Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario

Transcription

1 REPORT REPORT ON Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario Submitted to: Claridge Homes 210 Gladstone Avenue, Suite 2001 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Y6 Report Number: Distribution: 1 e-copy - Claridge Homes 4 copies - Claridge Homes 2 copies - Golder Associates Ltd.

2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE PROCEDURE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Fill Glacial Till Bedrock and Refusal Groundwater PROPOSED HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT General Overview Excavations Excavation Shoring Excavation Shoring Options Ground Movements Groundwater Management Impacts on Adjacent Developments Foundations Seismic Design Rock Anchors Basement Floor Slab Basement Walls Overburden Excavations Excavations in Bedrock Lateral Earth Pressures Frost Protection Corrosion and Cement Type ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS CLOSURE Report No i

3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE Important Information and Limitations of This Report FIGURES Figure 1 Site Plan APPENDICES APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Lithological and Geotechnical Rock Description Terminology Record of Borehole and Drillhole Sheets Current Investigation APPENDIX B Record of Soil Profile and Test Data Previous Investigation by Paterson Group APPENDIX C Borehole Core Photos APPENDIX D Hydrogeological Assessment APPENDIX E Geophysical Vertical Seismic Profiling Test Results APPENDIX F Basic Chemical Analysis Exova Laboratories Report No Report No ii

4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out for a proposed residential development to be located at 99 Beechwood Avenue in Ottawa, Ontario. The purpose of this subsurface investigation was to investigate the general soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions across the site by means of two boreholes and, based on an interpretation of the factual information obtained, along with the existing subsurface information available for the site, to provide engineering guidelines 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 Limitations of This Report which follows the text but forms an integral part of this report. Report No

5 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND SITE Consideration is being given to the design and construction of a mid-rise residential development to be located at 99 Beechwood Avenue in Ottawa, Ontario (see Key Map inset on Figure 1). The following is known about the existing property: The site is irregular in shape and measures about 40 metres by 60 metres in plan area. The majority of the site is currently used as an asphalt surfaced parking lot. A two-storey structure is located on the east portion of the site. It is understood that this structure will be demolished. The site is bordered to the north by residential houses, to the west by two residential houses and Langevin Avenue, to the south by Beechwood Avenue, and to the east by Champlain Avenue. Current plans indicate the following about the proposed development: The development will occupy essentially the entire site. The proposed structure will be 6 storeys in height. The majority of the structure is planned to have 2 below grade parking levels. The northwestern portion of the structure will have 3 below grade parking levels. Paterson Group carried out a Phase I-II Environmental Site Assessment for this property in June That previous investigation included advancing five boreholes across the site. Based on the results of the previous investigation, the subsurface conditions on this site consist of up to about 2.0 metres of fill overlying glacial till. The fill and till are underlain by shale bedrock at about 1.8 to 2.4 metres depth. Published geologic maps indicate that the study area is underlain by shale of the Billings Formation. Report No

6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 3.0 PROCEDURE The fieldwork for this investigation was carried out on June 4 and 5, At that time, two boreholes (numbered 14-1 and 14-2) were put down at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. The boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig supplied and operated by Marathon Drilling Company Ltd. of Ottawa, Ontario. Both of the boreholes were advanced to auger refusal, which was encountered at depths of about 3.5 and 3.8 metres, respectively, below the existing ground surface. Upon encountering practical refusal to augering, the boreholes were extended about 11.7 and 5.8 metres, respectively, further into the bedrock using rotary diamond drilling equipment while retrieving HQ3 sized bedrock core. The boreholes were terminated at depths of about 15.2 and 9.6 metres, respectively, below the existing ground surface. Within the overburden, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were carried out at regular intervals of depth and samples of the soils encountered were recovered using split spoon sampling equipment. A monitoring well was sealed into borehole 14-2 to permit subsequent groundwater level measurement and in situ hydraulic conductivity testing. The hydraulic conductivity testing was carried out and the groundwater level was measured on June 13, A 64 millimetre inside diameter PVC pipe, with the outside of the pipe backfilled with a bentonite-cement grout, was installed in borehole 14-1 to allow for subsequent geophysical testing. The geophysical testing, which was carried out on June 10, 2014, consisted of Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) through the overburden soils and the underlying bedrock. A detailed description of the procedure used for the VSP testing is provided in Appendix E. The fieldwork was supervised by an experienced member from our geotechnical staff who located the boreholes, monitored the drilling operations, logged the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes and samples, and took custody of the soil and bedrock samples retrieved. The geophysical work was carried out by a senior geophysicist from our Ottawa office. Samples of the soil and bedrock encountered within the boreholes were returned to our laboratory for examination by the project engineer. One sample of groundwater from borehole 14-2 was submitted to Exova Laboratories for basic chemical analysis related to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and corrosion of buried ferrous elements. The borehole locations were selected, located in the field, and surveyed by Golder Associates Ltd. The locations of, and ground surface elevations at, each borehole were determined using a Trimble R8 survey unit. The ground surface elevations are referenced to Geodetic datum. Report No

7 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 General Information on the subsurface conditions is provided as follows: The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes advanced as part of the current investigation are shown on the Record Borehole and Drillhole Sheets in Appendix A. The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes put down during a previous investigation at the site by Paterson Group are shown on Soil Profile and Test Data Sheets in Appendix B. Photographs of the bedrock core are provided in Appendix C. The results of the basic chemical analysis carried out on a sample of groundwater from borehole 14-2 are provided in Appendix F. In general, the subsurface conditions on this site consist of up to about 3.8 metres of fill and glacial till overlying shale bedrock. The surface of the shale bedrock varies from about 1.8 to 3.8 metres depth. The following sections present a more detailed overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes advanced on the site. 4.2 Fill Fill exists at the ground surface at all of the borehole locations. The fill varies from about 0.4 to 2.0 metres in thickness and typically consists of asphaltic concrete overlying sand and silty sand with variable amounts of gravel, glass, and mortar. Two standard penetration tests carried out within the fill measured SPT N resistance values of 2 and 12 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicating the fill is in a very loose to compact state. 4.3 Glacial Till The fill is underlain by a deposit of glacial till. The glacial till was fully penetrated in all of the boreholes and varies from approximately 0.3 to 3.4 metres in thickness (extending to about 1.8 to 3.8 metres below the ground surface). The glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel, cobbles, and boulders in a matrix of silty sand with a trace of clay and shale fragments. Standard penetration tests carried out within the glacial till measured N values ranging from 4 to greater than 50 blows per 0.3 metres of penetration, indicating a loose to very dense state of compactness. However, the higher N values likely reflect the presence of cobbles and boulders, rather than the actual state of packing of the soil matrix. The deposit would more typically be considered to be compact to dense. 4.4 Bedrock and Refusal Practical refusal to augering was encountered in all of the boreholes at depths varying from about 1.8 to 3.8 metres below the ground surface. Report No

8 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE In some of the boreholes, the upper portion of the bedrock is highly weathered and the boreholes were advanced into the bedrock by up to an additional 0.1 to 0.4 metres before encountering practical refusal to augering or the borehole was terminated. The depths to the bedrock surface are shown in the following table. Borehole Ground Surface Elevation at Borehole (metres) Bedrock Depth at Borehole (metres) Bedrock Surface Elevation at Borehole (metres) N/A 2.4 N/A 2 N/A 1.8 N/A 3 N/A 2.4 N/A 4 N/A 2.3 (R) N/A 5 N/A 2.2 (R) N/A Note: R Refusal to augering The bedrock consists of laminated to thinly bedded black shale. Published geological mapping indicates that this shale bedrock is part of the Billings Formation. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values typically range from about 20 to 100 percent indicating poor to excellent quality rock. Details on the fracture index, Total Core Recovery (TCR), and Solid Core Recovery (SCR) are shown on the Record of Drillhole Sheets provided in Appendix A. Photos of the bedrock core are provided in Appendix C. Hydraulic conductivity testing (consisting of falling head slug testing) was carried out in borehole The estimated hydraulic conductivity within the test interval is presented in the following table: Borehole Test Interval (metres) From To Static Depth of Water (metres) Geological Unit Hydraulic Conductivity (centimetres per second) Shale Bedrock 2 x 10-5 Report No

9 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 4.5 Groundwater Monitoring wells were installed in boreholes 14-2 and BH 1. The results of the groundwater level measurements are provided in the following table. Borehole Number Ground Surface Elevation Geological Unit Date of Measurement Water Level Elevation Water Level Depth (metres) Shale Bedrock June 13, BH 1 N/A Shale Bedrock May 22, 2013 N/A 5.0 Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally. Higher groundwater levels are expected during wet periods of the year, such as spring. Report No

10 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 5.0 PROPOSED HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT 5.1 General This section of the report provides engineering guidelines on the geotechnical design aspects of the proposed development based on our interpretation of the borehole information and project requirements. The guidelines presented herein are subject to the limitations in the Important Information and Limitations of This Report attachment which follows the text of this report but forms an integral part of this document. 5.2 Overview In general, the subsurface conditions on this site consist of up to about 3.8 metres of fill and glacial till overlying shale bedrock. The surface of the shale bedrock is at about 1.8 to 3.8 metres depth. It is understood that the structure will contain 6 above-grade storeys and will have up to 3 below-grade parking levels (a third below-grade parking level is proposed at the northwest portion of the structure). More detailed geotechnical guidelines are provided in following sections of the report; however, the following list summarizes some key geotechnical issues associated with this project: The groundwater level on this site has been measured to be at a depth of about 4 to 5 metres below existing site grades. A Permit-To-Take-Water may be required from the Ministry of the Environment for the predicted amount of water taking which could be required during a significant rainfall event. Excavation for the construction of the foundations and basement levels will extend through surficial fill and into the underlying glacial till and shale bedrock. Excavation of the upper portion of the shale bedrock could likely be carried out using mechanical methods (initially by excavation and then by hoe-ramming); deeper excavations into the bedrock will likely most-efficiently be carried out using drill and blast techniques. Excavation for the construction of the basement and building foundations will extend to about 7 to 7.5 metres depth for the majority of the structure, and to about 10 to 10.5 metres depth at the northwest portion of the structure. Given the constraints imposed by adjacent properties and roadways, it is expected that temporary shoring systems will be necessary to support overburden materials. It is expected that steel soldier piles and timber lagging will be used for the south and east walls, as well as a portion of the west wall (i.e., portions of the site that are not adjacent to existing structures), and that interlocking steel sheet piles or diaphragm walls would be used for the north wall and a portion of the west/southwest wall. Underpinning of the adjacent structures may be necessary. The Billings Formation shale bedrock at this site has the potential to expand (swell) following exposure to oxygen. Heaving of the shale could damage the foundations and basement floor slabs of the adjacent buildings. Special construction and design considerations will have to be followed to prevent the shale from being exposed to oxygen. The elevator pits and any sumps should be made watertight. Foundations on or within competent shale bedrock can be sized using an Ultimate Limit States (ULS) factored bearing resistance of 1 megapascal. For seismic design, this site can be assigned a Site Class of B in accordance with the 2012 Ontario Building Code regulations. Report No

11 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 5.3 Excavations Plans indicate that the majority of the structure will have 2 basement levels which will extend to a depth of about 6 metres below the existing site grades. The northwest portion of the structure will have a third basement level which will extend to a depth of about 9 metres. Considering that the excavation will likely need to extend a further 1.0 to 1.5 metres below the lowest basement floor level to accommodate the foundations and elevator pits, it is expected that the excavation will extend to about 7 to 7.5 metres depth for the majority of the structure and 10 to 10.5 metres depth for the northwest portion of the structure. The excavation for basement and foundation construction will therefore extend through the fill materials, glacial till, and into the underlying shale bedrock. No unusual problems are anticipated with excavating the overburden materials using conventional hydraulic excavating equipment, recognizing that large boulders should be expected within the glacial till. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) of Ontario indicates that side slopes in the overburden could be sloped at a minimum of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (i.e., Type 3 soils). Steeper side slopes would require shoring to meet the requirements of the OHSA. Given the constraints imposed by adjacent properties and roadways, it is expected that temporary shoring systems to support excavation faces within the overburden will be necessary. In general, there are three basic shoring methods that are commonly used in local practice: steel soldier piles and timber lagging, driven interlocking steel sheet piles and, less commonly, continuous concrete (secant pile or diaphragm) walls. Each system requires appropriate lateral support. Additional guidelines on temporary shoring are provided in Section 5.4 of this report. Bedrock removal will be required for basement and foundation construction. For shallow depths of excavation, it may be possible to remove the upper weathered portion of the bedrock, to about 0.5 to 1.0 metres depth (at least locally), using large hydraulic excavating equipment. Further bedrock removal could be accomplished using mechanical methods (such as hoe ramming), although this method may be slow and tedious. Excavations extending deeper into the rock will more-efficiently be carried out using drill and blast procedures. The upper 1 to 2 metres of the bedrock is weathered and fractured, and will not likely stand vertically; it should therefore be planned to also shore the weathered zone of bedrock. However, it is considered that near vertical bedrock walls in the unweathered shale bedrock will be feasible for the construction period. Blast induced damage to the bedrock must be avoided; otherwise rock reinforcement could be required. It should therefore be planned to either line drill the bedrock along the perimeter of the excavation at a close spacing in advance of blasting so that a clean bedrock face is formed, or to carry out perimeter drilling and pre-shearing of the excavation limits using controlled blasting. Significant caution should be exercised in carrying out blasting due to the near proximity of existing buildings. The blasting should therefore be controlled to limit the peak particle velocities at all adjacent structures or services such that blast induced damage will be avoided. This will require blast designs by a specialist in this field. A pre-construction survey should be carried out of all of the surrounding structures and utilities. Selected existing interior and exterior cracks in the structures identified during the pre-construction survey should be monitored for lateral or shear movements by means of pins, glass plate telltales, and/or movement telltales. Report No

12 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 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 plan 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 (millimetres/second) < to 40 5 to 50 (sliding scale) > If practical, blasting should commence at the furthest points from the closest structure or service to assess the ground vibration attenuation characteristics and to confirm the anticipated ground vibration levels based on the contractor s blasting methods. Excavation for the basement levels and foundations will result in exposure of the shale bedrock to air. The shale bedrock at this site has the potential to swell following exposure to oxygen, which could cause the damage to the structures located immediately to the north and west of the site. For the swelling to occur, there must be both water and oxygen available. An increase in the ground temperature, such as due to the heat from the basement area, is also considered to promote the above reactions. It is also possible for the products of the above reactions to attack the concrete in the foundations (i.e., sulphate attack). To prevent expansion of the shale and/or reaction with the concrete, the shale must be protected from exposure to oxygen. This could be achieved by covering the shale with a mud slab of lean concrete. Where shale is exposed on the sides of the excavation, the exposed shale should be shotcreted so that concrete covers the shale to the top-of-rock level. Other measures that would assist in limiting the risk of expansion of the shale bedrock subgrade include: 1) Providing a uniform subgrade level for the entire building such that no areas of higher bedrock are left in-place which would be vulnerable to drying. 2) Not excavating sumps in the rock and/or pumping from the rock in such a manner as to lower the groundwater level into the rock, even temporarily. Report No

13 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 5.4 Excavation Shoring Excavation Shoring Options The excavation will encompass essentially the full limits of the property and therefore vertical (or near vertical) excavation walls will be required. The contractor is fully responsible for the detailed design and performance of the temporary shoring systems. However, the following general guidelines on possible concepts for the shoring are provided for use by the designers in: Assessing the costs of the shoring; Assessing possible impacts of the shoring design and construction on the design of the structures and site works; and, Evaluating, at the design stage, the potential for impacts of the movements associated with excavation works on the adjacent structures, services, and roadways. The shoring method(s) chosen to support the excavation sides must take into account: The soil and bedrock stratigraphy; The groundwater conditions; The potential ground movements associated with the excavation; The construction methods used to install the shoring system(s); and, Their impact on adjacent structures and utilities. In general, there are three shoring methods that are commonly used in local construction practice: Steel soldier piles and timber lagging; Driven steel sheet piles; and, Continuous concrete (secant pile or diaphragm) walls. Soldier piles and lagging systems are suitable where the objective is to maintain an essentially vertical excavation wall and the movements above and behind the wall need only be sufficiently limited that relatively flexible features (such as roadways) will not be adversely affected. Where foundations lie within the zone of influence of the shoring (such as adjacent to the north and southwest limits of the site), the shoring deflections need to be greatly limited. Interlocking steel sheet piling systems with pre-stressed tie backs are often used for these conditions. Secant pile or diaphragm walls would be appropriate where difficulties may be encountered installing sheet piles, where heavily loaded foundations exist adjacent to the shoring, or where groundwater inflow needs to be controlled. Underpinning of the existing foundations could also be required if the settlements due to shoring movements would be unacceptable and/or if the loads on the adjacent foundations are large. Report No

14 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE For this site, it is envisioned that steel soldier piles and timber lagging shoring would be used along the southern (Beechwood Avenue), eastern (Champlain Avenue), and northwestern (northern section along Langevin Street) limits of the site where the excavation will be adjacent to the existing roadway right-of-way. For excavations where existing buildings are present immediately beside (or close to) the excavation, such as the northern and southwestern limits of the site, driven steel sheet pile system with prestressed tie-backs will likely be needed, but will depend on whether or not the existing structures are founded on overburden soils or the bedrock surface. Continuous concrete shoring (such as a diaphragm wall) would also be an option, for the sides of the excavation adjacent to these existing structures. Such systems would greatly mitigate the potential for foundation movements but would also be much more expensive. The glacial till beneath this site contains cobbles and boulders. The sheet piles will likely have difficulty penetrating the cobbles and boulders present within the glacial till. If the sheet piles are obstructed prior to reaching the target depth, the contractor may need to alter the design and/or make efforts to remove the obstructions during excavation. However, even with proper shoring design and construction practices, it may not be practical to entirely avoid impacts to the nearest structures. In particular, underpinning of the structures located adjacent to northern and southwestern sides of the site may also be required. Further details on the foundations of the existing structures will be required for a full evaluation of the shoring systems to be made. For all of the above systems, some form of lateral support to the shoring system is required for excavation depths greater than about 3 or 4 metres, which will be the case for at least a portion of this site. Lateral restraint could be provided by means of tie-backs consisting of grouted bedrock anchors. However, the use of rock anchor tie-backs would require the permission of the adjacent property owners (including the City, who owns the adjacent roadways) since the anchors would be installed beneath their properties. The presence of utilities beneath the adjacent streets which could interfere with the tie-backs should also be considered. Alternatively, interior struts can be considered, connected either to the opposite side of the excavation (if not too distant) or to raker piles and/or footings within the excavation. However, internal struts could interfere with the construction of the foundations and superstructure. It should be planned to drive the toes of the soldier piles through the weathered shale to refusal on sound/fresh bedrock. If rock socketted steel H piles are used they should be set back from the excavation face at least 1 metre and be socketed at least 2 metres into the fresh/sound bedrock. For the sheet piles, it should be planned to pin the toes of the sheet piles at the bedrock surface. To minimize vibrations which may distress the existing buildings which are in close proximity to the site, consideration could be given to installing the piles in predrilled holes which are subsequently concreted within the bedrock Ground Movements Some unavoidable inward horizontal deformation and vertical settlement of the adjacent ground will occur as a result of excavation, installation of shoring, deflection of the ground support system (including bending of the walls, compression of the struts and/or extension of the tie-backs) as well as deformation of the soil/rock in which the toes of the walls are embedded. The ground movements could affect the performance of buildings, surface structures or underground utilities adjacent to the excavation. Report No

15 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE As a preliminary guideline, typical settlements behind soldier pile and lagging shoring systems are less than about 0.3 percent of the excavation depth, provided good construction practices are used, voids are not left behind the lagging, and also provided that large foundation loads from existing buildings are not applied behind the shoring. This guideline would suggest that less than about 10 to 15 millimetres of ground settlement would occur for shoring systems installed through the overburden and weathered bedrock to about 5 metres depth. Movements behind a properly constructed steel sheet pile or contiguous caisson wall would be less than what would be expected for a soldier pile and lagging wall. However, this is only a preliminary guideline and is provided only to assist the owner s designers in carrying out an initial assessment of the expected settlements and the potential impacts of these settlements. A more detailed assessment of the expected settlements should be undertaken by the contractor and must consider the effects of adjacent foundation loads. However, should the preliminary assessment carried out using this estimated settlement indicate unacceptably large settlements to adjacent structures, roadways, or utilities, then a more detailed assessment should be carried out at the design stage (prior to tender) to better assess the shoring requirements, or a more rigid form of shoring should be selected. The structures that are apparently most at risk of being impacted by the ground movements are the houses located adjacent to the western/southwestern and northern limits of the property. Even with proper shoring design and construction practices, it may not be practical to entirely avoid impacts to these structures without first underpinning them. A preconstruction survey of all of these structures should be carried out prior to commencement of the excavation. 5.5 Groundwater Management A hydrogeological assessment was carried out concurrently with the geotechnical investigation in order to determine groundwater management requirements. For the purposes of groundwater modelling, it was assumed that the construction excavation would cover the entire site (approximately 1,953 square metres) and would extend to a depth of 7.5 metres below ground surface. In addition, a third underground parking level (approximately 520 square metres), three metres deeper, will be constructed under the northwest portion of the structure. An analytical solution was run using the estimated hydraulic conductivity value (2x10-7 metres per second) from the bedrock monitoring well installed in borehole The results of the hydrogeological modelling indicate that steady-state groundwater flow into the excavation could be as much as 30,000 Litres per day. Higher initial flows (possibly in excess of 50,000 L/day) could occur depending on the rate of rock excavation; however, groundwater inflow into the excavation will decrease to steady state over time as the bedrock dewaters within the radius of influence. The ability of the existing sewer system to accept the volume of pumped groundwater will need to be evaluated. The predicted radius of influence from the excavation is approximately 20 metres. Therefore, the quality of groundwater within approximately 20 metres of the property boundary could impact on the quality of the water that would be pumped from the excavation (and into the building s drainage system after construction if the basement (or parking garage) is not made water-tight. The Phase I ESA report (prepared by Patterson) indicated that the site was previously occupied by residential and commercial buildings. In addition, a nearby property was occupied by dry cleaning facilities and a former landfill identified as URT-46 was located approximately 25 metres south of the site. The former presence of these facilities on the surrounding lands is considered to be an issue of potential environmental concern, particularly for the building s drainage system. Report No

16 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE Precipitation accumulation for the proposed excavation would be approximately 175,000 Litres during an 89 millimetre precipitation event (based on the design 24 hour rainfall event with a return rate of 10 years, as observed at the Ottawa International Airport). A Permit to Take Water (PTTW) should be obtained for construction since the estimated daily groundwater inflow with a precipitation event that is greater than 24 millimetres per day could require pumping more than 50,000 Litres per day. The water taking rates requested for the PTTW should account for increased dewatering following precipitation events. 5.6 Impacts on Adjacent Developments Impacts on surrounding structures could result from: Ground movements around the excavation shoring. Ground settlements due to the planned temporary and permanent groundwater level lowering, if sensitive and compressible clay soils exist within the expected zone of influence of the groundwater level lowering. Heaving of surrounding shale. The shoring and underpinning requirements and the potential impacts on surrounding structures due to ground movements are discussed in Section of this report. The structures that are most at risk of being impacted by ground movements around the excavation are the residences located at the north and southwest limits of the site. The planned temporary and permanent groundwater level lowering would be an issue with regards to surrounding ground settlements if sensitive and compressible clay soils exist within the expected zone of influence of the groundwater level lowering (both during construction and in the long term due to the foundation drainage system). The predicted steady-state radius of groundwater drawdown around the excavation is estimated at approximately 20 metres (see Section 5.5 of this report). The results of this investigation as well as published geologic mapping do not indicate compressible soils being present within this zone. Therefore, the planned groundwater level lowering will not be an issue with regards to ground settlements due to overstressing sensitive and compressible clay soils. As discussed in Section 5.3, the shale bedrock at this site and beneath the surrounding structures has the potential to swell if exposed to oxygen. This being the case, where shale is exposed on the sides of the excavation, the exposed shale should be shotcreted so that concrete covers the shale to the top-of-rock level. A preconstruction survey of all structures located within close proximity to this site should be carried out prior to commencement of the excavation. 5.7 Foundations In general, the subsurface conditions on this site consist of up to about 3.8 metres of fill and glacial till overlying shale bedrock. The surface of the shale bedrock is at about 1.8 to 3.8 metres depth. Plans indicate that the foundations for this structure will be at about 7 to 10 metres depth below the existing ground surface, which will be within the shale bedrock. Report No

17 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE Foundations bearing on or within competent shale bedrock can be sized using an Ultimate Limit States (ULS) factored bearing resistance of 1 megapascal. Provided the bedrock surface is acceptably cleaned of loose bedrock, the settlement of footings at the corresponding service (unfactored) load levels will be less than 25 millimetres and therefore Serviceability Limit States (SLS) need not be considered in the foundation design. As previously discussed, the shale bedrock on this site should be protected to prevent prolonged exposure to oxygen such as could occur even over the construction period. As such, a concrete mud slab must be placed directly on the bedrock surface, upon cleaning and inspection. 5.8 Seismic Design The seismic design provisions of the 2012 Ontario Building Code depend, in part, on the shear wave velocity of the upper 30 metres of soil and/or rock below founding level. Site specific shear wave velocity profiling, using the Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) method (down-hole geophysical method), was carried out in borehole The results of that testing are provided in Appendix E. The results of the VSP testing indicate an average shear-wave velocity for the bedrock of about 1350 metres per second. As such, this building can be designed using a Site Class B designation. 5.9 Rock Anchors It is understood that rock anchors may be required to resist overturning forces. The anchors could consist of either grouted or mechanical anchors. In designing grouted rock anchors, consideration should be given to four possible anchor failure modes. i) Failure of the steel tendon or top anchorage. ii) iii) iv) Failure of the grout/tendon bond. Failure of the rock/grout bond. Failure within the rock mass, or rock cone pull-out. Potential failure modes i) and ii) are structural and are best addressed by the structural engineer. Adequate corrosion protection of the steel components should be provided to prevent potential premature failure due to steel corrosion. For potential failure mode iii), the factored bond stress at the concrete/rock interface may be taken as 500 kilopascals for ULS design purposes. If the response of the anchor under SLS conditions needs to be evaluated, for a preliminary assessment it may conservatively be taken as the elastic elongation of the unbonded portion of the anchor under the design loading. For potential failure mode iv), the resistance should be calculated based on the buoyant weight of the potential mass of rock which could be mobilized by the anchor. This is typically considered as the mass of rock included within a cone (or wedge for a line of closely spaced anchors) having an apex at the tip of the anchor and having an apex angle of 60 degrees. For each individual anchor, the ULS factored geotechnical resistance can be calculated based on the following equation: Report No

18 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 3 Qr = D tan 3 Where: Q r = Factored uplift resistance of the anchor, kilonewtons; = Resistance factor, 0.3; / = Effective unit weight of rock, use 17 kilonewtons per cubic metre; D = Anchor length in metres; and, = ½ of the apex angle of the rock failure cone, use 30 degrees. Where the anchor load is applied at an angle to the vertical, the anchor capacity should be reduced as follows: Q r = Q r cos (α) 2 ( ) Where: Q r = Factored uplift resistance of the anchor subject to inclined load in kilonewtons; Q r = Factored uplift resistance of the anchor, kilonewtons; and, = Angle between the load direction and the vertical. For a group of anchors or for a line of closely spaced anchors, the resistance must consider the potential overlap between the rock masses mobilized by individual anchors. In the case of group effects for a series of rock anchors in a rectangle with width a and length b installed to a depth D, the equation for the volume of the truncated trapezoid failure zone would be as follows: Where: V = Volume of the truncated trapezoid failure zone in cubic metres; D = Depth of anchor group in metres; a = Width of anchor group in metres; b = Length of the anchor group in metres; and, = ½ of the apex angle of the rock failure cone, use 30 degrees. The ULS factored geotechnical resistance for the truncated trapezoid failure formed by the group of anchors can then be calculated based on the following equation: Q r = V Where: Q r = Factored uplift resistance of the anchor, kilonewtons; = Resistance factor, use 0.3; / = Effective unit weight of rock, use 17 kilonewtons per cubic metre; and, V = Volume of truncated trapezoid in cubic metres. Report No

19 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE It is suggested that proof-load tests be carried out on the anchors. The proof-load tests should be carried out to 1.3 times the anchor service loads, and at least 10 percent of the anchors should be tested in this manner. The installation and testing of the anchors should be supervised by the geotechnical engineer. Care must be taken during grouting to ensure that the grouting pressure is sufficient to bond the entire length of the grout area with a minimum of voids. It is also suggested that the anchor holes be thoroughly flushed with water to remove all debris and rock flour. It is essential that rock flour be completely removed from the anchor holes to be grouted to ensure an adequate bond between the grout and the rock. Prestressing of the anchors prior to loading would minimize anchor movement due to service loads Basement Floor Slab In preparation for the construction of the basement floor slab, all loose, wet, and disturbed material should be removed from beneath the floor slab, and immediately followed by placement of the lean concrete mud slab. Provision should be made for at least 300 millimetres of free draining granular material, such as 16 millimetre clear crushed stone, to form the base of the floor slab. To prevent hydrostatic pressure build up beneath the floor slab, it is suggested that the granular base for the floor slab be drained. This should be achieved by installing rigid 100 millimetre diameter perforated pipes in the floor slab bedding at 6 metre centres. The perforated pipes should discharge to a positive outlet such as a sump from which the water is pumped. Any bulk fill required to raise the grade to the underside of the clear stone should consist of OPSS Granular B Type II. The underslab fill 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. If or where an asphalt surface will be provided for the basement level, at least 150 millimetres of OPSS Granular A base should be provided above the clear stone, compacted to at least 100 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density Basement Walls The backfill and drainage requirements for basement walls, as well as the lateral earth pressures, will depend on the type of excavation that is made to construct the basement levels and the forming methods Overburden Excavations The following guidelines apply to the upper portions of the basement walls, above the bedrock surface. The soils at this site are frost susceptible and should not be used as backfill against exterior, unheated, or well insulated foundation elements within the depth of potential frost penetration (1.5 metres) to avoid problems with frost adhesion and heaving. Free draining backfill materials are also required if hydrostatic water pressure against the basement walls (and potential leakage) is to be avoided. The foundation and basement walls therefore should be backfilled with non-frost susceptible sand or sand and gravel conforming to the requirements for OPSS Granular B Type I. Report No

20 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE To avoid ground settlements around the foundations, which could affect site grading and drainage, all of the backfill materials should be placed in 0.3 metre thick lifts, compacted to at least 95 percent of the material s standard Proctor maximum dry density. The basement wall backfill (for the full height of the wall) should be drained by means of a perforated pipe subdrain in a surround of 19 millimetres clear stone, fully wrapped in a geotextile, which leads by positive drainage to a storm sewer or to a sump from which the water is pumped Excavations in Bedrock The following guidelines apply to the deeper portions of the basement walls, which will be constructed in the bedrock. Where basement walls will be poured against bedrock, vertical drainage such as Miradrain must be installed on the face of the bedrock to provide the necessary drainage. The top edge of the Miradrain should be sealed or covered with a geotextile to prevent the loss of soil into the void between the sheet and geotextile of the Miradrain. Where the basement walls will be constructed using formwork, it will be necessary to backfill a narrow gallery between the shoring or bedrock face and the outside of the walls. The backfill should consist of 6 millimetre clear stone chip, placed by a stone slinger or chute. In no case should the clear stone chip be placed in direct contact with other soils. For example, surface landscaping or backfill soils placed near the top of the clear stone back fill should be separated from the clear stone with a geotextile. Both the drain pipe for the wall backfill and/or the Miradrain should be connected to a perimeter drain at the base of the excavation which is connected to a sump pump Lateral Earth Pressures It is considered that three design conditions exist with regards to the lateral earth pressures that will be exerted on the basements walls: 1) Walls cast directly against the bedrock face. 2) Walls cast against formwork with a narrow backfilled gallery provided between the basement wall and the adjacent excavation bedrock face. 3) Walls cast against formwork with a wide backfilled gallery provided between the basement wall and the adjacent excavation face (including the upper portions of the walls, above the bedrock surface). For the first case (walls cast against the bedrock with Miradrain), there will be no effective lateral earth pressures on the basement wall. For the second case, the magnitude of the lateral earth pressure depends on the magnitude of the arching which can develop in the backfill and therefore depends on the width of the backfill, its angle of internal friction, as well as the interface friction angles between the backfill and both the rock face and the basement wall. The magnitude of the lateral earth pressure can be calculated as: Report No

21 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE B 1 e 2 tan z 2K tan ( ) B h z + K q Where: h (z) = Lateral earth pressure on the basement wall at depth z, kilopascals; K = Earth pressure coefficient, use 0.6; = Unit weight of retained soil, use 20 kilonewtons per cubic metre for clear stone chip; B = Width of backfill (between basement wall and bedrock face), metres; = Average interface friction angle at backfill-basement wall and backfill-rock face interfaces, use 15 degrees; z = Depth below top of formwork, metres; and, q = Surcharge at ground surface to account for traffic, equipment, or stock piled materials (use 15 kilopascals). Additional/higher surcharge loads associated with existing building foundations should also be accounted for where existing buildings are located adjacent to the basement walls. For the third case, the basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures calculated as: h (z) = K o ( z + q) Where: h (z) = Lateral earth pressure on the wall at depth z, kilopascals; K o = At-rest earth pressure coefficient, use 0.5; = Unit weight of retained soil, use 22 kilonewtons per cubic metre; z = Depth below top of wall, metres; and, q = Uniform surcharge at ground surface behind the wall to account for traffic, equipment, or stockpiled soil (use 15 kilopascals). Additional/higher surcharge loads associated with existing building foundations should also be accounted for where existing buildings are located adjacent to the basement walls. For all cases, hydrostatic groundwater and different lateral earth pressures (e.g., effective unit weights of the soils would apply to the above equations) would also need to be considered if the structure is designed to be water-tight. Additional guidelines will therefore need to be provided if the basement is to be designed to be water-tight. Conventional damp proofing of the basement walls is appropriate with the above design approach. For concrete walls poured against shoring or bedrock (i.e., without a drainage layer), damp proofing using a crystalline barrier such as Crystal Lok or Xypex could be used. The use of a concrete additive that provides reduced permeability should also be considered. Report No

22 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE These lateral earth pressures would increase under seismic loading conditions. The earthquake-induced dynamic pressure distribution, which is to be added to the static earth pressure distribution, is a linear distribution with maximum pressure at the top of the wall and minimum pressure at its toe (i.e., an inverted triangular pressure distribution). The combined pressure distribution (static plus seismic) may be determined as follows: h (z) = K o γ z + (K AE K o ) γ (H-z) Where: K AE = The seismic earth pressure coefficient, use 0.8; and, H = The total depth to the bottom of the foundation wall (metres). Hydrodynamic groundwater pressures would also need to be considered if the structure is designed to be water-tight. However, if this option is selected, more sophisticated analyses would need to be carried before guidelines could be provided. All of the lateral earth pressure equations are given in an unfactored format and will need to be factored for Limit States Design purposes. It has been assumed that the underground parking levels will be maintained at minimum temperatures but will not be permitted to freeze. If these areas are to be unheated, additional guidelines for the design of the basement walls and foundations will need to be provided. In areas where pavement or other hard surfacing will abut the building, differential frost heaving could occur between the granular fill immediately adjacent to the building and the more frost susceptible backfill placed beyond the wall backfill. To reduce the severity of this differential heaving, the backfill adjacent to the wall may have to be placed to form a frost taper, depending on the composition of the existing fill. The frost taper should be brought up to pavement subgrade level from 1.5 metres below finished exterior grade at a slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, or flatter, away from the wall. The granular fill 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 Frost Protection All perimeter and exterior foundation elements or interior foundation elements in unheated areas should be provided with a minimum of 1.5 metres of earth cover for frost protection purposes. Isolated, unheated exterior footings adjacent to surfaces which are cleared of snow cover during winter months should be provided with a minimum of 1.8 metres of earth cover. It is expected that these requirements will be satisfied due to the deep founding level required to accommodate the below grade parking, and assuming that the parking garage will not be allowed to freeze. Structures on the north and southwest sides of the excavations are likely supported on shallow foundations which are likely founded on frost susceptible soils. The shoring will be constructed within very close proximity to those foundations and, if construction is carried out during the winter months, those existing foundations may be adversely affected due to frost movement. Therefore, if construction is anticipated during sub-zero temperatures, provision should be made to protect the soils behind the shoring from frost movement. Report No

23 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 5.13 Corrosion and Cement Type One sample of groundwater from borehole 14-2 was submitted to Maxxam Analytics for basic chemical analysis related to potential sulphate attack on buried concrete elements and corrosion of buried ferrous elements. The results of the testing are provided in Appendix F. The results indicate a potential for corrosion of exposed ferrous metal, which should be considered in the design of exposed steel (such as rock anchors). The results also indicate that concrete made with Type GU Portland cement should be acceptable for substructures. However, as previously mentioned, oxidation of pyrite in the shale bedrock beneath this site could produce ferrous sulphate and sulphuric acid. Based on this potential for sulphate attack, concrete foundation elements should be made with Type MS sulphate resistant Portland cement or equivalent. Report No

24 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 6.0 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS All foundation and subgrade areas should be inspected by experienced geotechnical personnel prior to filling or concreting to ensure that bedrock having adequate bearing capacity has been reached and that the bearing surfaces have been properly prepared. The placing and compaction of any engineered fill should be inspected to ensure that the materials used conform to the specifications from both a grading and compaction viewpoint. Also, the proposed blasting design and monitoring proposed by the contractor should be reviewed. Pumping from the excavation will result in groundwater flow from the surrounding properties towards this site. Therefore, groundwater contamination beneath adjacent properties, if present, could be drawn towards this site. Additional on-going chemical testing should be carried out at the time of construction to monitor the groundwater quality so that disposal requirements can be confirmed throughout the duration of construction. The inflow of contaminated groundwater during construction would result in increased groundwater disposal costs. Ontario Regulation 903 would ultimately require abandonment of the monitoring wells installed for this investigation. However, these devices may be useful during construction. It is therefore proposed that decommissioning of these devices be made part of the construction contract. At the time of the writing of this report, only preliminary details for the proposed development were available. Golder Associates should be retained to review the detailed drawings and specifications for this project prior to tendering to ensure that the guidelines in this report have been adequately interpreted. Report No

25

26 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, Claridge Homes. 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 1 of 2

27 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

28 KEY MAP LEGEND SCALE 1:30,000 APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION IN PLAN, CURRENT INVESTIGATION BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION IN PLAN, PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION BY PATERSON GROUP NOTES 1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT No REFERENCE 1. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83, COORDINATE SYSTEM: MTM ZONE 9, VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 Path: \\golder.gds\gal\ottawa\active\spatial_im\claridgehomes\99_beechwood_ave\99_proj\ \40_prod\phase 5000\ File Name: dwg CLIENT CLARIDGE HOMES PROJECT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE, OTTAWA, ONTARIO TITLE SITE PLAN CONSULTANT PROJECT No :250 PHASE YYYY-MM-DD PREPARED DESIGN REVIEW APPROVED METRES Rev. A JM ---- TMS KN FIGURE 1 IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI B 0 25 mm

29 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols Lithological and Geotechnical Rock Description Terminology Record of Borehole and Drillhole Sheets Current Investigation Report No

30 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 12% fines (by mass) Gravels with >12% fines (by mass) Sands with 12% fines (by mass) Sands with >12% 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 10 Cc = (D 30) 2 D 10 xd 60 <4 1 or 3 Organic Content USCS Group Symbol Group Name CLAYEY n/a GC GRAVEL 30% <6 1 or 3 SP SAND GP GRAVEL Well Graded 4 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL Below A Line Above A Line Poorly Graded n/a GM SILTY GRAVEL Well Graded 6 1 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 1 mm to 3 mm ~ 3 mm 1 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 <1 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 100% 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 12% 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 1 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 2013 G-1

31 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 >12 75 to to to to to to to to 3 (4) to 0.75 (10) to (4) (40) to (10) (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) > 12 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable > 5 to 12 some 5 trace PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split-spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60 conical tip and a project end area of 10 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 (140 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 (12 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) 1 Very Loose 0-4 Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense >50 1. SPT N in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects. 2. Definition of compactness descriptions based on SPT N ranges from Terzaghi and Peck (1967) 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 1 CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement 1 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 1. Tests which are anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU. COHESIVE SOILS Consistency Term Undrained Shear SPT N 1 Strength (kpa) (blows/0.3m) Very Soft <12 0 to 2 Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to to 15 Very Stiff 100 to to 30 Hard >200 >30 1. SPT N in accordance with ASTM D1586, 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 2013 G-2

32 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 w l or LL liquid limit ln x natural logarithm of x w p or PL plastic limit log 10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 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 1, σ 2, σ 3 minor) (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) C c compression index σ oct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = (σ 1 + 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 1 + σ 3)/2 n porosity p mean effective stress (σ 1 + σ 3)/2 S degree of saturation q (σ 1 - σ 3)/2 or (σ 1 - σ 3)/2 q u compressive strength (σ 1 - 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: 1 2 τ = c + σ tan φ shear strength = (compressive strength)/2 January 2013 G-3

33 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 100 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 100% 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 1 m to 3 m Moderately close 0.3 m to 1 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

34 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Site Plan SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 14-1 BORING DATE: June 4-5, 2014 SHEET 1 OF 3 DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES 0 1 BORING METHOD GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION ASPHALTIC CONCRETE FILL - (SW) gravelly SAND, angular; grey (PAVEMENT STRUCTURE); non-cohesive, moist (SM) SILTY SAND, trace to some gravel; dark grey to brown, with cobbles, boulders and shale fragments (GLACIAL TILL); non-cohesive, moist, loose to very dense STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) NUMBER SAMPLES 1 TYPE SS BLOWS/0.30m 4 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 Flush Mount Protective Casing Bentonite Seal 2 Power Auger 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) 2 SS mm Diam. VSP casing 3 SS SS >63 Borehole continued on RECORD OF DRILLHOLE MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 07/16/14 JM 9 10 DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 LOGGED: CHECKED: KE TMS

35 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Site Plan INCLINATION: -90 AZIMUTH: --- RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 14-1 DRILLING DATE: June 4-5, 2014 DRILL RIG: CME 75 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling SHEET 2 OF 3 DATUM: Geodetic DEPTH SCALE METRES DRILLING RECORD DESCRIPTION SYMBOLIC LOG ELEV. DEPTH (m) RUN No. COLOUR % RETURN FLUSH JN - Joint FLT - Fault SHR- Shear VN - Vein CJ - Conjugate RECOVERY TOTAL CORE % SOLID CORE % R.Q.D. % PO- Polished K - Slickensided SM- Smooth Ro - Rough MB- Mechanical Break BR - Broken Rock Slightly weathered, thinly to medium bedded, dark grey to black, fine grained SHALE BEDROCK Slightly weathered to fresh, thinly to medium bedded, dark grey, fine grained SHALE BEDROCK Rotary Drill 100 Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, dark grey, fine grained SHALE BEDROCK mm Diam. VSP casing HQ3 Core BD- Bedding FO- Foliation CO- Contact OR- Orthogonal CL - Cleavage FRACT. INDEX PER 0.25 m B Angle PL - Planar CU- Curved UN- Undulating ST - Stepped IR - Irregular DISCONTINUITY DATA DIP w.r.t. CORE AXIS TYPE AND SURFACE DESCRIPTION Jcon Jr NOTE: For additional abbreviations refer to list of abbreviations & symbols. HYDRAULIC Diametral CONDUCTIVITY Point LoadRMC K, cm/sec Index -Q' Ja (MPa) AVG NOTES WATER LEVELS INSTRUMENTATION BEDROCK SURFACE MIS-RCK GPJ GAL-MISS.GDT 07/16/14 JM DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 CONTINUED NEXT PAGE LOGGED: KE CHECKED: TMS

36 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Site Plan INCLINATION: -90 AZIMUTH: --- RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 14-1 DRILLING DATE: June 4-5, 2014 DRILL RIG: CME 75 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling SHEET 3 OF 3 DATUM: Geodetic DEPTH SCALE METRES DRILLING RECORD DESCRIPTION SYMBOLIC LOG ELEV. DEPTH (m) RUN No. COLOUR % RETURN FLUSH JN - Joint FLT - Fault SHR- Shear VN - Vein CJ - Conjugate RECOVERY TOTAL CORE % SOLID CORE % R.Q.D. % BD- Bedding FO- Foliation CO- Contact OR- Orthogonal CL - Cleavage FRACT. INDEX PER 0.25 m B Angle PL - Planar CU- Curved UN- Undulating ST - Stepped IR - Irregular DISCONTINUITY DATA DIP w.r.t. CORE AXIS TYPE AND SURFACE DESCRIPTION PO- Polished K - Slickensided SM- Smooth Ro - Rough MB- Mechanical Break Jcon Jr BR - Broken Rock NOTE: For additional abbreviations refer to list of abbreviations & symbols. HYDRAULIC Diametral CONDUCTIVITY Point LoadRMC K, cm/sec Index -Q' Ja (MPa) AVG NOTES WATER LEVELS INSTRUMENTATION --- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE --- Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, dark grey, fine grained SHALE BEDROCK Rotary Drill HQ3 Core Fresh, thinly to medium bedded, dark grey, fine grained SHALE BEDROCK, trace calcite pockets and limestone partings mm Diam. VSP casing 15 End of Drillhole MIS-RCK GPJ GAL-MISS.GDT 07/16/14 JM DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 LOGGED: CHECKED: KE TMS

37 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Site Plan SAMPLER HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm RECORD OF BOREHOLE: 14-2 BORING DATE: June 4, 2014 SHEET 1 OF 2 DATUM: Geodetic PENETRATION TEST HAMMER, 64kg; DROP, 760mm DEPTH SCALE METRES Power Auger BORING METHOD 200 mm Diam. (Hollow Stem) GROUND SURFACE SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION ASPHALTIC CONCRETE FILL - (SW) gravelly SAND, angular; grey (PAVEMENT STRUCTURE); non-cohesive, moist FILL - (SP) SAND, some gravel; brown (PAVEMENT STRUCTURE); non-cohesive, moist, compact (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; dark grey to brown, with cobbles, boulders and shale fragments, (GLACIAL TILL); non-cohesive, moist, compact to dense STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) NUMBER SAMPLES 1 SS 22 2 TYPE SS BLOWS/0.30m 21 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 Flush Mount Protective Casing 3 SS 42 3 (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; dark grey to brown, with cobbles, boulders and shale fragments, (GLACIAL TILL); non-cohesive, moist, dense to very dense SS 68 Native Backfill 4 Borehole continued on RECORD OF DRILLHOLE SS > MIS-BHS GPJ GAL-MIS.GDT 07/16/14 JM 9 10 DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 LOGGED: CHECKED: KE TMS

38 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Site Plan INCLINATION: -90 AZIMUTH: --- RECORD OF DRILLHOLE: 14-2 DRILLING DATE: June 4, 2014 DRILL RIG: CME 75 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Marathon Drilling SHEET 2 OF 2 DATUM: Geodetic DEPTH SCALE METRES DRILLING RECORD DESCRIPTION SYMBOLIC LOG ELEV. DEPTH (m) RUN No. COLOUR % RETURN FLUSH JN - Joint FLT - Fault SHR- Shear VN - Vein CJ - Conjugate RECOVERY TOTAL CORE % SOLID CORE % R.Q.D. % BD- Bedding FO- Foliation CO- Contact OR- Orthogonal CL - Cleavage FRACT. INDEX PER 0.25 m B Angle PL - Planar CU- Curved UN- Undulating ST - Stepped IR - Irregular DISCONTINUITY DATA DIP w.r.t. CORE AXIS TYPE AND SURFACE DESCRIPTION PO- Polished K - Slickensided SM- Smooth Ro - Rough MB- Mechanical Break Jcon Jr BR - Broken Rock NOTE: For additional abbreviations refer to list of abbreviations & symbols. HYDRAULIC Diametral CONDUCTIVITY Point LoadRMC K, cm/sec Index -Q' Ja (MPa) AVG NOTES WATER LEVELS INSTRUMENTATION 4 BEDROCK SURFACE Slightly weathered, thinly bedded, black, fine grained SHALE BEDROCK Native Backfill Rotary Drill HQ3 Core Bentonite Seal Silica Sand mm Diam. PVC #10 Slot Screen End of Drillhole WL in Screen at Elev m on June 13, MIS-RCK GPJ GAL-MISS.GDT 07/16/14 JM DEPTH SCALE 1 : 50 LOGGED: KE CHECKED: TMS

39 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE APPENDIX B Record of Soil Profile and Test Data Previous Investigation by Paterson Group Report No

40 patersongroup 154 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7J5 DATUM REMARKS BORINGS BY CME 55 Power Auger Consulting Engineers DATE SOIL PROFILE AND TEST DATA Phase I - II Environmental Site Assessment 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario TBM - Top spinle of fire hydrant located on the southeast corner of Beechwood Avenue and St. Charles Street. Assumed elevation = m. May 15, 2013 FILE NO. HOLE NO. PE2956 BH 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Asphaltic concrete FILL: Brown silty sand with gravel STRATA PLOT TYPE SAMPLE NUMBER % RECOVERY N VALUE or RQD DEPTH (m) 0 ELEV. (m) Photo Ionization Detector Volatile Organic Rdg. (ppm) Lower Explosive Limit % Monitoring Well Construction SS GLACIAL TILL: Compact to dense, brown silty sand with shale SS SS RC RC BEDROCK: Black shale RC RC End of Borehole m-May 22, 2013) RKI Eagle Rdg. (ppm) Full Gas Resp. Methane Elim.

41 patersongroup 154 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7J5 DATUM REMARKS BORINGS BY CME 55 Power Auger Consulting Engineers DATE Phase I - II Environmental Site Assessment 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario TBM - Top spinle of fire hydrant located on the southeast corner of Beechwood Avenue and St. Charles Street. Assumed elevation = m. SOIL PROFILE AND TEST DATA May 15, 2013 FILE NO. HOLE NO. PE2956 BH 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Asphaltic concrete FILL: Brown silty sand with gravel STRATA PLOT TYPE AU SAMPLE NUMBER % RECOVERY 1 N VALUE or RQD DEPTH (m) 0 ELEV. (m) Photo Ionization Detector Volatile Organic Rdg. (ppm) Lower Explosive Limit % Monitoring Well Construction GLACIAL TILL: Dense, brown silty sand with clay and shale SS BEDROCK: Black shale End of Borehole SS RKI Eagle Rdg. (ppm) Full Gas Resp. Methane Elim.

42 patersongroup 154 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7J5 DATUM REMARKS BORINGS BY CME 55 Power Auger Consulting Engineers DATE Phase I - II Environmental Site Assessment 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario TBM - Top spinle of fire hydrant located on the southeast corner of Beechwood Avenue and St. Charles Street. Assumed elevation = m. SOIL PROFILE AND TEST DATA May 15, 2013 FILE NO. HOLE NO. PE2956 BH 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Asphaltic concrete FILL: Brown silty sand with glass, trace mortar STRATA PLOT TYPE AU SAMPLE NUMBER % RECOVERY 1 N VALUE or RQD DEPTH (m) 0 ELEV. (m) Photo Ionization Detector Volatile Organic Rdg. (ppm) Lower Explosive Limit % Monitoring Well Construction SS GLACIAL TILL: Brown silty sand with clay, gravel and shale SS BEDROCK: Black shale End of Borehole SS RKI Eagle Rdg. (ppm) Full Gas Resp. Methane Elim.

43 patersongroup 154 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7J5 DATUM REMARKS BORINGS BY Consulting Engineers DATE Phase I - II Environmental Site Assessment 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario TBM - Top spinle of fire hydrant located on the southeast corner of Beechwood Avenue and St. Charles Street. Assumed elevation = m. CME 55 Power Auger SOIL PROFILE AND TEST DATA May 15, 2013 FILE NO. HOLE NO. PE2956 BH 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Asphaltic concrete 0.10 STRATA PLOT TYPE AU SAMPLE NUMBER % RECOVERY 1 N VALUE or RQD DEPTH (m) 0 ELEV. (m) Photo Ionization Detector Volatile Organic Rdg. (ppm) Lower Explosive Limit % Monitoring Well Construction FILL: Brown silty sand SS GLACIAL TILL: Brown silty sand with clay and shale End of Borehole SS SS Practical refusal to augering on inferred bedrock surface at 2.29m depth RKI Eagle Rdg. (ppm) Full Gas Resp. Methane Elim.

44 patersongroup 154 Colonnade Road South, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 7J5 DATUM REMARKS BORINGS BY Consulting Engineers DATE Phase I - II Environmental Site Assessment 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario TBM - Top spinle of fire hydrant located on the southeast corner of Beechwood Avenue and St. Charles Street. Assumed elevation = m. CME 55 Power Auger SOIL PROFILE AND TEST DATA May 15, 2013 FILE NO. HOLE NO. PE2956 BH 5 SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUND SURFACE Asphaltic concrete FILL: Brown silty sand with gravel STRATA PLOT TYPE SAMPLE NUMBER % RECOVERY N VALUE or RQD DEPTH (m) 0 ELEV. (m) Photo Ionization Detector Volatile Organic Rdg. (ppm) Lower Explosive Limit % Monitoring Well Construction GLACIAL TILL: Brown silty sand with clay and shale AU End of Borehole 2.16 SS Practical refusal to augering on inferred bedrock surface at 2.16m depth RKI Eagle Rdg. (ppm) Full Gas Resp. Methane Elim.

45 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE APPENDIX C Borehole Core Photos Report No

46 3.53 m BH to metres Core Box 1 to 5 of m Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario Project No Drawn: BG Date: 7/14/2014 Checked: TMS Review: TMS Figure C-1

47 3.81 m BH to 9.60 metres Core Box 1 to 3 of m Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development 99 Beechwood Avenue Ottawa, Ontario Project No Drawn: BG Date: 7/14/2014 Checked: TMS Review: TMS Figure C-2

48 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE APPENDIX D Hydrogeological Assessment Report No

49 HVORSLEV SLUG TEST ANALYSIS RISING HEAD TEST BH14-2 INTERVAL (metres below ground surface) Top of Interval = 8.08 Bottom of Interval = 9.60 rc K = 2L 2 e Le ln 2R e + Le 1 + 2R e h1 2 ln h2 2 ( t t ) 1 where K = (m/sec) where: r c = casing radius (metres) R e = filter pack radius (metres) L e = length of screened interval (metres) t = time (seconds) h t = head at time t (metres) INPUT PARAMETERS RESULTS r c = 1.4E-02 R e = 1.0E-01 L e = 1.5 K= 2E-07 m/sec t 1 = 500 K= 2E-05 cm/sec t 2 = 4500 h 1 /h 0 = 0.80 h 2 /h 0 = Head Ratio Time (sec) Project Name: Claridge/99 Beechwood/Ottawa Analysis By: BH Project No.: Checked By: BTB Test Date: 6/13/2014 Analysis Date: 6/24/2014 N:\Active\2014\ Geotechnical\ Claridge Beechwood Ottawa\Hydrogeology\ BH14-2_ _RHT.xlsx Golder Associates Ltd. Page 1 of 1

50 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE APPENDIX E Geophysical Vertical Seismic Profiling Test Results Report No

51 DATE July 15, 2014 PROJECT No TO Neil Malhotra Claridge Homes FROM Patrick Finlay, P.Geo. VERTICAL SEISMIC PROFILE TEST RESULTS 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE OTTAWA, ONTARIO This memorandum presents the results of the Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) testing carried out at 99 Beechwood Avenue in Ottawa, Ontario. VSP testing was completed in borehole 14-1 on June 10, Borehole 14-1 was drilled to a depth of about 15.2 metres below the existing ground and was cased with a PVC pipe grouted in place. Methodology For the VSP method, seismic energy is generated at the ground surface by an active seismic source and recorded by a geophone located in a nearby borehole at a known depth. The active seismic source can be either compression or shear wave. The time required for the energy to travel from the source to the receiver (geophone) provides a measurement of the average compression or shear wave seismic velocity of the medium between the source and the receiver. Data obtained from different geophone depths are used to calculate a detailed vertical seismic velocity profile of the subsurface in the immediate vicinity of the test borehole. The high resolution results of a VSP survey are often used for earthquake engineering site classification, as per the National Building Code of Canada, Example 1: Layout and resulting time traces from a VSP survey. Golder Associates Ltd. 32 Steacie Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2A9 Tel: +1 (613) Fax: +1 (613) Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

52 Neil Malhotra Claridge Homes July 15, 2014 Field Work The field work was carried out on June 10, 2014, by personnel from the Golder Ottawa office. Both compression and shear wave seismic sources were used and both were located in close vicinity to the borehole. The seismic source for the compression wave test consisted of a 9.9 kilogram sledge hammer vertically impacted on a metal plate. The plate was located 2 metres from the borehole, on the asphaltic concrete. The seismic source for the shear wave test consisted of a 3 metres long, 150 millimetres by 150 millimetres wooden beam, weighted by a vehicle and horizontally struck with a 9.9 kilogram sledge hammer on alternate ends of the beam to induce polarized shear waves. The shear source was also located 2 metres from the borehole (BH 14-1), and coupled to the ground surface by parking a vehicle on top of it. Test measurements started at 1 metre below the ground surface. Data were recorded in the borehole with a 3 component receiver spaced at 0.5 metre intervals below the ground surface to a depth of 3.5 metres and then at every 1 metre to a maximum depth of the casing (14 metres). The seismic records collected for each source location were stacked a minimum of ten times to minimize the effects of ambient background seismic noise on the collected data. The data was sampled at millisecond intervals and a total time window of seconds was collected for each seismic shot. Data Processing Processing of the VSP test results consisted of the following main steps: 1) Combination of seismic records to present seismic traces for all depth intervals on a single plot for each seismic source and for each component; 2) Low Pass Filtering of data to remove spurious high frequency noise; 3) First break picking of the compression and shear wave arrivals; and, 4) Calculation of the average compression and shear wave velocity to each tested depth interval. Processing of the VSP data was completed using the SeisImager/SW software package (Geometrics Inc.). The seismic records are presented on the following two plots and show the first break picks of the compression wave and shear wave arrivals overlaid on the seismic waveform traces recorded at the different geophone depths (Figures 1 and 2). The arrivals were picked on the vertical component for the compression source and on the two horizontal components for the shear source. 2/4

53 Neil Malhotra Claridge Homes July 15, 2014 Figure 1: First break picking of compression wave arrivals (red) along the seismic traces recorded at each receiver depth. Figure 2: First break picking of shear wave arrivals (red) along the seismic traces recorded at each receiver depth. 3/4

54

55 June 2014 TABLE 1 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE AT BH Layer Depth (m) Estimated Bulk Density Dynamic Engineering Properties Shear Modulus (MPa) Deformation Modulus (MPa) Top Bottom Compressional Wave (m/s) Shear Wave (m/s) (kg/m 3 ) Poissons Ratio Bulk Modulus (MPa) Wave Velocity - Field Collected vs. Modelled Data Field Shear Model Shear Field Compression Model Compression Travel Time (s) Notes 1. Depth presented relative to ground surface. 2. This table to be analyzed in conjunction with the accompanying report. Depth (m) Golder Associates

56 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 99 BEECHWOOD AVENUE APPENDIX F Basic Chemical Analysis Exova Laboratories Report No Report No

57 EXOVA OTTAWA Certificate of Analysis Client: Golder Associates Ltd. (Ottawa) 32 Steacie Drive Kanata, ON K2K 2A9 Attention: Mr. Troy Skinner 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 1 ohm-cm SO % Soil Borehole 14-2 SA# <0.01 Guideline = * = Guideline Exceedence MRL = Method Reporting Limit, AO = Aesthetic Objective, OG = Operational Guideline, ** = Analysis completed at Mississauga, Ontario. Results relate only to the parameters tested on the samples submitted. Methods references and/or additional QA/QC information available on request. MAC = 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 146 Colonnade Rd. Unit 8, Ottawa, ON K2E 7Y1 Page 2 of 3

58 Golder Associates Ltd. 32 Steacie Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2K 2A9 Canada T: +1 (613)