Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Richmond Home Hardware Addition 6379 Perth Street Richmond, Ontario
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Richmond Home
Hardware Addition
6379 Perth Street
Richmond, Ontario
Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. • 180 Wescar Lane • Ottawa, Ontario • K0A 1L0 • www.hceng.ca
Submitted to:
Argue Construction Ltd.
105-A Willowlea Road
Ottawa, Ontario
K0A 1L0
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Richmond Home
Hardware Addition
6379 Perth Street
Richmond, Ontario
January 6, 2015
Project: 14-564
Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. • 180 Wescar Lane • Ottawa, Ontario • K0A 1L0 • www.hceng.ca
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 1
2.1 Project and Site Description and Review of Geology Maps .......................................... 1
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................... 1
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................ 2
4.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 2
4.2 Fill/Possible Fill Material............................................................................................... 3
4.3 Silty Clay / Clayey Silt / Silt and Clay ........................................................................... 3
4.4 Sandy Silt .................................................................................................................... 5
4.5 Glacial Till .................................................................................................................... 5
4.6 Inferred Bedrock .......................................................................................................... 6
4.7 Groundwater Levels ..................................................................................................... 6
4.8 Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion ........................................................................... 6
5.0 PROPOSED EXPANSION ................................................................................................. 7
5.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 7
5.2 Excavation ................................................................................................................... 8
5.3 Foundations ................................................................................................................. 9
5.4 Foundation Wall Backfill ..............................................................................................10
5.5 Concrete Slab on Grade .............................................................................................11
5.6 Storage Building .........................................................................................................12
5.6.1 General ................................................................................................................12
5.6.2 Pier Foundation ...................................................................................................12
5.7 Grade Raise Restrictions ............................................................................................13
5.8 Frost Protection of Foundation ....................................................................................13
5.9 Seismic Site Classification and Liquefaction Potential .................................................13
6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 14
6.1 Winter Construction ....................................................................................................14
6.2 Disposal of Excess Soil ...............................................................................................14
6.3 Effects of Construction Induced Vibration ...................................................................14
6.4 Design Review and Construction Observation ............................................................14
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. ii
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Key Plan .................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3: Borehole Location Plan .............................................................................................. 17
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Record of Borehole Sheets
Appendix B Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. iii
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the proposed
commercial expansion of the Richmond Home Hardware located at 6379 Perth Street in the
town of Richmond, Ontario (refer to Key Plan, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was
to identify the general subsurface conditions at the site by means of a limited number of
boreholes and, based on the factual information obtained, to provide engineering guidelines on
the geotechnical design aspects of the project, including construction considerations, which
could influence design decisions.
This investigation was performed in accordance with our proposal dated November 19, 2014.
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project and Site Description and Review of Geology Maps
It is understood that plans for the expansion of Richmond Home Hardware include the
construction of a new one storey addition to the existing one storey building as well as the
construction of a new one storey open aired storage building. The addition is anticipated to be
372 square metres (in plan) and of slab on grade construction (i.e. basementless). The new
storage building is anticipated to be about 446 square metres (in plan) and gravel or asphalt
surfaced. Currently the site is occupied by the existing hardware store, storage shed and
stockpiles of construction materials.
Based on our previous experience in the area as well as surficial geology maps, the site is likely
underlain by marine deposits of clay and silt with a thickness ranging from 5 to 10 metres.
Bedrock geology maps of the Ottawa area indicate that the overburden is underlain by
dolostone bedrock of the Oxford formation.
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
The field work for this investigation was carried out on December 4, 2014. During that time, four
(4) boreholes were advanced at the site using a track mounted drill rig supplied and operated by
Aardvark Drilling Inc. Details of the boreholes are provided below:
Two (2) boreholes, numbered 14-1 and 14-2 were advanced to depths of about
6.1 metres below ground surface at the outside corners of the proposed addition. These
boreholes were advanced for foundation design purposes.
One (1) dynamic cone (CPT) was driven from the bottom of borehole 14-1 to practical
refusal on inferred bedrock at a depth of about 7.0 metres below ground surface. The
CPT was driven in order to assess the seismic Site Class for the subject property.
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 1
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015) Two (2) boreholes, numbered 14-3 and 14-4 were advanced to depths of 4.7 and
4.5 metres below ground surface, respectively, in the area of the proposed storage
building. These boreholes were advanced for foundation design purposes.
Standard penetration tests were carried out in the boreholes and samples of the soils
encountered were recovered using a 50 millimetre diameter split barrel sampler. In situ vane
shear strength testing was carried out where possible in the clayey deposits to measure the
undrained shear strength. The groundwater levels were observed in the open boreholes upon
completion of the drilling work.
The field work was supervised throughout by a member of our engineering staff who directed
the drilling operations, logged the samples and carried out the in-situ testing. Following the field
work, the soil samples were returned to our laboratory for examination by a geotechnical
engineer. Selected soil samples were tested for water content, grain size distribution and
Atterberg limits.
The locations and elevations of the boreholes were measured by Houle Chevrier Engineering
Ltd. using our Trimble R8 GPS survey instrument. The elevations are referenced to Geodetic
datum.
Descriptions of the subsurface conditions logged in the boreholes are provided on the Record of
Borehole sheets in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the
Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2. The results of the soil classification testing are provided on
the Record of Borehole sheets and on Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 General
As previously indicated, the soil and groundwater conditions identified in the boreholes are
given on the Record of Borehole sheets in Appendix A. The borehole logs indicate the
subsurface conditions at the specific test locations only. Boundaries between zones on the logs
are often not distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted. The precision with
which subsurface conditions are indicated depends on the method of drilling, the frequency and
recovery of samples, the method of sampling, and the uniformity of the subsurface conditions.
Subsurface conditions at other than the test locations may vary from the conditions encountered
in the test holes. In addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition
can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties.
The groundwater conditions described in this report refer only to those observed at the place
and time of observation noted in the report. These conditions may vary seasonally or as a
consequence of construction activities in the area.
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 2
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)The soil descriptions in this report are based on commonly accepted methods of classification
and identification employed in geotechnical practice. Classification and identification of soil
involves judgement and Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. does not guarantee descriptions as
exact, but infers accuracy to the extent that is common in current geotechnical practice.
The following presents an overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes
advanced during this investigation.
4.2 Fill/Possible Fill Material
All of the boreholes encountered fill/possible fill material from ground surface. Table 4.11 below
describes the fill material encountered during the current investigation.
Table 4.1: Summary of Fill Material Encountered (Depth in Metres)
Brown, fine to
Grey Crushed Sand and medium grained Grey brown silty
Borehole
Gravel sand, some silt clay (possible fill)
and gravel
14-1 0.0 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 0.8 – 1.5
14-2 0.0 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 0.8 – 1.5
14-3 0.0 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.6 -
14-4 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 – 0.8 -
Standard penetration tests carried out in the possible silty clay fill materials gave N values of 5
and 9 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, which reflects a stiff to very stiff consistency.
The water content of samples of the fill/possible fill material ranges from about 3 to 41 percent.
4.3 Silty Clay / Clayey Silt / Silt and Clay
A native deposit of silty clay/clayey silt/silt and clay (herein referred to as silty clay) was
encountered below the fill/possible fill material at all of the borehole locations at depths ranging
from about 0.6 to 1.5 metres. The upper portion of the silty clay can be described as grey
brown weathered crust. Standard penetration tests carried out in the weathered crust gave N
values of 1 to 8 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, decreasing with depth. Attempts were
undertaken to carry out in situ vane shear strength tests in the weathered crust at boreholes 14-
2 and 14-4. During some of the tests, the torque measuring equipment reached its capacity
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 3
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)without turning the vane, which indicates shear strength values in excess of 100 kilopascals and
a very stiff consistency. At the location of borehole 14-4, at a depth of about 2.4 metres below
ground surface, the in-situ shear strength value was measured at about 73 kilopascals, which
reflects a stiff consistency.
The weathered silty clay crust has a thickness of about 1.5 to 2.4 metres at the borehole
locations and extends to depths of about 2.9 to 3.6 metres below ground surface (elevations
91.5 to 92.0 metres, geodetic).
Below the weathered crust in boreholes 14-1 and 14-3, the silty clay becomes grey in colour
and contains silt seams and/or layers. The grey silty clay has a thickness of about 1.5 and 0.9
metres at boreholes 14-1 and 14-3, respectively, and extends to depths of about 4.6 and
3.8 metres below ground surface (elevations 90.4 and 91.1 metres, geodetic).
Standard penetration tests carried out in the grey silty clay gave N values of 1 blow per
0.3 metres of penetration. In situ vane shear strength tests carried out in the grey silty clay give
shear strength values ranging from about 8 to 48 kilopascals, which reflects a very soft to firm
consistency. In our opinion, the very low shear strength measured (i.e. 8 kilopascals) from
borehole 14-1 do not represent the actual soil consistency due to probable soil disturbance from
water inflow into the augers through the silt seams in the silty clay. As such, during the
fieldwork, a borehole was advanced adjacent to borehole 14-1 to confirm the soil at the
locations of the in situ vane shear strength tests (i.e. Sample number A and B at 3.1 and
4.6 metres below ground surface, respectively) which confirmed the presence of silt seams and
a sandy silt layer.
A particle size distribution test and an Atterberg limit test were carried out on a sample of the
weathered silty clay recovered from borehole 14-1 at about 1.8 metres below ground surface
(elevation 93.1 metres, geodetic). The particle distribution test shows that the sample recovered
from borehole 14-1 contains about 58 percent clay, about 39 percent silt size particles, and about
3 percent fine sand.
The Atterberg limit test gave a liquid limit of 51 percent, a plastic limit of 21 percent and a
corresponding plasticity index of 30. The testing indicates that the silt and clay is of high
plasticity.
The results of the testing are provided on Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A.
The water content measured in samples of the weathered grey brown silty clay crust collected
from the boreholes range from about 38 to 65 percent and are generally at or below the
measured liquid limit value.
The water content from samples of the grey silty clay from borehole 14-1 are about 38 and
39 percent and are below the measured liquid limit value.
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 4
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)4.4 Sandy Silt
A deposit of sandy silt was encountered below the silty clay at all of the borehole locations at
depths ranging from about 3.3 to 4.6 metres below ground surface (elevations 90.4 to
91.6 metres, geodetic). The sandy silt can generally be described as grey with variable
amounts of clay. The sandy silt has a thickness ranging from about 0.5 to 1.5 metres.
Standard penetration tests carried out in the sandy silt encountered in the boreholes gave N
values ranging from 3 to 12 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, which reflects a very loose to
compact relative density.
An Atterberg limit test was carried out on a sample of the grey sandy silt recovered from
borehole 14-2 at a depth of about 4.1 metres below ground surface in order to determine the
behaviour of the soil for liquefaction analysis. The Atterberg limit test gave a liquid limit of
18 percent, plastic limit of 17 percent and a corresponding plasticity index of 1 (see Figure A2).
The water content of the sandy silt samples from boreholes 14-1, 14-2, and 14-4 range from
about 16 to 28 percent.
Borehole 14-4 was terminated within the sandy silt at a depth of about 4.5 metres below ground
surface (elevation 90.3 metres, geodetic).
4.5 Glacial Till
Glacial till was encountered below the sandy silt at boreholes 14-1 to 14-3, inclusive, at depths
ranging from about 4.3 to 5.0 metres below ground surface (elevations 89.9 to 90.6 metres,
geodetic). The glacial till is composed of grey silty sand with variable amounts of gravel.
Cobbles and boulders should also be expected within the glacial till.
Standard penetration tests carried out in the glacial till gave N values of 13 and 19 blows per
0.3 metres of penetration, which reflects a compact relative density.
A dynamic cone penetration test was carried out in borehole 14-1 from 6.1 to 7.0 metres below
ground surface. The dynamic cone penetration test carried out in the glacial till deposit gave
penetration values between 50 and 81 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration. The dynamic cone
penetration test was terminated at practical refusal to driving of the cone on inferred bedrock at
a penetration resistance of 50 blows for no visible penetration.
The water content from samples of the glacial till from the boreholes range from about 10 to
11 percent.
Borehole 14-2 was terminated within the glacial till at a depth of about 5.9 metres below ground
surface (elevations 89.2 metres, geodetic).
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 5
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)4.6 Inferred Bedrock
Practical refusal to further advancement of the auger on the inferred bedrock surface occurred
in boreholes 14-3 and 14-4 at depths of about 4.7 and 4.5 metres below ground surface
(elevations 90.2 and 90.3 metres, geodetic), respectively. Practical refusal to further
advancement of the dynamic cone occurred in borehole 14-1 at 7.01 metres below ground
surface (elevation 87.9 metres, geodetic) on the inferred bedrock surface. It should be noted
that practical refusal of the auger and dynamic cone can sometimes occur on boulders and may
not necessarily be representative of the upper surface of the bedrock.
4.7 Groundwater Levels
The groundwater levels observed in the open boreholes during the relatively short period they
were left open are summarized in Table 4.2:
Table 4.2 – Groundwater Depth and Elevation (December 4, 2014)
Groundwater Depth Below
Groundwater Elevation
Borehole Existing Ground Surface
(metres, geodetic datum)
(metres)
14-1 4.4 90.6
14-2 1.3 93.8
14-3 4.5 90.3
14-4 2.0 92.8
The groundwater levels may be higher during wet periods of the year such as the early spring or
following periods of precipitation.
4.8 Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion
The results of chemical testing on a soil sample recovered from borehole 14-2 at a depth
between 1.5 and 2.1 metres below ground surface are provided in Appendix B and are
summarized in Table 4.3 below:
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 6
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)Table 4.3: Summary of Corrosion Testing – Soil
Borehole 14-2
Parameter
SA3 (1.5m – 2.1m)
Chloride Content (µg/g dry) 30
Conductivity (microsiemens/cm) 237
pH 7.15
Sulphate Content (µg/g dry) 48
5.0 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL EXPANSION
5.1 General
The information in the following sections is provided for the guidance of the design engineers
and Argue Construction and is intended for the design of this project only. Other contractors
bidding on or undertaking the works should examine the factual results of the investigation,
satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own
interpretation of the factual data as it affects their construction techniques, schedule, safety and
equipment capabilities.
The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the
subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible surface and/or
subsurface contamination resulting from previous uses or activities of this site or adjacent
properties, and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site from materials from off site
sources are outside the terms of reference for this report.
5.2 Liquefaction Assessment
During a significant seismic event, vibrations can sometimes cause the pore water pressure to
increase within the soil mass and in severe cases, can create a condition known as seismic
liquefaction. The excess pore water pressure created reduces the effective stress between the
soil particles as well as the soil’s resistance to shearing (frictional resistance). A temporary
reduction in the shear strength of the soil may cause, among other issues, lateral movements of
gently sloping ground and a reduction in bearing capacity, and settlement of structures.
Soils which are more prone to experiencing seismic liquefaction include:
Coarse grained soils (i.e., more probable for sands than for silts);
Soils having a loose state of packing; and,
Soils located below the groundwater level.
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 7
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)An assessment of the liquefaction potential of the sandy silt deposit was carried out using the
Seed and Idriss (1971) simplified procedure based on the cyclic stress ratio.
The results of the assessment suggest that the sandy silt soils could be classified as potentially
liquefiable during a significant seismic event. The amount of settlement is highly variable since it
is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the thickness of the sandy silt deposit and its
liquefaction potential. Based on the thickness of the sandy silt deposit, the anticipated
settlement of the liquefiable native sands could be up to about 50 millimetres under a significant
seismic event. It is suggested that the building design take this into account or alternatively, a
seismic cone penetration test could be carried out at the site to better assess the potential for
seismic liquefaction.
It is considered that the above magnitudes of settlement could be acceptable, and therefore
typical strip, pad and pier footings could be used at this site. If the amount of settlement is not
acceptable, alternate foundation designs could be considered, such as densifying the liquefiable
soils (in order to reduce their liquefaction potential and associated settlements) or found the
structure on deep foundations. Further guidelines on densification or deep foundations could be
provided upon request.
5.3 Excavation
The excavation for the proposed building addition and the new storage building will be carried
out through fill material and native deposits of silty clay.
The sides of the excavation should be sloped in accordance with the requirements in Ontario
Regulation 213/91 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. According to the act, soils at
this site can be classified as Type 3. That is, open cut excavations within overburden deposits
should be carried out with side slopes of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter.
Disturbance to the silty clay subgrade can occur during excavation due to flow of soil between
the teeth on a standard bucket. To reduce disturbance of the subgrade soil, the final trimming
to the design elevation should be done using a bucket with a flat blade.
It is our experience that the upper part of the silty clay weathered crust may be impacted by past
frost action. During stripping of the site, there is potential for the upper part of the weathered
silty clay to peel upwards and become disturbed. Where this occurs within the building area,
the disturbed soil should be removed and replaced with compacted OPSS Granular B Type II.
5.3.1 Excavation Next to Existing Building Foundations
To prevent undermining of the existing building foundations, it is recommended that the bottom
of the excavation for the proposed addition be located beyond a line extending down and out
from the bottom edge of the existing and adjacent building foundations at 1 horizontal to 1
vertical, or flatter. If excavation is required within this zone, underpinning or temporary support
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 8
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)of the existing and adjacent foundations may be required. Details for underpinning and/or
support of foundations could be provided upon request.
The underside of footing level should match the existing underside of footing level where the
new foundation walls abut the existing foundation walls.
5.3.2 Groundwater Pumping
Groundwater inflow from the overburden deposits should be relatively small and controlled by
pumping from filtered sumps within the excavation. It is not expected that short term pumping
during excavation will have a significant effect on nearby structures and services.
It should be noted that the groundwater conditions were only observed for the relatively short
time that the boreholes were left open upon completion of drilling. The observations do not
represent stabilized groundwater conditions.
5.4 Foundations
Based on the boreholes advanced during the present investigation, the subgrade conditions
across the site consist of fill material followed by native deposits of silty clay, sandy silt and
glacial till. The proposed structures could be founded on conventional spread footings bearing
on or within the native, undisturbed deposits of weathered silty clay crust or on a pad of
compacted granular material (engineered fill) over native, undisturbed soil deposits. Where wet
conditions are encountered, the engineered fill should be underlain by a woven geotextile
meeting OPSS 1860 Class 2 requirements.
The engineered fill, where required, should consist of granular material meeting Ontario
Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS) requirements for Granular B Type II. OPSS
documents allow recycled asphaltic concrete and concrete to be used in Granular B Type II
materials. Since the source of recycled material cannot be determined, it is suggested that any
granular materials used beneath the proposed building be composed of virgin material only for
environmental reasons. The OPSS Granular B Type II should be compacted in maximum
200 millimetre thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value. To
provide adequate spread of load below the footings, the material should extend at least 0.5
metres horizontally beyond the edge of the footings and down and out from this point at 1
horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter.
The allowable bearing pressures for spread footing foundations at this site are based on the
necessity to limit the stress increase on the softer, compressible grey silty clay to an acceptable
level such that foundation settlements will not be excessive. Four important parameters in
calculating the stress increase on the grey silty clay beneath the weathered crust are:
The thickness of the weathered crust beneath the base of the foundation,
The size and type (i.e. pad, strip or pier) of the foundation,
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 9
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015) The amount of surcharge (fill, etc.) in the vicinity of the foundation, and
The magnitude and type of ground floor loading.
For design purposes, the following bearing pressures should be used for footings bearing on or
within native undisturbed deposits of silty clay.
Table 5.1 – Allowable Bearing Pressure – Store Addition
Maximum Maximum Factored Net Factored Net
Type of Depth of Size of Geotechnical Resistance Geotechnical Reaction
Footing Footing Footing at Serviceability Limit at Ultimate Limit State
(metres) (metres) State (SLS) (kilopascals) (ULS) (kilopascals)
Strip 1.8 0.8 120 250
Pad 1.8 2.0 x 2.0 130 250
Notes:
1. The bearing pressures assume that the proposed grades will be within +/- 150 millimetres of existing site
elevations.
2. The sustained slab-on-grade load of the addition and ground load in the storage building is assumed to be
5 kilopascals.
There are many other possible combinations of founding depths, footing sizes and thickness of
grade raise fills which might be suitable for this project on this site. Furthermore, the
floor/ground loading could also affect the design of the foundations. All other alternatives must
be checked by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that overstressing of the softer silty
clay/clayey silt soil does not occur as this could result in excessive settlement of the building
addition and/or the storage building.
Assuming that the footing areas are cleaned of loose or disturbed soil, the total and differential
settlement of the footings should be less than 25 and 20 millimetres, respectively. The
settlement of the addition will be differential relative to the existing structure; therefore, it is
recommended that the addition be structurally separated from the existing building.
5.5 Foundation Wall Backfill
The fill material and native deposits at this site are frost susceptible and should not be used as
backfill against foundations, piers, etc. The backfill material should consist of imported sand or
sand and gravel meeting OPSS requirements for Granular B Type I or II. Where the backfill will
ultimately support areas of hard surfacing (pavement, sidewalks or other similar surfaces), the
backfill should be placed in maximum 200 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density value using suitable vibratory
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 10
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)compaction equipment. Light hand operated compaction equipment should be used next to the
foundation walls to avoid excessive compaction induced stress on the foundation walls.
Where future landscaped areas will exist next to the proposed structures and if some settlement
of the backfill is acceptable, the backfill could be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
standard Proctor maximum dry density value.
Where areas of hard surfacing (concrete, sidewalk, pavement, etc.) abut the proposed
buildings, a gradual transition should be provided between those areas of hard surfacing
underlain by non-frost susceptible granular wall backfill and those areas underlain by existing
frost susceptible native materials to reduce the effects of differential frost heaving. It is
suggested that granular frost tapers be constructed from the underside of footing grade to the
underside of the granular base/subbase material for the hard surfaced areas. The frost tapers
should be sloped at 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter.
Perimeter foundation drainage is not considered necessary for a slab on grade structure at this
site, provided that the floor slab level is above the finished exterior ground surface level.
5.6 Concrete Slab on Grade (Heated Areas Only)
To provide predictable settlement performance of the concrete slab on grade, all fill and
possible fill material should be removed from below the slab areas. Following removal of these
materials, and prior to placement of any grade raise fill material, the subgrade surface should be
proof rolled with a large (10 tonne minimum) vibratory drum roller under the supervision of a
geotechnical engineer. Any soft areas determined from the proof rolling should be
subexcavated and replaced with suitable granular material (i.e., OPSS Granular B Type I or II).
The grade within the proposed addition could then be raised, where necessary, with imported
granular material conforming to OPSS requirements for Granular B Type I or II. The granular
base for the proposed slab on grade should consist of at least 150 millimetres of OPSS
Granular A.
City of Ottawa documents allow recycled asphaltic concrete and concrete to be used in
Granular A and Granular B Type I materials. Since the source of recycled material cannot be
determined, it is suggested that any granular materials used beneath the floor slabs be
composed of virgin material only, for environmental purposes.
The Granular A and Granular B Type I or II should be compacted in maximum 200 millimetre
thick lifts to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value using suitable vibratory
equipment.
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 11
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)If any areas of the proposed building addition are to remain unheated during the winter period,
thermal protection of the slab on grade may be required. Further details on the insulation
requirements could be provided, if necessary.
The floor slab should be wet cured to minimize shrinkage cracking and slab curling. The slab
should be saw cut to about 1/3 the thickness of the slab as soon as curing of the concrete
permits, in order to minimize shrinkage cracks.
5.7 Storage Building
5.7.1 General
If strip footings are anticipated for the storage building at this site, the recommendations
provided in Section 5.2.1 to Section 5.2.3 apply for the construction of the storage building as
well. If a pier foundation is anticipated, the following design and construction guidelines are
provided.
5.7.2 Pier Foundation
For piers founded at 1.8 metres below ground surface, the subgrade soil at the storage building
location consists mainly of grey brown silty clay (weathered crust).
Based on the subsurface conditions which were encountered in the boreholes, the structure
could be supported on piers bearing on or within native, undisturbed deposits of silty clay and
sized using:
geotechnical reaction at Serviceability Limit State (SLS) of 90 kilopascals;
factored geotechnical resistance at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of 150 kilopascals.
If the piers are supported on conventional concrete pad footings, the foundation bearing values
and sizes given in Table 5.1 may be used.
Relatively small diameter pier foundations are more susceptible to a “punching” type of failure
than larger pad footings. As such, consideration should be given to supporting the concrete
piers on conventional concrete pad footings. The larger pad footings will also allow for greater
structural capacity and in turn, less piers to support the structure.
The post construction total and differential settlement of the piers should be less than
25 millimetres and 20 millimetres, respectively, provided that all loose and disturbed soil has
been removed from the bottom of the excavation prior to pouring the concrete piers.
The piers at this site should be provided with a minimum 1.8 metres of earth cover for frost
protection purposes.
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 12
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)The soil on this site was found to be frost susceptible. It is therefore recommended that in order
to prevent adfreeze of the soil to the concrete and possible frost jacking, the concrete for the
piers should be placed within formwork (i.e. sonotubes or a steel form). The unsupported
portion of the formwork should be braced to reduce shifting during concrete and backfill
placement. The concrete piers should be backfilled with free draining, non-frost susceptible soil
such as OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type II, and placed in maximum 200 millimetre thick
lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density value using
suitable vibratory compaction equipment.
Alternatively, if the piers are augered and cast in place, or backfilled with the native soil, the
piers should be provided with a bond break such as 2 layers of 6 MIL polyethylene sheeting.
5.8 Grade Raise Restrictions
The firm grey silty clay deposit found below the weathered crust has a limited capacity to
support loads from footings and grade raise fill material. The geotechnical guidelines below
assume that the finished grade elevation at the site will be about +/- 150 millimetres of the
original ground surface on site (i.e., approximately 95.0 metres, geodetic) as found at the
locations of boreholes 14-1 and 14-2. If consideration is being given to raising the grade at the
site, the bearing pressures outlined in Sections 5.3 and 5.6 will need to be reduced accordingly.
5.9 Frost Protection of Foundations
All exterior footings and footings in heated portions of the proposed buildings should be
provided with at least 1.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Isolated,
unheated exterior footings and/or piers adjacent to surfaces which are cleaned of snow cover
during the winter months should be provided with a minimum of 1.8 metres of earth cover.
Alternatively, the required frost protection could be provided by means of a combination of earth
cover and extruded polystyrene insulation. An insulation detail could be provided upon request.
5.10 Seismic Site Classification and Liquefaction Potential
The subsurface conditions at the site are composed of fill over native deposits of silty clay,
sandy silt, and glacial till. Bedrock was inferred in boreholes 14-1, 14-3, and 14-4 at depths
ranging from about 4.5 to 7.0 metres below ground surface.
Based on the soil and groundwater conditions encountered together with the results of the in
situ testing, there is a potential for liquefaction of the sandy silt layer during a significant seismic
event. The amount of settlement of the liquefiable soils could be up to 50 millimetres.
Based on the results of this investigation, Site Class F should be used for the seismic design of
the addition and storage shed if the footings are constructed on the native overburden deposits
or on a pad of engineered fill above the native deposits. The potential for seismic liquefaction of
the soils at this site was made solely on the results of five (5) standard penetration tests. The
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 13
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)results of standard penetration tests in sandy soils below the groundwater can be influenced by
soil disturbance caused by drilling techniques/methodology. To further assess the potential for
seismic liquefaction of these soils, a seismic cone penetration test could be carried out. The
results of this test could change the Site Class and liquefaction potential.
6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Winter Construction
In the event that construction is required during freezing temperatures, the soil below the
footings should be protected immediately from freezing using straw, propane heaters and
insulated tarpaulins, or other suitable means.
Any excavations should be opened for as short a time as practicable and the excavations
should be carried out only in lengths which allow all of the construction operations, including
backfilling, to be fully completed in one working day. The materials on the sides of the
excavations should not be allowed to freeze. In addition, the backfill should be excavated,
stored and replaced without being disturbed by frost or contaminated by snow or ice.
6.2 Disposal of Excess Soil
It is noted that the professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical
aspects of the subsurface conditions at this site. The presence or implications of possible
surface and/or subsurface contamination, including naturally occurring sources of
contamination, are outside the terms of reference for this report. This report does not constitute
a contaminated material management plan or an excess soil management plan.
6.3 Effects of Construction Induced Vibration
Some of the construction operations (such as granular material compaction, excavation, etc.)
will cause ground vibration on and off of the site. The vibrations will attenuate with distance
from the source, but may be felt at nearby structures. The magnitude of the vibrations will be
much less than that required to cause damage to the nearby structures or services in good
condition.
6.4 Design Review and Construction Observation
The details for the proposed construction were not available to us at the time of preparation of
this report. It is recommended that the final design drawings be reviewed by the geotechnical
engineer as the design progresses to ensure that the guidelines provided in this report have
been interpreted as intended.
The engagement of the services of the geotechnical consultant during construction is
recommended to confirm that the subsurface conditions throughout the proposed excavations
do not materially differ from those given in the report and that the construction activities do not
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 14
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)adversely affect the intent of the design. The subgrade surfaces for the proposed storage
building and store addition should be inspected by experienced geotechnical personnel to
ensure that suitable materials have been reached and properly prepared. The placing and
compaction of earth fill and imported granular materials should be inspected to ensure that the
materials used conform to the grading and compaction specifications.
We trust this report provides sufficient information for your present purposes. If you have any
questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
06 Jan 2015
Luc Bouchard, P.Eng.
06 Jan 2015
Craig Houle, M.Eng., P.Eng.
Principal
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd. 15
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)SITE LOCATION
Project Drawing
6379 PERTH STREET, RICHMOND, ON
KEY PLAN
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIVATION
Drawn By Date Project No. Revision No.
P.C. December 2014 14-564 FIGURE 1 0LEGEND
1
BH .99 BOREHOLE LOCATION IN PLAN
99 (current investigation by Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.)
BENCHMARK
PERTH STREET
NAIL IN UTILITY POLE
ELEVATION 94.75 METRES
KEY PLAN
(NOT TO SCALE)
-1
14 3
BH 4.9
9
PROPOSED NEW ONE STOREY
ADDITION
EXISTING ONE STOREY
BUILDING
PERTH STREET
EXISTING CATCH BASIN
ELEVATION 95.00 METRES
-2
14 2
H
B 51 .
9
-4 -3
14 0 14 8
BH 4.8 PROPOSED BH 4.8
9 9
NEW ONE STOREY
OPEN AIRED STORAGE BLDG.
Scale
1:500
0 10 20 30m
Houle Chevrier Engineering
180 Wescar Lane
Ottawa ON
Tel: (613) 836-1422
www.hceng.ca
info@hceng.ca
Client Project
Argue Construction Ltd. 14-564
Location
6379 PERTH STREET, RICHMOND, ON
Drwn by Chkd by
BOREHOLE LOCATION
PC LB PLAN
Date Rev.
December 15, 2014 0 FIGURE 2APPENDIX A
Record of Borehole Sheets
List of Abbreviations and Terminology
Figure A1 and A2
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd.
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
SAMPLE TYPES
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
AS auger sample
CA casing sample Relative Density ‘N’ Value
CS chunk sample
DO drive open Very Loose 0 to 4
MS manual sample Loose 4 to 10
RC rock core Compact 10 to 30
ST slotted tube Dense 30 to 50
TO thin-walled open Shelby tube Very Dense over 50
TP thin-walled piston Shelby tube
WS wash sample
Consistency Undrained Shear Strength
PENETRATION RESISTANCE (kPa)
Standard Penetration Resistance, N Very soft 0 to 12
The number of blows by a 63.5 kg hammer dropped Soft 12 to 25
760 millimetre required to drive a 50 mm drive open Firm 25 to 50
sampler for a distance of 300 mm. For split spoon Stiff 50 to 100
samples where less than 300 mm of penetration Very Stiff over 100
was achieved, the number of blows is reported over
the sampler penetration in mm.
LIST OF COMMON SYMBOLS
Dynamic Penetration Resistance
The number of blows by a 63.5 kg hammer dropped cu undrained shear strength
o
760 mm to drive a 50 mm diameter, 60 cone e void ratio
attached to ‘A’ size drill rods for a distance of 300 Cc compression index
mm. cv coefficient of consolidation
k coefficient of permeability
WH Ip plasticity index
Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer and n porosity
drill rods. u pore pressure
w moisture content
WR wL liquid limit
Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rods. wP plastic limit
1
φ effective angle of friction
PH γ unit weight of soil
Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure from drill γ
1
unit weight of submerged soil
rig. σ normal stress
PM
Sampler advanced by manual pressure.
SOIL TESTS
C consolidation test
H hydrometer analysis
M sieve analysis
MH sieve and hydrometer analysis
U unconfined compression test
Q undrained triaxial test
V field vane, undisturbed and remoulded shear
strength
Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.PROJECT: 14-564 RECORD OF BOREHOLE 14-1 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: December 4, 2014 SPT HAMMER: 63.5 kg; drop 0.76 m
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
BORING METHOD
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m k, cm/s
DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
METRES
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
OR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
SHEAR STRENGTH nat. V - Q- WATER CONTENT, PERCENT STANDPIPE
DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION
DEPTH Cu, kPa rem. V - U- W
Wp Wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
Ground Surface 94.93
0 Borehole
Grey, crushed sand and gravel, trace
silt (FILL) backfilled
1 C.S. - with auger
94.55 cuttings
Brown, fine to medium grained sand, 0.38
some silt and gravel, trace clay, 2 C.S. -
possible cobbles (FILL)
94.11
Grey brown silty clay, trace sand and 0.82
1 gravel (POSSIBLE FILL)
3 50 9
D.O.
93.41
1.52
Very stiff to stiff, grey brown SILT
AND CLAY (WEATHERED CRUST)
4 50 8 MH
D.O.
2
5 50 1
D.O.
200mm Diameter Hollow Stem Auger
3 91.88
Soft to firm, grey CLAYEY SILT, some 3.05
silt seams/layers
Power Auger
A 50 1
D.O.
4
6 50 1
D.O.
90.35
12-17-14
Very loose, grey SANDY SILT, trace 4.58
clay
90.08
Very loose, grey SANDY SILT 4.85 B 50 3
D.O.
BOREHOLE RECORD 2012 WITH LAB WC 14-564 BOREHOLE LOGS DECEMBER 4 2014.GPJ
5 89.90 Groundwater
Compact to dense, grey silty sand, 5.03
observed at
trace to some gravel, possible 4.35 metres
cobbles and boulders (TILL) below
ground
surface after
completion
7 50 19
of drilling.
D.O.
6
88.83
Start of CPT test 6.10
7 87.92
End of Borehole 7.01
CPT refusal on inferred bedrock
8
DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: A.N.
1 to 40 CHECKED: L.B.PROJECT: 14-564 RECORD OF BOREHOLE 14-2 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: December 4, 2014 SPT HAMMER: 63.5 kg; drop 0.76 m
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
BORING METHOD
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m k, cm/s
DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
METRES
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
OR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
SHEAR STRENGTH nat. V - Q- WATER CONTENT, PERCENT STANDPIPE
DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION
DEPTH Cu, kPa rem. V - U- W
Wp Wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
Ground Surface 95.12
0 Borehole
Grey, crushed sand and gravel, trace
silt (FILL) backfilled
with auger
94.77 cuttings
Brown, fine to medium grained sand, 0.35
some silt and gravel (FILL)
1 C.S. -
94.36
Grey brown silty clay (POSSIBLE 0.76
FILL)
1
2 50 5
D.O.
93.60
1.52
Very stiff to stiff, grey brown CLAYEY
SILT (WEATHERED CRUST)
3 50 5
D.O.
2
200mm Diameter Hollow Stem Auger
>>
>>
Power Auger
3 Groundwater
observed at
1.34 metres
below
4 50 3
ground
D.O.
91.56 surface after
3.56 completion
Loose to compact, grey SANDY SILT of drilling.
4
5 50 5
D.O.
12-17-14
6 50 12
D.O.
BOREHOLE RECORD 2012 WITH LAB WC 14-564 BOREHOLE LOGS DECEMBER 4 2014.GPJ
5 90.09
5.03
Compact, grey silty sand, some
gravel, possible cobbles and boulders
(TILL)
7 50 13
D.O.
89.18
6 End of Borehole 5.94
7
8
DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: A.N.
1 to 40 CHECKED: L.B.PROJECT: 14-564 RECORD OF BOREHOLE 14-3 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: December 4, 2014 SPT HAMMER: 63.5 kg; drop 0.76 m
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
BORING METHOD
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m k, cm/s
DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
METRES
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
OR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
SHEAR STRENGTH nat. V - Q- WATER CONTENT, PERCENT STANDPIPE
DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION
DEPTH Cu, kPa rem. V - U- W
Wp Wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
Ground Surface 94.88
0 Borehole
Grey, crushed sand and gravel, trace
silt and cobbles (FILL) 1 A.S. - backfilled
94.58 with auger
0.30 cuttings
Brown, fine to medium grained sand,
some silt and gravel (FILL) 2 C.S. -
94.29
0.59
Very stiff to stiff, grey brown SILTY
CLAY (WEATHERED CRUST)
1
3 50 7
D.O.
200mm Diameter Hollow Stem Auger
4 50 3
D.O.
2 Groundwater
observed at
Power Auger
4.54 metres
below
ground
surface after
5 50 2 completion
D.O. of drilling.
91.98
2.90
3
Stiff to firm, grey SILTY CLAY
91.07
3.81
4 Loose, grey SANDY SILT, trace clay
6 50 6
D.O.
90.56
Grey silty sand, trace to some gravel 4.32
(TILL)
12-17-14
90.16 7 50 50+
End of Borehole 4.72 D.O.
Auger refusal on inferred bedrock
BOREHOLE RECORD 2012 WITH LAB WC 14-564 BOREHOLE LOGS DECEMBER 4 2014.GPJ
5
6
7
8
DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: A.N.
1 to 40 CHECKED: L.B.PROJECT: 14-564 RECORD OF BOREHOLE 14-4 SHEET 1 OF 1
LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan, Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic
BORING DATE: December 4, 2014 SPT HAMMER: 63.5 kg; drop 0.76 m
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY,
BORING METHOD
RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m k, cm/s
DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
METRES
BLOWS/0.3m
20 40 60 80
OR
NUMBER
ELEV.
TYPE
SHEAR STRENGTH nat. V - Q- WATER CONTENT, PERCENT STANDPIPE
DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION
DEPTH Cu, kPa rem. V - U- W
Wp Wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
Ground Surface 94.80
0 Borehole
Grey, crushed sand and gravel, trace
silt (FILL) backfilled
1 A.S. - with auger
cuttings
94.39
Grey brown silty clay (FILL) 0.41
- A geotextile overlying a white
perforated drainage pipe was 2 C.S. -
encountered in the fill material 93.96
0.84
1 Very stiff to stiff, grey brown SILTY
CLAY (WEATHERED CRUST)
3 50 7
D.O.
200mm Diameter Hollow Stem Auger
4 50 3
D.O.
2
Power Auger
Groundwater
observed at
>> 2.0 metres
below
ground
3 surface after
completion
of drilling.
91.52
3.28 5 50 5
Loose, grey SANDY SILT, trace clay D.O.
4
6 50 5
D.O.
90.30
End of Borehole 4.50
12-17-14
Auger refusal on inferred bedrock
BOREHOLE RECORD 2012 WITH LAB WC 14-564 BOREHOLE LOGS DECEMBER 4 2014.GPJ
5
6
7
8
DEPTH SCALE LOGGED: A.N.
1 to 40 CHECKED: L.B.GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE A1
Sieve Size, mm
75.0 50.0 26.5 13.2 .180
63.0 37.5 19.0 9.5 4.75 2.00 .850 .425 .250 .150 .075
100
90
80
70
60
% Passing
50
40
30
20
10
SOILS GRAIN SIZE GRAPH UNIFIED 14-564 BOREHOLE LOGS DECEMBER 4 2014.GPJ HOULE CHEVRIER FEB 9 2011.GDT 12-17-14
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size, mm
COBBLES
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
SILT AND CLAY
GRAVEL SAND
Legend Borehole Sample Depth (m)
14-1 4 1.5 - 2.1
Date: December 2014
Project: 14-564PLASTICITY CHART FIGURE A2
LOW HIGH
60 "U" LINE "A" LINE
Group Symbol
CL = Lean Clay
ML = Silt
CH = Fat Clay
50 MH = Elastic Silt
CL - ML = Silty Clay
OL (Above "A" Line) = Organic Clay
OL (Below "A" Line) = Organic Silt
OH (Above "A" Line) = Organic Clay
OH (Below "A" Line) = Organic Silt
40
CH or OH
Plasticity Index, PI
30
CL or OL
20
MH or OH
HCE ATTERBERG LIMITS 14-564 BOREHOLE LOGS DECEMBER 4 2014.GPJ HOULE CHEVRIER FEB 9 2011.GDT 12-17-14
10
7
CL - ML ML or OL
4
0
0 16 20 40 60 80 100
Liquid Limit, %
Legend Borehole Sample Depth (m) LL % PL % PI %
14-1 4 1.5 - 2.1 50.7 20.9 29.8
14-2 5 3.8 - 4.4 17.8 16.5 1.2
Date: December 2014
Project: 14-564APPENDIX B
Soil Chemistry Relating to Corrosion
Paracel Laboratories Report No.1450068
Report to: Argue Construction Ltd.
Project: 14-564 (January 6, 2015)Certificate of Analysis
Houle Chevrier
180 Wescar Lane Phone: (613) 836-1422
Ottawa, ON K0A1L0 Fax: (613) 836-9731
Attn: Luc Bouchard
Client PO: Report Date: 11-Dec-2014
Project: 14-564 Order Date: 8-Dec-2014
Custody: 103647 Order #: 1450068
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:
Paracel ID Client ID
1450068-01 BH14-2 SA-3
Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BSc
Approved By: Laboratory Director
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you
for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work
Page 1 of 7Order #: 1450068
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 11-Dec-2014
Client: Houle Chevrier Order Date:8-Dec-2014
Client PO: Project Description: 14-564
Analysis Summary Table
Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date
Anions EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction 10-Dec-14 10-Dec-14
Conductivity MOE E3138 - probe @25 °C, water ext 10-Dec-14 10-Dec-14
pH EPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 9-Dec-14 10-Dec-14
Solids, % Gravimetric, calculation 9-Dec-14 9-Dec-14
Page 2 of 7Order #: 1450068
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 11-Dec-2014
Client: Houle Chevrier Order Date:8-Dec-2014
Client PO: Project Description: 14-564
Client ID: BH14-2 SA-3 - - -
Sample Date: 04-Dec-14 - - -
Sample ID: 1450068-01 - - -
MDL/Units Soil - - -
Physical Characteristics
% Solids 0.1 % by Wt. 67.6 - - -
General Inorganics
Conductivity 5 uS/cm 237 - - -
pH 0.05 pH Units 7.15 - - -
Anions
Chloride 5 ug/g dry 30 - - -
Sulphate 5 ug/g dry 48 - - -
Page 3 of 7Order #: 1450068
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 11-Dec-2014
Client: Houle Chevrier Order Date:8-Dec-2014
Client PO: Project Description: 14-564
Method Quality Control: Blank
Reporting Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes
Anions
Chloride ND 5 ug/g
Sulphate ND 5 ug/g
General Inorganics
Conductivity ND 5 uS/cm
Page 4 of 7Order #: 1450068
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 11-Dec-2014
Client: Houle Chevrier Order Date:8-Dec-2014
Client PO: Project Description: 14-564
Method Quality Control: Duplicate
Reporting Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Limit Units Result %REC Limit RPD Limit Notes
Anions
Chloride 6.4 5 ug/g dry 6.3 1.6 20
Sulphate 10.2 5 ug/g dry 10.1 1.3 20
General Inorganics
Conductivity 245 5 uS/cm 237 3.1 6.2
pH 6.05 0.05 pH Units 6.04 0.2 10
Physical Characteristics
% Solids 92.2 0.1 % by Wt. 92.2 0.0 25
Page 5 of 7Order #: 1450068
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 11-Dec-2014
Client: Houle Chevrier Order Date:8-Dec-2014
Client PO: Project Description: 14-564
Method Quality Control: Spike
Reporting Source %REC RPD
Analyte Result Limit Units %REC RPD Limit Notes
Result Limit
Anions
Chloride 9.1 mg/L 0.6 84.4 78-113
Sulphate 10.6 mg/L 1.01 95.9 78-111
Page 6 of 7Order #: 1450068
Certificate of Analysis Report Date: 11-Dec-2014
Client: Houle Chevrier Order Date:8-Dec-2014
Client PO: Project Description: 14-564
Qualifier Notes:
None
Sample Data Revisions
None
Work Order Revisions / Comments:
None
Other Report Notes:
n/a: not applicable
ND: Not Detected
MDL: Method Detection Limit
Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples
%REC: Percent recovery.
RPD: Relative percent difference.
Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'.
Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.
Page 7 of 7geotechnical
environmental
hydrogeology
materials testing & inspection
experience • knowledge • reliabilityYou can also read
