Iteration #2
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 765.6721
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 16.6
Square dimensions [m] 4.07
Iteration #3
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 575.40
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 22.1
Square dimensions [m] 4.70

i
Table A-7: ESA for Footing Depth of 0.5m Part 2/2

Depth (Df)= 0.5m

Iteration #4
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 629.45
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 20.2
Square dimensions [m] 4.49
Iteration #5
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 611.60
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 20.8
Square dimensions [m] 4.56
Iteration #6
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 617.23
Trib Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 20.6
Square dimensions [m] 4.54

ii
Table A-8: ESA for Footing Depth of 1.0m

Depth (Df)= 1.0m

Iteration #1
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 840.92
Tributary Area of Interior Column [ m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [ m2] 15.1
Square dimensions [m] 3.89
Iteration #2
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 790.45
Tributary Area of Interior Column [ m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [ m2] 16.1
Square dimensions [m] 4.01
Iteration #3
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 800.41
Tributary Area of Interior Column [ m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [ m2] 15.9
Square dimensions [m] 3.98

iii
Table A-9: ESA for Footing Depth of 1.5m

Depth (Df)= 1.5m

Iteration #1
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 1041.893
Tributary Area of Interior Column [m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 12.2
Square dimensions [m] 3.49
Iteration #2
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 1004.566
Tributary Area of Interior Column [ m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [ m2] 12.6
Square dimensions [m] 3.56
Iteration #3
Internal Column Spacing [m] 7.5
# columns 46
Allowable Bearing Capacity [kPa] 1009.178
Tributary Area of Interior Column [ m2] 56.6
Point Load [kN] 12696.51
SF Min Area [m2] 12.6
Square dimensions [m] 3.55

iv
B2: Preliminary Driven Pile Calculation
Calculation Cover Page
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Pile allowable bearing in overburden
Description/Objectives:
To determine the allowable bearing capacity of a driven pile using end bearing capacity in soil
and shaft friction. This is determined with information about the soil lithology and bedrock
elevation from the bore hole logs. Factored load bearing will be dependent on pile design and
also spacing and tributary areas for each pile.
Method of Checking:
X Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools:
Hand calculations that follow design criteria in Budhu Soil Mechanics and Foundations 3rd
Edition.
Key Assumptions:
-Assumed specific weight of different soil types in cross section to calculate effective stress (C.
Elvidge, personal communication, November 15, 2018)
- Assumed angle of internal friction for soil types in cross section (C. Elvidge, personal
communication, November 15, 2018)
References:
Budhu Soil Mechanics and Foundations 3rd Edition [4]
C. Elvidge, personal communication, September-November, 2018

Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:

No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Bored Pile 3 Thomas T.A. 11/14/18 Andrew A.T. 11/15/18
End Bearing Asma Troup
on Rock

v
vi
vii
B3: Preliminary Bored Pile Calculation
Calculation Cover Page
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Pile allowable stress on Bedrock
Description/Objectives:
To determine the end bearing of a drilled pile on a rock structure. This is determined with
information about the rock structure from rock core data. This includes compressive strength
of the rock designation, and fracture type, frequency and size. Factored load bearing will be
dependent on pile design and also spacing and tributary areas for each pile.
Method of Checking:
X Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools:
Hand calculations that follow design criteria in Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual.
Key Assumptions:
-Assumed type of discontinuity based on comments in corehole logs. Ie. Gapped or Open
-Assumed width of spacing from qualitative comments on corehole logs. Number of
fractures.
-Assumed that pile would reach UCS compressive strength of R3.
-Assumed R3 has a strength of 25-50MPa.
References:
Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual Section 18.6.3.3 [13]
Rock discontinuities by: Lianyang Zhang [14]

Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:

No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Bored Pile 2 A. Troup A.T. 11/14/18 Thomas T.A. 11/15/18
End Bearing Asma
on Rock

viii
ix
B4: Preliminary Mat Foundation Calculation
Calculation Cover Page
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Mat Foundation Maximum Column Spacing
Description/Objectives: Rigid method of mat foundation analysis to determine maximum
allowable column spacing for design of rigid mat foundation.
Method of Checking:
X Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools:
Microsoft Excel

Key Assumptions:
Material Properties:
- Modulus of subgrade reaction: 4.152x106kg/m3 (silty and clayey sand, MC=17-20%)
- Normal density concrete with 30MPa 28-day compressive strength
Dimensions:
- Width of design strip: 8000mm
- Mat thickness: 400mm
- All columns spaced equally
Loading:
- Column loads do not vary by more than 20%
References:
- Concrete properties, moment of inertia: CSA A23.3-14 Design of Concrete Structures
[38]
- Modulus of subgrade reaction: Civil Engineering All-In-One PE Exam Guide: Breadth
and Depth, Chapter 106. Reinforced Concrete Slabs [41]
- Rigid mat analysis: Reinforced Concrete Structures: Analysis and Design, Second
Edition, Chapter 10. Foundations [17]

Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:

No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Rigid Mat 2 J. JM 11/14/2018 R. RS 11/18/2018
Max MacAskill Schaaf
Column
Spacing
x
Equations:
1.75
!"# %&'()* +,"-.*/ =
5
78 >.?@
5=6 =
4:; <
78 = A8 BC

:; = 4500EF;C Cl. 8.6.2.3 [38]:; = 4500EF;C Cl. 8.6.2.3 [38]

B C ℎH
<=
12
Where:
5 = +J.FF*KLL :M"'("J.&* N"-J&O
78 = +,O.*/ %&*LJ"*J &F +&.'
:; = !&P('(L &F :'"LJ.-.JQ &F %&*-OKJK
< = !&)K*J &F <*KOJ." &F RKL./* +JO.,
A8 = !&P('(L &F +(S/O"PK TK"-J.&*
BC = U.PJℎ &F RKL./* +JO.,
ℎ = !"J Vℎ.-A*KLL
Results:
Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete (MPa) 24648
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (kg/m3) 4152000
Mat Thickness (mm) 400
Design Strip Width (mm) 8000
Moment of Inertia of Design Strip (mm4) 42666666667
Spring Constant (MPa) 325.85
Stiffness Evaluation Factor 0.000528
Maximum Rigid Column Spacing (m) 3.32

xi
B5: Borehole Log Analysis and Soil Pressure Calculation
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Borehole Log Analysis and Horizontal Soil Pressure Sample Calculation
Description/Objectives: Develop active and at rest horizontal soil pressure distributions using
borehole log data provided by Terraprobe

Method of Checking:
X Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools: Microsoft Excel
Key Assumptions:
SOIL AND SITE PROPERTIES:
- Borehole log layers approximated as either Sand, Silt or Clay
- Unit weight of Sand and Silt = 20 kN/m3 and Clay = 22 kN/m3
- Critical state angle of friction for Sand = 27°, Silt = 24°, Clay = 15°
- Angle of internal friction for (4 < SPT-N < 10) = 30°, (10 < SPT-N < 30) = 35°, (30 < SPT-
N < 50) = 40°, (SPT-N > 50) = 45°
- OCR = 1
- Width of existing building footings, B = 0.5 m
- Existing buildings designed to apply load equal to maximum allowable bearing
capacity at level of footing based on global factor of safety of three
References:
- Terraprobe Borehole Logs (BH109)
- Budhu Soil Mechanics and Foundations 3rd Edition [4]
- C. Elvidge, personal communication, September 2018 – March 2019

Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:

No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Borehole 6 J. J.M. March R. Schaaf R. S. March
Analysis and MacAskill 11, 11,
Pressure 2019 2019
Distribution

xii
B6: Secant Caisson and Diaphragm Shoring Wall Final Stress Analysis
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Secant Caisson and Diaphragm Shoring Wall Final Stress Analysis
Description/Objectives: Develop the maximum moment and shear forces across the length of
the wall. This value will be used to structurally design the wall.
Method of Checking:
Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
X Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools: Microsoft Excel
Key Assumptions:
Soil Properties
- A constant Ka and Kp was taken across the entirety of the Borehole Data. This allowed
for evaluation for the worst-case scenario
- Kp was assumed to be 1/Ka [4]
- A constant soil unit weight of 22kN/m3
- A uniform surcharge value of 12 kPa was taken [36]
Shoring Wall
- To determine stresses, the hinge method was used with apparent lateral soil
pressures [30]
- Every span except the span from the top tieback to the ground surface (Depth of 0m)
can be treated as simply-supported. The other span can be treated as cantilever [30]
- To determine the embedment depth (D from D’), a factor of safety of 1.3 was utilized.
This is different than the global S.F of 3 [30]
Tieback Anchors
- As a trapezoidal pressure distribution was used opposed to a triangular, this
assumption neglected that the tieback anchors will be able to 100% take the forces
imposed onto them. This is due to construction methods and improper grouting
techniques [19]
- The tieback anchor system means that below the dredge line, the active and passive
lateral soil pressures remain on the same side and there is no inflection point
- Anchor placement was selected arbitrarily

References:
- State of California Department of Transportation Trenching and Shoring Manual [30]
- Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition [19]
- Budhu Soil Mechanics and Foundations 3rd Edition [4]

xiii
Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:
No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Secant and 15 R. Schaaf R.S March J. J.M. March
Diaphragm 12, MacAskill 12,
Shoring Wall 2019 2019
Final Stress
Analysis

xiv
First, the design parameters first needed to be quantified. As the worst-case scenario was being
taken as the governing design to develop a conservative design, data from BH 109 compiled from
above in ‘B5: Borehole Log Analysis and Soil Pressure Calculation’ was used. The other design
parameters that were required were the lateral soil pressures. These had to be determined
through geometry. As the pressure profile was dependent on the placement of the anchor
tiebacks, the spacing of these anchors had to first be determined. Provided below in Table A-10
are the selected spacing between the anchors. It is noted that these spans were arbitrarily taken
as approximately 4 m. Additionally, the horizontal spacing (X) of the anchors also was required.
This was taken as 3 m.
Table A-10: Wall and Tieback Specifications

Wall Specifications
Height of wall (H) [m] 21.3
Depth to A [m] 2.67
Height to first Anchor (H1) [m] 4
Height between first and second anchor (H2) [m] 4.65
Height between second and third anchor (H3) [m] 4.65
Height between third and fourth anchor (H4) [m] 4
Height between fourth anchor and base (H5) [m] 4
Depth to B [m] 18.63
Height between B and fourth anchor [m] 1.33
Height between B and dredge line [m] 2.67
Horizontal Distance between each anchor along wall face (X) [m] 3

With the spatial placement of the anchors selected, the lateral earth pressures could now be
calculated. To determine the maximum ordinate of the active pressures above the dredge line,
the parameter Pt had to be first calculated. This parameter converts the typical triangular lateral
pressure distribution to the apparent method’s trapezoidal distribution. Shown below is the
calculation. It is noted that the 1.3 safety factor is applied to this value.
1 1 1 1
WX = 1.3 ∗ 6 ∗ [ ∗ \? ∗ = = 1.3 ∗ ∗ 22 ∗ (21.3? ) ∗ = 1407.85 A`/)
2 3 2 3

xv
Therefore, the maximum ordinate of the active pressures above the dredge line is as follows:
WX 1407.75
bcd = = = 75.56 AW"
1 1
[\ − 3 ∗ (\d + \@ )] [21.3 − 3 (4 + 4)]

But surcharge had to be considered so therefore,

bcd = 7j ∗ 75.56 = kl. mn opq
Regarding the rest of the lateral stresses, they could be determined by simply multiplying the
coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K) by the unit weight and depth of interest. Once again,
surcharge had to be considered. It is to be noted that the safety factor of 1.3 is not required for
these pressures. [30] A sample equation for the passive lateral earth pressure is provided
below:[30] A sample equation for the passive lateral earth pressure is provided below:
bc? = 7j ∗ [ ∗ \ + (7j ∗ +(O-ℎ"O/K) = 0.217 ∗ 22 ∗ 21.3 + (0.217 ∗ 12) = 104.29 AW"
The design parameters to determine the stresses acting across the anchored secant wall are
summed below in Table A-11.
Table A-11: Borehole 109 Parameters for Secant Caisson Wall

Design Parameters
Soil Properties
Ka 0.217
Kp 4.608
Ko 0.546
Unit Weight (g) (kN/m^3) 22
Stresses
PT [kN/m] 1407.85
Surcharge [kPa] 12
sA1 with Surcharge [kPa] 78.16
sA2 with Surcharge [kPa] 104.29
sA3 with Surcharge [kPa] 116.47
sp1 with Surcharge [kPa] 258.52

xvi
Please note that the notations used in the above tables are consistent with the notation used in
‘5.4.1 Secant Shoring Walls’.
The second step is to now determine the forces and moments acting across the wall. To
determine the forces, one simply must determine the area of the lateral pressure distribution at
a specified depth. Shown below is a sample calculation determining the resultant force from the
top triangular portion of the trapezoid (F1). It is to be noted that the depth of this portion is two-
thirds the height to tieback 1 (as described above in ‘3.7 Soil Pressure Distributions’).
1 2 1 2
Nd = ∗ 6 ∗ \d = ∗ bcd = ∗ 6 ∗ 4= ∗ 78.16 = 104.21A`/)
2 3 2 3
The rest of the forces are provided below in Table A-12.

Table A-12: Specified Forces acting on Secant Caisson Shoring Wall

Force @ Wall Depth

Location Force [kN/m]
F1 104.21
F2 104.21
F3 363.44
F4 363.44
F5 312.64
F6 104.21
F7 104.21

Please note that this provides the force per horizontal meter of the wall. To convert to a force,
one must multiply by the selected horizontal distance between each anchor. As mentioned
previously, this was taken to be 3 m. To determine the forces that each tieback must withstand,
the forces determined above were divided into each tieback. This was done by splitting the
tieback forces into two components; tieback force upper (TUpper) and tieback force lower (TLower)
Shown below is a sample calculation for tieback force 1 (T1):
Nw 363.44
VHsttuv = = = 181.72 A`/)
2 2

xvii
 N@ 312.64
VHxyzuv = = = 156.32 A`/)
2 2
∴ VH = (VHsttuv + VHxyzuv ) ∗ 3 = 181.72 + 156.32 = m|m}. mmo~

Shown below in Table A-13 are the tieback load components and loads for all four tiebacks.
Table A-13: Secant Caisson Wall Tieback Loads

Tieback Loads [kN]

Location Load
T1Upper [kN/m] 208.42
T1Lower [kN/m] 246.46
T1 [kN] 1364.66
T2Upper [kN/m] 116.97
T2Lower [kN/m] 181.72
T2 [kN] 896.09

T3Upper [kN/m] 181.72

T3Lower [kN/m] 156.31
T3[ kN] 1014.11

T4Upper [kN/m] 156.31

T4Lower [kN/m] 160.26

T4 [kN] 949.75

As it can be seen, the top tieback must resist the most force out of all tiebacks. This is due to the
moment which is imposed at this tieback. As mentioned before, due to the assumption that the
top span between the first tieback and the ground surface acts as a cantilever, this means that
there is an inherent moment at tieback 1. To determine this moment, the cantilever span and its
forces (F1 & F2) were analyzed. Shown below is the moment summation to determine the value
of M1:
!d = Nd ∗ !&)K*J "O) &F JO."*/('"O '&"P + N? ∗ !&)K*J O) &F OK-J"*/('"O '&"P

xviii
 2 2
2 4∗3 4 − Ü3 ∗ 4á
!d = 104.21 ∗ ÄÅ4 − 64 ∗ =Ç + É ÑÖ + Ä104.21 ∗ É ÑÖ = 301.05 A`)
3 3 2

Regarding the force at tieback 1 and 2, this moment had to be considered as it was imposing
stress onto the member. This meant that T1Lower and T2Upper required considerations for the
moment. Shown below is a sample calculation for T1Lower. As shown, this value matches up with
the tieback loads presented in Table A-13.
NH !d 363.44 301.05
Vdxyzuv = + = + = 246.46 A`)
2 \d 2 4.65
A visual providing the values and locations of all the imposed forces and stress is provided below
in Figure A-1.

M1=301.05 kNm
104.21 kN/m
104.21 kN/m
1364.66 kN
363.44 kN/m
896.09 kN
363.44 kN/m
1014.11 kN
312.64 kN/m
949.75 kN
104.21 kN/m

104.21 kN/m

Figure A-1: Forces and Stresses acting on Secant Wall [33]

Now that all the forces are quantified across the shoring wall, the next step is to determine the
wall’s required depth below the dredge line (D’). This was done by conducting two moment
equilibriums at tieback 4 since both the depth and the moment equilibrium is unknown. One of
the moments was conducted on the active side (MD), and the other was conducted on the passive
side (MR):

xix
 1 2
4∗3 1 4∗3 RC
!à = (Nâ ∗ ) + (N@ ∗ Ä64 ∗ = + É ÑÖ) + (bc? ∗ Åä + Ç ∗ R′)
2 3 3 2

[ 1 2
+ (Å ∗ ∗ 6ä + RC =Ç ∗ RC ? )
2 3 3

1 2
4∗3 1 4∗3 RC
!à = (104.21 ∗ ) + (104.21 ∗ Ä64 ∗ = + É ÑÖ) + (104.29 ∗ Å3 + Ç ∗ R′)
2 3 3 2

22 1 2
+ (Å ∗ ∗ 63 + RC =Ç ∗ RC ? )
2 3 3
[ 2 22 2
!å = 7t ∗ ∗ 6ä + RC = ∗ RC? = 4.608 ∗ ∗ 63 + RC = ∗ RC?
2 3 2 3
To determine D’, set MD=MR to yield a D’ of 2.55m. To account for external stability, a safety
factor of 1.3 was additionally applied. This yielded a total embedment depth of 3.32m. With that
being said, for the rest of the analysis, the effective embedment depth (2.55m) will still be used.
The next step is to quantify the maximum bending moments across each span (between anchors)
of the wall. The maximum moment between the ground surface and the first tieback will be M1.
Regarding the other spans, the same process can be followed for find the maximum moments.
Shown below is the sample calculation for computing the maximum moment between anchor 2
and 3:
1 1 1 1
!çjé,?êH = ∗ V?xyzuv ∗ ∗ \H = ∗ 181.72 ∗ ∗ 4.65 = 211.25 A`)
2 2 2 2
To determine the maximum moment below T4, further analysis has to be conducted. It is to be
noted that in the analysis, the span Below T4 was not taken to the dredge line but was taken to
the effective embedment depth (D’). To determine the maximum moment across this span, the
point of zero shear had to be first determined. First, sum all the forces in the horizontal direction
below T4. This is provided below:
1 1
ë Né = −Vwxyzuv + Nâ + Ní + (bc? ∗ Q) + 6 ∗ [ ∗ 7j ∗ Q ? = − ( ∗ [ ∗ 7t ∗ Q ? )
2 2
1 1
0 = −160.27 + 104.21 + 104.21 + (104.29 ∗ Q) + 6 ∗ 22 ∗ 0.217 ∗ Q ? = − ( 22 ∗ 4.608
2 2
?
∗Q )
Q = −0.39 & 2.55

xx
As both of these values are greater or equal to D’ (2.55m), the point of zero shear must be located
above the dredge line.
To check what region of the span the point of zero shear lies in (the sloped or non-slopped
region), the check below could be conducted:
bcd 78.16
Vwxyzuv − ÅÜ á ∗ \@ Ç = 160.27 − 6 ∗ 4= = 56.05
3 3
Since this is positive, the point of zero shear will be in the sloping portion of the earth pressure
distribution diagram in the span that lies below T4. To determine the exact point, a subsequent
horizontal force equilibrium was taken above the dredge line:

1 bcd
ë Né = −Vwxyzuv + Nâ + ((bcd ∗ Q C ) + (bcd ∗ Q C ) − ÄÉ Ñ ∗ Q C? Ö)
2 2
3 ∗ \@

1⎛ 104.29 ⎞
0 = −160.27 + 104.21 + ⎜(104.29 ∗ Q C ) + (104.29 ∗ Q C ) − ÄÉ Ñ ∗ Q C? Ö⎟
2 2
3∗4
⎝ ⎠
Q′ = 0.855
Therefore, the point of zero shear is 1/3*4+0.855= 2.19m below T4
This point of zero shear now allows one to find the maximum moment along this final span. At
this point, the maximum moment will occur. Therefore, sum moments about M4. For clarification,
Figure A-2 has been constructed outlining the parameters needed for the equilibrium.
1 2 1.33
!çjé,wêöõt = 6− ∗ 45.4 ∗ Q C = − 6 ∗ 10.71 ∗ Q C = − Å104.21 ∗ 6Q C + =Ç
2 3 2
+ ú160.27 ∗ (Q C + 1.33)ù
1 2 1.33
!çjé,wêöõt = 6− ∗ 45.4 ∗ 0.855= − 6 ∗ 10.71 ∗ 0.855= − Å104.21 ∗ 60.855 + =Ç
2 3 2
+ ú160.27 ∗ (0.855 + 1.33)ù = mnn. nû o~ü
Now all the maximum moments between the five spans are known. They are summarized below
in Table A-14.

xxi
 Table A-14: Secant Caisson Wall Design Moments

Design Moments
Parameter Location Value
Imposed Moment [kNm] Tieback 1 301.06
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 1 & 2 388.59
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 2 & 3 211.25
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 3 & 4 156.32
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 4 & Base 166.62
Maximum Moment [kNm] Along Span 388.59

78.

160.
1.3 104.21
27
3

10.71

45.40
2.67

Figure A-2: Force Components between Dredge Line and T4 For Secant Caisson
Wall
Now that the entire span’s length is known, a complete stress analysis can be conducted. The
two parameters that were calculated across the total depth of the pile were the shear force and
bending moments distributions. This analysis was dependent on two factors; the span type
(simply-supported or cantilever) and the profile of the lateral earth pressures. As providing the
entirety of the calculations across the length of the wall is intensive, only one span is shown

xxii
below. This span is H4 (between tieback 3 and 4). To create the actual moment distribution,
increments of 0.1m were taken and both the shear forces and bending moments were evaluated
at each step. The span type between tiebacks 3 and 4 was simply-supported and the profile of
the stress was rectangular. The shear forces and moments across the 4m span is provided below
in Table A-15. It is to be noted that the maximum moment bolded in the table matches the
maximum moment specified for this span outlined above in Table A-14.

xxiii
Table A-15: Secant Caisson Wall Shear Forces and Bending Moments across H4 Span

Depth [m] Pressure [kPa] Shear Force [kN] Bending Moment [kNm]
13.3 78.16 -181.72 0.00
13.4 78.16 148.50 15.24
13.5 78.16 140.69 29.70
13.6 78.16 132.87 43.38
13.7 78.16 125.05 56.27
13.8 78.16 117.24 68.39
13.9 78.16 109.42 79.72
14 78.16 101.61 90.27
14.1 78.16 93.79 100.04
14.2 78.16 85.98 109.03
14.3 78.16 78.16 117.24
14.4 78.16 70.34 124.66
14.5 78.16 62.53 131.31
14.6 78.16 54.71 137.17
14.7 78.16 46.90 142.25
14.8 78.16 39.08 146.55
14.9 78.16 31.26 150.07
15 78.16 23.45 152.80
15.1 78.16 15.63 154.76
15.2 78.16 7.82 155.93
15.3 78.16 0.00 156.32
15.4 78.16 -7.82 155.93
15.5 78.16 -15.63 154.76
15.6 78.16 -23.45 152.80
15.7 78.16 -31.26 150.07
15.8 78.16 -39.08 146.55
15.9 78.16 -46.90 142.25
16 78.16 -54.71 137.17
16.1 78.16 -62.53 131.31
16.2 78.16 -70.34 124.66
16.3 78.16 -78.16 117.24
16.4 78.16 -85.98 109.03
16.5 78.16 -93.79 100.04
16.6 78.16 -101.61 90.27
16.7 78.16 -109.42 79.72
16.8 78.16 -117.24 68.39
16.9 78.16 -125.05 56.27
17 78.16 -132.87 43.38
17.1 78.16 -140.69 29.70
17.2 78.16 -148.50 15.24
17.3 78.16 -156.32 0.00
xxiv
The remainder of the spans and the type of equation used for the shear force and bending
moment analysis is summarized below in Table A-16. For the spans with multiple equations,
superposition of profiles had to be utilized as they acted [38]. However, it is to be noted that the
shear force and moment distribution is visually shown in Figure 32 and Figure 33 above in ‘5.4.1
Secant Shoring Walls’.
Table A-16: Wall Span with respective Method of determining Shear Force and Bending Moment

Type of Stress
Shear Force Bending Moment
Span Analysis Profiles
Equation(s) Equation(s)
°# ? °# H
Triangular †é = ? !é = ?
Between Surface ' 3'
Cantilever
and T1 °¢?
Rectangular †é = °# !é =
2
Simply °# °¢?
Between T1 and T2 supported Rectangular †é = (' − #) !é =
2 8
Simply °# °¢?
Between T2 and T3 Supported Rectangular †é = (' − #) !é =
2 8
Simply °# °¢?
Between T3 and T4 supported Rectangular †é = (' − #) !é =
2 8
°¢ 1 # ? zxé é£
Triangular †é = ( − ) !é = (1 − x£ )
Simply 2 3 ¢? â
Between T4 and D'
supported °# °¢?
Rectangular †é = (' − #) !é =
2 8

The same design process was then applied to the diaphragm wall sections with an average of the
active and at-rest earth pressure coefficients to develop stresses, forces and moments that the
diaphragm sections will be subjected to. Vertical anchor spacing of the diaphragm wall is the
same as the secant caisson walls, however the horizontal spacing has been reduced to 1 m.
Diaphragm design parameters are summarized in Table A-17.

xxv
Table A-17: Borehole 109 Parameters for Diaphragm Wall Sections

Design Parameters
Soil Properties
Ka 0.217
Kp 4.608
Ko 0.546
Driving Earth Pressure Coefficient 0.382
Unit Weight (g) (kN/m^3) 22
Stresses
PT [kN/m] 2475.08
Surcharge [kPa] 271
sA1 with Surcharge [kPa] 236.22
sA2 with Surcharge [kPa] 282.16

sA3 with Surcharge [kPa] 330.58

sp1 with Surcharge [kPa] 584.98

Using the input design parameters, the forces applied by the trapezoidal apparent earth pressure
distribution were calculated, as given in Table A-18.

xxvi
Table A-18: Specified Forces acting on Diaphragm Shoring Wall

Force @ Wall Depth

Location Force [kN/m]
F1 314.96
F2 314.96
F3 1098.41

F4 1098.41
F5 944.87
F6 314.96
F7 314.96

Tieback loads were then calculated using a lateral spacing between vertical rows of anchors of 1
m, as given in Table A-19.
Table A-19: Diaphragm Wall Tieback Loads

Tieback Loads [kN]

Location Load
T1Upper [kN/m] 629.91
T1Lower [kN/m] 744.88
T1 [kN] 1374.79
T2Upper [kN/m] 353.53
T2Lower [kN/m] 549.21
T2 [kN] 902.74
T3Upper [kN/m] 549.21
T3Lower [kN/m] 472.43
T3[ kN] 1021.64
T4Upper [kN/m] 472.43
T4Lower [kN/m] 710.02

T4 [kN] 1182.45

xxvii
Tieback forces were applied using force and moment equilibriums to develop the maximum
bending moments that will develop between anchors, as shown in Table A-20.
Table A-20:Diaphragm Wall Design Moments

Design Moments
Parameter Location Value
Imposed Moment [kNm] Tieback 1 909.87
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 1 & 2 1174.43
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 2 & 3 638.45
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 3 & 4 472.43
Maximum Moment [kNm] Between Tieback 4 & Base 1242.45
Maximum Moment [kNm] Along Span 1242.45

xxviii
B7: Secant Caisson Shoring Wall Structural Design
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Secant Shoring Wall Structural Design
Description/Objectives: Develop the secant wall section based on the maximum moment
across the span determined previously. A tributary area will be selected to ensure
conservative design.

Method of Checking:
X Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools: Column Design & Microsoft Excel

Key Assumptions:
Shoring Wall
- The maximum moment imposed on the wall is the governing design criteria
- Concrete density assumed to be 2400 kg/m3
- Column design governs with a selected diameter of 1m
- The column only spans between the tieback anchor points rather than the entirety of
the shoring wall span
- Circular reinforcement pattern used with a circular cage
- Concrete compressive strength (f’c) of 30 MPa
Loading
- For the load cases, 1.4D was selected. It was assumed that the live load has little to no
contribution to the loads
- Only dead loads were considered (soil and self-weight)
- Axial load on the column is only due to self-weight
- To ensure conservatism, it was assumed that the self-weight of the wall was the
entire force spread across the entire wall
References:
- Cement Association of Canada Concrete Design Handbook 4th Edition [38]

Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:

No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Secant Shoring 5 R. Schaaf R.S March J. J.M. March
Wall Structural 13, MacAskill 13,
Design 2019 2019

xxix
The first step of a column design was to quantify the loads which are acting on the column. In
columns, there are two potential loads; axial and bending. The load case used for this analysis
was 1.4 times the dead load as the live loads were assumed to be negligible. As the bending is
already determined, through the stress analysis, the only thing to be determined in the axial
force. As mentioned in ‘5.4.1 Secant Shoring Walls’. to ensure governing conditions, an approach
was taken where a tributary area was selected where the forces were acting upon. This would
decrease the complexity of the analysis as designing the female piles alone is very difficult.
Therefore, a tributary area of 3m was selected. This factor only needs to be considered in the
axial load calculation as the bending moment determined in the stress analysis inherently
considers it (as the spacing of the tiebacks (3m) was parameter used in the analysis). Therefore,
the axial load calculation is provided below:
`
W§ = 1.4 ∗ [;y•;vuöu ∗ / ∗ (\ + R) ∗ ¶ ∗ 3 == 2.45
))?
ß
W§ = 1.4 ∗ 2400 ∗ 9.81 ∗ (21.3 + 3.5) ∗ (Ü ∗ (1)? á ∗ 3 = 129.61 ∗ 10w `
4
And the design moment (Mr) is 388.59*106 Nmm.
Now, it must be determined whether a short column or slender column analysis needs to be
performed. For this analysis, a diameter of male pile was required. The diameter selected for the
following analysis was 1m. To check this, use the following limit is applied:
!d
A'® 25 − 10(!? )
=
O
W§
© C
F; ∗ ¶

Where
A = :FFK-J.MK ¢K*/Jℎ N"-J&O (1 F&O +.),'Q +(,,&OJKP)
'® = ™*L(,,&OJKP ¢K*/Jℎ = 4.65) F&O L,"* \?
P
O = T"P.(L &F ´QO"J.&* F&O %O&LL − LK-J.&* &F !K)SKO = F&O %.O-'K (250)))
4
!d
= T"J.& &F :*P !&)K*JL = 1 F&O Jℎ.L -"LK (:*P !&)K*JL :¨("')
!?
W§ = #."' ¢&"P = 129.61 ∗ 10w `
F;C = %&*-OKJK %&),OKLL.MK +JOK*/Jℎ = 30!W"

xxx
 ß
¶ = ´O&LL %O&LL − LK-J.&*"' OK" = ∗ (1000)? = 785398.16))?
4
Now, can evaluate the limit. As shown below, as the right-hand side of the expression is greater
the left-hand side (63.96 > 18.6), slenderness can be neglected and a short column analysis can
be conducted.
A'® 1 ∗ 4650
= = 18.6
O 250
!d
25 − 10( ) 25 − 10(1)
!?
= = 63.96
w
W§ Æ 129.61 ∗ 10
© 30 ∗ 785398.16
F;C ∗ ¶

To design the column, an interaction chart will be used. To determine what interaction chart is
applicable, the [ and fc’ values must first be determined. As fc’ was already selected as 30MPa,
only [ needs to be determined. To do this, a cover distance has to first be selected. As a minimum
cover of 75mm is required for concrete structure permanently exposed to soil [38] means that
the [ value can be approximated as 0.9. This is shown below
P − 2- 1000 − (2 ∗ 75)
[= = ≈ 0.9
P 1000
Therefore, the following interaction chart shown in Figure A-3.

xxxi
 Figure A-3: Interaction Chart for Specified Secant Wall

.
To use the interaction chart, the two parameters specified on each axis must first be quantified.
This is provided below:
!v 388.59 ∗ 10â
= = 0.389 !W"
ℎH 1000H
W§ 129.61 ∗ 10w
= = 1.29 !W"
ℎ? 1000?
Therefore, this point plotted on the interaction chart falls lowers then the 1% reinforcement line
(pt). To ensure conservatism, select a 1% reinforcement ratio for the design.
Now knowing the reinforcement ratio, can find the required area of reinforcement across the
cross-sectional area of the male secant pile:

xxxii
 ∞
= 0.01 ∴ ∞ = 0.01 ∗ 785398.16 = 7853.98))?
¶
For design, select 8 35-M bars. 35-M bars have a diameter of 1000mm2. This will result in a AS of
8000mm2 which is satisfactory.
Although the AS is satisfactory, need to ensure minimum reinforcement and tie requirements
pass. For tie requirements (Cl 7.6.5), for 35-M and larger reinforcing bars, ties must be
constructed out of greater than or equal to 10-M bars. Therefore, for the design 15-M bars was
selected to conservative.
Regarding the minimum reinforcement, Clause 10.9 specifies that there must be at least six
longitudinal bars for a spiral tied circular reinforced column. As the column was designed with
eight, the check is satisfied [38].

xxxiii
B8: Diaphragm Shoring Wall Structural Design
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Diaphragm Shoring Wall Structural Design
Description/Objectives: Develop the diaphragm wall section based on the maximum moment
across the span determined previously.
Method of Checking:
X Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools: Column Design Interaction Chart & Microsoft Excel

Key Assumptions:
Shoring Wall
- The maximum moment imposed on the wall is the governing design criteria
- Concrete density assumed to be 2400 kg/m3
- Column design governs with a selected thickness of 1 m
- The column only spans between the tieback anchor points rather than the entirety of
the shoring wall span
- Concrete compressive strength (f’c) of 30 MPa
- Steel strength of 400 MPa
Loading
- For the load cases, 1.4D was selected. It was assumed that the live load has little to no
contribution to the loads.
- Only dead loads were considered (soil and self-weight)
- Axial load on the column is only due to self-weight
- To ensure conservative design, it was assumed that the self-weight of the entire wall
acts at any given point
References:
- Cement Association of Canada Concrete Design Handbook 4th Edition [38]

Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:

No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Diaphragm 3 J. J. M. March R. Schaaf R.S. March
Shoring Wall MacAskill 13, 13,
Structural 2019 2019
Design

xxxiv
B9: Dewatering Plan Residual Drawdown Calculations
Project Name: CIVL460 Group P Preliminary Related Memo/Report: Final Report
Geotechnical Design
Calculation Title: Residual drawdown and flowrate for two well system
Description/Objectives: To develop the required pumping rate from the well system to create
the drawdown required to keep excavation free of groundwater during construction.

Method of Checking:
X Detailed check of designer’s calculations
Alternative calculation used for checking
Combination of detailed check and alternative calculation used for checking
Analysis Method & Tools: Hand Calculations

Key Assumptions:
- Well diameter of 5 inches (12.7cm)
- Assume governing hydraulic conductivity of 1.00*10-7m/s as this was the highest
hydraulic conductivity value of the leaky confined aquifer
- Assume isotropic material and radial drawdown such that length x was equal to
length L
References:
- John A. Wickham Jr, et al., “Dewatering and Groundwater Control.” Departments of the Army,
The Navy, and the Air Force, 1985.

Rev Description No. Prepared by: Checked by:

No. Pages Print Initials Date Print Initials Date
Name Name
1 Dewatering 3 T. Asma T.A March J. J.M. March
residual 10, MacAskill 12,
drawdown 2019 2019
calcs

xxxv
Appendix C: Sample Dewatering Pricing Documents

xxxvi
 CONTRACT DRILLING AND FIELD SERVICES ESTIMATE

Project Information Estimate Information

Project # 2018-14381 Estimate # 001
Title 151 City Centre Drive, Mississauga Description 151 City Centre Drive, Mississauga
Address 151 City Centre Drive
City, State, Zip Mississauga, ON Date August 17, 2018

From To
Contact Vanessa George Contact Paul Johnston
Company Tri-Phase Environmental Inc. Company ASC Environmental Inc.
Address 446 Hazelhurst Rd. Address 1305 Princess Street
City, State, Zip Mississauga, ON L5J 2Z7 City, State, Zip Kingston, ON K7M 3E3
E-mail vanessa@triphasegroup.com E-mail paul@ascenvironmental.ca
Phone 905-823-7965 Phone (613) 634-5596
Fax 905-823-7932 Fax
We are pleased to quote the following labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the plans and specifications listed above. This
proposal is subject to exclusions that may be listed below. Scope of work for the project to be constructed as depicted in the plans and
details as described herein:
Inclusions, Exclusions, Clarifications
Inclusions
Scope: 4 MWs at 70ft. 8 MWs at 6-8m
Rig: CME 55 TT
Rates do not include HST.
Equipment rates include labour hours
Overtime rates are in addition to equipment rates.
Invoicing will be based on actual hours worked and quantities consumed or disposed of.
Cancellation fee of 1,000.00 applies, if project is cancelled within 24 hours. Cancellation fee of $750.00 applies, if project is cancelled with
24-48 hours.
For any boreholes greater than 5 feet, they must be sealed with Bentonite as per applicable regulations.
Tri-Phase is not responsible for any damages caused to landscaping/property. All landscaping work to repair damaged property will be
charged on a Time and Materials basis.
Time and a half will apply on weekends and holidays. 10% will apply to existing equipment rates on weekday night shifts.
Proposal Details
Code Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
1 Equipment (min time on site is 4 hrs) 1 LS $15,750.00 $15,750.00
1 Drill Crew with Truck Mounted CME 55TT 70 hr $225.00 $15,750.00
2 Mob/Demob (min 100km) 1 LS $2,800.00 $2,800.00
2 Mobilization Truck Mount Drill / km - min 100 km 900 km $3.00 $2,700.00
3 Well Drilling Record 1 each $100.00 $100.00
3 Supplies 1 LS $9,666.00 $9,666.00
4 Bentonite - 1 bag 160 bag $24.00 $3,840.00
5 Sand Mix Concrete 12 bag $18.00 $216.00
6 Flushmount or Above Ground Casing 12 each $100.00 $1,200.00
7 J Plug (Non-Lockable) 2" 12 each $24.00 $288.00
8 Riser (5 feet) 80 length $23.00 $1,840.00
9 Sand - per bag 96 bag $14.00 $1,344.00
10 Sand Traps 20 each $4.00 $80.00
11 Screen (5 feet) 24 length $34.00 $816.00
12 Slip Cap 2" 12 each $3.50 $42.00

Page 1 of 2
 CONTRACT DRILLING AND FIELD SERVICES ESTIMATE

Estimate Total: $28,216.00

All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner

according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving
extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and
above the estimate. All agreements are contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our
control. Owner to carry fire, flood, earthquake, and other necessary insurance. We are fully covered
by Workmen’s Compensation Insurance.
Authorized
Signature: ______________________________________

Acceptance of Proposal:

The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and Signature: ______________________________________
hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified.

Date of Acceptance: ________________________________ Print Name: ______________________________________

Quote acceptance and locates to be submitted prior to scheduling.

Page 2 of 2
Appendix D: Gantt Chart

xxxvii
Figure A 4: Gantt Chart for Fall Semester

xxxviii
Figure A 5: Gantt Chart for Winter Semester

xxxix
Appendix E: Logbook

xl
Table A-21: Summary Table of Collective Hours Worked

Hours by Member
Month
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
September 15.5 11.75 13.75 11.75
October 14 5 10.5 9.75
November 34.25 35.25 31.75 31.75
December 0 0 0 0
January 23.5 20 20.5 19.5
February 21 14.5 18 13.5
March 74 64.5 69.5 65.5 Grand Total
Total 182.25 151 164 151.75 649

xli
 September 2018
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Week of September 2-8
2018-09-06 2 2 2 2 Group formation, project ranking, begin SoQ
2018-09-07 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Write SoQ cover letter, create presentation slides, bid presentation
Totals: 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Week of September 9-15
2018-09-10 1 1 1 1 Review project description, draft and send email to client
2018-09-12 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Draft meeting agenda and issue to client
2018-09-13 1.75 1 1 1 Weekly TA meeting, teleconference with client, draft meeting minutes
Totals: 3.25 2.5 2.5 2.5
Week of September 16-22
2018-09-19 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Review project documents in preparation for client teleconference
2018-09-20 1 1 1 1 Review project documents, teleconference with client, discuss workplan
Totals: 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Week of September 23-29
2018-09-23 0.75 Revise formatting of logbook, review workplan requirements
2018-09-25 3 2 3 2 Draft Gantt Chart, RAM, and problem definition for workplan
2018-09-26 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 Meeting with Group Manager, revise workplan
2018-09-27 1 1 Finalize and format workplan
Totals: 5.25 2.25 4.25 2.25
Monthly Totals
Totals: 15.5 11.75 13.75 11.75

xlii
 October 2018
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Week of September 30 - October 6
2018-09-30 1 Literature review of foundation options
2018-10-03 2.5 Review Budhu textbook, research foundations, draft list
2018-10-03 2.5 Analyze and Transfer Site Data to Excel Spreadsheet
2018-10-04 1 1 1 1 Conference Call with client and group meeting
Totals: 4.5 1 3.5 1
Week of October 7 - 13
2018-10-10 2 1 2 2 Revise Workplan per comments
2018-10-13 1 Literature review of raft foundations
2018-10-13 2.5 Literature Review of Friction Drilled Piles
Totals: 3 1 2 4.5
Week of October 14 - 20
2018-10-18 1 0.5 1 0.5 Further Revisions to workplan
2018-10-18 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Biweekly Client Meeting
Totals: 1.5 1 1.5 1
Week of October 21 - 27
2018-10-25 3 Background research on shallow foundations and procedure of calculations
2018-10-25 1 Research shoring design
Totals: 1 0 3 0
Week of October 28 - November 3
2018-10-29 2 Begin to draft background information for shoring and raft foundation
2018-10-29 0.5 0.5 0.5 TA meeting
2018-10-31 2 Background research on driven piles and hydraulic conductivity testing
2018-11-01 1.5 Preliminary calculations for raft foundation
2018-11-01 2 Preliminary Considerations for Pile Foundations
xliii
 October 2018
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
2018-11-01 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Client meeting
Totals: 4 2 0.5 3.25
Monthly Totals
Totals: 14 5 10.5 9.75

xliv
 November 2018
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Week of November 4 - 10
2018-11-04 0.5 Time spent throughout week answering/ drafting emails
2018-11-04 0.25 Revise Logbook to match course template
2018-11-04 0.75 Draft heading template for progress report
2018-11-04 2 Shallow Foundation Design Reseach and Calculations
2018-11-04 0.25 Draft pros vs. cons list for mat foundation
Team meeting to review assumptions, foundation options, progress report format,
2018-11-05 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 evaluation matrix criteria
2018-11-05 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 Team meeting with TA to ask questions re: assumptions
2018-11-06 0.75 Mat foundation bearing strength research and calculations
Comparing strength of bored friction pile and evaluating against potential strength in
2018-11-07 2 end bearing in rock.
2018-11-07 0.75 Format progress report and draft/edit introduction content
2018-11-08 1.5 Draft background information on mat foundation and bracing
Begin excel calculation for shallow foundation analysis and determining proper
2018-11-10 3 procedure
Totals: 7.5 5.25 6.75 5.25
Week of November 11 - 17
2018-11-11 0.5 Time spent throughout week answering/ drafting emails
Research into rock core data and end bearing strength of drilled piles into sound
2018-11-11 4 bedrock from Canadian Foundation Manual
2018-11-11 2 Continue excel calculation spreadsheet for shallow foundation analysis
2018-11-11 0.75 Preliminary analysis of bearing capacity for mat foundaiton

xlv
 November 2018
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Team meeting to draft evaluation matrix criteria, determine assumtions, assign
2018-11-11 2 1.5 2 2 common variables
2018-11-14 0.5 Draft evaluation matrix template
2018-11-14 1.5 Calculate maximum column spacing for mat foundation
2018-11-15 2 2 2 Group meeting to call client and complete evaluation of foundation options
2018-11-15 0.5 0.5 0.5 Meeting with TA to review draft progress report
2018-11-16 3 Drafting of Site Layout Plan and Hyrdrogeological Cross-Sections
Research procedure invovlved with the installation and equipment for Drilled piles into
2018-11-17 1.5 Bedrock and drafting and writing section on Bored piles in Progress Report
2018-11-17 8 Drafting of Site Layout Plan and Hyrdrogeological Cross-Sections
Totals: 7.25 15 4.5 10
Week of November 18-24
2018-11-18 0.5 Time spent throughout week answering/ drafting emails
Meeting to ensure Ryan and Thomas are both on the same page with respect to the
2018-11-18 1.5 1.5 site layout and foundation solution
Group meeting to finalize headings, complete prelim calculations and assign writing
2018-11-18 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 tasks
2018-11-19 3 Drafted section relating to the construction of bored piles.
2018-11-19 3 Added Site Conditions and hydraulic conductivity sections to progress report
2018-11-19 2 Draft design criteria section of Progress Report
2018-11-19 2.5 Refigured project schedule based on new timeline of objectives
2018-11-19 1 Add figures to bracing system background section
Drafting Background of Soil Investigation, Shallow Foundation Designs, and Load
2018-11-20 4 Analysis in Progress Report
xlvi
 November 2018
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
2018-11-20 3 Drafting of Foundation Layout and Foundation Cross-sections
2018-11-20 2.5 Draft background information on shoring wall design options
Continue drafting and revising aforementioned sections to ensure compatability with
2018-11-21 3 the rest of the document
2018-11-22 2 Formatted section of equations and data for bored piles
Continue revising and correcting document. Start to format and finish miscellaneous
2018-11-22 3 sections
Draft exec summary, cover letter, preliminary calculation description, cover page,
2018-11-22 4.5 format appendices
2018-11-22 1.5 Wrote the conclusion, project schedule and next steps for project
Added Driven pile background information, design information, and calculations to
2018-11-22 2 progress report
Proofreading, finalize preliminary calculation appendix and body content for mat
2018-11-22 2 foundation
2018-11-22 3 3 3 3 Group meeting for editing, adding and proofreading progress report
2018-11-23 2 3 2 Proofreading and formatting PDF
Totals: 19.5 15 20.5 16.5
Monthly Totals
Totals: 34.25 35.25 31.75 31.75

xlvii
 January 2019
Date Hours by Member Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Week of January 6 - 12
Review Progress report comments, draft emails for TA and Client, discuss
2019-01-07 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 poster presentation
Revise general poster formatting and headings, draft problem definition
2019-01-08 1.5 section of poster
Revise poster formatting, add proposed development figures, draft
2019-01-09 1.5 1.5 respective sections
2019-01-10 1 1 1 1 Group meeting to draft poster
2019-01-10 1.5 Draft load calculation poster section, format poster
2019-01-11 1 1 2 2 Review poster and perform final revisions for submission
Totals: 8 3.5 6 4.5
Week of January 13 - 19
2019-01-15 3 1 Review CFEM Chapter 26
2019-01-16 3 Literature research for soldier pile walls
2019-01-16 2 Researching Bouwer and Rice method calculations
2019-01-16 3.5 Calculate hydraulic conductivities from Terraprobe data
2019-01-17 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Group meetings for client call, and weekly TA meeting
2019-01-17 1 Literature review for concrete diaphragm shoring walls
2019-01-20 2 Literature review for concrete secant and tangent pile shoring walls
2019-01-20 2.5 Literature review for sheet metal walls
Totals: 5.5 7 4.5 7
Week of January 20 - 26

xlviii
 January 2019
Date Hours by Member Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Team meeting to review research, plan poster presentation, discuss
2019-01-21 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 evaluation matrix and questions for Client
2019-01-21 1 Literature review for concrete diaphragm shoring walls
2019-01-23 1.5 Research dewatering methods
2019-01-24 1 1 1 1 Conference with client
2019-01-25 1 1 1 1 Preparation and run-through of poster board presentation
2019-01-25 3 3 3 3 Deliver poster board presentation
Totals: 7 8 6.5 6.5
Week of January 27 - February 2
2018-01-28 1.5 Research slurry walls and top down construction
2018-01-28 2 Initial research on secant walls
2018-01-29 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Group meeting to draft shoring wall evaluation matrix
Totals: 3 1.5 3.5 1.5
Monthly Totals
Totals: 23.5 20 20.5 19.5

xlix
 February 2019
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Week of February 3 - 9

2019-02-04 3.5 Literature review of earth pressure distributions and diaphragm wall design
2019-02-04 3 Research and background information gathering for soil pressures
2019-02-04 2.5 Drafting preliminary background information for secant/tangent walls
2019-02-05 2 2 2 2 Team meeting to discuss and schedule rest of semester and divide work
2019-02-06 0.5 Review headings and draft questions for client meeting
2019-02-06 1 1 1 1 Team meeting with client
Insert and reformat progress report text and figures for draft final report,
2019-02-07 2.5 drafting and revisions to layout and content of Evaluation section
Totals: 9.5 3 5.5 6
Week of February 10 - 16
Insert and reformat shoring background info for draft final report, review
2019-02-14 1.5 progress report comments
Group Meeting off campus to discuss project schedule deadline and update
2019-02-15 3 3 3 team vision
2019-02-15 2 Draft diaphragm wall and innovation background information sections
Totals: 3.5 3 3 3
Week of February 17 - 23
2019-02-20 2 Revise Proposed Development and Background Information sections
Totals: 2 0 0 0
Week of February 24 - March 2
2019-02-27 2 Draft EXCEL calculations for lateral soil pressures
2019-02-27 2 Continue research specifically on secant shoring walls

l
 February 2019
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
2019-02-28 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Client call, TA meeting, discuss remaining work for draft final report
Continued research into lateral shoring pressures and governing equations for
2019-02-28 3 each shoring wall.
2019-02-28 3 Updates to hydraulic conductivity calculations after talking to client
2019-02-28 2 Research different methods of groundwater control for excavations
Continue research on secant shoring walls (construction strategies, method of
2019-03-01 3 analysis etc.)
2019-03-01 2 Researching Groundwater system costing information
2019-03-02 2.5 EXCEL analysis to develop soil pressure distributions
Begin preliminary research on anchor tiebacks (construction methods, types,
2019-03-02 3 design procedure etc.)
Totals: 6 8.5 9.5 4.5
Monthly Totals
Totals: 21 14.5 18 13.5

li
 March 2019
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
Week of March 3 - 9
2019-03-04 1 EXCEL analysis to develop soil pressure distributions
EXCEL analysis for soil pressure distributions, finalize report heading
sections, transfer relevant content from progress report and update
2019-03-05 2.5 captions
Begin producing in-depth EXCEL analysis for secant walls using the 'hinge
method'. Most of this time was spent understanding the method through
2019-03-05 4 reviewing the provided example in CALTRANS
2019-03-05 4 Selected groundwater control plan and began preliminary design
Writing and inputting background information for dewatering plan and
2019-03-06 5 bouwer and rice methods into the final document
2019-03-06 1 Revisions to pressure distribution analysis
Draft list of items for costing in advance of client meeting, review of shoring
2019-03-07 1.5 wall design strategies, draft and send client email
Team meeting for client call, discuss status of design and report, TA
2019-03-07 2 2 2 2 meeting
2019-03-07 6 6 Continue developing the tieback secant wall design in EXCEL
Met with ASC Environmental Staff for general inquiry on deep well systems
2019-03-07 3 as well as aid with designs and costing for system
2019-03-07 1 Conference call for well drillers for further inquiry into system costing
2019-03-07 1.5 Researching quotes for settlement tanks and generators
2019-03-07 4.5 Continue developing the tieback secant wall design in EXCEL
2019-03-09 4.5 5 Review hinge method and make edits to shoring design spreadsheet
2019-03-10 7 Designing dewatering plan for site

lii
 March 2019
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
2019-03-10 2.5 Finalize research on anchor tieback and select design procedure
Totals: 12.5 23.5 19 13
Week of March 10 - 16

Draft earth pressure distribution section, review progress report comments

and make changes, review excel analysis for shoring design, insert appendix
2019-03-10 6.5 headings, format captions
Constuct bending moment diagrams and shear diagrams from apparent
2019-03-10 4 10 10 earth pressures via hinge method for the secant wall
Report writing for dewatering plan including hydraulic conductivities,
2019-03-10 5 dewatering plan info, costing, and future steps for design
Continue to work out kinks in contructed bending moment diagrams for
2019-03-11 2 7 7 caisson walls.
Insert, review and revise preliminary foundation design calculations,
proofread introduction sections, draft foundation design section for final
report, update group to-do list, email client for costing information
followup, draft pressure distribution sample calculation, review and revise
2019-03-11 9 pressure distribution spreadsheet
2019-03-12 1 1 1 1 Group meeting to review work to be done, discuss status
2019-03-12 5 Review and revise shoring wall design sheet for diaphragm wall
2019-03-12 3.5 3.5 2.5 Finalize shoring wall design spreadsheet and secant design specification
2019-03-12 2.5 Updates to dewatering plan to account for diaphragm wall depth
AutoCAD Drafting for Dewatering plan, cross section, shoring plan, and
2019-03-12 3 8 5 5 shoring schematics

liii
 March 2019
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew

Finalize diaphragm shoring wall design spreadsheet, perform hand

calculations to specify diaphragm wall thickness and reinforcing
2019-03-13 10 3 requirements, draft innovation design section, proofreading, formatting
Draft Solidworks CAD model for secant shoring wall (did not end up using),
2019-03-13 4.5 started producing secant wall calculations, proofreading, and formatting
Draft and finalize background final report sections on earth pressures,
2019-03-13 8 hinge method, other shoring options
Perform rough costing analysis, draft the costing section, group dynamics
2019-03-14 7.5 section and conclusions of the report.
Draft secant wall design section and calculations, finalize back ground
2019-03-14 8 infortmation for various sections, review, proofread and edit report,
Draft diaphragm design section, draft future work section, review,
2019-03-14 9 proofread and edit report, draft diaphragm calculation section
AutoCAD edits to schematics and cleaning up errors (i.e. typos) to finalize
2019-03-14 5 all drafting for final report
2019-03-15 6 4 6 6 Editing, and finalizing final report
Totals: 53 34.5 45 47
Week of March 17 - 23
2019-03-21 2 2 2 2 Draft presentation slides and rehearse presentation
2019-03-22 3 3 3 3 Rehearse and perform final presentation
Totals: 5 5 5 5
Week of March 24 - 30
Revise hour logbook formatting for November per SW preliminary
2019-03-25 1 comments
liv
 March 2019
Hours by Member
Date Description
Jonathan Thomas Ryan Andrew
2019-03-27 1 Revise equation formatting and typos per SW preliminary comments
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Group meeting with TA to review final submission requirements
Proofreading, revise typos, formatting and significant figures to address
1 remaining SW comments
1 Revise significant figures on preliminary design drawings
Totals: 3.5 1.5 0.5 0.5
Monthly Totals
Totals: 74 64.5 69.5 65.5

lv
Appendix F: Terraprobe Documents

lvi
F1: Borehole Location Plan

lvii
 West Property East Property
KEY MAP

Yonge Street A
Bloor Street West
West East
Property Property
BH201 BH202
BH208
BH112 BH207

585 Bloor Street West

597 Bloor Street
BH101
West BH103 BH104
29.3 / 83.6
27.6 / 85.1 BH2
591 Bloor Street West
B BH113 581 Bloor Street West B'
BH114
BH1 BH105
BH115 BH106 782 Bathurst Street
BH210

BathurstStreet
BH206 BH108
BH209

Street
606 Markham Street 601 Markham Street

Alley
BH205

Charles
Markham Street LEGEND
602A Markham Street
Approximate Terraprobe Geotechnical
756 Bathurst Street
BH214 Borehole Location
Clark
Approximate Terraprobe Environmental /
BH107 Hydrogeological Borehole Location
32.3 / 80.5
596-598 Markham Street
T:\1-Project Files\2015\1-15-0121 - Bathurst St & Bloor St W, Toronto\03 - Stage Two Boreholes\A. Dwgs, Logs\AutoCAD\1-15-0121-03_Sound bedrock 2018-06-06.dwg,

Depth / Elevation to Sound Bedrock

27.6 / 85.1
BH203 BH111
BH212
BH109 754 Bathurst Street
31.7 / 81.8 SCALE 1:600
587 Markham Street 10 8 6 4 2 0 10m

BH211
588 Markham Street
BH204
BH301 BH110

.
REFERENCE
BH102 31.1 / 81.8
BH213
BH3 BH302 Plan of Survey with Topography
738 Bathurst Street File Name: A0810122.dwg
Reference No.: 56-93C
Job No.: 081-0122
Dated: May 5, 2016
By: Speight, Van Nostrand &
Lennox Street
John Street A' Gibson Limited

Title:
Terraprobe
FIGURE :
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN
(EXISTING CONDITION)
11 Indell Lane, Brampton, Ontario, L6T 3Y3
Tel: (905) 796-2650 Fax: (905) 796-2250 File No.
1-15-0121-03
2
Kamal
F2: Proposed Development

lviii
Clark Alley Charles Street
 Charles Street
Clark Alley
F3: Borehole Logs

lix
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 1
Project No. : Client : Originated by : BR
Date started : 2015 March 30 Project : Compiled by : MD
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : BOA 5M2, truck-mounted Drilling Method : Solid stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.1 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 113
50mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
1 140mm AGGREGATE, sand and
1 SS 7 112 PID: 0
gravel
111.3 2A PID: 0
1.8
SAND, trace gravel, loose to compact, SS 16
2 2B 111 PID: 0
orangey brown to brown, moist
SAND AND SILT, some clay, trace 3 SS 54 PID: 0
3 gravel, very dense, greyish brown to 110 ...at 3.0m, sampler
grey, moist to wet 4 SS 53 PID: 0 wet to 6.1m
(GLACIAL TILL) 0 48 37 15
4 109

5 SS 50 / PID: 0 ...at 4.6m, cuttings

5 150mm 108 wet to 7.6m

6 107 PID: 0
...at 6.1 m, to silty sand 6 SS 50 /
125mm
7 106
105.5
7.6 7 SS 50 / PID: 0 5 29 42 24
8 SANDY SILT, clayey, trace gravel, very 125mm 105
dense, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
9 104
8 SS 90 PID: 0

10 103

9 SS 50 / PID: 0
11 102
150mm
101.4
12 11.7
100.8
SILTY SAND, grey, wet 101
10A SS 50 / PID: 0 ...at 12.2m, wet
12.3 SANDY SILT, trace clay, very dense, 10B 140mm PID: 0 sampler
13 grey, moist 100

14 11 SS 50 / PID: 0
125mm 99

15 97.9 98
15.2 12 SS 80 / PID: 0 0 39 51 10
SILT AND SAND, trace clay, very 275mm
16 dense, grey, wet 97

...at 16.8m, wet /

17 13 SS 87 / 96 PID: 0 flowing cuttings to
250mm 18.3m

18 95
14 SS 50 / PID: 0
140mm
19 94
...at 19.1 m, cobbles inferred
93.3
20 19.8 15 SS 50 / PID: 0
93.0
SILT AND SAND, trace clay, very 100mm
20.1 dense, grey, moist WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
END OF BOREHOLE Apr 10, 2015 2.2 110.9
Jun 4, 2015 2.1 111.0
Apr 25, 2017 2.0 111.1
Unstabilized water level measured at
7.9 m below ground surface; borehole
caved to 9.1 m below ground surface
upon completion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 2
Project No. : Client : Originated by : BR
Date started : 2015 April 1 Project : Compiled by : MD
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : BOA 5M2, truck-mounted Drilling Method : Solid stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.1 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 113
60mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 1 AS PID: 0
112.3 AS1 Analysis:
1 0.8 200mm PC CONCRETE M&I, PHC
2 SS 13 112 PID: 0
111.6 FILL, silty sand, inferred loose, dark
1.5 brown, moist 3 SS 26 PID: 0
2 111 SS2 Analysis:
SAND, trace gravel, loose to compact, PAH, VOC
orangey brown to brown, moist 4 SS 37 PID: 0 4 24 42 30
3 110
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, very 5 SS 42 PID: 0
stiff to hard, grey with mottled orange,
4 moist 109
(GLACIAL TILL)
...at 3.0 m, grey 6 SS 47 PID: 0
5 108

6 107.0 107
6.1 7 SS 50 / PID: 0.4
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 115mm
very dense, grey, moist
7 106
(GLACIAL TILL)
PID: 0.3
...at 7.6 m, occasional coarse sand 8 SS 50 /
8 75mm 105
seams, some gravel

9 104 PID: 0
9 SS 50 /
103.2 50mm
10 9.9 103
SAND, some clay, trace silt, trace
gravel, very dense, grey, wet PID: 0 2 73 10 15
10A SS 89 /
11 ...at 10.8 m, sandy silt seam, moist to 10B 290mm 102 PID: 0
11.0 m
12 101
11 SS 50 / PID: 0
115mm
13 100

12 SS 50 / PID: 0
14 99
125mm

15 98
PID: 0
...at 15.2 m, moist to wet 13 SS 50 /
115mm
16 97
96.3
17 16.8 14 SS 50 / PID: 0
SANDY SILT, trace clay, trace gravel, 150mm
96
95.6 very dense, grey, moist
17.5
18 SAND, some silt, some clay, trace 95
gravel, very dense, grey, wet 15 SS PID: 0 1 67 20 12
...at 18.3m, hole
19 94 caved 0.5 m prior to
sampling
20 93.0 16 SS 50 / PID: 0
20.1 100mm
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 10, 2015 4.0 109.1
Unstabilized water level measured at Jun 4, 2015 3.8 109.3
5.5 m below ground surface; borehole Sep 9, 2016 3.8 109.3
caved to 5.8 m below ground surface Apr 25, 2017 3.7 109.4
upon completion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 3
Project No. : Client : Originated by : BR
Date started : 2015 March 31 Project : Compiled by : MD
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : BOA 5M2, truck-mounted Drilling Method : Solid stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.4 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
75mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 1 AS 112 PID: 0
111.6
1 0.8 105mm AGGREGATE, sand and
2 SS 11 PID: 0
110.9 gravel 111
1.5 FILL, silty sand, inferred loose, brown 3 SS 25 PID: 0
2
with dark brown, moist
110
SAND, trace gravel, compact, orangey 4 SS 37 PID: 0
3 brown to brown, moist
5 SS 32 109 PID: 0 2 26 42 30
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, very
4 stiff to hard, grey with mottled orange,
moist 108
(GLACIAL TILL) 6 SS 52 PID: 0
5
...at 3.0 m, grey
...at 3.0 m, occasional cobbles inferred to 107
6 6.1 m
7 SS 50 / PID: 0 1 27 42 30
106
150mm
7
105
8 SS 50 / PID: 0
8 125mm
104
9 103.3
9.1 9 SS 50 / PID: 0 ...at 9.1m, sampler
SILTY SAND, trace gravel, very dense, 103 wet to 10.7m
125mm
10 grey, wet
101.7 102
10.7 10 SS 50 / PID: 0
11 SILT, some sand, trace clay, very
140mm
dense, grey, moist 101
12
100.0 11A SS 50 / PID: 0
100
12.4 11B 150mm PID: 0
SILTY SAND, trace clay, very dense,
13 grey, wet
99
98.5 12A PID: 0 0 61 32 7
14 13.9 SS 30
12B PID: 0
SANDY SILT, trace clay, dense to very 98
dense, grey, moist
15
13 SS 50 / 97 PID: 0
150mm
16
96
95.6
17 16.8 14 SS 17 PID: 0
SILTY SAND, trace clay, compact to
very dense, grey, wet 95
18
15 SS 50 / 94 PID: 0
100mm
19
93
20 92.1 16 SS 51 PID: 0
20.3
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 10, 2015 4.6 107.9
Unstabilized water level measured at Jun 4, 2015 4.4 108.0
10.1 m below ground surface; borehole Sep 9, 2016 5.4 107.0
caved to 10.4 m below ground surface Apr 25, 2017 4.1 108.3
upon completion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 101
Project No. : Client : Originated by : BR
Date started : 2016 August 25 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : CME 55, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / tricone
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.1 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 113
60mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
112.3 220mm PC CONCRETE
0.8 FILL, silty sand, inferred loose, dark
1 1 SS 8
brown, moist 112

SAND, trace gravel, trace silt, loose to 2A

111.3 SS 14
1.8
compact, orangey brown, moist 2B
2 111
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel,
hard, brown, moist 3 SS 36
(GLACIAL TILL)
3 ...at 2.3 m, grey
110
4 SS 50

4 109

5 SS 43
5 108

6 107.0
6.1 107
6 SS 50 /
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 140mm
very dense, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
7 106

7 SS 50 /
8 140mm
105

9 104
8 SS 50 /
140mm

10 103

102.4
10.7
11
SAND, trace silt, trace gravel, trace clay, 9 SS 87 2 86 (12)
very dense, grey, wet 102

12 100.9 101
12.2 10 SS 50 / ...at 12.2m, drilling
SANDY SILT, trace to some clay, trace mud added
100mm
gravel, very dense, grey, moist
13 100

...at 13.7 m, some wet silty sand layers 11 SS 50 /

14 140mm 99

15 98
...at 15.2 m, some clayey layers 12 SS 63 1 31 45 23

16 97

100 /
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 13 SS
275mm 96

18 95
...at 18.3 m, some wet silty sand layers 14 SS 28

19 94

93.3
15 SS ...at 19.8m, switched
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 101
Project No. : Client : Originated by : BR
Date started : 2016 August 25 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : CME 55, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / tricone
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 83 / 93 to tri cone method
19.8 SAND AND SILT, trace gravel, trace 15 SS
275mm 1 52 39 8
clay, very dense, grey, wet (continued)

21 92
91.8
21.3 16 SS 50 / 1 25 51 23
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, some silt 100mm
partings, trace gravel, hard, grey, moist
22 91

90.2
23 22.9 17 SS 50 /
CLAY AND SILT, some sand, trace 125mm 90
gravel, hard, grey, wet

24 89
88.6
24.5 ...at 24.4 m, moist, sandy 18 SS 50 /
100mm
WATER LEVEL READINGS
END OF BOREHOLE Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Sep 9, 2016 6.1 107.0
Apr 25, 2017 6.1 107.0
Borehole contained drill water upon
completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 102
Project No. : Client : Originated by : BR
Date started : 2016 August 24 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : CME 55, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.7 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
45mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 1 SS 12
FILL, silty sand, trace to some clay, 112
trace to some gravel, trace brick
1 fragments, trace asphalt, trace organics, 2 SS 20
compact, brown, moist
...at 1.5 m, inferred compact 3 SS 57 / 111
200mm
2
110.4
2.3
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, very 4 SS 23
stiff, grey, moist 110
3 (GLACIAL TILL)
5 SS 17

109
4

6 SS 15 108
5

107
6 106.6
6.1 ...at 6.1m, spoon wet
GRAVELLY SAND, trace silt, loose to 7 SS 8
compact, grey, wet 24 68 (8)
106
7

105 ...at 7.6m, drilling

8 SS 12 mud added
8

...at 8.4m, augers

104 grinding
9 103.6
9.1 9 SS 50 /
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 140mm
very dense, grey, moist 103
10

102.0
10.7 50 / 102
SILT, trace sand, trace clay, very 10 SS
11 150mm
dense, grey, moist

101
12
...at 12.2 m, trace gravel, some sandy silt 11 SS 50 /
layers 125mm
100
13

99.0 99
13.7 12 SS 50 / 0 45 48 7
14 SAND AND SILT, trace clay, very 90mm
dense, grey, wet

98
15
97.5
15.2 98 /
SANDY SILT, some clay, very dense, 13 SS
275mm
grey, moist 97
16

95.9 96
16.8 14 SS 50 /
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SAND AND SILT, trace clay, very 100mm

dense, grey, wet
95
18

...at 18.3 m, trace gravel 15 SS 50 / 1 51 41 7

115mm 94
19

93
16 SS 50 /
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 102
Project No. : Client : Originated by : BR
Date started : 2016 August 24 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : CME 55, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 125mm
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, very
dense, grey, wet (continued)
92
21
91.4
21.3 17 SS 50 / 1 24 53 22
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 125mm
hard, grey, moist 91
22

90
23 18 SS 50 /
65mm

89
24
88.3
88.2 19 SS 50 /
24.5
SAND, some gravel, trace silt, very
125mm
dense, grey, wet WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
END OF BOREHOLE Sep 9, 2016 3.2 109.5
Apr 25, 2017 8.6 104.1

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 103
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 2 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.7 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 ...at 0.0m, Straight
Construction Rubble drilled through
rubble to 6.1m
112
1

111
2

110
3

109
4

108
5

107
6 106.6
6.1
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 1 SS 47 PID: 5
hard, grey, moist SS1 Analysis:
106 M&I
(GLACIAL TILL)
7

2 SS 50 / 105 PID: <5

SS2 Analysis:
8 100mm
PAH
...at 7.6m, switched
to mud rotary
104
9 3 34 48 15
3 SS 50 / PID: <5
125mm SS3 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
103
10

91 / 102
4 SS PID: <5
11 225mm

101
12 100.5
12.2 5 SS 50 / PID: <5
CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, hard, grey
100mm
with light grey partings, moist 100
13

99 0 20 60 20
...at 13.7 m, sandy 6 SS
96 /
PID: <5
14 275mm SS6 Analysis:
M&I

98
15
80 /
7 SS PID: <5
SS7 Analysis:
275mm
97 VOC, PHC
16

95.9 96
16.8 90 /
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SILT AND SAND, trace silt, trace gravel, 8 SS

275mm
PID: <5
SS8 Analysis:
very dense, grey, wet PAH

95
18

9 SS 82 PID: <5 0 37 61 2
94
19

93
10 SS 91 PID: <5
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 103
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 2 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20
SILT AND SAND, trace silt, trace gravel, 10 SS 91 PID: <5
very dense, grey, wet (continued)
92
21
91.4
21.3 11 SS 50 / PID: <5 28 15 39 18
GRAVELLY SAND, some clay, some 75mm 91
sand, very dense, grey, moist
22

89.8 90
23 22.9 12 SS 50 / PID: <5 43 31 18 8
SANDY GRAVEL, some silt, trace clay, 100mm
very dense, grey, moist
89
24
PID: <5
...at 24.4 m, trace shale fragments, wet 13 SS 50 /
25mm 88
25

86.8 87
26 25.9 14 SS 50 / PID: <5
86.6
INFERRED BEDROCK, weathered 50mm
26.1 shale, grey
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 1 RUN 86
27 (See rock core log for details)

...at 27.6 m, transition to sound bedrock 85

28
2 RUN

84
29

3 RUN 83
30
82.2
30.5
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 23, 2018 5.8 106.9
Borehole contained drill water upon May 9, 2018 5.6 107.0
completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 104
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 6 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : NQ, OD=76mm, ID=48mm
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary, NQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.9 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 ...at 0.0m, Straight
Construction Rubble drilled through
rubble to 4.6m

1 112

2 111

3 109.9 110
3.0 ...at 3.0m, switched
109.7
PC CONCRETE, Concrete Slab to mud rotary
3.2 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, with
4
light grey partings, hard, grey, moist 109
(GLACIAL TILL)

1 SS 40 108 PID: 5
SS1 Analysis:
5
M&I, Dup5

6 107 ...at 6.1m, casing

advancement
prevented sample
recovery

7 106

2 SS 52 105 PID: 5
SS2 Analysis:
8
PAH, Dup6

9 104

3 SS 97 / PID: <5
225mm SS3 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
10 103

4 SS 50 / PID: <5
11 75mm 102

12 101

5 SS 93 / PID: <5
250mm SS5 Analysis:
M&I
13 100

6 SS 50 / 99 PID: <5
14 100mm

15 98

...at 15.2 m, gravelly 7 SS 50 / PID: <5

SS7 Analysis:
125mm PAH
16 97

96.1
16.8 8 SS 50 / 96 PID: <5
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SILT, trace sand, trace clay, very 125mm

dense, grey, moist

18 95

9 SS 50 / PID: <5
125mm SS9 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
19 94

93.1
10 SS 93 PID: <5
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 104
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 6 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : NQ, OD=76mm, ID=48mm
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary, NQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 100 / PID: <5
19.8 SAND, some silt, trace gravel, very 225mm
dense, grey, wet (continued)

21 92

11 SS 100 / PID: <5

225mm
22 91

90.0
23 22.9 100 / 90
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 12 SS
225mm
PID: <5
hard, grey, moist

24 89
88.5
24.4 13 SS 100 /
COARSE SAND, trace silt, very dense, PID: <5
200mm
grey, wet 88
25

87.0
26 25.9 87 PID: <5 14 75 8 3
14 SS 50 /
SAND, some gravel, trace silt, trace 100mm
clay, very dense, grey, wet

27 86
85.5
27.4 97 /
CLAY AND SILT, trace shale fragments, 15 SS
250mm
PID: <5

28 trace sand, trace gravel, hard, grey, 85

moist

83.9 84
29 29.0 16 SS 50 / PID: <5
83.8
INFERRED BEDROCK, weathered 125mm
29.1 shale, grey 1 RUN
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION
30 83
(See rock core log for details)
...at 29.3 m, transition to sound bedrock
2 RUN
31 82

32 3 RUN 81

80.3
32.6
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 23, 2018 6.3 106.6
Borehole contained drill water upon May 9, 2018 5.6 107.3
completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 105
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 11 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.6 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 ...at 0.0m, Straight
Construction Rubble drilled through
rubble to 4.3m
112

111

110

109

4
108.3
4.3
108.3
PC CONCRETE, Concrete Slab 1 SS 50 108 PID: 10
SS1 Analysis:
4.3 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, M&I
5 hard, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
107

6
...at 6.1m, switched
2 SS 33 PID: 10 to mud rotary
106

7 SS2 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
105
104.8 3A 97 / PID: <5
SS 31 48 14 7
8 7.8 3B 225mm PID: <5
GRAVELLY SAND, some silt, trace
clay, very dense, grey, moist to wet
104

9
103.4 PID: <5
9.2 4A SS 50 /
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 4B 50mm PID: <5 4B Analysis:
103 PAH
hard, grey, moist
10 (GLACIAL TILL)

102
5 SS 50 / PID: <5
11 125mm

101

12
6 SS 50 / PID: <5
100mm 100

13

99
7 SS 100 / PID: <5
14 225mm SS7 Analysis:
M&I
98

15
...at 15.2 m, silt layer, very dense 8 SS 50 / PID: <5
SS8 Analysis:
125mm 97 PAH
16

96
9 SS 50 / PID: <5
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 125mm

95

18
94.3
18.3 98 /
SAND, trace silt, very dense, grey, wet 10 SS
275mm 94 PID: <5
SS10 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
19

93
11 SS PID: <5
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 105
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 11 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 89 /
SAND, trace silt, very dense, grey, wet 11 SS PID: <5
275mm
(continued) 92

21
91.1 12 SS 50 / PID: <5
21.5 125mm
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 23, 2018 3.3 109.3
Borehole contained drill water upon May 9, 2018 5.3 107.3
completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 106
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 5 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.3 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 ...at 0.0m, Straight
Construction Rubble 112 drilled through
rubble to 3.2m

1
111

2
110

3 109.3
3.0
109.1
PC CONCRETE, Concrete Slab 109 ...at 3.2m, switched
1 SS 20 PID: 10 to mud rotary
3.2 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, very
4
stiff to hard, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL) SS1 Analysis:
108 PAH

2 SS 68 / PID: 10
5 225mm SS2 Analysis:
VOC, PHC, Dup4
107

6 ...at 6.1m, lost drill

3 SS 50 / 106 PID: <5 fluid circulation to
125mm 7.6m

7
105
104.7
7.6 4A PID: <5
104.5
GRAVELLY SAND, trace silt, very SS 20
8 dense, grey, wet 4B
7.8 104
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel,
hard, grey, moist
9 (GLACIAL TILL)
5 SS 96 / 103 PID: <5
225mm SS5 Analysis:
M&I
10
102

81 /
6 SS PID: <5
11 275mm
101

12 100.1
12.2 98 / 100
SAND, trace silt, very dense, grey, wet 7 SS PID: <5
SS7 Analysis:
250mm
PAH
13
99
98.6
13.7 8 SS 50 / PID: <5
14 SANDY SILT, trace clay, very dense, 125mm
grey, moist 98

15
94 / 97
9 SS PID: <5
SS9 Analysis:
250mm
M&I
16
96
95.5
16.8 96 /
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SAND, some silt, trace gravel, very 10 SS

225mm
PID: <5
dense, grey, wet 95

18
94
11 SS 92 / PID: <5
250mm SS11 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
19
93

12 SS 50 / PID: <5
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 106
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 5 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 100mm
SAND, some silt, trace gravel, very 92
dense, grey, wet (continued)

21
91.0 91
21.3 13 SS 50 / PID: <5
CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, trace gravel, 125mm
hard, grey, moist
22
90

89.4
23 22.9 14 SS 95 /
CLAY AND SILT, some shale 200mm
PID: <5
fragments, trace sand, trace gravel, hard, 89
grey, moist
24
88
15 SS 50 / PID: <5
75mm
25
87

26 16 SS 50 / 26 24 34 16
100mm 86
...at 26.5m, tri-cone
85.3 grinding
85.3 17 SS 50 / ...at 27.0m, sampler
27.0
Possible Bedrock 25mm
bouncing, no
WATER LEVEL READINGS sample recovery
END OF BOREHOLE Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m) ...at 27.0m, tri-cone
refusal
Wash boring refusal Apr 23, 2018 4.5 107.7
May 9, 2018 5.2 107.0

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 107
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 8 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.8 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
45mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 1 SS 8
215mm AGGREGATE
112
1 SAND, trace gravel, trace silt, loose to 2 SS 8
compact, orangey brown, moist

3 SS 14 111
2

110.2 4A SS 35
2.6 4B
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 110
3 hard, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL) 5 SS 78

109
4

6 SS 50 /
108
5 150mm

107
6
7 SS 92

106
7

105.2
7.6 8 SS 50 / 105
SILTY SAND, some gravel, some clay, 75mm
8 very dense, grey, moist

104
9
...at 9.1 m, wet 9 SS 50 /
125mm
103
10

102.1
10.7 10 SS 50 / 102
11
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 100mm
very dense, grey, moist

101
12 100.6
12.2 11 SS 50 /
SILT, trace sand, trace clay, very
150mm
dense, grey, moist
100
13

99.1
13.7 12 SS 50 / 99
14 SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 150mm
very dense, grey, moist

98
15
13 SS 50 /
75mm
97
16

96.0
16.8 14 SS 50 / 96
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SILT, trace sand, trace clay, very 125mm

dense, grey, wet

95
18
94.5
18.3 15 SS 50 / 1 46 43 10
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, trace 125mm
gravel, very dense, grey, wet 94
19

93
16 SS 50 /
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 107
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 8 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 75mm
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, trace
gravel, very dense, grey, wet (continued)
92
21
91.5
21.3 17 SS 50 / 2 27 46 25
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 125mm
hard, grey, moist 91
22

90
23 18 SS 50 /
125mm

89
24
88.4
24.4 19 SS 50 /
COARSE SAND, some gravel, some
125mm 88
silt, very dense, grey, wet
25

86.9 87
26 25.9 20 SS 50 / 0 0 70 30
CLAYEY SILT, hard, grey, moist 125mm

86
27

21 SS 70
85
28

83.8 84
29 29.0 22 SS 50 /
SAND AND SILT, trace gravel, trace 125mm
clay, very dense, grey, wet
83 ...at 29.9m, augers
30 23 SS 50 / grinding, rig
75mm bouncing
24 SS 50 /
75mm 82
31

81
32 80.8
32.0 25 SS 50 / ...at 32.0m, spoon
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 25mm bouncing
(See rock core log for details)
...at 32.3 m, sound bedrock 1 RUN 80
33

79
34
2 RUN

78
35

3 RUN 77
36
76.3
36.5
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)

Apr 25, 2017 5.9 106.9
Borehole contained drill water upon Apr 23, 2018 6.2 106.6
completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

 LOG OF BOREHOLE 108
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 13 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.5 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 ...at 0.0m, Straight
Construction Rubble drilled through
112 rubble to 4.6m

111

110

109

4
108.2
4.3
108.1
PC CONCRETE, Concrete Slab 108
...at 4.6m, switched
4.4 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 1 SS 62 PID: 5 to mud rotary
5 hard, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL) 107

6
2 SS 60 106 PID: <5
SS2 Analysis:
PAH
7

105 4 26 44 26
3 SS 94 / PID: <5
8 225mm SS3 Analysis:
M&I
104

9
4 SS 50 / PID: <5
SS4 Analysis:
125mm 103 VOC, PHC

10

102
5 SS 50 / PID: <5
11 100mm

101

12
6 SS 50 / PID: <5
125mm 100

13

99
...at 13.7 m, contains occasional sand 7 SS
87 /
PID: <5
14 seams 275mm SS7 Analysis:
M&I
98

15
97.3
15.2 8 SS 50 / PID: <5
SILT, contains occasional sand seams, 75mm
97 SS8 Analysis:
very dense, grey, moist PAH
16

96
95.7
16.8 92 /
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 9 SS

250mm
PID: <5
hard, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL) 95

18
94.2
18.3 10 SS 50 / 94 PID: <5
SAND, trace silt, very dense, grey, wet 125mm SS10 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
19

93

11 SS PID: <5
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 108
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 13 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 50 /
SAND, trace silt, very dense, grey, wet 125mm
(continued) 92

21
91.2
21.3 92 / 91
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 12 SS
275mm
PID: <5
hard, grey, moist
22

90
89.6
23 22.9 13 SS 50 / PID: <5
SAND, some silt, very dense, grey, 100mm
moist
89

24
88.1
24.4 88
SILT, trace clay, trace sand, very 14 SS 73 PID: <5
dense, grey, moist
25

87

26
15 SS 60 PID: <5
86

27
85.1
27.4 16 SS 50 / 85 PID: <5
SAND, trace silt, trace gravel, very 100mm
28 dense, grey, wet

84
83.5
29 29.0 17 SS 50 / PID: <5
SILT AND CLAY, some shale 125mm
fragments, trace sand, trace gravel, hard, 83
grey, moist
30
82.0 82
82.0 18 SS 50 /
30.5
INFERRED BEDROCK, weathered 25mm
shale, grey WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
END OF BOREHOLE Apr 23, 2018 5.1 107.3
May 9, 2018 5.5 107.0

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 109
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 21 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.9 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
75mm ASPHALT
1 SS 12
FILL, sand, trace silt, trace gravel,
compact, orangey brown with black 112
1 staining, moist 2 SS 11

3 SS 16
2 111
110.6
2.3
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 4 SS 35
hard, grey, moist
3 (GLACIAL TILL) 110
5 SS 45

4 109

6 SS 67 108
5

6 107

7 SS 71

7 106

105.3
7.6 94 /
SILTY SAND, some gravel, some clay, 8 SS
250mm 105
8 very dense, grey, wet

9 104
...at 9.1 m, moist 9 SS 50 /
100mm

10 103

102.2
10.7 10 SS 50 /
11
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 100mm 102
very dense, grey, moist

12 101
100.7
12.2 11 SS 50 /
SILT, trace sand, trace clay, very
100mm
dense, grey, wet
13 100

...at 13.7 m, sandy 12 SS 50 / 99

14 125mm

15 98
97.7
15.2 13 SS 50 / 2 19 57 22
CLAYEY SILT, some sand, trace gravel, 75mm
hard, grey, moist
16 97

96.1
16.8 14 SS 50 / 96
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SAND AND SILT, trace clay, very 125mm

dense, grey, wet

18 95

15 SS 50 /
125mm
19 94

16 SS 50 / 93
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 109
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 21 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 75mm
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, very
dense, grey, wet (continued)

21 92
91.6
21.3 17 SS 50 /
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 125mm
hard, grey, moist 91
22

90.0
23 22.9 18 SS 50 / 90
SANDY SILT, very dense, grey, wet 50mm

24 89

19 SS 50 /
125mm
25 88

87.0
26 87
25.9 96 /
CLAY AND SILT, trace sand, hard, 20 SS
250mm
0 3 56 41
grey, moist

27 86
85.5
27.4 21 SS 50 / ...at 27.4m, some
SAND, some silt, trace gravel, very 75mm grinding
28 dense, grey, wet 85

29 84
22 SS 50 /
75mm

30 83

82.4
30.5 23 SS 50 /
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 50mm
31 (See rock core log for details) 82
...at 31.1 m, sound bedrock 1 RUN

32 81

2 RUN
33 80

34 79
3 RUN

78.0 78
34.9
END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 110
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 22 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.9 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
75mm ASPHALT
1 SS 7
112.1 FILL, sand, some gravel, trace cinders,
0.8 trace silt, loose, brown to black, moist 112
1 2 SS 9
SAND, trace silt, trace gravel, loose to
compact, orangey brown, moist
...at 1.5m, augers
3 SS 14 grinding
2 111

2.3 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 4 SS 42

hard, grey, moist
3 (GLACIAL TILL) 110
5 SS 60

4 109

6 SS 50 /
5 100mm 108

6 107
7 SS 50 /
125mm

7 106

105.3
7.6 8 SS 50 /
SILTY SAND, trace clay, trace gravel, 100mm 105
8 very dense, grey, wet

9 104
9 SS 50 /
100mm

10 103

102.2
10.7 10 SS 50 /
11
SILT, trace to some sand, trace clay, 100mm 102
very dense, grey, moist

12 101

...at 12.2 m, thin layers of clay 11 SS 50 /

125mm

13 100

99.2
13.7 12 SS 50 / 99
14 SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 100mm
very dense, grey, moist

15 98

...at 15.2 m, layered with sand 13 SS 50 /

75mm

16 97

96.1
16.8 14 SS 50 / 96
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SAND AND SILT, trace clay, trace 125mm

gravel, very dense, grey, wet

18 95

15 SS 50 /
100mm
19 94

16 SS 50 / 93
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 110
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 22 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 100mm
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, trace
gravel, very dense, grey, wet (continued)

21 92
91.6
21.3 17 SS 50 /
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 100mm
hard, grey, moist 91
22

23 18 SS 50 / 90
125mm

24 89
88.5
24.4 19 SS 50 /
SILT, some sand, layered with clayey
125mm
silt, very dense, grey, moist 88
25

87.0
26 87
25.9 20 SS 50 /
CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, hard, grey, 100mm
moist

27 86

94 /
21 SS
275mm
28 85

83.9 84
29 29.0 22 SS 50 /
SAND, some silt, trace gravel, very 125mm
dense, grey, wet

30 83

82.4
30.5 23 SS 50 /
110.6
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 50mm
31 (See rock core log for details) 82
...at 31.1 m, sound bedrock 1 RUN

32 81

2 RUN
33 80

34 79
3 RUN

77.9 78
35
35.0
END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 111
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 18 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
110.5 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 ...at 0.0m, straight
Construction Rubble drilled through
110 rubble to 1.5m

1
109.0
1.5 1 SS 50 / 109 PID: <5
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 125mm
2 hard, grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL)
2 SS 78 108 PID: <5

3
3 SS 75 PID: <5
SS3 Analysis:
107 M&I
4

106
4 SS 72 PID: <5
5

105

6 8 34 41 17
...at 6.1 m, sandy silt, some clay, trace 5 SS 50 / PID: <5
SS5 Analysis:
gravel 100mm PAH
104

103
6 SS 50 /
125mm SS6 Analysis:
8 VOC, PHC

102

9
7 SS 50 / PID: <5
125mm 101

10

100
8 SS 50 / PID: <5
11 100mm

99

12 98.3
12.2 9 SS 50 / PID: <5
SILT, contains occasional sand seams, SS9 Analysis:
125mm 98
very dense, grey, moist M&I
13

96.8 97
13.7 10 SS 50 / PID: <5
14 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 125mm SS10 Analysis:
hard, grey, moist PAH
(GLACIAL TILL) 96

15
93 /
11 SS 95 PID: <5
275mm

16

93.7 94
16.8 12 SS 50 / PID: <5
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 SAND AND SILT, trace gravel, trace 125mm SS12 Analysis:

clay, very dense, grey, moist VOC, PHC
93

18

13 SS 50 / PID: <5 2 48 43 7
100mm 92

19

91
90.7
14 SS PID: <5
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 111
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 18 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 50 / 1 23 50 26
19.8 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 125mm
hard, grey, moist (continued) 90

21

15 SS 50 / 89 PID: <5
125mm
22

88

23 16 SS 50 / PID: <5
...at 22.9 m, trace sand below
125mm
87

24

17 SS 77 86 0 1 64 35

25

85

26
18 SS 68

84

27
83.1
27.4 19 SS 50 / 83 PID: <5
SAND, trace silt, very dense, grey, wet 100mm
28

82
81.5
29 81.4 20 SS 50 /
29.1
SILT AND SAND, some shale 125mm
fragments, trace clay, trace gravel, very WATER LEVEL READINGS
dense, grey, moist Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 23, 2018 3.6 106.9
END OF BOREHOLE May 9, 2018 3.7 106.9

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 112
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 16 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.0 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 112 ...at 0.0m, straight
Construction Rubble drilled through
rubble to 3.0m

1 111

2 110

3 109.0 109
3.0
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 1 SS 55 PID: 5
very dense, grey, moist SS1 Analysis:
M&I
(GLACIAL TILL)
4 108

1 31 57 11
2 SS 76 PID: <5
SS2 Analysis:
5 107
PAH

3 28 50 19
6 106
3 SS 50 / PID: <5
SS3 Analysis:
75mm VOC, PHC

7 105

104.4
7.6
SANDY SILT, some clay, with light grey 4 SS 54 PID: <5
8 silt partings, very dense, grey, moist 104

9 103 0 17 58 25
...at 9.1 m, clayey silt, some sand, hard 5 SS 92 PID: <5
SS5 Analysis:
M&I
10 102

0 33 64 3
...at 10.7 m, sandy silt, trace clay, dense 6 SS 49 PID: <5
11 101 SS6 Analysis:
PAH

12 100
...at 12.2 m, clayey silt, sandy, hard 7 SS 88 PID: <5
99.4 SS7 Analysis:
12.6 VOC, PHC
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 23, 2018 4.6 107.4
Unstabilized water level measured at May 9, 2018 4.6 107.4
11.6 m below ground surface upon
completion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 113
Project No. : Client : Originated by : SM
Date started : 2018 May 7 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.9 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
Daylighted to expose adjacent shallow
utilities.

1 112

2 111
110.6
2.3
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 1 SS 40 PID: 6
dense to very dense, grey, moist to wet SS1 Analysis:
110 M&I, PAH
3 (GLACIAL TILL)
2 SS 41 PID: <5

4 109

...at 4.6 m, wet

3 SS 43 108 PID: <5
5

6 107
4 SS 87 PID: <5

7 106

105.3
7.6
SANDY SILT, trace clay, very dense, 5 SS 97 105 PID: <5
SS5 Analysis:
8 grey, moist PHC

9 104
93 /
6 SS PID: <5
275mm

10 103

7 SS 68 102 PID: <5

11 SS7 Analysis:
VOC

12 101
100.7
12.2
SAND, some silt, very dense, grey, wet 8 SS 98 PID: <5
100.3
12.6
END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
May 9, 2018 5.5 107.4
Water level and cave not measured upon
completion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 114
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 28 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / tricone
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.0 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
25mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 1 SS 12
112.2 100mm AGGREGATE
0.8 FILL, sand, trace silt, trace gravel,
1 2 SS 14 112
compact, orangey brown with black,
moist
SAND, trace silt, trace gravel, layered, 3 SS 19
2 compact, orangey brown, moist 111
...at 1.5 m, wet
...at 2.3 m, some silt, grey, dense to very 4 SS 33
dense
3 110
5 SS 87

4 109

6 SS 100 /
5 250mm 108

6 106.9 107
6.1 7 SS 50 /
SAND AND SILT, trace clay, trace 100mm
gravel, very dense, grey, moist
7 106

105.4
7.6 100 /
CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, hard, grey, 8 SS
225mm
8 moist 105

9 103.9 104
9.1 9 SS 50 /
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 125mm
very dense, grey, moist
10 103

102.3
10.7 10 SS 50 /
11
SAND, some silt, very dense, grey, wet 125mm 102

12 101
11 SS 50 /
100mm

13 100

99.3
13.7 12 SS 50 /
14 SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 125mm 99
very dense, grey, moist

15 98
97.8
15.2 13 SS 50 /
SAND, some silt, very dense, grey, wet 125mm

16 97

...at 16.8 m, silty 14 SS 50 /

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

17 125mm 96

18 95
15 SS 50 /
75mm
19 94

93.2
16 SS 50 / 0 3 78 19
(continued next page)
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 114
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 March 28 Project : Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 2 of 2 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / tricone
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
(continued) 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
20 125mm 93
19.8 SILT, some clay, trace sand, hard, grey,
moist (continued)

21 92
91.7
21.3 17 SS 50 /
CLAYEY SILT, trace sand, hard, grey, 125mm
moist
22 91

90.1
90.1 18 SS 50 /
22.9
SAND AND SILT, some gravel, trace 75mm
clay, very dense, grey, wet WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
END OF BOREHOLE Apr 25, 2017 0.8 112.2

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 115
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 17 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.0 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0 113 ...at 0.0m, Straight
Construction Rubble drilled through
rubble to 3.0m

1 112

2 111

3 110.0
110
3.0
SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 1 SS 45 PID: <5
dense to very dense, grey, moist SS1 Analysis:
PAH
(GLACIAL TILL)
4 109

1 52 37 10
...at 4.6 m, wet 2 SS 70 PID: <5
SS2 Analysis:
5 108 VOC, PHC

6 107
3 SS 72 PID: <5
SS3 Analysis:
M&I
7 106

105.4
7.6 4 SS 50 / PID: <5
SANDY SILT, trace clay, with light grey 75mm
8 silt partings, very dense, grey, moist 105

9 104 6 21 52 21
...at 9.1 m, clayey silt, sandy, trace 5 SS 76 PID: <5
gravel, hard SS5 Analysis:
PAH
10 103

6 SS 93 / PID: <5
11 250mm 102 SS6 Analysis:
VOC, PHC

12 101
83 /
7 SS PID: <5
SS7 Analysis:
100.4 275mm
12.6 M&I

END OF BOREHOLE WATER LEVEL READINGS

Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Apr 23, 2018 5.9 107.2
Borehole was dry upon completion of May 9, 2018 5.9 107.1
drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 201
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 29 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
109.1 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
25mm WOOD SUB-FLOOR 109

75mm PC CONCRETE
1 DP PID: <5 DP1 Analysis:
SILTY SAND, trace gravel, grey, moist M&I, PAH, PCB,
108.3 VOC, PHC
0.8 ...at 0.8m, refusal
END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open upon

completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 202
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 29 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
109.5 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
109.3 150mm PC CONCRETE
0.2
SAND, trace to some silt, grey, wet
1 DP 109 PID: <5 DP1 Analysis:
M&I, PAH, PCB,
108.7 VOC, PHC
0.8
END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open upon

completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 203
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 28 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Power Probe 9700 VTR Drilling Method : Direct push
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.2 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
50mm INTERLOCK BRICK
113
FILL, sand, trace silt, trace gravel, 1 DP PID: <5
DP1 Analysis:
brown, moist PAH, PCB

2 DP PID: <5
DP2 Analysis:
1
VOC, PHC
112
...at 1.2m, refusal
3 DP PID: <5
DP3 Analysis:
111.4 M&I
1.8
2 CLAYEY SILT, some sand, trace gravel,
grey, moist 4 DP PID: <5
111

5 DP PID: <5
DP5 Analysis:
PHC
3
110
6 DP PID: <5
DP6 Analysis:
PAH, PCB

4 7 DP PID: <5
DP7 Analysis:
109 M&I

8 DP PID: <5
DP8 Analysis:
VOC

5
108

6
107

7
106

8
105

9
104

10
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

103

102.5
10.7
END OF BOREHOLE
WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Borehole was dry and open upon Jul 28, 2017 3.2 110.0
completion of drilling. Aug 11, 2017 3.5 109.7
Sep 6, 2017 4.1 109.1
50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 204
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 30 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.6 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
FILL, sand, trace silt, brown, moist

1 DP PID: <5
DP1 Analysis:
112 M&I, PAH, PCB

2 DP PID: <5
DP2 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
110.9 111
1.7
CLAYEY SILT, some sand, trace gravel,
grey, moist 3 DP PID: <5
DP3 Analysis:
2
110.5 M&I, PAH, PCB, VOC
2.1
END OF BOREHOLE
WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Unstabilized water level measured at Jul 28, 2017 1.6 111.0
1.7 m below ground surface; borehole
was open upon completion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 205
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 28 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Power Probe 9700 VTR Drilling Method : Direct push
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.8 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
50mm INTERLOCK BRICK
FILL, sand, trace silt, brown, moist 1 DP PID: <5

112
2 DP PID: <5
DP2 Analysis:
1
M&I, PCB

3 DP PID: <5

111
2
4 DP PID: <5
DP4 Analysis:
110.4 VOC, PHC
2.4
SILTY SAND, trace gravel, grey, wet
5 DP 110 PID: <5
DP5 Analysis:
M&I
3

6 DP PID: <5

109
4 7 DP PID: <5
DP7 Analysis:
PAH

8 DP PID: <5

108
5
9 DP PID: <5

10 DP 107 PID: <5

6 106.7
6.1
END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open upon

completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 206
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 28 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Power Probe 9700 VTR Drilling Method : Direct push
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.0 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
25mm PATIO STONE
FILL, sand, trace silt, brown, moist 1 DP PID: <5
DP1 Analysis:
PAH, PCB

2 DP PID: <5
DP2 Analysis:
1 112
VOC, PHC

3 DP PID: <5
DP3 Analysis:
M&I

2 111
4 DP PID: <5
DP4 Analysis:
110.6 PCB
2.4
SILTY SAND, trace gravel, grey, wet
5 DP PID: <5
DP5 Analysis:
M&I, PAH
3 110

6 DP PID: <5
DP6 Analysis:
PHC

4 7 DP 109 PID: <5

8 DP PID: <5

5 108
9 DP PID: <5
DP9 Analysis:
107.5 VOC
5.5
END OF BOREHOLE

Unstabilized water level measured at

5.3 m below ground surface; borehole
was open upon completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 207
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 29 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
109.2 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
109.0 75mm PC CONCRETE
0.2 109
75mm AGGREGATE 1 DP DP1 Analysis:
108.7
0.5 M&I, PAH
SANDY SILT, trace clay, trace gravel, ...at 0.5m, refusal
grey, moist

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and caved to 0.3 m

below ground surface upon completion of
drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 208
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 29 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
109.5 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
115mm PC CONCRETE
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, 1 DP PID: <5 DP1 Analysis:
108.9 grey, moist 109 M&I, PAH, PCB,
(GLACIAL TILL) VOC, PHC
0.6 ...at 0.6m, refusal

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open upon

completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 209
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 28 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Power Probe 9700 VTR Drilling Method : Direct push
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.0 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
112.8 150mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
0.2
FILL, sand, trace silt, brown, moist 1 DP PID: <5
DP1 Analysis:
M&I

2 DP PID: <5
DP2 Analysis:
1 112
PAH, PCB

3 DP PID: <5
DP3 Analysis:
111.2 PCB, VOC
1.8
2 SANDY SILT, some clay, trace gravel, 111
grey, wet 4 DP PID: <5
(GLACIAL TILL)

5 DP PID: <5
DP5 Analysis:
PAH
3 110

6 DP PID: <5
DP6 Analysis:
PCB

4 7 DP 109 PID: <5

DP7 Analysis:
M&I, PCB

8 DP PID: <5
DP8 Analysis:
VOC
...at 4.6m, refusal
5 108

6 107

7 106

8 105

9 104

10 103
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

102.3
10.7
END OF BOREHOLE
WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Borehole was dry and open upon Jul 28, 2017 5.5 107.5
completion of drilling.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

 LOG OF BOREHOLE 210
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 29 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
109.1 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
100mm PC CONCRETE 109
108.7
0.4
250mm AGGREGATE 1 DP DP1 Analysis:
108.5 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, M&I, PAH
0.6 grey, moist ...at 0.6m, refusal

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and caved to 0.2 m

below ground surface upon completion of
drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 211
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 27 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Power Probe 9700 VTR Drilling Method : Direct push
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.7 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
50mm INTERLOCK BRICK
FILL, sand, trace silt, trace gravel, 1 DP PID: <5
DP1 Analysis:
brown, moist PCB
113
2 DP PID: <5
DP2 Analysis:
1
PAH

3 DP PID: <5
DP3 Analysis:
111.9 112 M&I, VOC, PHC
1.8
2 CLAYEY SILT, some sand, trace gravel,
grey, moist 4 DP PID: <5
DP4 Analysis:
(GLACIAL TILL) PCB

5 DP 111 PID: <5

6 DP PID: <5
DP6 Analysis:
PAH, PHC
110

4 7 DP PID: <5

8 DP PID: <5
DP8 Analysis:
109 M&I

5
9 DP PID: <5
DP9 Analysis:
108.2 VOC
5.5
END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open upon

completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 212
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 27 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Power Probe 9700 VTR Drilling Method : Direct push
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.9 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
112.7 150mm PC CONCRETE
0.2
FILL, sand and gravel, trace to some 1 DP PID: <5
silt, grey to dark brown, damp to moist

2 DP 112 PID: <5

1 DP2 Analysis:
M&I, PCB

3 DP PID: <5
DP3 Analysis:
PAH, VOC, PHC
111
2
4 DP PID: <5

110.5
2.4
SILTY CLAY to CLAYEY SILT, trace to
some sand, trace gravel, brown to grey, 5 DP PID: <5
DP5 Analysis:
moist 110 PCB
3 (GLACIAL TILL)

6 DP PID: <5
DP6 Analysis:
M&I, PHC

109
4 7 DP PID: <5
DP7 Analysis:
PAH

8 DP PID: <5

108
5
9 DP PID: <5
DP9 Analysis:
107.4 VOC
5.5
END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open upon

completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 213
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2017 June 27 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.0 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
112.8 150mm PC CONCRETE
0.2
FILL, silty sand, trace gravel, trace clay,
moist
1 DP PID: <5 DP1 Analysis:
...at 0.6 m, 150mm red brick M&I, PAH, PCB,
VOC, PHC
1 111.9 112
1.1
SAND to SILTY SAND, trace gravel,
trace clay, brown to grey, moist
(GLACIAL TILL) 2 DP PID: <5
DP2 Analysis:
M&I, PAH, PCB

2 3 DP 111 PID: <5

DP3 Analysis:
110.9
2.1 VOC, PHC

END OF BOREHOLE
WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
Borehole was dry and open upon Jul 28, 2017 2.0 111.0
completion of drilling. Aug 11, 2017 2.1 110.9
Sep 6, 2017 2.1 110.9
50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 214
Project No. : Client : Originated by : JR
Date started : 2017 June 13 Project : Compiled by : ZB
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : MB
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Pionjar Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
113.3 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
275mm ASPHALTIC CONCRETE
113.0
0.3 1 DP 113 PID: 308
FILL, sand, some silt, some gravel,
112.7 trace metal shrapnel, brown, moist
0.6

END OF BOREHOLE

Borehole was dry and open upon

completion of drilling.
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj
 LOG OF BOREHOLE 301
Project No. : Client : Originated by : SM
Date started : 2018 May 9 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : Track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.2 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
Daylighted to expose adjacent shallow
112
utilities.

1
111

2
109.9 110
2.3
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel, very
stiff to hard, grey, moist 1 SS 29 PID: <5
SS1 Analysis:
(GLACIAL TILL) M&I, PAH

3
109
2 SS 25 PID: <5

4
108

3 SS 45 PID: <5
SS3 Analysis:
5 VOC, PHC
107

6
4 SS 50 / PID: <5 ...at 6.1m, drill fluid
106 added
150mm

7
105

5 SS 86 PID: <5
8
104

9
103
6 SS 66 PID: <5
102.6
9.6
END OF BOREHOLE
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

Borehole contained drill water upon

completion of drilling. Unstabilized water
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

 LOG OF BOREHOLE 302
Project No. : Client : Originated by : TG
Date started : 2018 April 18 Project : Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Checked by : JC
Position : Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83)
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES Penetration Test Values
Lab Data

Elevation Scale
(Blows / 0.3m)
Depth Scale (m)

Moisture / Plasticity

Headspace

Instrument
and

SPT 'N' Value

Vapour

Details
Graphic Log
Dynamic Cone

Unstabilized
Water Level
(ppm)
Plastic Natural Liquid Comments

Number
10 20 30 40

(m)
Limit Water Content Limit

Type
Elev Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)
Depth Description GRAIN SIZE
Unconfined Field Vane PL MC LL DISTRIBUTION (%)
(m) Pocket Penetrometer Lab Vane (MIT)
112.8 GROUND SURFACE 40 80 120 160 10 20 30 GR SA SI CL
0
FILL, sand, trace silt, trace gravel, trace
cinders, trace ashes, trace rootlets, very 1 SS 4 PID: 25
SS1 Analysis:
loose to loose, greyish brown to brown, M&I
moist
112
1
2 SS 2 PID: 35
SS2 Analysis:
PAH

3A PID: 35

SS 6 111
3B PID: 10 SS Analysis:
2 VOC, PHC
110.5
2.3
CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel,
hard, grey, moist 4 SS 32 PID: 10
(GLACIAL TILL) 110
3

5 SS 37 PID: 5
SS5 Analysis:
M&I

109
4

...at 4.6m, drill fluid

108 added
6 SS 65 PID: <5
5

107
6

7 SS 58 PID: <5
SS7 Analysis:
PAH

106
7

105
8 SS 86 PID: <5
8

104
9
103.7
9.1
COARSE SAND, trace silt, very dense, 96 /
9 SS PID: <5
103.3 grey, wet 250mm SS9 Analysis:
VOC, PHC
9.5
END OF BOREHOLE
WATER LEVEL READINGS
Date Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)
file: borehole_logs blank for training.gpj

Borehole contained drill water upon Apr 23, 2018 5.0 107.8
completion of drilling. Unstabilized water May 9, 2018 5.4 107.3
level and cave not measured.

50 mm dia. monitoring well installed.

F4: Rock Core Logs

lx
 ROCK CORE LOG 103
Project No. : 1-15-0121-03 Client : 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership Originated by : TG
Date started : April 2, 2018 Project : Mirvish Village Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Toronto, Ontario Checked by : JC
Position : E: 628027, N: 4835862 (UTM 17T) Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary, HQ rock coring
Natural

Run
UCS (MPa) Fractures

Elevation (m)
Shale

Elevation (m)
Laboratory
Graphic Log
Depth (m)

Weathering Comments
Elev 5 25 50 100 250
Testing

Frequency
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Recovery Zones

Spacing
Depth
(m) Estimated
Strength
Rock coring started at 26.1m below grade 86.6

R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Z1

Z2

Z3

Z4
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 26.1
>10 26.2-26.4m: 225mm thick zone of clay
Shale, grey, laminated to thickly bedded, seams and crushed rock
weak; joints are horizontal, gapped, clean,
planar; 4
TCR = 100% 86 86
R1 SCR = 67%
interbedded with limestone, grey, medium RQD = 31% 3
27 strong
27.1m: subvertical joint, planar, rough,
>10 tight, clean
Run 1 : 10% limestone 27.3m: subvertical joint, planar, planar,
90% bedrock 85.3 2 tight, clean
27.4 27.4m: subvertical joint, planar, rough,
>10 tight, clean
...at 27.6m, transition to sound bedrock 85 85

0
28
TCR = 100%
R2 SCR = 95% 1
RQD = 95%

1
84 84
Run 2 : 8% limestone 1
92% bedrock 83.7
29 29.0
2

1
TCR = 100%
R3 SCR = 100% 83 3 83
RQD = 87%
30 0

Run 3 : 22% limestone 0

78% bedrock 82.2
30.5m
END OF COREHOLE
file: 1-15-0121-03_borehole_logs.gpj
 ROCK CORE LOG 104
Project No. : 1-15-0121-03 Client : 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership Originated by : TG
Date started : April 6, 2018 Project : Mirvish Village Compiled by : NN
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Toronto, Ontario Checked by : JC
Position : E: 628074, N: 4835877 (UTM 17T) Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : NQ, OD=76mm, ID=48mm
Rig type : D120, track-mounted Drilling Method : Hollow stem augers / mud rotary, NQ rock coring
Natural

Run
UCS (MPa) Fractures

Elevation (m)
Shale

Elevation (m)
Laboratory
Graphic Log
Depth (m)

Weathering Comments
Elev 5 25 50 100 250
Testing

Frequency
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Recovery Zones

Spacing
Depth
(m) Estimated
Strength
Rock coring started at 29.1m below grade 83.8

R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Z1

Z2

Z3

Z4
29.1 29.1-29.1m: 50 mm clay seam
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION >10
Shale, grey, laminated to thickly bedded, 29.2-29.3m: 150 mm clay seam
TCR = 100%
weak; joints are horizontal, gapped, clean, R1 SCR = 78%
planar RQD = 71% 1
...at 29.3m, transition to sound bedrock
83.0 1
29.9 83 83
30 Run 1 : 3% limestone 3
97% shale
0
TCR = 100%
R2 SCR = 100% 0
RQD = 97%
82 1 82
31

Run 2 : 3% limestone 2
97% shale 81.5
31.4
1

TCR = 100% 2
81 81
32 R3 SCR = 100%
RQD = 80%
0

Run 3 : 8% limestone 4
32.4m: vertical joint, planar, smooth, tight,
92% shale 80.3 clean
32.6m
END OF COREHOLE
file: 1-15-0121-03_borehole_logs.gpj
 ROCK CORE LOG 107
Project No. : 1-15-0121-03 Client : 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership Originated by : TG
Date started : March 8, 2017 Project : Mirvish Village Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Toronto, Ontario Checked by : JC
Position : E: 628072, N: 4835799 (UTM 17T) Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
Natural

Run
UCS (MPa) Fractures

Elevation (m)
Shale

Elevation (m)
Laboratory
Graphic Log
Depth (m)

Weathering Comments
Elev 5 25 50 100 250
Testing

Frequency
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Recovery Zones

Spacing
Depth
(m) Estimated
Strength
Rock coring started at 32.0m below grade 80.8

R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Z1

Z2

Z3

Z4
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 32.0
4 32.2-32.2m: clay seam
Shale, grey, laminated to thickly bedded, 32.3m: transition to sound bedrock
weak; joints are horizontal, gapped, planar,
clean; 2
TCR = 100%
interbedded with limestone, grey, medium R1 SCR = 100% 80 5 32.8m: vertical joint, gapped, clean, 80
strong RQD = 61% smooth, planar
33 ...at 32.3m, sound bedrock
1
Run 1 : 25% limestone
2
75% shale 79.3
33.5
2
79 79
33.9m: vertical joint, gapped, clean,
3 smooth, planar
34
TCR = 100%
R2 SCR = 100% 0
RQD = 93%

Run 2 : 13% limestone 78 78

1
87% shale 77.9
35 34.9
2

TCR = 100%
R3 SCR = 99% 0
RQD = 95% 77 77

36 0

Run 3 : 10% limestone 1

90% shale 76.3
0
36.5m
END OF COREHOLE
file: 1-15-0121-03_borehole_logs.gpj
 ROCK CORE LOG 109
Project No. : 1-15-0121-03 Client : 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership Originated by : TG
Date started : March 21, 2017 Project : Mirvish Village Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Toronto, Ontario Checked by : JC
Position : E: 628058, N: 4835779 (UTM 17T) Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
Natural

Run
UCS (MPa) Fractures

Elevation (m)
Shale

Elevation (m)
Laboratory
Graphic Log
Depth (m)

Weathering Comments
Elev 5 25 50 100 250
Testing

Frequency
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Recovery Zones

Spacing
Depth
(m) Estimated
Strength
Rock coring started at 30.5m below grade 82.4

R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Z1

Z2

Z3

Z4
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 30.5
>10 30.5-30.8m: core loss
Shale, grey, laminated to thickly bedded,
weak; joints are horizontal, gapped, planar, 82 82
>10 30.8-31.1m: rubblized
31 clean;
TCR = 79% 31.1m: transition to sound bedrock
interbedded with limestone, grey, medium R1 SCR = 56% 3
strong RQD = 34%
...at 31.1m, sound bedrock
5 31.6-31.6m: rubblized
Run 1 : 9% limestone 31.8m: vertical fracture, clean, gapped,
91% shale 81 5 rough, stepped 81
80.9
32 32.0
3

4
32.5m: vertical fracture, clean, tight,
TCR = 100% rough. planar
R2 SCR = 100% 3 32.7m: vertical fracture, clean, tight,
RQD = 75% rough. planar
80 80
33
0

Run 2 : 28% limestone 1

72% shale 79.4
33.5
5

79 34.0m: joint, dipping, undulating, gapped, 79

34 0
clean
TCR = 96% 34.1m: joint, horizontal, closed, planar,
R3 SCR = 93% clean
RQD = 62% 2

3
Run 3 : 17% limestone
83% shale 78.0 4
78 78
34.9m
END OF COREHOLE
file: 1-15-0121-03_borehole_logs.gpj
 ROCK CORE LOG 110
Project No. : 1-15-0121-03 Client : 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership Originated by : TG
Date started : March 22, 2017 Project : Mirvish Village Compiled by : RW
Sheet No. : 1 of 1 Location : Toronto, Ontario Checked by : JC
Position : E: 628091, N: 4835768 (UTM 17T) Elevation Datum : Geodetic (NAD83) Core Diameter : HQ, OD=96mm, ID=64mm
Rig type : CME 75, track-mounted Drilling Method : Tri-cone, wash boring, HQ rock coring
Natural

Run
UCS (MPa) Fractures

Elevation (m)
Shale

Elevation (m)
Laboratory
Graphic Log
Depth (m)

Weathering Comments
Elev 5 25 50 100 250
Testing

Frequency
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Recovery Zones

Spacing
Depth
(m) Estimated
Strength
Rock coring started at 30.5m below grade 82.4

R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Z1

Z2

Z3

Z4
GEORGIAN BAY FORMATION 30.5
3
Shale, grey, laminated to thickly bedded,
weak; joints are horizontal, gapped, planar, 82 82
31 clean; 10
TCR = 100% 31.1m: transition to sound bedrock
interbedded with limestone, grey, medium R1 SCR = 91%
RQD = 58% 3
strong
...at 31.1m, sound bedrock
3
Run 1 : 9% limestone
91% shale 81.0 1
81 81
32 31.9
2

3
TCR = 100%
R2 SCR = 100% 2
RQD = 80%
80 80
33 5 33.1m: vertical joint, gapped, clean,
rough, undulating
Run 2 : 25% limestone 0
75% shale 79.5
33.4
0

79 2 79
34
TCR = 100%
R3 SCR = 100% 3
RQD = 77%
1

Run 3 : 10% limestone 6

90% shale 78 78
77.9
35 1
35.0m
END OF COREHOLE
file: 1-15-0121-03_borehole_logs.gpj
F5: Rising Head Test Data

lxi
 Slug Test Analysis Report
Project: Bathurst St & Bloor St W, Toronto
Number: 1-15-0121-46
Client: 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership
Location: Bathurst St & Bloor St W Slug Test: Rising Head Test BH1 Test Well: BH1
Test Conducted by: BR Test Date: 4/10/2015
Analysis Performed by: Rising Head Test BH1 Analysis Date: 4/16/2015
Aquifer Thickness: 20.10 m

Time [s]
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
1.00
h/h0

Calculation using Hvorslev

Observation Well Hydraulic Conductivity
[m/s]
-7
BH1 1.80 × 10
 Slug Test Analysis Report
Project: Bathurst St & Bloor St W, Toronto
Number: 1-15-0121-46
Client: 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership
Location: Bathurst St & Bloor St W Slug Test: Rising Head Test BH2 Test Well: BH2
Test Conducted by: BR Test Date: 4/10/2015
Analysis Performed by: TW Rising Head Test BH2 Analysis Date: 4/16/2015
Aquifer Thickness: 20.10 m

Time [s]
0 240 480 720 960 1200
h/h0

1E0

Calculation using Hvorslev

Observation Well Hydraulic Conductivity
[m/s]
-8
BH2 3.21 × 10
 Slug Test Analysis Report
Project: Bathurst St & Bloor St W, Toronto
Number: 1-15-0121-46
Client: 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership
Location: Bathurst St & Bloor St W Slug Test: Rising Head Test BH3 Test Well: BH3
Test Conducted by: NS Test Date: 4/10/2015
Analysis Performed by: Rising Head Test BH3 Analysis Date: 4/16/2015
Aquifer Thickness: 20.10 m

Time [s]
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200
1.00
h/h0

Calculation using Hvorslev

Observation Well Hydraulic Conductivity
[m/s]
-7
BH3 5.25 × 10
 Slug Test Analysis Report
Project: Honest Ed's
Number: 1-15-0121-46
Client:
Location: Bathurst St & Bloor St. W Slug Test: Rising Head Test MW102 Test Well: MW102
Test Conducted by: TG Test Date: 9/9/2016
Analysis Performed by: Ylena Quan Rising Head Test MW102 Analysis Date: 9/22/2016
Aquifer Thickness: 24.18 m

Time [s]
0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000
1E-1
h/h0

1E0

Calculation using Bouwer & Rice

Observation Well Hydraulic Conductivity
[m/s]
-8
MW102 4.24 × 10
 Slug Test Analysis Report
Project: Mirvish Village
Number: 1-15-0121-46
Client: 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership
Location: Toronto Slug Test: Rising Head Test - BH107 Test Well: BH107
Test Conducted by: TG Test Date: 4/25/2017
Analysis Performed by: ZB Rising Head Test - BH107 Analysis Date: 5/25/2017
Aquifer Thickness: 32.00 m

Time [s]
0 800 1600 2400 3200 4000
1E-1
h/h0

1E0

Calculation using Bouwer & Rice

Observation Well Hydraulic Conductivity
[m/s]
-7
BH107 2.73 × 10
 Slug Test - Analyses Report
Project: Mirvish Village
Number: 1-15-0121-46
Client: 500 Bloor Street Commercial Partnership
Location: Toronto Slug Test: Rising Head Test - BH114 Test Well: BH114
Test Conducted by: TG Test Date: 4/25/2017
Analysis Performed by: ZB Rising Head Test - BH114 Analysis Date: 5/25/2017
Aquifer Thickness: 32.00 m

Time [s]
0 640 1280 1920 2560 3200
1E-1

1E0
h/h0

1E1

1E2

Calculation using Bouwer & Rice

Observation Well Hydraulic Conductivity
[m/s]
-8
BH114 5.69 × 10
F6: Laboratory Data

lxii
 Upper Plasticity Range
Low High Very High Extremely High
60

CH

50

ine
-L
A
Plasticity Index (PI, %)

40

30

CL

20

10
CL

CL - ML ML MH
or or
ML OL OH
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liquid Limit (LL, %)

Borehole Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)

2 SS4 2.6 110.5 21 12 9
3 SS5 3.4 109.1 19 11 8
3 SS7 6.2 106.2 19 11 8
101 SS16 21.5 91.6 20 13 7
102 SS17 21.4 91.3 22 14 8
107 SS17 21.4 91.4 22 13 9
107 SS20 26.0 86.8 31 20 11
109 SS13 15.4 97.5 22 13 9
109 SS20 26.1 86.8 33 19 14

Title:

ATTERBERG LIMITS CHART

11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:

(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
1 SS4 3.4 109.7 0 48 37 15
1 SS7 7.7 105.4 5 29 42 24
2 SS4 2.6 110.5 4 24 42 30
3 SS5 3.4 109.1 2 26 42 30
3 SS7 6.2 106.2 1 27 42 30
103 SS3 9.3 103.4 3 34 48 15
108 SS3 7.8 104.7 4 26 44 26
111 SS5 6.2 104.3 8 34 41 17
112 SS2 4.8 107.2 1 31 57 11
112 SS3 6.2 105.8 3 28 50 19

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GLACIAL TILLS
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
115 SS2 4.8 108.2 1 52 37 10

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GLACIAL TILLS
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
101 SS9 10.9 102.2 2 86 (12)
102 SS7 6.3 106.4 24 68 (8)
104 SS14 26.0 87.0 14 75 8 3

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SANDS
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
1 SS12 15.5 97.6 0 39 51 10
2 10A 10.7 102.3 2 73 10 15
2 SS15 18.5 94.6 1 67 20 12
3 12A 13.8 98.6 0 61 32 7
101 SS15 20.0 93.1 1 52 39 8
102 SS12 13.8 98.9 0 45 48 7
102 SS15 18.4 94.3 1 51 41 7
103 SS9 18.5 94.2 0 37 61 2
107 SS15 18.4 94.4 1 46 43 10
111 SS13 18.4 92.1 2 48 43 7

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
INTERBEDDED SANDS AND SILTS
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
112 SS6 10.9 101.1 0 33 64 3

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
INTERBEDDED SANDS AND SILTS
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
101 SS12 15.5 97.6 1 31 45 23
101 SS16 21.5 91.6 1 25 51 23
102 SS17 21.4 91.3 1 24 53 22
103 SS6 13.9 98.8 0 20 60 20
107 SS17 21.4 91.4 2 27 46 25
109 SS13 15.4 97.5 2 19 57 22
111 SS14 20.0 90.6 1 23 50 26
115 SS5 9.4 103.7 6 21 52 21

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CLAYEY AND SANDY SILT
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
112 SS5 9.4 102.7 0 17 58 25
114 SS16 19.9 93.1 0 3 78 19

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SILT, SOME CLAY TO CLAYEY SILT
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
107 SS20 26.0 86.8 0 0 70 30
109 SS20 26.1 86.8 0 3 56 41
111 SS17 24.6 85.9 0 1 64 35

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CLAYEY SILT TO SILT AND CLAY
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
103 SS12 22.9 89.8 43 31 18 8
105 3B 7.9 104.7 31 48 14 7

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVELLY SANDS AND SANDY GRAVELS
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03
 100 0

90 10

80 20

70 30

60 40
Percent Passing (%)

Percent Retained (%)

50 50

40 60

30 70

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size (mm)
2mm 60µm 2µm
SYSTEM

GRAVEL SAND
MIT

COBBLES SILT CLAY

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

MIT SYSTEM
Hole ID Sample Depth (m) Elev. (m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) (Fines, %)
103 SS11 21.5 91.2 28 15 39 18
106 SS16 26.0 86.2 26 24 34 16

Title:
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAVELLY SILTS
11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3 File No.:
(905) 796-2650 1-15-0121-03