22 - Geotechnical Report - 06.29.2021

TOWN OF CALEDON
PLANNING
RECEIVED
Nov.29, 2021
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED STACKED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT

HARVEST MOON DRIVE AND COLERAINE DRIVE
BOLTON, ONTARIO
CMT Project 21-242.R01
Prepared for:
Hydrogeology Consulting Services
Harvestone Centre Inc.
June 29, 2021

June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
Hydrogeology Consulting Services

28 Upper Mercer Street
Kitchener, Ontario
N2M 4M9
Attention: Mr. Chris Helmer, B.Sc., P.Geo.
Dear Sir:
Re: Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Stacked Townhouse Development
Harvest Moon Drive and Coleraine Drive
Bolton, Ontario
As requested, CMT Engineering Inc. conducted a geotechnical investigation at the

above-referenced site, and we are pleased to present the enclosed report.
We trust that this information meets your present requirements, and we thank you for allowing us
to undertake this project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our
office.
Yours truly,
Brittany Brown, C.Tech., rcji
ks
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 1
3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES ...................................................................... 1
4.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 3
4.1. Topsoil ........................................................................................................................... 3

4.2. Clayey Silt........................................................................................................................ 3
4.3. Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 3
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 4
5.1. Serviceability and Ultimate Limit Pressure ..................................................................... 5

5.2. Seismic Site Classification............................................................................................... 6
5.3. Soil Design Parameters .................................................................................................... 7
5.4. Site Preparation ................................................................................................................ 7
5.4.1. Topsoil Stripping/Vegetation Grubbing ................................................................. 7
5.4.2. Removal of Former Building Substructure ............................................................. 8
5.4.3. Removal/Relocation of Existing Services and Buried Piping ................................ 8
5.4.4. Site Grading/Structural Fill ..................................................................................... 9
5.5. Foundation Subgrade Preparation .................................................................................. 11
5.6. Slab-on-Grade/Modulus of Subgrade Reaction ............................................................. 12
5.7. Excavations .................................................................................................................... 13
5.8. Construction Dewatering Considerations ...................................................................... 13
5.9. Service Pipe Bedding ..................................................................................................... 14
5.10. Perimeter Building Drainage, Foundation Wall Backfill and Trench Backfill ............. 15
5.11. Pavement Design/Drainage............................................................................................ 17
5.12. Radon ......................................................................................................................... 19
5.13. Chemical Analysis/Excess Soil Management ................................................................ 19
6.0 SITE INSPECTION ................................................................................................................ 20
7.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ 20
Drawing 1 - Site Location Map

Drawing 2 - Site Plan Showing Borehole Locations
Appendix A - Borehole Logs
Appendix B - Grain Size Analyses
Appendix C - Well Records- Pavement Optimization Design Analysis
Report of May 14, 2019
CMT Engineering Inc. Page 1
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The services of CMT Engineering Inc. (CMT Inc.) were retained by Mr. Chris Helmer, B.Sc.,
P.Geo. of Hydrogeology Consulting Services (HCS) to conduct a geotechnical investigation for
the proposed stacked townhouse development to be located at the northwest corner of Harvest
Moon Drive and Coleraine Drive (Emil Kolb Parkway), in Bolton, Ontario. A hydrogeological
study was completed for this site by HCS and will be provided under separate cover. The
location of the site is shown on Drawing 1.
It is understood that the project will comprise the construction of three (3) townhouse blocks,
comprising a total of forty-five (45) units, with associated driveways and parking areas. The
development will be serviced by municipal utilities.
The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to assess the existing soil and groundwater
conditions encountered in the boreholes and monitoring wells. Included in the assessment are the
soil classification and groundwater observations, as well as comments and recommendations
regarding the estimated geotechnical resistance (bearing capacity); estimated serviceability limit
states (anticipated settlement); dewatering considerations; site classification for seismic site
response; recommendations for site grading, site servicing, excavations and backfilling;
recommendations for slab-on-grade construction; stormwater infiltration; pavement
design/drainage; soil design properties; and a summary of the laboratory results.
The recommendations in this report are solely based on the soil conditions encountered in the
boreholes advanced on the subject site.
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Currently, the site comprises a vacant lot, surfaced with grass, with mature trees located in the
southeast portion of the site. It is understood that previously there was a house located on the
site, although the exact location of any former structures was not known at the time of
investigation.
The site is bounded by Harvest Moon Drive to the south, Coleraine Drive (Emil Kolb Parkway)
to the east, and residential properties to the north and west. In general, the site topography is
relatively flat, sloping slightly down toward the road along the south and east boundaries.
3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
The field investigation was conducted on June 2, 2021 and comprised the advancement of six (6)
boreholes (referenced as Boreholes 1 to 6) utilizing a Geoprobe 7822DT drillrig operated by
employees of CMT Drilling Inc.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
Boreholes 1 to 6 were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 3.66 m to 6.10 m (12.0 ft
to 20.0 ft) below the existing ground surface.
Boreholes 1, 4 and 5 and were equipped with 38 mm diameter PVC monitoring wells comprising
a 3.05 m long screen backfilled with #2 sand filter and then riser pipe, backfilled with bentonite.
The monitoring wells were installed according to the Ontario Water Resources Act,
Regulation 903 (O.Reg. 903) by well technicians licensed by the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks (MECP), working for a contractor also licensed by the MECP. The
boreholes that were not instrumented with monitoring wells were backfilled with bentonite in
accordance with O.Reg. 903. The monitoring wells are registered with the MECP and must be
decommissioned in accordance with O.Reg. 903 prior to future construction. The MECP well log
records are provided in Appendix C.
Standard penetration testing (SPT) and sampling was carried out in all boreholes using 38 mm
inside diameter split spoon sampling equipment and an automatic hammer, in accordance with
ASTM D 1586 "Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel
Sampling of Soils". SPT soil sampling was generally conducted at 0.76 m (2.5 ft) intervals to
approximately 3.0 m (10.0 ft) and every 1.52 m (5.0 ft) thereafter to borehole termination in the
majority of the boreholes. Macro core (MC5) direct push sampling was generally conducted
between the SPT samples below 3.0 m (10.0 ft) in the boreholes.
Technical staff from CMT Inc. observed the drilling operation and collected and logged the
recovered soil samples. A small portion of each sample was placed in a sealed, marked jar for
moisture content determinations. Representative samples from the boreholes at the following
depths were submitted to the CMT Inc. laboratory in St. Clements, Ontario for grain size
analyses:
• Borehole 3 - depth 1.52 m to 2.13 m (5.0 ft to 7.0 ft)

• Borehole 5 - depth 4.57 m to 6.10 m (15.0 ft to 20.0 ft)
The borehole logs are provided in Appendix A and the grain size analyses are provided in
Appendix B.
The ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were surveyed by CMT Inc. personnel,
using laser surveying equipment. An existing catch basin, located southeast of the site on Harvest
Moon Drive, was used as a temporary benchmark with a reported geodetic elevation of
256.39 m. The ground surface elevations at the borehole locations ranged from approximately
257.60 m at Borehole 6 to 258.91 m at Borehole 3. The locations of the boreholes and temporary
benchmark are shown on Drawing 2.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
4.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
The soils encountered in the boreholes are described briefly below and a more detailed
stratigraphic description is provided on the borehole logs in Appendix A. The following
paragraphs have been simplified into terms of major soil strata. The soil boundaries indicated
have been inferred from non-continuous samples and observations of sampling and drilling
resistance and typically represent transitions from one soil type to another rather than exact
planes of geological change. Further, the subsurface conditions are anticipated to vary between
and beyond the borehole locations.
4.1. Topsoil
Loose, moist, dark brown, silty topsoil was encountered at the surface of all boreholes
and was observed to range in thickness from approximately 100 mm to 510 mm (average
220 mm). The topsoil thickness should be expected to vary throughout the site. Materials
noted as topsoil in this report were classified based on visual and textural evidence.
Testing of organic content or for other nutrients was not carried out.
4.2. Clayey Silt
Brown, grey, and mottled grey-brown clayey silt, with some sand and trace gravel was
the predominant soil type encountered underlying the topsoil at all of the borehole
locations. Some of the clayey silt encountered directly underlying the topsoil was
observed to have trace rootlets at many of the borehole locations, likely due to the root
structure of the vegetation above. The clayey silt soils were considered to be firm to hard,
with SPT N-values ranging from 5 to 47 blows per 0.3 m (average 26 blows per 0.3 m).
The clayey silt was considered to be moist (drier than the plastic limit), with moisture
contents ranging from about 13.1% to 20.8% (average 14.8%).
4.3. Groundwater
Three (3) monitoring wells were installed as part of the geotechnical and hydrogeological
investigation. The monitoring wells were installed and registered in accordance with the
Ontario Water Resources Act, Regulation 903 (O.Reg. 903) by well technicians licensed
by the Ministry of the Environment (MECP), working for a contractor also licensed by
the MECP.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
The following table provides groundwater elevations in the monitoring wells, measured
by HCS on June 6, 2021:
Measured
Measured Depth Approximate
Ground Elevation of
Borehole/ of Water in Bottom of
Surface Water in
Monitoring Monitoring Well Monitoring
Elevation Monitoring Well
Well No. June 6, 2021 Well Elevation
(m) June 6, 2021
(m) (m)
(m)
1 258.46 253.36 5.10 252.67
4 258.51 255.68 2.83 252.41
5 257.97 253.62 4.35 252.33
Due to the fine-grained nature and slow response time of the native, predominantly
clayey silt soils, accumulated groundwater was not observed upon completion of any of
the boreholes. The fine-grained clayey silt soils encountered throughout the site are
typically low in permeability and have the potential to create perched water conditions. It
should be noted that groundwater conditions (particularly perched water) are generally
dependent on the amount of precipitation, control of surface water, as well as the time of
year, and can fluctuate significantly in elevation and volume.
Recommendations with respect to dewatering conditions are provided in Section 5.8 of

this report.
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is understood that the project will comprise the construction of three (3) townhouse blocks,
comprising a total of forty-five (45) units, with associated driveways and parking areas. The
development will be serviced by municipal utilities.
The following sections of the report provides our interpretation of the factual geotechnical data
obtained during the investigation and is intended for the guidance of the design engineer. Where
comments are made on construction, they are provided only to highlight those aspects which
could affect the design of the project. Contractors bidding on or undertaking the work should
make their own independent interpretation of the factual subsurface information provided as it
affects their proposed construction means and methods, equipment selection, scheduling, pricing,
and the like.
Utilizing the information gathered during the geotechnical investigation and assuming that the
borehole information is representative of the subsoil conditions throughout the site, the following
comments and recommendations are provided.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
5.1. Serviceability and Ultimate Limit Pressure
Based on the information obtained from the boreholes, the following table provides the
estimated geotechnical reaction at the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and the factored
geotechnical resistance at the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) pressures at the various
elevations, including soil types:
Estimated Depth to
Ground
Borehole/ Highest Highest
Surface SLS ULS
Monitoring Founding Founding Soil Type
Elevation kPa (psf) kPa (psf)
Well No. Elevation Elevation
(m)
(m) (m)
257.70 to 252.36
1 258.46 300 (6,000) 450 (9,000) 0.76 Clayey Silt
(termination)
257.87 to 254.67
2 258.33 250 (5,000) 375 (7,500) 0.46 Clayey Silt
(termination)
150 (3,000) 225 (4,500) 258.00 to 257.39 0.91

3 258.91 Clayey Silt
300 (6,000) 450 (9,000) 257.39 to 253.73 1.52
(termination)
257.75 to 252.41
4 258.51 300 (6,000) 450 (9,000) 0.76 Clayey Silt
(termination)
75 (1,500) 112 (2,250) 257.21 to 256.29 0.76

300 (6,000) 450 (9,000) 256.29 to 252.33 1.68
(termination)
150 (3,000) 225 (4,500) 256.84 to 255.77 0.76

300 (6,000) 450 (9,000) 255.77 to 252.42 1.83
(termination)
Based on the information provided in the table above, suitable founding soils capable of
supporting conventional shallow foundations designed with a bearing capacity of at least
150 kPa (3,000 psf) at SLS were generally encountered between approximately 0.46 m
and 1.68 m below the existing ground surface, from elevations of approximately
258.00 m to 256.29 m. Based on the Grading Plan by Soscia Professional Engineers Inc.,
the townhouse blocks have proposed finished floor elevations of 258.45 m. As such, it is
estimated that the proposed founding elevation will be at least 1.22 m (4.0 ft) lower, at an
elevation of approximately 257.23. Based on the soils encountered in the boreholes, it is
estimated that structural fill will be required in the area of Boreholes 5 and 6. The
serviceability limit pressure for good quality granular structural fill placed and compacted
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
in accordance with Section 5.4.4 of this report is estimated to be at least 150 kPa
(3,000 psf).
With respect to the Serviceability Limit State (SLS), the total and differential footing
settlements are not expected to exceed the generally acceptable limits of 25 mm (1") and
19 mm (3/4") respectively.
Should wet to saturated soils be encountered during excavation, it is recommended that

widened footings are considered for the support of the structure.
Should footings be designed to be constructed at elevations higher than the elevations

indicated in the table above, then structural fill will be required in order to achieve the
design grades for the proposed foundations. The serviceability limit pressure for good
quality granular structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with Section 5.4.4 of
this report is estimated to be at least 150 kPa (3,000 psf) at SLS and 225 kPa (4,500 psf)
at ULS. Alternatively, lean mix concrete fill could be used, or footings could be stepped
down to bear on approved undisturbed founding soils. It is imperative that the founding
soils be assessed at the time of construction by qualified geotechnical personnel in order
to confirm their founding suitability.
Footings founded on soil may be placed at a higher elevation relative to another footing
provided that the slope between the outside face of the footings is separated by a
minimum slope of 10 horizontal to 7 vertical (10H:7V) with an imaginary line projected
from the underside of the footings.
It is recommended that structural foundation drawings be cross-referenced with site

servicing drawings to ensure that service pipes do not conflict with building foundations
(including the zone of influence down and away from the footings).
All exterior footings must be provided with a minimum of 1.2 m of soil cover or
equivalent thermal insulation (sufficient thermal insulation is required to protect all
footings and slab-on-grades during construction until such a time that the structure is
heated) in order to provide protection against frost action.
5.2. Seismic Site Classification
The site classification for seismic response in Table 4.1.8.4 of the 2012 Ontario Building
Code relates to the average properties of the upper 30.0 m of strata. The information
obtained in the geotechnical field investigation was gathered from the upper 3.66 m to
6.10 m (12.0 ft to 20.0 ft) of strata. Based on the information gathered in the geotechnical
field investigation, the site classification for seismic site response would be considered
Site Class D (stiff soils) for structures founded on the native soils at the recommended
founding elevations provided in Section 5.1 of this report as well as structures founded on
structural fill placed in accordance with Section 5.4.4 of this report. The structural
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
engineer responsible for the design of the structure should review the earthquake loads
and effects.
5.3. Soil Design Parameters
The following table provides estimated soil design parameters for imported granular fill,
as well as the native soils encountered on the subject site. It should be noted that earth
pressure coefficients (Ka, Kp, Ko) provided are for flat ground surface conditions and
will differ for areas with slopes or embankments.
The estimated soil design parameters can be utilized for the design of perimeter shoring,
foundations and retaining walls, as required:
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

Soil Friction Coefficient Cohesion
of Active of Passive of At-Rest
Soil Type Density Angle of Friction (Undrained)
Pressure Pressure Pressure
(kg/m3) (Degree) (μ) (kPa)
(Ka) (Kp) (Ko)
Imported
Granular 'A'/
2,100 34o 0.28 3.54 0.44 0.45 0
Granular 'B'
(OPSS 1010)
Clayey Silt 1,850 28o 0.36 2.77 0.53 0.35 10 - 20
5.4. Site Preparation
The site preparation for the proposed townhouse development is anticipated to consist of
the stripping of topsoil, removal of any former subsurface structures or building
foundations, the subexcavation of any loose/soft fill or native soils deemed not capable of
supporting the design bearing capacity, removal or relocation of any existing services and
buried piping (including drainage tiles), followed by the placement of structural fill or
lean mix concrete (as required) and site grading to achieve proposed grades.
5.4.1. Topsoil Stripping/Vegetation Grubbing
All existing topsoil and vegetation (including roots and all loose/disturbed soils
associated with the roots) must be removed from within any proposed building
envelopes, driveways and parking areas to expose approved competent subgrade
soils. The topsoil may be used in landscaped areas where some settlement can be
tolerated; otherwise, it should be properly disposed of off-site.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
The volume of topsoil removed during the stripping process is also relative to the
equipment utilized for the stripping process as well as the moisture conditions at
the time of stripping. If an excavator with a smooth bucket is utilized for
stripping, there would generally be less potential for topsoil to become intermixed
with the underlying relatively loose subsoil and therefore less concern of
over-excavation to remove all topsoil. If the topsoil is stripped with wheeled
equipment or bulldozers, then there is an increased potential for the topsoil and
subsoil to become intermixed, subsequently requiring additional excavation to
remove all topsoil. This is further influenced by rutting which can occur during
wet conditions
5.4.2. Removal of Former Building Substructure
It is understood that a house was previously located on the site, although the
location was not known at the time of investigation. If encountered, all concrete
foundations, foundation backfill and any other subsurface infrastructure
(including septic tanks and leaching beds) relating to the former building
foundation should be removed prior to the subgrade preparation for the proposed
buildings. All excavations must be inspected and then backfilled as required
according to the procedures outlined in Section 5.4.4 of this report. It is
recommended that good quality imported sand and gravel (OPSS 1010 Type I, II
or III Granular 'B' or an approved alternative) be placed as structural fill as
required. Provided any stone/concrete from the former building foundation, as
well as any other concrete on-site (if encountered) is reduced to a maximum size
of 100 mm, and all reinforcing steel and any deleterious materials are removed,
the reduced stone/concrete material may be combined with imported granular fill
to be utilized as fill on-site. The reuse of this material, or any other site material,
will be subject to approval from qualified geotechnical personnel.
5.4.3. Removal/Relocation of Existing Services and Buried Piping
Any existing services and buried pipes (including drainage tiles) that may be
located within the proposed building envelopes must be removed/relocated. Any
piping that is left in place that is no longer active must be completely sealed with
watertight mechanical covers, concrete or grout at termination points to prevent
the migration of soils into pipe voids, which may result in potential settlement.
All existing trench backfill material associated with any existing buried pipes
must be subexcavated and the subsequent excavation must be backfilled with
approved soils placed in accordance with Section 5.4.4 of this report.
It is a requirement of the Ontario Water Resources Act, Regulation 903, that any
wells be decommissioned by an MECP licensed well contractor if they are no
longer required. The three (3) monitoring wells that have been installed to
determine static water levels and/or collect environmental samples can be
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
decommissioned by an MECP licensed well contractor with a Class 1, Class 2 or

Class 3 license in accordance with Reg. 903.
5.4.4. Site Grading/Structural Fill
Following the removal of all topsoil and unsuitable soils, the exposed subgrade
soils must be proof-rolled, and any soft or unstable areas must be subexcavated
and replaced with approved fill materials. Any fill materials required to achieve
the design site grades should be placed according to the following procedures:
• Prior to placement of any structural fill or bulk fill, the subgrade for the
proposed buildings and any associated parking lots and driveways must be
prepared large enough to accommodate a 1:1 slope commencing a distance of
1.0 m beyond the outside edge of the proposed foundations or
pavement/concrete edge down to the approved competent founding soils;
• Soils approved for use as structural fill must be placed in loose lifts not
exceeding 0.3 m (12") in depth for granular soils (recommended fill material)
and 0.2 m (8") in depth for silts and clays (not recommended for this
application), or the capacity of the compactor (whichever is less);
• Approved imported granular fill materials (OPSS 1010 Type II or Type III
Granular 'B' recommended for this application) can be compacted utilizing
adequate heavy vibratory smooth drum or padfoot compaction equipment;
• Fine-grained silt and clay soils (not recommended) must be compacted

utilizing adequate heavy padfoot vibratory compaction equipment. It should
be noted that the existing native clayey silt soils were typically very stiff to
hard with depth. It is imperative that if the very stiff/hard soils are utilized for
structural fill, the material must be broken down (pulverized) to minimize
voids and reduce the potential for settlement;
• Approved fill materials must be at suitable moisture contents (at or near to the
optimum moisture content as determined by laboratory Proctor testing) to
achieve the specified compaction. Soil moisture will also be dependent on
weather conditions at the time of construction. Granular soils may require the
addition of water in order to achieve the specified compaction;
• Approved structural fill materials that will support structures as well as slab-
on-grades that will be subject to heavy loads or point loading (including any
entrance slabs, concrete loading areas and other large expansive slabs) must
be compacted to 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD);
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
• Approved bulk fill (foundation wall backfill, bulk fill under slab-on-grades
that will not support footings or heavy point loading, bulk fill for driveways or
parking areas) must be compacted to a minimum 95% SPMDD. It would be
expected that the existing on-site soils, free of any deleterious materials,
would be suitable for use as bulk fill; however, depending on the time of year
and weather conditions when construction takes place, soils may require
air-drying in order to achieve the specified density;
• Granular 'B' subbase and Granular 'A' base materials for the driveways and
paved areas must be compacted to 100% SPMDD.
Any wet soils (if encountered) will require significant air-drying along with
working of the soils in order to achieve the specified compaction of
100% SPMDD in building envelopes (including 1:1 as required) and
95% SPMDD for bulk fill for any driveways and parking areas. Utilizing the
existing soils during site grading may be more achievable if work is completed
during the generally drier summer months. It should be noted, however, that due
to the nature of some soils, during hot dry weather, the addition of water may be
required in order to achieve the specified compaction. Reuse of excavated soils
on-site will be subject to approval from qualified geotechnical personnel.
It should be noted that the existing native clayey silt soils were observed to
become very stiff to hard with depth. It is imperative that if the very stiff to hard
soils are utilized as fill, the material must be broken down (pulverized) to
minimize void space and reduce the potential for settlement. Problems associated
with compacting very stiff to hard soils include the potential for long-term
settlement due to excessive void space caused by the generally blocky structure of
the excavated soils. As such, the very stiff to hard, blocky material must not be
used as structural fill. The contractor must have equipment on-site that can
effectively break down (pulverize) the very stiff to hard excavated soil into
workable sizes (as required). Backfilling utilizing this material must be performed
in thin lifts with considerable compactive effort applied, thereby reducing the void
space and minimizing long-term settlement. This process could be difficult and
time-consuming.
Due to the fine-grained nature of the native soils, they will be easily disturbed and
subject to strength losses, making travel on this material somewhat difficult with
conventional rubber-tired construction equipment such as dump trucks and
compactors. Conditions should be expected to worsen, if the subgrade soils are in
a wet to saturated state. Therefore, it is recommended that construction traffic be
minimized, where possible, from driving on the native subgrade soils. Depending
on the time of year, it may be required to construct a haul road utilizing a
Granular 'B' base.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
5.5. Foundation Subgrade Preparation
The soils encountered in the boreholes are sensitive to changes in moisture content and
can become loose/soft if the soils are subjected to additional water or precipitation, as
well as severe drying conditions. The soils could also be easily disturbed if traveled on
during construction. Once they become disturbed, they are no longer considered adequate
for the support of foundations.
To ensure and protect the integrity of the founding soils during construction operations,
the following is recommended:
• During construction, the subgrade should be sloped/ditched to a sump (as

required) located outside the building footprints (if feasible) in the excavations to
promote surface drainage of rainwater or seepage and the collected water should
be pumped out of the excavation. It is critical that all water be controlled (not
allowed to pond) and that the subgrade and foundation preparation commence in
dry conditions;
• Should the native soils at the design founding elevation in the proposed building
envelopes be comprised of wet/saturated soils, then a granular drainage layer,
constructed in accordance with Section 9.14.4 of the current Ontario Building
Code (OBC) may be required. Alternatively, a lean mix concrete mud mat may be
placed over top of the subgrade soils to provide a stable base;
• Construction equipment travel and foot traffic on the founding soils should be
minimized;
• If construction is to be undertaken during subzero weather conditions, the

founding native soils and any potential fill materials must be maintained above
freezing;
• Prior to placing concrete for the footings, the footing area must be cleaned of all
disturbed or caved materials;
• The foundation formwork and concrete should be installed as soon as practical

following the excavation, inspection and approval of the founding soils. The
longer that the excavated soils remain open to weather conditions and
groundwater seepage, the greater the potential for construction problems to occur;
• If it is expected that the founding soils will be left open to exposure for an
extended period of time, it is recommended that a 75 mm concrete mud slab be
placed in order to protect the structural integrity of the founding soils.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
If wet soils are encountered at the founding elevations, pumping from properly
constructed and filtered sumps located in the base of the excavation and outside of the
bearing areas of any footings may be required to remove water from the excavation.
5.6. Slab-on-Grade/Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Prior to the placement of the granular base material for any slab-on-grade construction,
the subgrade soils should be proof-rolled. Any soft or weak zones, as well as the
unsuitable fill in the subgrade, should be subexcavated and backfilled with approved fill
materials (see Sections 5.4.4 and 5.10 of this report).
The following table provides the estimated modulus of subgrade reaction (k) for imported
granular fill, as well as the native soils encountered on-site:
Estimated Modulus of Subgrade

Soil Type
Reaction (k)
Imported Sand and Gravel (OPSS 1010) 81,000 kN/m3 (300 lb/in3)
Clayey Silt 40,700 kN/m3 (150 lb/in3)
In dry conditions, the floor slab can be founded on a minimum thickness of 150 mm (6'')
of Granular 'A' (OPSS 1010) and compacted to 100% SPMDD. Alternatively,
(particularly in wet conditions), 150 mm (6'') of 19 mm clear crushed stone (OPSS 1004)
could be utilized instead of Granular 'A'. The use of 19 mm clear crushed stone assists in
creating a moisture barrier by reducing/preventing capillary rise of moisture from the
subgrade. Compactive effort is required to consolidate the clear stone. The 19 mm clear
crushed stone should meet the physical property and gradation requirements of
OPSS 1004.
It is recommended that areas of extensive exterior slab-on-grade (including any entrance

slabs, concrete loading areas and other large expansive slabs such as sidewalks and
accessibility ramps) be constructed with a Granular 'B' subbase (450 mm) and a
Granular 'A' base (150 mm), as well as incorporating subdrains, to promote rapid
drainage and reduce the effects of frost heaving. This is particularly critical at
barrier-free access points and at the location of out swinging doors. Alternatively,
structural frost slabs could be designed and constructed, or sufficient thermal insulation
could be provided, at all door entrances and areas of barrier-free access.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
5.7. Excavations
All excavations must be carried out in accordance with Ontario Regulation 213/91
(Reg 213/91) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for
Construction Projects.
Type 2 Soils - In general, the native clayey silt soils in a drained state (not wet or
saturated), would be classified as Type 2 soils under Reg 213/91. The Type 2 soils must
be sloped from within 1.2 m of the bottom of the excavation at a minimum gradient of
1 horizontal to 1 vertical. Soils underlain by Type 4 soils that are exposed in the
excavation must be treated Type 4 soils (see below). All saturated soils encountered must
be treated as Type 4 soils, as described below.
Type 4 Soils - In general, any wet to saturated soils (if encountered) would be classified
as Type 4 soils under Reg 213/91. Type 4 soils must be sloped from the bottom of the
excavation at a minimum gradient of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical.
If it is not practical to excavate according to the above requirements, then a trench

support system (designed in accordance with the Ontario Health and Safety Act
Regulations) may be utilized. When using a temporary trench support system consisting
of trench boxes to reduce the lateral extent of the excavations, it should be noted that the
support system is intended primarily to protect workers as opposed to controlling lateral
soil movement. Any voids between the excavation walls and the support system should
be immediately filled to reduce the potential for loss of ground and to provide support to
existing adjacent utilities and structures, and it is recommended that the excavation be
carried out in short sections, with the support system installed immediately upon
excavation completion. If the excavation is not a trench, no worker should be required to
be closer to a wall of the excavation than the height of the excavated wall.
Sloughing/caving of the excavation walls should be expected when excavating into wet to
saturated soils, if encountered. As such, it may be necessary to increase the width of the
excavation to accommodate sloughing/caving soils.
5.8. Construction Dewatering Considerations
Monitoring wells were installed in Boreholes 1, 4 and 5 to measure static groundwater

levels. The relatively fine-grained clayey silt soils encountered throughout the site have
the potential to create perched water conditions. It should be noted that groundwater
conditions (particularly perched water) are generally dependent on the amount of
precipitation, control of surface water, as well as the time of year, and can fluctuate
significantly in elevation and volume. As such, provisions for site dewatering should be
part of the site development and construction process.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
Seepage control requirements during construction will depend upon the area of work on
the site, the depth of the excavations, the time of year, the amount of precipitation and the
control of surface water. As required, seepage should generally be adequately controlled
using conventional construction dewatering techniques such as pumping from sump pits.
However, if heavy seepage occurs, it may be necessary to increase the number of pumps
during construction.
Dewatering should be performed in accordance with OPSS 517 and the control of water
must be in accordance with OPSS 518. It is the responsibility of the contractor to propose
a suitable dewatering system based on the groundwater elevation at the time of
construction. Collected water should discharge a sufficient distance away from the
excavation to prevent re-entry. Sediment control measures must be installed at the
discharge point of the dewatering system to avoid any potential adverse impacts on the
environment.
5.9. Service Pipe Bedding
The native soils encountered in the geotechnical investigation are generally considered
suitable for indirect support of the site service pipes. Should instability due to wet soil
conditions be encountered, it may be necessary to increase the thickness of the granular
base and utilize 19 mm clear stone to create an adequate supporting base for the service
pipes and/or manholes. Pipe embedment, cover and backfill for both flexible and rigid
pipes should be in accordance with all current and applicable OPSD, OPSS and OBC
standards and guidelines and as follows.
Flexible Pipes – The pipe bedding should be shaped to receive the bottom of the pipe. If
necessary, pipe culvert frost treatment should be undertaken in accordance with
OPSD-803.031. The trench excavations should be symmetrical with respect to the centre-
line of the pipe. The granular material placed under the haunches of the pipe must be
compacted to 95% SPMDD prior to the continued placement and compaction of the
embedment material. The homogeneous granular material used for embedment should be
placed and compacted uniformly around the pipe. Should wet conditions be encountered
at the base of the trench, then the pipe bedding should consist of 19 mm clear stone
(meeting OPS Specifications) wrapped completely in a geotextile fabric such as
Terrafix 270 or equivalent.
Rigid Pipes - In general, the pipe installation recommendations for rigid pipes are the
same as those for flexible pipes, except that the minimum bedding depth below a rigid
pipe should be 0.15D (where D is the pipe diameter). In no case should this dimension
be less than 150 mm or greater than 300 mm.
Any service pipes that are not provided with sufficient frost coverage must be protected
with the necessary equivalent thermal insulation. The general contractor is responsible to
protect service piping from damage by heavy equipment.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
5.10. Perimeter Building Drainage, Foundation Wall Backfill and Trench Backfill
Although groundwater was not observed during the investigation, groundwater was
encountered in the monitoring wells on June 6, 2021. It should be noted that groundwater
elevations (perched and regional water tables) are dependent on weather and seasonal
conditions and should be expected to fluctuate. Foundations constructed within wet to
saturated soils (if encountered) could be subject to flooding in the event of a power
failure or equipment malfunction. If applicable, it would be recommended that
foundations be constructed at least one footing width (minimum 0.5 m) above the static
water level.
Should the proposed townhouse development include any basement areas, an exterior
perimeter drainage system comprising perforated drainage pipe with a factory installed
filter sock, bedded in 19 mm clear crushed stone and wrapped in a geotextile filter fabric
such as Terrafix 270R (or equivalent), is recommended. In the case of townhouses,
perforated subdrains should be installed around both the exterior and interior perimeter,
and non-perforated pipe should be installed to direct the collected exterior water to a
sump pit and good quality sump pump. The drainage tile should be installed at the
founding elevation and be constructed with positive drainage into a sump pit or other
suitable outlet that provides positive drainage away from the structure. The portion of the
piping that connects any exterior drainage system into an interior sump pit must comprise
solid piping to prevent exterior water from being introduced into the interior subslab
stone. It may be prudent to install perforated drainage pipe in the interior area as well to
provide an outlet for any water that may collect in the subslab stone. Each unit should
have its own separate sump pump system. It is recommended that sump pumps be
equipped with a battery backup (in the event if a power outage). It is also recommended
that a capped cleanout port(s) be extended up to the ground surface elevation to provide
future access (if required). Rainwater leaders must not be connected to the perimeter
drainage system. Foundation wall and slab-on-grade waterproofing must conform to
current OBC regulations (as required).
In order to assist in maintaining dry buildings with respect to surface water seepage, it is
recommended that exterior grades around the buildings be sloped down and away at a
2% gradient or more, for a distance of at least 1.5 m. Any surface discharge rainwater
leaders must be constructed with solid piping that discharges with positive drainage at
least 1.5 m away from the building foundations and/or beyond external slab-on-grades
such as loading areas, sidewalks and accessibility ramps to a drainage swale or
appropriate storm drainage system.
In order to reduce the effects of surficial frost heave in areas that will be hard surfaced, it
is recommended that the exterior foundation backfill consist of free-draining granular
material such as imported sand or Granular 'B' Type I, or Type III (OPSS 1010), with a
maximum aggregate size not exceeding 100 mm, and that it extend a minimum lateral
distance of 600 mm out from the foundation walls and/or beyond perimeter sidewalks
and entranceway slabs. It is critical that particles greater than 100 mm in diameter are not
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
in contact with the foundation wall to prevent point loading and overstressing. The
backfill material used against the foundation walls must be placed so that the allowable
lateral capacities of the foundation walls are not exceeded. Where only one side of a
foundation wall will be backfilled, and the height of the wall is such that lateral support is
required, or where the concrete strength has not been achieved, the wall must be braced
or laterally supported prior to backfilling. In situations where both sides of the wall are
backfilled, the backfill should be placed in equal lifts, not exceeding 200 mm differential
on each side during backfill operations and the backfill should be compacted to a
minimum of 98% SPMDD.
It is recommended that frost tapers be constructed (refer to OPSD 3101.150 for typical
details) in order to minimize differential frost action between the foundation wall backfill
and the paved yard granular base. The frost taper must be constructed utilizing the
OPSS 1010 granular material that is used for the foundation wall backfill.
The native soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as trench backfill and bulk fill
in the driveways and parking areas; however, any wet soils encountered may require
air-drying in order to achieve the specified compaction. Air-drying cannot typically be
achieved during winter construction; therefore, depending on the time of year that
construction takes place, it may be more feasible to utilize an imported granular fill for
this project (keeping in mind that frost tapers, as noted above, would be recommended to
minimize differential frost heave).
Backfilling operations should be carried out with the following minimum requirements:
• Adequate heavy padfoot vibratory compaction equipment should be used for the
compaction and to break down any large blocky pieces of soil;
• Loose lift thicknesses should not exceed 0.3 m (12") for granular soils (sand and
gravel) or 0.2 m (8") for clay and silt soils (cohesive) or the capacity of the compactor
(whichever is less);
• The soils must be at suitable moisture contents to achieve compaction to a minimum

95% SPMDD in non-structural bulk fill areas. Service trenches excavated within the
zone of influence of footings for structures must be compacted to a minimum of
100% SPMDD;
• It is recommended that inspection and testing be carried out during construction to

confirm backfill quality, thickness and to ensure that compaction requirements are
achieved;
• Service trench backfill materials may consist of approved excavated soils with no
particles greater than 100 mm and no topsoil or other deleterious materials;
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
• If construction operations are undertaken in the winter, strict consideration should be

given to the condition of the backfill material to make certain that frozen material is
not used.
As noted previously, the existing native clayey silt soils are typically very stiff to hard. It
is imperative that if these soils are utilized for backfilling of service trenches, the material
must be broken down (pulverized) to minimize voids and reduce the potential for
settlement.
5.11. Pavement Design/Drainage
Any soils containing organics or other deleterious material must be subexcavated from
within the proposed parking areas, driveways and entrances. It is recommended to either
subexcavate any existing loose subgrade materials or provide further consolidation with
vibratory compaction equipment in order to prepare a proper, stable subgrade. Prior to
placement of the granular base, the subgrade must be proof-rolled, and any soft or
unstable areas should be subexcavated and replaced with suitable approved materials.
The subgrade should be graded smooth (free of depressions) and properly crowned to
ensure positive drainage, with a minimum grade of 3% toward the drainage outlet or curb
line. When service pipes are installed, pipe bedding and backfilling should be undertaken
as indicated in Sections 5.9 and 5.10 of this report.
Rapid drainage of the pavement structure is critical to ensure long-term performance. As

such, it is recommended to install subdrains for this project (provided gravity drainage to
a suitable outlet can be provided). Subdrains should be designed and installed in
accordance with OPSS 405 and OPSD 216.021. If Granular 'A' bedding (OPSS 1010) is
utilized, the subdrains should be equipped with a factory installed filter sock. If 19 mm
clear stone (OPSS 1004) is utilized as bedding for the subdrain (recommended for this
application), then the bedding must be wrapped completely with geotextile filter fabric
such as Terrafix 270R (or equivalent). Installation of rigid subdrains allows for better
grade control and less potential for damage during installation or service. Positive
drainage through grade control of subdrains is critical, as improperly installed subdrains
can turn drainage systems into reservoirs, which can fuel frost action. The subdrains will
hasten the removal of water, thereby reducing the risk and effects of frost heaving and
load transfer in saturated conditions. It is suggested that subdrains be installed at regular
intervals (to be designed based on layout of catch basins and storm sewers) through
paved driveways and parking areas. It is also recommended to install subdrains through
any areas that cannot tolerate differential frost heave such as accessibility
ramps/sidewalks. The subdrains should be installed in a 0.3 m (1.0 ft) by 0.3 m (1.0 ft)
trench in the subgrade and bedded approximately 50 mm (2") above the bottom of the
trench. The subgrade must be prepared with positive drainage to the subdrains and the
subdrains must be installed with positive drainage into a catch basin structure or other
suitable outlet.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
The native clayey silt subgrade soils are highly sensitive to change in moisture content
and can become loose or soft if the soils are subject to inclement weather and seepage or
severe drying. Furthermore, the subgrade soils could be easily disturbed if traveled on
during construction. As such, where this material will be exposed, it is recommended that
the granular subbase be placed immediately upon completion of the subgrade preparation
to protect the integrity of the subgrade soils.
Should wet conditions be encountered during construction, site assessments may be

required to determine what options can be undertaken to construct a modified pavement
base. These options may include subexcavation of loose/soft soils, increasing the
thickness of the granular base, the use of reinforcing geotextiles or geogrids, or a
combination of all.
It is expected that the driveways and parking areas will experience mostly light traffic
(personal vehicles) and some heavy traffic (moving trucks, delivery trucks, maintenance
and emergency vehicles). Based on the anticipated vehicle loading and
frost-susceptibility of the subgrade soils, the following pavement design is provided:
Recommended Thickness Recommended Thickness

Material
for Light Traffic for Heavy Traffic
HL3 - 40 mm (1.5") HL3 - 40 mm (1.5")
Asphaltic Concrete
HL4 or HL8 - 50 mm (2.0") HL4 or HL8 – 70 mm (2.75")
Granular 'A' Base
150 mm (6.0") 150 mm (6.0")
(OPSS 1010)
Granular 'B' Subbase
400 mm (12.0") 450 mm (16.0")
(OPSS 1010)
Construction joints in the surface and binder asphalt must be offset a minimum of
150 mm to 300 mm (6" to 12") from construction joints in the binder asphalt so that
longitudinal joints do not coincide.
Should any new asphalt be joined into existing asphalt, it is recommended that the
existing asphalt be sawcut in a straight line prior to being milled to a depth of 40 mm and
a width of 150 mm as per OPSD 509.010. It is recommended that a tackcoat in
conformance with OPSS 308 be applied to the edge and surface of all milled asphalt prior
to placement of new asphalt.
The granular base and subbase materials must conform to the physical property and
gradation requirements of OPSS 1010 and must be compacted to 100% SPMDD.
Asphaltic concrete should be supplied, placed and compacted to a minimum
92.0% Marshall maximum relative density, in accordance with OPSS 1150 and
OPSS 310.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
The pavement should be designed to ensure that water will not pond on the pavement
surface. If the surface asphalt is not placed within a reasonable time following placement
of the binder asphalt, it is recommended that the catch basin lids are set at a lower
elevation or apertures provided to allow surface water to drain into the catch basins and
not accumulate around the catch basins. The strength of the pavement structure relies on
all of the components to be in place in order to provide the design strength; therefore, it is
strongly recommended that the surface asphalt be placed shortly after placement of the
binder asphalt so as to avoid undue stress on the binder asphalt by not having the
complete pavement structure in place.
It should be noted that, currently, asphalt mixes tend to be more flexible and, as such,
there is a tendency for damage to occur from vehicles turning their steering wheels or
applying excessive brake pressure. The condition is further intensified during hot
weather. In high traffic areas or areas subjected to frequent turning of heavy vehicles, it is
recommended that rigid Portland cement pavement be considered.
5.12. Radon
According to information provided by Health Canada, radon is a radioactive gas that is

naturally formed through the breakdown of uranium in soil, rock and water. When radon
escapes the earth in the outdoors, it mixes with fresh air, resulting in concentrations that
are too low to be of concern. However, when radon enters an enclosed space, such as a
building, high concentration of radon can accumulate and become a health concern.
Health Canada indicates that most buildings and homes have some level of radon in
them. Unfortunately, it is not possible to predict before construction whether or not a
new building will have high radon levels as radon can only be detected by radon
measurement devices, which would be installed in a building, post construction. Section
9.13.4.1 Soil Gas Control of the current 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC) states that
"Where methane or radon gases are known to be a problem, construction shall comply
with the requirements for soil gas control in MMAH Supplementary Standard SB-9,
Requirements for Soil Gas Control".
5.13. Chemical Analysis/Excess Soil Management
Generally if surplus soils are to be exported off-site, it will be necessary to perform

chemical analysis of the soils. Chemical analysis was not undertaken as part of this
geotechnical investigation. Should chemical analysis tests be required, the required tests
vary and will be dependent on the disposal site utilized by general contractor.
If soils are transported to a landfill facility, additional chemical testing in accordance with
Ontario Regulation 347, Schedule 4, as amended to Ontario Regulation 558/00, dated
March 2001, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) will be required.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
When transporting soils off-site, the following is recommended:
• All chemical analyses and environmental assessment reports must be fully

disclosed to the receiving site owners/authorities, whom must agree to receive
the material;
• An environmental consultant must confirm the land use at the receiving site is
compatible to receive the material;
• An environmental consultant must monitor the transportation and placement

of the materials to ensure that the material is placed appropriately at the pre-
approved site; and
• The excess materials may not be transported to a site that has previously had
a Record of Site Condition (RSC) filed, unless the material meets the criteria
outlined in the RSC.
It should be noted that landfill sites will generally only accept laboratory test results that
have been completed within 30 days of exporting. Therefore, it is recommended that
provisions for chemical analysis be included in the tender documents. It should also be
noted that the laboratory testing generally takes five (5) working days to process with a
regular turnaround time.
6.0 SITE INSPECTION
Qualified geotechnical personnel should supervise excavation inspections as well as compaction

testing for structural filling, site grading and site servicing. This will ensure that footings are
founded in the proper strata and that proper material and techniques are used and the specified
compaction is achieved. CMT Engineering Inc. would be pleased to review the design drawings
and provide an inspection and testing program for the construction of the proposed precast plant.
7.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION
This report is intended for the Client named herein and for their Client. The report should be
read in its entirety, and no portion of this report may be used as a separate entity. Any use which
a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties.
The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of
the project. We request that we be permitted to review our recommendations when the drawings
and specifications are complete, or if the proposed construction should differ from that
mentioned in this report.
June 29, 2021 21-242.R01
It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and
the comments are based on the results obtained at the test locations only. It is therefore assumed
that these results are representative of the subsoil conditions across the site. Should any
conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we
request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our
recommendations.
It should be noted that this report specifically addresses geotechnical aspects of the project and
does not include any investigations or assessments relating to potential subsurface
contamination. As such, there should be no assumptions or conclusions derived from this report
with respect to potential soil or water contamination. This geotechnical investigation was carried
out in conjunction with a hydrogeological study completed by HCS, provided under separate
cover.
The samples obtained during the geotechnical investigation will be stored for a period of three
months, after which time they will be disposed of unless alternative arrangements are made.
We trust that this report meets with your present requirements. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
2021/06/29
Brittany Brown, C. Tech., rcji Nathan Chortos, P.Eng.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer
ks
NOTES:
Base map provided by Google.
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
REVISIONS
Site Location
PROJECT:
Proposed Townhouse Development

Harvest Moon Dr. and Coleraine Dr.
Bolton, Ontario
DRAWING TITLE:
SITE LOCATION MAP
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
21-242 June 10, 2020

SCALE: DRAWING NO.
N.T.S. 1
NOTES:
Base map provided by Google.
Site Concept Plan provided by client.
BH6
Legend
CMT Borehole
CMT Borehole with Monitoring Well

BH3 BH4
Temporary Benchmark (TBM)
Top of Existing Catchbasin
(Elevation: 256.39m)
BH5
BH1 BH2
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
REVISIONS
PROJECT:
TBM Proposed Townhouse Development

Harvest Moon Dr. and Coleraine Dr.
Bolton, Ontario
DRAWING TITLE:
AERIAL VIEW SHOWING

BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
PROJECT NO.: DATE:
21-242 June 10, 2021

SCALE: DRAWING NO.
N.T.S. 2
APPENDIX A
BOREHOLE LOGS
CMT Engineering Inc.
1011 Industrial Crescent, Unit 1
BOREHOLE NUMBER 1
St. Clements, Ontario N0B 2M0 PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: 519-699-5775
Fax: 519-699-4664 PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation for Townhouse Development
PROJECT ADDRESS: Harvest Moon Drive & Coleraine Drive
PROJECT NUMBER: 21-242 PROJECT LOCATION: Bolton, Ontario
DRILLING DATE: 21-6-2 GROUND ELEVATION: 258.46 m
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: CMT Drilling Inc. LOGGED BY: BB
DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Geoprobe 7822DT SAMPLING METHOD: SPT/MC5
SPT N VALUE
BLOW COUNTS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY %
(N VALUE)
10 20 30 40
GRAPHIC
NUMBER
DEPTH
LOG
Depth, Elevation POCKET PEN. (kPa)

(m)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WELL DIAGRAM

(m) 90 180 270 360
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
12 24 36 48
TOPSOIL: Loose, dark brown silty topsoil, 0.00, 258.46
moist (100 mm) 0.10, 258.36 7
SS
CLAYEY SILT: Firm, mottled grey-brown 100 2-3-4-4
1 (7)
clayey silt, some sand, trace gravel and 15.2
rootlets, moist (drier than the plastic limit)
becoming very stiff to hard, no rootlets 0.76, 257.70

1 8-11-16- 27
SS
100 15
2 (27) Bentonite
14 Seal
38mm Riser
SS 7-14-16- 30
100 27
3 (30)
2 15.2
14-24-21- 45
SS
100 23
4 (45) 13.6
SS 9-15-21- 36
100 19
5 (36) 14.3
becoming grey 3.66, 254.80
4
BOREHOLE LOG WITH WELL2 21-242.GPJ CMT_TEMPLATE_2020-05-15.GDT 21-7-1
#2 Sand Pack
MC5
100
6
13.6 38mm Screen
SS 9-15-15- 30
100 16
5 7 (30) 14.7
Water Level
measured at
5.10m (El.
253.36m) on
MC5 June 6, 2021
100
8
Bottom of borehole at 6.10 m, Elevation

252.36 m.
Monitoring well installed at an elevation of ,
approximately 252.67m.
Groundwater measured at approximately

5.10m (El. 253.36m) on June 6, 2021.
BOREHOLE NUMBER 2
Telephone: 519-699-5775
SPT N VALUE
BLOW COUNTS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY %
(N VALUE)
10 20 30 40
GRAPHIC
NUMBER
DEPTH
LOG

(m)

(m) 90 180 270 360
12 24 36 48
moist (100 mm) 0.10, 258.23
CLAYEY SILT: Firm, mottled grey-brown
clayey silt, some sand, trace gravel and
rootlets, moist (drier than the plastic limit) 0.46, 257.87
becoming very stiff, no rootlets MC5
100
1
1
15.3
SS 19
100 5-10-9-15
2 (19)
2 14.6
MC5
100
3
14.5
3
SS 14-15-18- 33
100 17
4 (33) 15.1

254.67 m.
Borehole open to termination. ,
No accumulated groundwater encountered

upon completion.
BOREHOLE NUMBER 3
Telephone: 519-699-5775
SPT N VALUE
BLOW COUNTS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY %
(N VALUE)
10 20 30 40
GRAPHIC
NUMBER
DEPTH
LOG

(m)

(m) 90 180 270 360
12 24 36 48
moist (150 mm) 0.15, 258.76 10
SS
1 (10)
1 becoming stiff, no rootlets 0.91, 258.00 16

SS
100 4-6-10-12
2 (16)
16.7
becoming very stiff to hard 1.52, 257.39

SS 7-11-22- 33
100 17
3 (33)
2 14.9
7-13-13- 26
SS
100 19
4 (26) 14.4
SS 6-12-22- 34
100 21
5 (34) 14.7
4
MC5
100
6
14

SS 9-17-16- 33
100 19
5 7 (33) 13.5

253.73 m.

upon completion.
BOREHOLE NUMBER 4
Telephone: 519-699-5775
SPT N VALUE
BLOW COUNTS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY %
(N VALUE)
10 20 30 40
GRAPHIC
NUMBER
DEPTH
LOG

(m)

(m) 90 180 270 360
12 24 36 48
moist (150 mm) 0.15, 258.36 7
SS
1 (7)
becoming very stiff to hard, no rootlets 0.76, 257.75

1 7-12-15- 27
SS
100 16
2 (27) 14.7
Bentonite
Seal
38mm Riser
SS 7-11-17- 28
100 19
3 (28)
2 15.1
10-20-27- 47
SS
100 24
4 (47) 14.3
Water Level
3 measured at
2.83m (El.
becoming brown 3.05, 255.46 255.68m) on
SS 9-20-23- 43 June 6, 2021
100 30
5 (43) 14.3
4
#2 Sand Pack
MC5
100
6
14.1
38mm Screen
SS 15-18-25- 43
100 23
5 7 (43) 15.3
MC5
100
8

252.41 m.

2.83m (El. 255.68m) on June 6, 2021.
BOREHOLE NUMBER 5
Telephone: 519-699-5775
SPT N VALUE
BLOW COUNTS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY %
(N VALUE)
10 20 30 40
GRAPHIC
NUMBER
DEPTH
LOG

(m)

(m) 90 180 270 360
12 24 36 48
moist (300 mm) 6
SS
50 2-3-3-4
CLAYEY SILT: Firm, mottled grey-brown 0.30, 257.67 1 (6)
becoming no rootlets 0.76, 257.21

1 9
SS
100 2-4-5-8 Bentonite
2 (9)
Seal
20.8
38mm Riser
becoming very stiff 1.68, 256.29 SS 7-10-15- 25

100 15
3 (25)
2 14.1
SS 22
100 7-7-15-15
4 (22)
15.7
SS 10-11-14- 25
100 16
5 (25) 14.7
4
#2 Sand Pack
MC5
100 38mm Screen
6
15.9 Water Level
becoming grey 4.42, 253.55 measured at
4.35m (El.
253.62m) on
SS 9-14-17- 31 June 6, 2021
100 17
5 7 (31) 13.9
MC5
202
8 13.9

252.33 m.


4.35m (El. 253.62m) on June 6, 2021.
BOREHOLE NUMBER 6
Telephone: 519-699-5775
SPT N VALUE
BLOW COUNTS
SAMPLE TYPE
RECOVERY %
(N VALUE)
10 20 30 40
GRAPHIC
NUMBER
DEPTH
LOG

(m)

(m) 90 180 270 360
12 24 36 48
moist (510 mm) 5
SS
75 2-2-3-4
1 (5)
CLAYEY SILT: Firm, mottled grey-brown 0.51, 257.09

rootlets, moist (drier than the plastic limit) 0.76, 256.84
1 becoming stiff, no rootlets 13
SS
100 3-5-8-13
2 (13)
15.6
SS 22
100 6-7-15-13
becoming very stiff to hard 1.83, 255.77 3 (22)
2 14.5
15-20-26- 46
SS
100 25
4 (46) 15
SS 11-12-18- 30
100 17
5 (30) 14.6
4
MC5
100
6
becoming grey 4.27, 253.33 15
SS 10-14-24- 38
100 20
5 7 (38) 15.4

252.42 m.

upon completion.
APPENDIX B
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES

Particle Size Distribution Report
3/8 in.
1½ in.
#100
#140
#200
¾ in.
½ in.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 in.
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
PERCENT FINER
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% Cobbles
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 3.2 2.2 3.7 11.3 49.7 29.9
SOIL DATA
SAMPLE DEPTH
SYMBOL SOURCE Material Description USCS
NO. (ft.)
BH3 3 1.52-2.13m clayey silt, some sand, trace gravel ML
Sampled by BB of CMT Engineering Inc., June 2, 2021
Tested by MS of CMT Engineering Inc., June 4, 2021
Client: Hydrogeology Consulting Services (HCS)

Project: Stacked Townhouse Development
Harvest Moon Drive and Coleraine Drive, Bolton, Ontario
St. Clements, ON Project No.: 21-242 Figure 1
Particle Size Distribution Report
3/8 in.
1½ in.
#100
#140
#200
¾ in.
½ in.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in.
1 in.
#10
#20
#30
#40
#60
#4
100
90
80
70
PERCENT FINER
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% Gravel % Sand % Fines
% Cobbles
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 0.0 1.9 2.1 4.1 9.9 50.3 31.7
SOIL DATA
SAMPLE DEPTH
SYMBOL SOURCE Material Description USCS
NO. (ft.)
BH5 7 4.57-5.18m clayey silt, some sand, trace gravel ML
Sampled by BB of CMT Engineering Inc., June 2, 2021
Tested by MS of CMT Engineering Inc., June 4, 2021
Client: Hydrogeology Consulting Services (HCS)

Project: Stacked Townhouse Development
Harvest Moon Drive and Coleraine Drive, Bolton, Ontario
St. Clements, ON Project No.: 21-242 Figure 2
APPENDIX C
WELL RECORDS

22 - Geotechnical Report - 06.29.2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22 - Geotechnical Report - 06.29.2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22 - Geotechnical Report - 06.29.2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOWN OF CALEDON

PROPOSED STACKED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT

CMT Project 21-242.R01

Hydrogeology Consulting Services

Harvestone Centre Inc.

June 29, 2021

Hydrogeology Consulting Services

Attention: Mr. Chris Helmer, B.Sc., P.Geo.

Re: Geotechnical Investigation

As requested, CMT Engineering Inc. conducted a geotechnical investigation at the

Brittany Brown, C.Tech., rcji

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 1

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES ...................................................................... 1

4.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 3

4.1. Topsoil ........................................................................................................................... 3

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 4

5.1. Serviceability and Ultimate Limit Pressure ..................................................................... 5

6.0 SITE INSPECTION ................................................................................................................ 20

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION ........................................................................ 20

Drawing 1 - Site Location Map

2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

• Borehole 3 - depth 1.52 m to 2.13 m (5.0 ft to 7.0 ft)

4.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS

4.2. Clayey Silt

4 258.51 255.68 2.83 252.41

5 257.97 253.62 4.35 252.33

Recommendations with respect to dewatering conditions are provided in Section 5.8 of

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Serviceability and Ultimate Limit Pressure

150 (3,000) 225 (4,500) 258.00 to 257.39 0.91

75 (1,500) 112 (2,250) 257.21 to 256.29 0.76

150 (3,000) 225 (4,500) 256.84 to 255.77 0.76

Should wet to saturated soils be encountered during excavation, it is recommended that

Should footings be designed to be constructed at elevations higher than the elevations

It is recommended that structural foundation drawings be cross-referenced with site

5.2. Seismic Site Classification

5.3. Soil Design Parameters

Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient

5.4. Site Preparation

5.4.1. Topsoil Stripping/Vegetation Grubbing

5.4.2. Removal of Former Building Substructure

5.4.3. Removal/Relocation of Existing Services and Buried Piping

decommissioned by an MECP licensed well contractor with a Class 1, Class 2 or

5.4.4. Site Grading/Structural Fill

• Fine-grained silt and clay soils (not recommended) must be compacted

5.5. Foundation Subgrade Preparation

• During construction, the subgrade should be sloped/ditched to a sump (as

• If construction is to be undertaken during subzero weather conditions, the

• The foundation formwork and concrete should be installed as soon as practical

5.6. Slab-on-Grade/Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Estimated Modulus of Subgrade

Clayey Silt 40,700 kN/m3 (150 lb/in3)

It is recommended that areas of extensive exterior slab-on-grade (including any entrance

If it is not practical to excavate according to the above requirements, then a trench

5.8. Construction Dewatering Considerations

Monitoring wells were installed in Boreholes 1, 4 and 5 to measure static groundwater

5.9. Service Pipe Bedding