Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Retirement Residence Goulbourn Forced Road Ottawa, Ontario

Transcription

1 REPORT February 205 REPORT ON Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Retirement Residence Goulbourn Forced Road Ottawa, Ontario Submitted to: Dan Roach, AIA Hawthorne Development LLC c/o Lenity Architecture 350 Kettle Court SE, Salem, Oregon 9730 Report Number: Distribution: e-copy - Lenity Architecture copy - Golder Associates Ltd.

2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Table of Contents.0 INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE FIELD INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Topsoil Fill Sandy Silty Clay Glacial Till Auger Refusal and Bedrock Groundwater Conditions Corrosion Testing DISCUSSION General Overview and Key Geotechnical Design Considerations Site Preparation and Engineered Fill Requirements Foundation Design Input Frost Protection Site Classification for Seismic Site Response Reuse of Existing Fill Materials Slab on Grade Foundation Backfill and Drainage Temporary Excavations Temporary Dewatering Site Servicing - Bedding and Backfill Pavement Design Corrosion and Cement Type Trees ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS CLOSURE... 9 February 205 Report No i

3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Important Information and Limitations of This Report TABLES Table Some Common Trees in Decreasing Order of Water Demand FIGURES Figure Borehole and Test Pit Location Plan Figure 2 Grain Size Distribution Sandy Silty Clay Figure 3 Footing Transition Detail Bedrock to Overburden Figure 4 Typical Footing Insulation Detail APPENDICES APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Record of Borehole Sheets Current Investigation Table A- Record of Test Pits Previous Investigation Figure A- APPENDIX B Results of Chemical Analysis Exova Laboratories Report No February 205 Report No ii

4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO.0 INTRODUCTION As requested by Hawthorne Development LLC c/o Lenity Architecture (Lenity), Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has completed a geotechnical investigation for a proposed retirement residence located off of Goulbourn Forced Road in Ottawa, Ontario (see Figure ). This report presents the results of the recently completed drilling investigation. The purpose of this subsurface investigation was to determine the general soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions across the site by means of advancing a limited number of boreholes at the site. Based on an interpretation of the factual information obtained from the drilling investigation and existing subsurface information available from a preliminary test pit investigation at this site, a general description of the subsurface conditions is presented herein. These interpreted subsurface conditions in conjunction with available project details were used to provide preliminary engineering input on the geotechnical design aspects of the project, including construction considerations which could influence design decisions. The reader is referred to the Important Information and Limitation of This Report which follows the text but forms and integral part of this report. February 205 Report No

5 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE The following is understood about the proposed development: The site is bounded by Goulbourn Forced Road to the west, undeveloped properties to the north and south and Leverton Road and existing residential properties to the east/northeast as shown on Figure, attached. The property is about 3.9 acres in size and is currently undeveloped. The proposed development is planned to consist of a four-storey, slab-on-grade, wood frame structure without a basement that encompasses an area of approximately 3,875 square metres. The long-axis of the building is oriented in an approximate southwest-northeast direction; for the purposes of this report, the section of the building closest to Goulbourn Forced Road is considered to be the west portion of the building and the portion closest to Leverton Road is considered to be the east/northeast portion of the building. The remainder of the site will generally consist of access road/parking and landscaped areas. The current ground surface elevations (Geodetic Datum) at the site range from about 03.5 metres near the turning circle on Goulbourn Forced Road to about 07.5 metres near Leverton Road. Preliminary information provided indicates that the finished floor slab elevation will be just under 07 metres. Therefore, it is anticipated that raising of the site grades by about 3 metres will be required in the northwest/north portions of the property to level the site for development. Golder previously carried out a preliminary test pit investigation at the site. The results of the preliminary investigation were presented in the following document: Letter to Lenity Architecture titled Preliminary Test Pit Investigation Proposed Retirement Residence Goulbourn Forced Road Ottawa, Ontario dated January 205 (Letter Number (000)). The subsurface conditions encountered in the fourteen test pits advanced during the previous investigation are shown on the Record of Test Pits contained in Table A- in Appendix A of this report and the approximate test pit locations are displayed on Figure. Golder has also carried out geotechnical investigations for numerous other projects in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. Based on review of this available in-house information and site observations, the subsurface conditions were expected to consist of the following: The southern portions of the site are expected to be underlain by Precambrian bedrock at surface or at shallow depth. The bedrock surface dips/slopes down from a high near the south-central portion of the property towards the north and northwest. Based on previous investigations carried out in close proximity to the site, the bedrock surface can undulate significantly over short distances and the bedrock can be overlain by highly compressible clayey soils. In addition, the north/northwestern portions of the site are low-lying and contain marsh-type vegetation. February 205 Report No

6 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Review of historic air photos of the site indicates that a layer of fill with very large rock fragments appears to have been placed in the northeastern portion of the property (see photograph below). Based on the results of the previous test pit investigation, it is known that the fill extends to depths of up to several metres below existing ground surface within the north and northeast section of the site. There are also fill stockpiles evident in the central portion of the site and proposed building area Airphoto of Site Areas of Fill Placement Visible in North/Northeastern Section of Site February 205 Report No

7 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES The field work for this investigation was carried out on January 2, 205 at which time eight boreholes (numbered 4-2/2A, 4-2B, 4-2C, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-5A, 4-6 and 4-7/7A, inclusive) were put down at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The boreholes were advanced using a track-mounted hollow stem auger drill rig supplied and operated by Marathon Drilling of Ottawa, Ontario. Fourteen (4) test pits, designated as Test Pits 4- to 4-8 and 4-A to 4-F were previously advanced at the site on January 2, 205. Borehole 4-2 encountered auger refusal on obstructions within the fill materials at the site. Three additional attempts (4-2A located adjacent to the original 4-2 location and 4-2B and 4-2C which were offset approximately 4 metres south and 4 metres east of BH4-2, respectively) were made to penetrate through the existing fill materials near the location of Borehole 4-2. Each of these further attempts encountered auger refusal within the fill. Due to the difficulties penetrating through the fill, Borehole 4- which was planned to be drilled near the northeast corner of the building was deleted from the drilling program. Boreholes 4-5A and 4-7/7A were added to the investigation program in order to provide additional information on the consistency of the native clayey soils and better define the depth to auger refusal in the northern portion of the site. The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from about 0.2 to 2.95 metres below the existing ground surface. The test pits previously advanced during the preliminary investigation were extended to depths of between 0 metres (bedrock at surface) and 5 metres below ground surface using a track-mounted excavator. The test pits were advanced to depths of between 0 metres (bedrock at surface) and 5 metres below ground surface using a track-mounted excavator at the approximate locations displayed on Figure. Within the boreholes, standard penetration tests (SPTs) (ASTM D586) were carried out at regular intervals of depth and soil samples were recovered using split spoon sampling equipment. In situ shear vane testing was carried out within the native clayey soils immediately below the location where the lowest SPT N value was measured to provide information on the shear strength of the clayey soils. To allow for subsequent measurement of the groundwater level, a standpipe piezometer was installed in Borehole 4-5A. Water level measurements were taken in the standpipe on February 2, 205. The field work was observed by a member of our geotechnical staff who located the boreholes, monitored the drilling operations, logged the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes, directed the in situ testing, and took custody of samples. On completion of drilling, soil samples were transported to our Ottawa and Mississauga laboratories for examination by the project engineer and for laboratory testing. Index and classification tests, including a grain size distribution test, water content determinations and Atterberg limit testing, were carried out on selected soil samples. One sample of soil from Test Pit 4-5, advanced during the preliminary investigation phase, was submitted to Exova Laboratories for basic chemical analysis related to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and potential corrosion of buried ferrous elements. The borehole locations were selected, staked in the field, and subsequently surveyed by Golder Associates personnel. The locations and Geodetic elevations at Boreholes 4-2 to 4-6 were determined using a Trimble R8 GPS unit. The locations of Boreholes 4-2B, 4-2C, and 4-7/7A, which were added to the investigation program after the borehole survey was completed, were not surveyed; the locations of these boreholes referenced in this report should be considered approximate only. February 205 Report No

8 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4. General The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes advanced for the current investigation are shown on the Record of Borehole sheets included in Appendix A. The subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits advanced during the preliminary investigation at the site, along with laboratory testing completed at that time, are also provided in Table A- in Appendix A. The results of the basic chemical analysis carried out on one sample of soil from Test Pit 4-5 are provided in Appendix B. The subsurface conditions at this site generally consist of surficial topsoil and/or fill overlying stiff to very stiff, sandy silty clay over gabbro/diorite bedrock. The bedrock is present at ground surface in the southern and western portions of the site. A discontinuous layer of glacial till was encountered beneath the silty clay soils/directly above the bedrock at some test pit and borehole locations. Practical refusal to augering or test pit excavation was encountered at depths ranging from about 0.05 to 5 metres below ground surface. The elevation at which refusal was encountered typically decreases towards the north (i.e. the bedrock surface slopes towards the north). The following sections present an overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes for the current investigation. The results of the previous test pit investigation by Golder have been used to supplement the information obtained during the current investigation. 4.2 Topsoil Topsoil was encountered at the ground surface at the majority of the test pit and borehole locations. The topsoil varies in composition from silty sand/sandy silt to silty clay, is brown to black in colour and contains roots and organic matter. The topsoil thickness was measured to range from approximately 0.05 to. metres in thickness with the thicker topsoil materials typically encountered in the northern and western portions of the site. Laboratory testing indicates that a sample of the topsoil from Borehole BH7/7A had a natural moisture content of approximately 52 percent, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the soil. 4.3 Fill Fill was encountered at Boreholes 4-2/2A, 4-2B, 4-2C and 4-3, and Test Pits 4-4 to 4-8 which were advanced in the central and northeastern/eastern portions of the site (including the central and northeastern/eastern portion of the proposed building footprint). The fill is typically dark brown in colour and highly variable in composition ranging from sandy silt/silty sand/sand to silty clay. The fill was noted to contain significant quantities of large rock fragments (i.e., cobbles and boulders) as well as debris (e.g., wood, bricks, concrete) and organic matter. The fill was encountered to depths ranging from approximately 0.3 to 2.9 metres below ground surface with the fill in the eastern/northeastern portion of the site and building envelope typically being at least.7 metres thick. Possible fill materials were encountered beneath the topsoil at Boreholes 4-4 and 4-5. These materials were comprised of silty clay and contained cobbles at Borehole 4-5. Standard penetration tests (SPTs) carried out within the fill at the locations of Boreholes 4-2/2A, 4-2B and 4-2C varied from 5 blows to greater than 50 per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicating the consistency/density of the fill is highly variable. February 205 Report No

9 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Boreholes 4-2/2A, 4-2B and 4-2C encountered auger refusal on obstructions (possibly cobbles or boulders) within the fill at depths of between about.2 and.6 metres below ground surface. As noted above, stockpiles of fill materials were also visible in the central portion of the proposed building envelope. 4.4 Sandy Silty Clay Native deposits of grey-brown silty clay were encountered below the topsoil and/or fill in Boreholes 4-3, 4-4, 4-5 and 4-7/7A as well as at the locations of Test Pits 4- to 4-3 and 4-4 to 4-7. The silty clay deposits contained varying amounts of sand but were composed of sandy silty clay in many areas. The grey brown silty clay to sandy silty clay was encountered to depths ranging from to 4.8 metres below ground surface. At the locations of Test Pits 4- and 4-2 (in the northwest portion of the site), a deposit of fissured and layered, light grey, very stiff silty clay/clay was encountered beneath the grey-brown sandy silty clay. This light grey clay contained fine sand partings and was encountered to depths of 4. to 4.6 metres below ground surface. Standard penetration tests carried out within the grey-brown silty clay/sandy silty clay materials measured SPT N resistance values ranging from 6 to 53 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration. In situ vane shear testing was attempted at a depth of about 2.5 metres below ground surface at the location of Borehole 4-5A (i.e. immediately below the lowest SPT N value measured within the silty clay materials at the site) using an N-sized vane. The vane was not able to be turned indicating the silty clay materials at that location have a shear strength in excess of about 96 kilopascals. Based on the SPT N values, vane shear test results and manual examination of the samples, the clayey soils are considered to generally have a stiff to very stiff consistency. Laboratory test results carried out on samples of the silty clay soils measured natural moisture contents of between approximately 23 and 37 percent, Liquid Limits of approximately 37 to 43 percent and Plastic Limits of about 9 to 2 percent. The results of grain size distribution testing on two samples of the clayey soils are displayed on Figure 2 and on Figure A- in Appendix A; the test results indicate that the samples tested consisted of sandy silty clay. 4.5 Glacial Till Deposits of glacial till were encountered beneath the silty clay deposits in Borehole 4-7 and Test Pit 4-6. The glacial till was comprised of silty sand containing minor amounts of clay and gravel. Although not encountered at the borehole/test pit location, the till deposits are expected to contain cobbles and boulders. The glacial till deposits were approximately 0.2 to 0.3 metres thick at the above noted test locations. A SPT N value of greater than 50 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration were measured within the glacial till at Borehole 4-7 indicating the till at that location was very dense. Laboratory testing carried out on a sample of the till from Borehole 4-7/7A measured a natural moisture content of approximately 3 percent. 4.6 Auger Refusal and Bedrock Outcrops of precambrian gabbro/diorite bedrock are present at or very near ground surface over much of the south/southwest portions of the site (including the south end and portions of the central and west sections of the proposed building envelope). February 205 Report No

10 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Test Pits 4-A to 4-F which were excavated in the south and south-central portions of the proposed building envelope encountered bedrock at ground surface to depths of up to 0.6 metres below ground surface. The remaining test pits were terminated at depths of.7 metres to 5 metres due to refusal to further excavation on bedrock/inferred bedrock. Based on the test pit investigation, the bedrock surface typically slopes down towards from a high point located near the middle of the southern boundary of the site towards the northwest, north and northeast. Practical refusal to augering was encountered at Boreholes 4-3 to 4-7/7A at depths ranging from about 0.2 to 3 metres below the existing ground surface. Auger refusal at these boreholes likely indicates the bedrock surface; however, it could also represent cobbles and/or boulders within the glacial till that was encountered immediately above the bedrock at some borehole/test pit locations. The bedrock surface is erratic, with a high point located near the middle of the southern boundary of the site. The elevation of auger refusal and test pit refusal varied from approximately 05 to 07 metres in the southern portion of the site to between 99 and 03 metres in the northern portion of the site. 4.7 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage/inflow was noted in Test Pits 4- to 4-8. The seepage was typically noted at or immediately above the bedrock surface except at Test Pit 4-2, where the seepage was encountered at a depth of 2.8 metres below ground surface. A standpipe piezometer was installed in the lower northern portion of the site at Borehole 5-5A as part of the current investigation. The groundwater level in the piezometer was measured to be a depth of approximately.7 metres below ground surface corresponding to an elevation of about 02.4 metres on February 2, 205. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally. Higher groundwater levels are expected during or following periods of wet weather and/or snowmelt. 4.8 Corrosion Testing One soil sample from Test Pit 4-5 was submitted to Exova Laboratories Ltd. for basic chemical analysis related to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and corrosion of buried ferrous elements. The results of this testing are provided in Appendix B and are summarized below. Test Pit and Sample Number Sample Depth (m) Chloride (%) SO 4 (%) ph Resistivity (Ohm-cm) TP 4-5 Sa < February 205 Report No

11 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 5.0 DISCUSSION 5. General This section of the report provides preliminary input regarding geotechnical design aspects of the proposed building. The geotechnical recommendations provided are based on our interpretation of the available subsurface information and on our understanding of the project requirements. Since the final building configuration, including foundation types/sizes, final floor slab elevation and structural loads etc., are not known at this time, all geotechnical comments related to foundation design provided in this report should be considered preliminary in nature and will need to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised once this information becomes available. The foundation engineering guidelines presented in this section of the report have been developed in a manner consistent with Part 4 of the 202 Ontario Building Code (OBC) for Limit States Design. Reference should be made to the Important Information and Limitations of This Report which follows the text of this report but forms an integral part of this document. 5.2 Overview and Key Geotechnical Design Considerations More detailed geotechnical comments are provided in the following sections of this report; however, the following summarizes some key issues associated with the proposed development of the site. The subsurface conditions on this site consist of surficial fill materials, which were encountered to depths of up to about 3 metres at the test pit locations, and topsoil overlying overburden soils which are typically comprised of sandy silty clay, clay and glacial till. Bedrock is present at ground surface in some areas and below the fill and overburden soils in other areas including the northern and eastern portions of the site. The surficial topsoil and fill materials at the site are unsuitable for the support of foundations, floor slabs or other settlement-sensitive facilities and will need to be completely removed from within the building footprint (and the zone of influence of building foundations) and replaced with properly placed, engineered fill materials. The fill containing organic matter and debris should also be removed from beneath access road/parking areas for predictable settlement performance of the pavement. Consideration could be given to leaving the existing fill materials in place beneath landscape areas provided that some long-term, post-construction settlement and differential movement due to frost action is considered acceptable. The existing fill materials were noted to contain organic matter, debris (including brick, concrete and wood pieces), as well as significant quantities of cobbles and boulders. Fill containing these materials is not suitable for reuse as engineered fill. The subsurface conditions vary across the site with shallow bedrock present in the southern, central and southwestern portions of the site. Deposits of sandy silty clay to clay were encountered above the bedrock at the majority of the test pit locations in the northern and eastern portions of the site. Based on the results of the subsurface investigations, the clayey soils are considered to have a stiff to very stiff consistency. Based on preliminary information, a grade raise of up to about 3 metres will be required to raise the northern portions of the site to design grades. From a foundation design perspective, the anticipated grade raise (i.e., up to about 3 metres), is not considered to result in settlements of the underlying soils that would adversely affect the performance of the proposed facilities. Therefore, the use of shallow foundations February 205 Report No

12 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO bearing on the bedrock, native silty clay deposits or engineered fill materials placed above these materials is considered feasible for development of the building at this site. However, the design of the building foundations will need to incorporate measures to limit the potential for differential settlement that could result at the transition between overburden and bedrock due to the different settlement properties of these materials. The test pits excavated during the preliminary investigation were loosely backfilled on completion of the excavating activities and settlement of the backfill is expected. The test pits were typically located outside of the footprint of the proposed building in order to minimize the potential for such settlement to affect the proposed structure. However, Test Pit 4-7 was located within the building footprint. As part of the site preparation works, all disturbed soils from within this test pit (and any other test pit located beneath settlement-sensitive structures or facilities) should be subexcavated and replaced with approved engineered fill materials. 5.3 Site Preparation and Engineered Fill Requirements Detailed information on the proposed final floor slab elevation and site grades was not available at the time of preparation of this report. However, based on preliminary information on the proposed floor slab elevation and the existing site topography, it is anticipated that placement of fill up to about 3 metres in thickness will be required, particularly in the northern portion of the site, to permit construction of the proposed development. Any filling carried out at the site in conjunction with regrading (with the exception of green spaces) should be carried out as an engineered fill. Topsoil was encountered to depths of up to about. metres below ground surface at Test Pit 4-E and fill materials containing cobbles/boulders, debris and organic matter were encountered to depths of up to about 3 metres below existing ground surface. The surficial topsoil and fill materials, and any softened portions of the silty clay deposits are not considered to be suitable for the support of building foundations, floor slabs, pavements or other settlement-sensitive structures or engineered fill materials that support these facilities. Prior to the placement of engineered fill materials, the surficial topsoil and any existing fill materials should be subexcavated to expose competent native deposits or bedrock. The near-surface portion of the native clayey soils may have been softened by freeze/thaw cycles; the strength/consistency of the near-surface soils could not be determined as they were frozen at the time of the subsurface investigations. Therefore, following the stripping of the topsoil and fill, inspection of the exposed subgrade materials, including hand auger holes and shear vane testing, must be carried out by experienced geotechnical personnel to confirm that the materials are suitable for subgrade support of the engineered fill materials. Portions of the subgrade soils that are softened/disturbed, excessively wet, or contain significant amounts of organics and/or deleterious materials should be removed from the building footprint, parking lot/access road areas and other settlement-sensitive sections of the site and replaced with engineered fill materials approved by the geotechnical engineer. As previously noted, Test Pit TP4-7 was located within the proposed building footprint and other test pits were excavated beneath proposed access road/parking areas. All disturbed materials associated with these test pits should also be subexcavated and replaced with engineered fill in order to minimize settlement of the proposed facilities. February 205 Report No

13 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Engineered fill within the building footprint and the zone of influence of foundations should consist of imported granular fill meeting the requirements for Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) Granular B Type II materials. Following approval of the subgrade, the underslab fill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted using suitable vibratory compaction equipment to at least 98 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). Care will be required to ensure that the prepared area extends far enough to encompass the limits of the engineered fill. The engineered fill limits are defined such that the fill extends to at least one metre beyond the outside edge of the founding level of any footing or other settlement sensitive area and then downward and outward at a slope of one horizontal to one vertical. Areas outside of the building/zone of foundation influence, requiring grade raising to the proposed subgrade level for pavements should be filled using acceptable (compactable and inorganic) approved earth borrow or OPSS Select Subgrade Material meeting the requirements of OPSS 00. These materials should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s SPMDD using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. Full-time inspection and in-situ density testing should be carried out by a qualified geotechnical engineering firm during placement of engineered fill beneath the structure and settlement sensitive areas. The final surface of the engineered fill should be protected as necessary from construction and foot traffic, and should be sloped to provide positive drainage for surface water during the construction period. If the engineered fill materials will be left exposed (i.e. uncovered) during periods of freezing weather, additional soil cover should be placed above final subgrade to provide for frost protection. Prior to placing the subbase and/or base courses, the surface of the engineered fill should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer. 5.4 Foundation Design Input The surficial fills and topsoil are not considered to be suitable for the subgrade support of building foundations or engineered fill materials that support foundations. These materials should be removed from beneath the building footprint and within the zone of influence of foundations. The native overburden soils typically consist of stiff to very stiff, sandy silty clay. For spread/strip footings founded on or within the overburden materials on this site or on/within engineered fill, the net bearing resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) may be taken as 00 kilopascals and the factored bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) may be taken as 50 kilopascals. The post construction total and differential settlements of footings sized using the above SLS bearing pressure should be less than about 25 and 5 millimetres, respectively, provided that the soil at or below founding level is not disturbed during construction. Up to 25 millimetres of differential settlement may occur between footings founded on soil relative to footings founded entirely on bedrock. Bedrock is present at ground surface or was encountered at shallow depth in the south, southwest, central and southeast portions of the building footprint. Differential settlement will result at the transitions where the subgrade at footing level changes from bedrock to overburden soils/engineered fill due to the different settlement properties of these materials. In order to limit the differential settlement, the bedrock adjacent to these transitions should be removed for a distance of at least 2 metres back and to a depth of about 0.5 metres (see Figure 3). The width of bedrock removal should be at least equal to the footing width plus 0.5 metres. The excavation should then be February 205 Report No

14 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO backfilled to the underside of footing level with nominally compacted Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) Granular A or Granular B Type II. The surface of the bedrock is quite variable. Once the final founding elevations are determined, additional field investigation should be considered to further delineate the areas of shallow bedrock in order to better define these transition zones prior to construction. The intent of the transition detail is to limit the severity of this potential differential settlement and to reduce the likelihood of cracking of the structure. In addition to the bedrock subexcavation, additional reinforcing steel may be required in the top, middle, and bottom of the foundation wall over the full length of the transition treatment and for at least metre beyond the ends of the transition treatment. The structural engineering consultant should be contacted for input on this issue. If the subgrade at the proposed founding elevation for a pad/spread footing consists of mixed conditions (i.e., both bedrock and soil), the soil should be removed to expose the underlying bedrock and replaced with low strength concrete. In addition to the above details, two options may be considered for foundation design for foundations bearing on the bedrock: Option Option 2 Found the footings directly on the bedrock or transition, and provide at least.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Where.5 metres of earth cover cannot be provided without removing bedrock and/or extensively raising the surrounding grade, the required frost protection can be achieved by insulating the footing bearing surfaces with high density rigid insulation as shown schematically on Figure 4. The factored bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) for spread/strip footings founded on or within competent gabbro/diorite bedrock may be taken as 500 kilopascals for initial design purposes; higher bearing resistances could also be considered but further review should be carried out before higher values are used. This value is also acceptable for slightly weathered bedrock. For footings bearing on or within bedrock, Serviceability Limit States (SLS) generally do not govern the design since the stresses required to induce 25 millimetre of movement (the typical SLS criteria) exceed those at the factored ULS value. Accordingly the post construction settlement of structural elements which derive their support from footings bearing on bedrock is expected to be nominal. Where the bearing surface will be insulated (Option 2), the design parameters for the footings will depend on the type of insulation used. The contact pressure on the insulation placed under the footings should not exceed about 35 percent of the insulation s quoted compressive strength due to the time dependant creep characteristics of this material. Further guidelines on foundation insulation are provided in Section 5.4. of this report. It should also be noted that the requirement for insulation could be avoided if the bedrock in that area can be shown to be free of any seams containing frost susceptible soil. However, this decision can only be made at the time of construction by drilling 50 millimetre diameter probeholes within the footing areas at a 5 metre spacing and to at least.5 metres below final exterior grades. The native soils are highly susceptible to disturbance by construction activity especially during wet or freezing weather. Care should be taken to preserve the integrity of the materials as bearing strata. It is essential that the founding level for the footings be inspected by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing concrete. If the concrete for the footings on the native soil cannot be placed immediately after excavation and inspection, it is recommended that a working mat of lean concrete be placed in the excavation to protect the integrity of the bearing stratum. February 205 Report No

15 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 5.4. Frost Protection All exterior foundation elements or foundation elements in unheated areas should be provided with a minimum of.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Isolated foundations or foundations in unheated areas which are adjacent to surfaces which are cleared of snow cover during winter months should be provided with a minimum of.8 metres of earth cover. As previously described in Section 5.4, the requirement for.5 or.8 metres of earth cover could be waived for footings founded on competent bedrock where it could be shown that the bedrock below footing level does not contain any joints filled with frost susceptible soil. Insulation of the bearing surface with high density insulation could be considered as an alternative to earth cover for frost protection. A typical detail for footing insulation is shown on Figure 4. In preparation for the insulation, a levelling mat consisting of 25 millimetres of concrete/mortar sand or lean concrete should be placed on the approved bearing surface. Care must be taken to ensure that the insulation is not damaged during construction. Joints should be carefully lap jointed and glued where and if possible. Footings may then be constructed on the insulation. The bearing pressure on the insulation placed under the footings should not exceed about 35 percent of the insulation s quoted compressive strength due to the time dependent creep characteristics of this material and should be assessed during the detailed design of the foundations. For example purposes only, the resistance for several strengths of insulation are: Insulation Type SLS Resistance (kpa) ULS Factored Resistance (kpa) Dow SM Dow Highload Dow Highload Dow Highload The insulation which projects beyond the edge of the footings can consist of Dow SM or equivalent, except beneath pavements where HI 60 should be used beyond the footing. 5.5 Site Classification for Seismic Site Response The seismic design provisions of Section of the 202 Ontario Building Code (OBC) depend, in part, on the shear wave velocity of the upper 30 metres of soil and/or rock below founding level. For preliminary assessment purposes, this site can be assigned a Site Class of C based on the subsurface stratigraphy and in situ test results encountered during this investigation. Due to the presence of bedrock at relatively shallow depth, a more favourable Site Class (e.g., Site Class A Hard Rock or B Soft Rock) value may be achievable at this site if the founding elevations are within 3 metres of the bedrock surface. The OBC requires that site-specific testing be carried out to determine the shear wave velocity of the rock before a Site Class A or B can be adopted for design. Consideration could be given to carrying out such testing at this site if a more favourable Site Class designation would provide a significant cost benefit to the building design. February 205 Report No

16 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 5.6 Reuse of Existing Fill Materials Fill was present over much of the site at the time of the investigation. The fill materials were noted to contain significant quantities of cobbles and boulders (including zones comprised predominantly of cobbles and boulders) as well as debris (concrete, brick, wood) and organic matter. Fill containing such materials is typically not suitable for reuse as engineered fill beneath building, pavements or other settlement sensitive areas. 5.7 Slab on Grade It is considered that conventional slab-on-grade construction could be used for the proposed building provided the existing topsoil and fill materials are removed and replaced with engineered fill materials. Based on a finished floor elevation of just under 07 metres, the building floor slabs are anticipated to be supported primarily on engineered fill materials that should be placed and compacted as described earlier in this report. The final lift of granular fill beneath conventionally loaded floor slabs should consist of a minimum thickness of 50 millimetres of OPSS Granular A material, uniformly compacted to 00 percent of its SPMDD. Similarly, a minimum of 50 millimetres of Granular A materials should be provided beneath floor slabs underlain by bedrock. Special care should be taken to adequately compact fill materials adjacent to columns and foundation walls. The floor slabs should be structurally separate from the foundation walls and columns and sawcut control joints should be provided at regular intervals and along column lines to minimize shrinkage cracking and to allow for normal differential settlement of the floor slabs. 5.8 Foundation Backfill and Drainage The native soils at this site are highly frost susceptible and should not be used as backfill against exterior, unheated, or well insulated foundation elements. To avoid problems with frost adhesion and heaving, these foundations should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible sand or sand and gravel conforming to the requirements for OPSS Granular B Type I. In areas where pavement or other hard surfacing (e.g., sidewalks) will abut the building, differential frost heaving could occur between the granular fill and other areas. To reduce this differential heaving, the backfill adjacent to the wall should be placed to form a frost taper. The frost taper should be brought up to pavement subgrade level from.5 metres below finished exterior grade at a slope of 3 horizontal to vertical, or flatter, away from the wall. The fill should be placed in maximum 300-millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s SPMDD using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. The pavement and sidewalks adjacent to the building could be expected to perform better in the long term if the granular backfill against the foundation walls is drained by means of a perforated pipe subdrain in a surround of 9 millimetre clear stone, fully wrapped in geotextile, which leads by gravity drainage to a positive outlet. Exterior grades should be sloped away from the structure to prevent ponding of water around the buildings. 5.9 Temporary Excavations Care should be taken to direct surface water away from the open excavations and all temporary excavations should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects. In addition, care must be taken during excavation to ensure that adequate support is provided for any existing structures or underground services located adjacent to the excavations. February 205 Report No

17 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Excavations for the construction of foundations and site services are anticipated to extend through topsoil, fill, silty clay, glacial till materials as well as into bedrock (particularly in the southern portion of the site). No unusual problems are anticipated in excavating the overburden using conventional hydraulic excavating equipment, recognizing that boulders will be encountered within the fill and potentially within the glacial till and the fill contains debris. Excavation side slopes above the water table should be stable in the short term at horizontal to vertical. However, depending upon the construction and groundwater control procedures adopted by the contractor and weather conditions at the time of construction, some local flattening of such slopes may be required. Boulders larger than 0.3 metres in size should be removed from the excavation side slopes for worker safety. Alternatively, appropriate temporary support systems could be used. Flatter excavation side slopes will be required below the groundwater level in the overburden soils. Bedrock removal for trench excavations that extend nominally into the rock could be accomplished using mechanical methods (such as hoe ramming). However, deeper trench excavations or bulk excavation of bedrock is expected to require drill and blast procedures. Near vertical trench walls in the bedrock should stand unsupported for the construction period, at least for moderate depths (i.e., up to about 3 metres). Blasting should be controlled to limit the peak particle velocities at all adjacent structures or services such that blast induced damage will be avoided. Blast designs should be prepared by a specialist in this field. A pre-blast survey should be carried out of all the surrounding structures and utilities. The contractor should be required to submit a complete and detailed blasting design and monitoring proposal prepared by a blasting/vibrations specialist prior to commencing blasting. This submission would have to be reviewed and accepted in relation to the requirements of the blasting specifications. The contractor should be limited to only small controlled shots. vibration limits at the nearest structures and services are suggested. The following frequency dependent peak Frequency Range (Hz) Vibration Limits (mm/sec) < to 40 5 to 50 (sliding scale) > It is recommended that the monitoring of ground vibration intensities (peak ground vibrations and accelerations) from the blasting operations be carried out both in the ground adjacent to the closest structures/utilities and within the structures/utilities themselves. 5.0 Temporary Dewatering The groundwater level was measured to be at a depth of approximately.7 metres below ground surface in a piezometer installed in BH4-5A and groundwater seepage was encountered at similar depths within the test pits advanced in the northern, lower portion of the site during the investigation. Therefore, groundwater inflow into the excavations should be expected. February 205 Report No

18 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO In addition, groundwater seepage was encountered near the base of the fill/bedrock interface at Test Pit 4-8 which was advanced in the higher eastern portion of the site and, as such, groundwater inflow should be expected for excavations extending to or into the bedrock. It should be possible to handle the groundwater inflow into excavations within the silty clay soils and bedrock by pumping from well filtered sumps established in the area of the excavations using suitably sized pumps. It should be noted that a Permit-To-Take-Water from the Ministry of the Environment is required for pumping volumes in excess of 50,000 litres per day. 5. Site Servicing - Bedding and Backfill At least 50 millimetres of OPSS Granular A should be used as pipe bedding for sewer and water pipes. The site soils are highly susceptible to disturbance as a result of construction activities. Where unavoidable disturbance to the subgrade surface occurs, it may be necessary to place a sub-bedding layer consisting of compacted OPSS Granular B Type II beneath the Granular A. The bedding material should in all cases extend to the spring line of the pipe and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s SPMDD using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. The use of clear crushed stone as a bedding layer should not be permitted anywhere on this project since fine particles from the sandy backfill materials or surrounding soil could potentially migrate into the voids in the clear crushed stone and cause loss of lateral pipe support. Cover material, from the spring line of the pipe to at least 300 millimetres above the top of pipe, should consist of OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type I with a maximum particle size of 25 millimetres. The cover material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the SPMDD using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. In areas where the trench will be covered with hard surfaced materials, the type of material placed within the frost zone (between finished grade and about.8 metres depth) should match the soil exposed on the trench walls for frost heave compatibility. Trench backfill should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. It should be generally possible to re-use the excavated native overburden soils as trench backfill. However, some of the overburden materials (such as the silty clay) may be too wet to compact. Where that is the case, the wet materials should be wasted (and drier materials imported) or these materials should be placed only in the lower portions of the trench, recognizing that some future settlement of the ground surface may occur. Well fractured or well broken bedrock will be acceptable as backfill within the lower portion of the service trenches in areas where the excavation is in rock. The rock fill, however, should only be placed from a point at least 300 millimetres above the pipes to minimize damage due to impact or point loading. The rock fill should be limited to a maximum of 300 millimetres in size. 5.2 Pavement Design In preparation for pavement construction, all topsoil, fill, and deleterious material (i.e., material containing organic material or debris) should be removed from all pavement areas. February 205 Report No

19 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO Sections requiring grade raising to the proposed subgrade level should be filled using acceptable (compactable and inorganic) engineered approved, earth borrow or OPSS Select Subgrade Material meeting the requirements of OPSS 00. These materials should be placed in maximum 300 millimetre thick lifts and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. Well broken or crushed bedrock would be acceptable roadway subgrade fill material. The surface of the subgrade or fill should be crowned to promote drainage of the pavement granular structure. Perforated pipe subdrains should be provided at subgrade level extending from the catch basins for a distance of at least 3 metres in four orthogonal directions or longitudinally where parallel to a curb. The pavement structure for car parking areas should consist of: Pavement Component Asphaltic Concrete OPSS Granular A Base OPSS Granular B Type II Subbase Thickness (millimetres) The pavement structure for access roadways and truck traffic areas should consist of: Pavement Component Asphaltic Concrete OPSS Granular A Base OPSS Granular B Type II Subbase Thickness (millimetres) The granular base and subbase materials should be uniformly compacted to at least 00 percent of the material s SPMDD using suitable vibratory compaction equipment. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted in accordance with Table 0 of OPSS 30. The composition of the asphaltic concrete pavement in car parking areas should be as follows: Superpave 2.5 Surface Course 50 millimetres The composition of the asphaltic concrete pavement in access roadways and truck traffic areas should be as follows: Superpave 2.5 Surface Course 40 millimetres Superpave 9.0 Binder Course 50 millimetres The asphalt cement should consist of PG February 205 Report No

20 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO The above pavement designs are based on the assumption that the pavement subgrade has been acceptably prepared (i.e., where the trench backfill and grade raise fill have been adequately compacted to the required density and the subgrade surface has not been disturbed by construction operations or precipitation). Depending on the actual conditions of the pavement subgrade at the time of construction, it could be necessary to increase the thickness of the subbase and/or to place a woven geotextile beneath the granular materials. 5.3 Corrosion and Cement Type A sample of native silty clay soil from Test Pit 4-5 was submitted to Exova Laboratories Ltd. for chemical analysis related to potential corrosion of exposed buried ferrous elements and potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements. The testing results are provided in Appendix B. The resistivity results indicate a severe potential for corrosion of exposed ferrous metal. The results also indicate that Type GU cement should be acceptable for substructures. 5.4 Trees The clayey soils at this site are highly sensitive to water depletion by trees of high water demand during periods of dry weather. When trees draw water from the silty clay, the silty clay undergoes shrinkage which can result in settlement of adjacent structures. The zone of influence of a tree is considered to be approximately equal to the height of the tree. Therefore, trees which have a high water demand should not be planted closer to structures than the ultimate height of the tree. Table provides a list of the common trees in decreasing order of water demand and, accordingly, decreasing risk of potential effects on structures. February 205 Report No

21 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO 6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS At the time of the writing of this report, only preliminary details regarding the proposed development plans were available. In this regard, all geotechnical comments provided in this report should be considered preliminary in nature and will need to be reviewed and, if necessary, revised once final development plans become available. Golder Associates should be retained to review the final drawings and specifications for this project prior to tendering to ensure that the guidelines in this report have been adequately interpreted. A series of shallow test pits were excavated at the site as part of a previous investigation. All disturbed materials associated with these test pits should also be subexcavated and replaced with engineered fill in order to minimize settlement of the new building foundations and floor slabs. The soils at this site are sensitive to disturbance from ponded water, construction traffic, and frost. If construction is carried out during periods of sustained below freezing temperatures, all subgrade areas should be protected from freezing. All subgrade and footing areas should be inspected by experienced geotechnical personnel prior to engineered fill placement (i.e., after stripping of surficial topsoil and fill) or concreting to ensure that soils having adequate bearing capacity have been reached, that the bearing surfaces have been properly prepared, and that appropriate transitions have been created between foundations founded on bedrock and those founded on soil. The placing and compaction of any engineered fill as well as sewer bedding and backfill should be inspected to ensure that the materials used conform to the specifications from both a grading and compaction view point. February 205 Report No

22

23 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development and purpose described to Golder by the Client, Hawthorne Development LLC c/o Lenity Architecture. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report. The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder's express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then the client may authorize the use of this report for such purpose by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process, provided this report is not noted to be a draft or preliminary report, and is specifically relevant to the project for which the application is being made. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client cannot rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder's report or other work products. The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations, including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities. Soil, Rock and Groundwater Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions. Golder Associates Ltd. Page of 2

24 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT (cont'd) Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. 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 professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed. Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during construction. Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client's expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal. Follow-Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of Golder's report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder's report. During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of Golder's report and to confirm and document that construction activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder's report. Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this recommendation is not followed, Golder's responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the preparation of the Report. Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly. Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction monitoring of the system. Golder Associates Ltd. Page 2 of 2

25 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO TABLE SOME COMMON TREES IN DECREASING ORDER OF WATER DEMAND BROAD LEAVED DECIDUOUS Poplar Alder Aspen Willow Elm Maple Birch Ash Beech Oak DECIDUOUS CONIFER Larch EVERGREEN CONIFERS Spruce Fir Pine February 205 Report No

26 KEY MAP Path: \\golder.gds\gal\ottawa\active\spatial_im\lenityarchitecture\goulbournforcedrdretirementresidence\99_proj\48887_lenityarchitecture_goulbournforcedrdretirementresidence\40_prod\phase2000_geotech\ File Name: dwg LEGEND NOTES CLIENT HAWTHORNE DEVELOPMENT LLC PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE GOULBOURN FORCED ROAD, OTTAWA, ONTARIO TITLE CONSULTANT PROJECT No PHASE 2000 SCALE :30,000. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT No (2000) REFERENCE APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION. BASE PLAN SUPPLIED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT BY LENITY ARCHITECTURE 2. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83, COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 8 0 :,000 BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN 25 YYYY-MM-DD PREPARED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED Rev. A 50 METRES JM ---- KN JMT FIGURE IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI B 0 25 mm

27 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sandy SILTY CLAY FIGURE 2 Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch 00 6" 4¼" 3" ½" " ¾" ½" 3/8" PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm COBBLE SIZE COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m) Project Number: Checked By: KN Golder Associates Date: 03-Feb-5

28 Path: \\golder.gds\gal\ottawa\active\spatial_im\lenityarchitecture\goulbournforcedrdretirementresidence\99_proj\48887_lenityarchitecture_goulbournforcedrdretirementresidence\40_prod\phase2000_geotech\ File Name: dwg NOTES. FIGURE NOT TO SCALE 2. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT No (2000) CLIENT HAWTHORNE DEVELOPMENT LLC CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD PREPARED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED JM KN KN JMT PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE GOULBOURN FORCED ROAD, OTTAWA, ONTARIO TITLE FOOTING TRANSITION DETAIL - BEDROCK TO OVERBURDEN PROJECT No PHASE 2000 Rev. A FIGURE 3 IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI A 0 25 mm

29 Path: \\golder.gds\gal\ottawa\active\spatial_im\lenityarchitecture\goulbournforcedrdretirementresidence\99_proj\48887_lenityarchitecture_goulbournforcedrdretirementresidence\40_prod\phase2000_geotech\ File Name: dwg LEGEND d THICKNESS OF EARTH COVER ABOVE BOTTOM OF INSULATION L CLIENT PROJECTED LENGTH OF INSULATION NOTES. INSULATION JOINTS TO BE GLUED AND / OR LAPPED 2. FOR ADEQUATE FROST PROTECTION d + L >.5 m 3. FOR d > 0.9 m, INSULATION THICKNESS OF 25 mm IS ADEQUATE 4. GEOTECHNICAL RESISTANCE AT SLS FOR FOOTING DESIGN DEPENDS ON INSULATION TYPE AND FOUNDATION SUBGRADE TYPE - SEE REPORT TEXT 5. FOR ISOLATED UNHEATED FOUNDATIONS, ADDITIONAL DETAILS ARE REQUIRED 6. FIGURE NOT TO SCALE 7. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT No (2000) HAWTHORNE DEVELOPMENT LLC CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD PREPARED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED JM KN KN JMT PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE GOULBOURN FORCED ROAD, OTTAWA, ONTARIO TITLE TYPICAL FOOTING INSULATION DETAIL PROJECT No PHASE 2000 Rev. A FIGURE 4 IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI A 0 25 mm

30 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Record of Borehole Sheets Current Investigation Table A- Record of Test Pits Previous Investigation Figure A- February 205 Report No

31 METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Organic or Inorganic INORGANIC (Organic Content 30% by mass) Organic or Inorganic INORGANIC (Organic Content 30% by mass) Soil Group COARSE-GRAINED SOILS ( 50% by mass is larger than mm) Soil Group FINE-GRAINED SOILS ( 50% by mass is smaller than mm) GRAVELS (>50% by mass of coarse fraction is larger than 4.75 mm) SANDS ( 50% by mass of coarse fraction is smaller than 4.75 mm) SILTS CLAYS Type of Soil Gravels with 2% fines (by mass) Gravels with >2% fines (by mass) Sands with 2% fines (by mass) Sands with >2% fines (by mass) Type of Soil (Non-Plastic or PI and LL plot below A-Line on Plasticity Chart below) (PI and LL plot above A-Line on Plasticity Chart below) Gradation or Plasticity Poorly Graded Cu = D 60 D 0 Cc = (D 30) 2 D 0 xd 60 <4 or 3 Organic Content USCS Group Symbol Group Name CLAYEY n/a GC GRAVEL 30% <6 or 3 SP SAND GP GRAVEL Well Graded 4 to 3 GW GRAVEL Below A Line Above A Line Poorly Graded n/a GM SILTY GRAVEL Well Graded 6 to 3 SW SAND Below A Line Above A Line Laboratory Tests Liquid Limit <50 Liquid Limit 50 Liquid Limit <30 Liquid Limit 30 to 50 Liquid Limit 50 Dilatancy Dry Strength n/a SM SILTY SAND n/a Field Indicators Shine Test Thread Diameter Rapid None None >6 mm Slow Slow to very slow Slow to very slow None None None None to Low Low to medium Low to medium Medium to high Low to medium Medium to high Dull Dull to slight Slight Dull to slight Slight to shiny Slight to shiny 3mm to 6 mm 3mm to 6 mm 3mm to 6 mm mm to 3 mm ~ 3 mm mm to 3 mm Toughness (of 3 mm thread) N/A (can t roll 3 mm thread) Organic Content SC USCS Group Symbol CLAYEY SAND Primary Name <5% ML SILT None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT Low Low to medium Medium to high 5% to 30% OL ORGANIC SILT <5% MH CLAYEY SILT 5% to 30% Low to medium 0% to Medium 30% OH ORGANIC SILT (see None High Shiny < mm High Note 2) CH CLAY CL CI SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS (Organic Content >30% by mass) Peat and mineral soil mixtures Predominantly peat, may contain some mineral soil, fibrous or amorphous peat 30% to 75% 75% to 00% PT SILTY PEAT, SANDY PEAT PEAT Dual Symbol A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP-GM, SW-SC and CL-ML. For non-cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 2% fines (i.e. to identify transitional material between clean and dirty sand or gravel. For cohesive soils, the dual symbol must be used when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left). Note Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non-plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor trace organics for soils with between 5% and 30% organic content include the prefix organic before the Primary name. Borderline Symbol A borderline symbol is two symbols separated by a slash, for example, CL/CI, GM/SM, CL/ML. A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil has been identified as having properties that are on the transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline symbol may be used to or indicates a range of similar soil types within a stratum. January 203 G-

32 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS Soil Constituent BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT/CLAY Particle Size Description Not Applicable Not Applicable Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Classified by plasticity Millimetres Inches (US Std. Sieve Size) >300 >2 75 to to 2 9 to to to to to to 3 (4) to 0.75 (0) to (4) (40) to (0) (200) to (40) <0.075 < (200) MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS Percentage by Mass Modifier >35 Use 'and' to combine major constituents (i.e., SAND and GRAVEL, SAND and CLAY) > 2 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable > 5 to 2 some 5 trace PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (40 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (2 in.). Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60 conical tip and a project end area of 0 cm 2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (q t), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); N d: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (40 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60 cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (2 in.). PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod NON-COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS Compactness 2 Term SPT N (blows/0.3m) Very Loose 0-4 Loose 4 to 0 Compact 0 to 30 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense >50. SPT N in accordance with ASTM D586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects. 2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT N ranges from Terzaghi and Peck (967) and correspond to typical average N60 values. Term Dry Moist Field Moisture Condition Description Soil flows freely through fingers. Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool. SAMPLES AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO or DP Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube sampler note size DS Denison type sample FS Foil sample RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Split spoon sampler note size ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open note size TP Thin-walled, piston note size WS Wash sample SOIL TESTS w water content PL, w p plastic limit LL, w L liquid limit C consolidation (oedometer) test CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text) CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement D R relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS direct shear test GS specific gravity M sieve analysis for particle size MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified Proctor compaction test SPC Standard Proctor compaction test OC organic content test SO 4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates UC unconfined compression test UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) γ unit weight. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU. COHESIVE SOILS Consistency Term Undrained Shear SPT N Strength (kpa) (blows/0.3m) Very Soft <2 0 to 2 Soft 2 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 00 8 to 5 Very Stiff 00 to to 30 Hard >200 >30. SPT N in accordance with ASTM D586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects; approximate only. Water Content Term Description w < PL Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit. w ~ PL Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic Limit. Wet As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled. w > PL Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit. January 203 G-2

33 LIST OF SYMBOLS Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows: I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued) w water content π 3.46 w l or LL liquid limit ln x natural logarithm of x w p or PL plastic limit log 0 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 0 l p or PI plasticity index = (w l w p) g acceleration due to gravity w s shrinkage limit t time I L liquidity index = (w w p) / I p I C consistency index = (w l w) / I p e max void ratio in loosest state e min void ratio in densest state I D density index = (e max e) / (e max - e min) II. STRESS AND STRAIN (formerly relative density) principal stress (major, intermediate, γ shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties change in, e.g. in stress: σ h hydraulic head or potential ε linear strain q rate of flow ε v volumetric strain v velocity of flow η coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient υ Poisson s ratio k hydraulic conductivity σ total stress (coefficient of permeability) σ effective stress (σ = σ - u) j seepage force per unit volume σ vo initial effective overburden stress σ, σ 2, σ 3 minor) (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) C c compression index σ oct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = (σ + σ 2 + σ 3)/3 C r recompression index τ shear stress (over-consolidated range) u porewater pressure C s swelling index E modulus of deformation C α secondary compression index G shear modulus of deformation m v coefficient of volume change K bulk modulus of compressibility c v coefficient of consolidation (vertical direction) c h coefficient of consolidation (horizontal direction) T v time factor (vertical direction) III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation σ p pre-consolidation stress (a) Index Properties OCR over-consolidation ratio = σ p / σ vo ρ(γ) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* ρ d(γ d) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength ρ w(γ w) density (unit weight) of water τ p, τ r peak and residual shear strength ρ s(γ s) density (unit weight) of solid particles φ effective angle of internal friction γ unit weight of submerged soil δ angle of interface friction (γ = γ - γ w) µ coefficient of friction = tan δ D R relative density (specific gravity) of solid c effective cohesion particles (D R = ρ s / ρ w) (formerly G s) c u, s u undrained shear strength (φ = 0 analysis) e void ratio p mean total stress (σ + σ 3)/2 n porosity p mean effective stress (σ + σ 3)/2 S degree of saturation q (σ - σ 3)/2 or (σ - σ 3)/2 q u compressive strength (σ - σ 3) S t sensitivity * Density symbol is ρ. Unit weight symbol is γ where γ = ρg (i.e. mass density multiplied by acceleration due to gravity) Notes: 2 τ = c + σ tan φ shear strength = (compressive strength)/2 January 203 G-3

34 LITHOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ROCK DESCRIPTION TERMINOLOGY WEATHERINGS STATE Fresh: no visible sign of weathering Faintly weathered: weathering limited to the surface of major discontinuities. Slightly weathered: penetrative weathering developed on open discontinuity surfaces but only slight weathering of rock material. Moderately weathered: weathering extends throughout the rock mass but the rock material is not friable. Highly weathered: weathering extends throughout rock mass and the rock material is partly friable. Completely weathered: rock is wholly decomposed and in a friable condition but the rock and structure are preserved. CORE CONDITION Total Core Recovery (TCR) The percentage of solid drill core recovered regardless of quality or length, measured relative to the length of the total core run. Solid Core Recovery (SCR) The percentage of solid drill core, regardless of length, recovered at full diameter, measured relative to the length of the total core run. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) The percentage of solid drill core, greater than 00 mm length, recovered at full diameter, measured relative to the length of the total core run. RQD varied from 0% for completely broken core to 00% for core in solid sticks. BEDDING THICKNESS Description Bedding Plane Spacing Very thickly bedded Greater than 2 m Thickly bedded 0.6 m to 2 m Medium bedded 0.2 m to 0.6 m Thinly bedded 60 mm to 0.2 m Very thinly bedded 20 mm to 60 mm Laminated 6 mm to 20 mm Thinly laminated Less than 6 mm JOINT OR FOLIATION SPACING Description Spacing Very wide Greater than 3 m Wide m to 3 m Moderately close 0.3 m to m Close 50 mm to 300 mm Very close Less than 50 mm GRAIN SIZE Term Size* Very Coarse Grained Greater than 60 mm Coarse Grained 2 mm to 60 mm Medium Grained 60 microns to 2 mm Fine Grained 2 microns to 60 microns Very Fine Grained Less than 2 microns Note: * Grains greater than 60 microns diameter are visible to the naked eye. DISCONTINUITY DATA Fracture Index A count of the number of discontinuities (physical separations) in the rock core, including both naturally occurring fractures and mechanically induced breaks caused by drilling. Dip with Respect to Core Axis The angle of the discontinuity relative to the axis (length) of the core. In a vertical borehole a discontinuity with a 90 o angle is horizontal. Description and Notes An abbreviation description of the discontinuities, whether naturally occurring separations such as fractures, bedding planes and foliation planes or mechanically induced features caused by drilling such as ground or shattered core and mechanically separated bedding or foliation surfaces. Additional information concerning the nature of fracture surfaces and infillings are also noted. Abbreviations JN Joint PL Planar FLT Fault CU Curved SH Shear UN Undulating VN Vein IR Irregular FR Fracture K Slickensided SY Stylolite PO Polished BD Bedding SM Smooth FO Foliation SR Slightly Rough CO Contact RO Rough AXJ Axial Joint VR Very Rough KV Karstic Void MB Mechanical Break

35 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BORING DATE: January 2, /2A SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FILL - (SP) SAND, medium; brown; non-cohesive, moist FILL - (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY, trace to some sand; dark grey brown, contains cobbles and/or boulders; cohesive, w>pl STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.30m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) SS 5 FILL - (SP) SAND, some gravel; brown, contains cobbles and/or boulders; non-cohesive, moist End of Borehole Auger Refusal within fill SS > MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

36 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 4-2B BORING DATE: January 2, 205 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 Power Auger BORING METHOD 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FILL - (SP) SAND, medium; brown; non-cohesive, moist FILL - (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY, some sand; dark brown, contains cobbles and/or boulders; cohesive, w>pl STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.30m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION - SPT sampler advanced 0.3 m in 4 blows then encountered refusal (>50 blows) End of Borehole Auger Refusal within fill..7 SS > MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

37 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 4-2C BORING DATE: January 2, 205 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FILL - (SP) SAND, some gravel; brown; non-cohesive, moist FILL - (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY, some sand, trace to some gravel; dark brown, contains cobbles and/or boulders; cohesive, w>pl STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.30m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) SS 7 End of Borehole Auger Refusal within fill MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

38 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 4-3 BORING DATE: January 2, 205 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION FILL - (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY; dark brown, contains organic matter; w>pl STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.30m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) (CI/CL) SILTY CLAY; grey brown, with pockets of sand; cohesive, w>pl, stiff to very stiff SS 3 End of Borehole Auger Refusal on inferred bedrock. No sampling undertaken in top 0.75 m; depth of fill is approximate only MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

39 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 4-4 BORING DATE: January 2, 205 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 Power Auger BORING METHOD 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL - (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY; dark brown; w>pl (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY, trace to some sand; brown; cohesive, w>pl (Possible Fill) (CI/CH) sandy SILTY CLAY; grey brown; cohesive, w>pl, very stiff STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.30m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SS 53 MH End of Borehole Auger Refusal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

40 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 4-5 BORING DATE: January 2, 205 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 Power Auger BORING METHOD 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL - (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY; dark brown; w>pl (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY; grey brown, contains cobbles; cohesive, w>pl (Possible Fill) (CI/CH) sandy SILTY CLAY; grey brown; cohesive, w>pl, very stiff STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.30m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SS 56 End of Borehole Smapler and Auger Refusal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

41 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 4-5A BORING DATE: January 2, 205 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 BORING METHOD SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Unsampled Overburden STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLES NUMBER TYPE BLOWS/0.30m DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION Native Backfill Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) (CI/CH) SILTY CLAY, some sand; cohesive, w>pl, very stiff SS 6 Bentonite Seal 2 >96 Standpipe >96 3 End of Borehole Auger Refusal WL in Piezometer at approximately.7 m depth below ground surface on Feb. 2, MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

42 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 4-6 BORING DATE: January 2, 205 SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 PA BORING METHOD (HS) GROUND SURFACE TOPSOIL - (SM) SILTY SAND; brown; non-cohesive, moist End of Borehole Auger Refusal SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.30m GRAB - DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

43 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Figure SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BORING DATE: January 2, /7A SHEET OF DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL - (SM) SILTY SAND; brown; moist (Frozen) STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) 0.00 NUMBER SAMPLES TYPE BLOWS/0.30m SS >50 DYNAMIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m SHEAR STRENGTH Cu, kpa nat V. rem V. Q - U - HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, k, cm/s WATER CONTENT PERCENT Wp W Wl ADDITIONAL LAB. TESTING PIEZOMETER OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION (CI/CL) SILTY CLAY, some sand to sandy; grey brown; cohesive, w>pl, stiff to very stiff 0.20 Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) 2 SS (SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; grey brown (GLACIAL TILL); non-cohesive, moist.52 3 SS >50 End of Borehole Sampler and Auger Refusal MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 02/06/5 JM 5 DEPTH SCALE : 25 LOGGED: CHECKED: NJ WAM

44 Goulbourn Forced Road Proposed Retirement Residence Table A Record of Test Pits Test Pit Number (Elevation) Depth (metres) Description 4- (03.5 m) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots (CI) Native grey brown sandy SILTY CLAY (CI/CH) Native grey, layered and fissured SILTY CLAY/CLAY; contains fine sand partings END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock Notes: Water seepage at 3.90 metres. Significant sloughing of sidewalls in lower clay due to fissuring. Sample 2 Depth (m) (03.7 m) Frozen black TOPSOIL with roots. (CI) Native grey brown sandy SILTY CLAY (CI) Native light grey SILTY CLAY, some sand END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock Note: Water seepage encountered at 2.8 metres. Sample Depth (m) (03.6 m) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots (CI) Native grey brown sandy SILTY CLAY END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock (encountered between and.7 m depth) Note: Water seepage encountered at.7 metres. Sample Depth (m) (04.7 m) Grey brown to dark brown silty sand (FILL); contains boulders up to 0.6 m in diameter and pieces of wood (CI) Native grey brown sandy SILTY CLAY END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock Note: Water seepage encountered at.7 metres. Sample Depth (m) January 205 Project No /3

45 Goulbourn Forced Road Proposed Retirement Residence Table A Record of Test Pits Test Pit Number (Elevation) Depth (metres) Description 4-5 (07.4 m) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots (SM, CI) Dark brown/grey brown silt sand to sandy silty clay some gravel (FILL); contains cobbles, boulders/rock slabs up to ~0.9 m in length, wood, and bricks (CI) Grey brown sandy SILTY CLAY END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock Sample 2 Depth (m) (06.9 m) 4-7 (05.3 m) Frozen TOPSOIL (Roots) Dark brown silty clay with zones of silty sand (FILL); contains boulders (up to 0.6 m diam.), cobbles, bricks, and wood pieces (CI) Native grey brown sandy SILTY CLAY (SM) Native grey brown silty SAND; trace clay and gravel (GLACIAL TILL) END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock Frozen TOPSOIL with roots (SM, CI) Dark brown silty sand to sandy clay (FILL); contains rock slabs/boulders and trace concrete (CI/CH) Native grey brown sandy CLAY END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock Sample Depth (m) (Not Surveyed) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots (SM, CI) Dark brown silty sand to silty clay (FILL); contains cobbles, boulders, pieces of wood, brick END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on inferred bedrock Note: Water seepage at.80 metres. January 205 Project No /3

46 Goulbourn Forced Road Proposed Retirement Residence Table A Record of Test Pits Test Pit Number (Elevation) Depth (metres) Description 4-A (05.9 m) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on bedrock 4-B (05.6 m) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots (CI) Native grey brown SILTY CLAY END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on bedrock Sample Depth (m) C (05.7 m) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on bedrock 4-D (07.2 m) Frozen TOPSOIL with roots END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on bedrock Sample Depth (m) 0.05 Bedrock Fragment 4-E (Moved after Survey) to Frozen brown sandy silt (TOPSOIL) with roots END OF TEST PIT Refusal to excavating on bedrock (encountered at 0.5 m at south end of test pit to. m at north end of test pit) Sample Depth (m) F (Not Surveyed) 0.00 Bedrock at ground surface n:\active\204\2 - geotechnical\48887 lenity retirement residence goulbourn\04_reporting\drilling investigation\48887 record of test pits final docx January 205 Project No /3

47 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE A- Sandy SILTY CLAY PERCENT FINER THAN GRAIN SIZE, mm Cobble coarse fine coarse medium fine Size GRAVEL SIZE SAND SIZE SILT AND CLAY Test Pit Sample Depth (m) TP Created by: MI Project: Golder Associates Checked by: CNM

48 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RETIREMENT RESIDENCE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO APPENDIX B Results of Chemical Analysis Exova Laboratories Report No February 205 Report No

49 EXOVA ENVIRONMENTAL ONTARIO Certificate of Analysis Client: Golder Associates Ltd. (Ottawa) 32 Steacie Drive Kanata, ON K2K 2A9 Attention: Mr. Alex Meacoe PO#: Invoice to: Golder Associates Ltd. (Ottawa) Report Number: Date Submitted: Date Reported: Project: COC #: Lab I.D. Sample Matrix Sample Type Sampling Date Sample I.D. Group Analyte MRL Units Guideline Agri. - Soil ph 2.0 General Chemistry Cl % Electrical Conductivity 0.05 ms/cm Resistivity ohm-cm SO4 0.0 % 5747 Soil TP 4-5 SA < Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, MAC = All analysis completed in Ottawa, Ontario (unless otherwise indicated by ** which indicates analysis was completed in Mississauga, Ontario). Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted. Maximum Acceptable Concentration, IMAC = Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration, STD = Standard, PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Guideline, IPWQO = Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective, TDR = Typical Desired Range Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request. 46 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y Page 2 of 3

50 Golder Associates Ltd. 32 Steacie Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2K 2A9 Canada T: + (63)