1603-S116 FINAL Soil Report - Wing Wall Construction

A REPORT TO
GRECK AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED
A SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR

PROPOSED CULVERT
ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA

16500 REGIONAL ROAD 50
TOWN OF CALEDON
REFERENCE NO. 1603-S116
SEPTEMBER 2016
DISTRIBUTION
3 Copies - Greck and Associates Limited

1 Copy - Soil Engineers Ltd. (Mississauga)
1 Copy - Soil Engineers Ltd. (Toronto)
Reference No. 1603-S116 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................. 2
3.0 FIELD WORK ........................................................................................ 3
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................. 4
4.1 Earth Fill ....................................................................................... 4

4.2 Sandy Silt and Silty Fine Sand ..................................................... 5
4.3 Compaction Characteristics of the Revealed Soils ...................... 7
5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ........................................................ 9
6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 10
6.1 Culvert Foundations ..................................................................... 11

6.2 Wing Wall Construction............................................................... 12
6.3 Backfilling in Trenches and Excavated Areas ............................. 13
6.4 Pavement Design .......................................................................... 15
6.5 Soil Parameters ............................................................................. 16
6.6 Excavation .................................................................................... 17
7.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT................................................................. 19

Reference No. 1603-S116 iii
TABLES
Table 1 - Estimated Water Content for Compaction ........................................ 7

Table 2 - Pavement Design ...............................................................................15
Table 3 - Soil Parameters ..................................................................................16
Table 4 - Classification of Soils for Excavation ...............................................18
DIAGRAM
Diagram 1 - Lateral Earth Pressure ..................................................................18
ENCLOSURES
Borehole Logs ........................................................................ Figures 1 and 2

Grain Size Distribution Graphs ............................................. Figures 3 to 5
Borehole Location Plan ........................................................ Drawing No. 1
Subsurface Profile .................................................................. Drawing No. 2
Reference No. 1603-S116 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with email authorization dated March 29, 2016 from

Mr. Richard Brunton of Greck and Associates Limited, a soil investigation was
carried out within the Albion Hills Conservation Area, in the Town of Caledon, for a
proposed Culvert crossing the Centreville Creek.
The purpose of the investigation was to reveal the subsurface conditions and to
determine the engineering properties of the disclosed soils for the design and
construction of the proposed project.
The findings and resulting geotechnical recommendations are presented in this

Report.
2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The investigation area is situated on Halton-Peel till plain, where the drift dominates
the soil stratigraphy. In places, lacustrine sand, silt, clay and drift which have been
reworked by the water action of Peel Ponding (glacial lake) have modified the drift
stratigraphy.
The subject site is located on an internal road crossing Centreville Creek in the
Albion Hills Conservation Area, located at 16500 Regional Road 50 in the Town of
Caledon.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new open-bottom concrete

culvert to replace the existing earth dam. The culvert will consist of wing walls and
headwalls, having a culvert width of 10.98 m (between the wing walls) and a culvert
length of 17.13 m (between the head walls).
3.0 FIELD WORK
The field work, consisting of 2 boreholes to depths of 12.6 m and 21.8 m, was
performed on April 22, 2016, at the locations shown on the Borehole Location Plan,
Drawing No. 1.
The holes were advanced at intervals to the sampling depths by a truck-mounted,

continuous-flight power-auger machine equipped for soil sampling. Due to the site
condition, wash-boring method was used for the field work. Standard Penetration
Tests, using the procedures described on the enclosed “List of Abbreviations and
Terms”, were performed at the sampling depths. The test results are recorded as the
Standard Penetration Resistance (or ‘N’ values) of the subsoil. The relative density
of the granular strata and the consistency of the cohesive strata are inferred from the
‘N’ values. Split-spoon samples were recovered for soil classification and laboratory
testing.
The field work was supervised and the findings recorded by a Geotechnical
Technician.
The elevation at each of the borehole locations was determined using hand-held
Global Navigation Satellite System surveying equipment (Trimble Geoexplorer XH
6000) which has a maximum accuracy of 10 cm.
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Detailed descriptions of the encountered subsurface conditions are presented on the

Borehole Logs, comprising Figures 1 and 2. The revealed stratigraphy is plotted on
the Subsurface Profile, Drawing No. 2, and the engineering properties of the
disclosed soils are discussed herein.
This investigation has revealed that beneath the existing earth fill dam, the site is
underlain by strata of sandy silt and silty fine sand.
4.1 Earth Fill (Both Boreholes)
The boreholes are located within the existing earth dam. These boreholes revealed
that the earth fill of the dam extends to a depth of 6.1± m and consists of silty clay.
The original topsoil or alluvial deposits were not detected beneath the earth fill, but
may have been obscured by the augering.
The water content of the samples was found to range from 20% to 26%, indicating
that the fill is in a wet condition.
The obtained ‘N’ values are 4 and 5 blows per 30 cm of penetration showing that the
fill was placed with nominal compaction. Due to its unknown history and low ‘N’
values, the fill is not suitable for supporting any structures.
A grain size analysis was performed on 1 representative sample; the result is plotted
on Figure 3.
The fill is amorphous in structure; it will ravel and is susceptible to collapse in steep
cuts. Otherwise, where it is free of deleterious materials, its engineering properties
are generally similar to those of its constituent materials.
One must be aware that the samples retrieved from boreholes 10 cm in diameter may
not be truly representative of the geotechnical and environmental quality of the fill,
and do not indicate whether the topsoil beneath the earth fill was completely stripped.
This should be further assessed by laboratory testing and/or test pits.
One must also be aware that in cuts in the clay fill, the sides are prone to sudden
collapse, particularly if the fill is in a wet condition.
4.2 Sandy Silt (Both Boreholes) and Silty Fine Sand (Boreholes 2)
The sandy silt was found beneath the earth fill. It extends to the investigated depth of
12.6 m in Borehole 1. In Borehole 2, a silty fine sand was found underlying the silt at
a depth of 7.0± m, extending to the investigated depth of 21.8 m.
Sample examinations show that the silt and sand are non-cohesive. They are in a wet
condition and become highly dilatant when shaken by hand. The sand and silt are
water bearing.
The obtained ‘N’ values range from 7 to 39, with a median of 13 blows per 30 cm
penetration, from which the relative density is inferred to be loose to dense, being
generally compact. The loose to marginally compact condition extends to a depth of
9.0± to 12.0± m below the existing ground surface.
The natural water content of all the samples was determined and the results are
plotted on the Borehole Logs. The values range from 14% to 23%, with a median of
17%, indicating wet conditions. The wet soils are water bearing.
Grain size analyses were performed on 2 representative samples of the sandy silt and
1 representative sample of the silty fine sand. The results are plotted on Figures 4
and 5, respectively.
Based on the above findings, the following engineering properties are deduced:
• Highly frost susceptible with high soil-adfreezing potential.

• Highly water erodible.
• Pervious to relatively pervious depending on the clay content, with an
estimated coefficient of permeability of 10-3 to 10-5 cm/sec.
• Frictional soils, their shear strength is derived from internal friction and is
density dependent. Due to their dilatancy, the shear strength of the wet silt and
sand is susceptible to impact disturbance; i.e., the disturbance will induce a
build-up of pore pressure within the soil mantle, resulting in soil dilation and a
reduction of shear strength.
• In relatively steep cuts, the silt and sand will slough and run with water
seepage. The bottom will boil under a piezometric head of 0.3± m.
• Poor to fair materials to support pavement, with an estimated California
Bearing Ratio value of 5% to 8%.
• Moderately low corrosivity to buried metal, with an estimated electrical
resistivity of 5500 to 6000 ohm∙cm.
4.3 Compaction Characteristics of the Revealed Soils
The obtainable degree of compaction is primarily dependent on the soil moisture and,
to a lesser extent, on the type of compactor used and the effort applied.
As a general guide, the typical water content values of the revealed soils for Standard
Proctor compaction are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - Estimated Water Content for Compaction

Water Content (%) for
Standard Proctor Compaction
Determined Natural
Soil Type Water Content (%) 100% (optimum) Range for 95% or +
Earth Fill 20 to 26 16 12 to 21
Sandy Silt and 14 to 23
11 to 12 6 to 16
Silty Fine Sand (median 17)
Based on the above findings, the in situ soils are generally too wet for 95% Standard
Proctor compaction and will require aeration prior to structural compaction. The
soils can be aerated by spreading them thinly on the ground in dry, warm weather.
The earth fill should be compacted using a heavy-weight, kneading-type roller. The
silt and sand can be compacted by a smooth roller with or without vibration,
depending on the water content of the soils being compacted. The lifts for
compaction should be limited to 20 cm, or to a suitable thickness as assessed by test
strips performed by the equipment which will be used at the time of construction.
One should be aware that with considerable effort a 90%± Standard Proctor
compaction of the wet silt and silty fine sand is achievable. Further densification is
prevented by the pore pressure induced by the compactive effort; however, large
random voids will have been expelled, and with time the pore pressure will dissipate
and the percentage of compaction will increase. There are many cases on record
where after a few months rest, the density of the compacted mantle has increased to
over 95% of its maximum Standard Proctor dry density.
It is difficult to monitor the lifts of backfill placed in deep trenches; therefore, it is

preferable that the compaction of backfill at depths over 1.0 m below the subgrade be
carried out on the wet side of the optimum. This would allow a wider latitude of lift
thickness.
If the compaction of the soils is carried out with the water content within the range
for 95% Standard Proctor dry density but on the wet side of the optimum, the surface
of the compacted soil mantle will roll under the dynamic compactive load. This is
unsuitable for pavement construction since each component of the pavement structure
is to be placed under dynamic conditions which will induce the rolling action of the
subgrade surface and cause structural failure of the new pavement. The foundations
for structures will be placed on a subgrade which will not be subjected to impact
loads. Therefore, the structurally compacted soil mantle with the water content on
the wet side or dry side of the optimum will provide an adequate subgrade for the
construction.
5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
The water level in the boreholes could not be determined after drilling since water
was being used throughout the drilling process.
The soil colour changed from brown to grey at depths of 6.1± m and 7.0± m below
the prevailing ground surface. The brown colour indicates that the soils have
oxidized and may represent the transition of the groundwater level. The groundwater
level, however, will fluctuate with the seasons and will be affected by the water level
in the water course. The groundwater level is estimated to be close to the water level
in the existing watercourse.
In excavation, the groundwater yield from the water-bearing sandy silt and silty fine
sand will be appreciable and persistent. Groundwater control is necessary for
excavation into the saturated strata.
6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This investigation has revealed that beneath the existing earth fill dam, the site is
underlain by a strata of loose to dense, generally compact sandy silt and silty fine
sand.
The water level in the boreholes could not be determined because water was being
used throughout the drilling process. The groundwater level is estimated to be close
to the water level in the watercourse and will fluctuate with the seasons. It will be
affected by the water level in the watercourse. The groundwater yield from the sandy
silt and silty fine sand will be appreciable and persistent. Groundwater control is
necessary for excavation into the saturated strata.
The geotechnical findings which warrant special consideration are presented below:
1. An appropriate dewatering scheme and/or a temporary channel diversion will

be required for the duration of the project construction.
2. Prior to excavation into the saturated strata for construction of foundation, the
excavation area should be isolated with sheet piles and the groundwater must
be lowered by a well-point system.
3. Excavation should be carried out in accordance with Ontario Regulation
213/91.
4. For construction of the wall footing, the footing subgrade must be inspected by
a geotechnical engineer, or a geotechnical technician under the supervision of
a geotechnical engineer, to ensure that its condition is compatible with the
design of the foundation.
The recommendations appropriate for the project described in Section 2.0 are
presented herein. One must be aware that the subsurface conditions may vary
between boreholes. Should this become apparent during construction, a geotechnical

engineer must be consulted to determine whether the following recommendations
require revision.
6.1 Culvert Foundations
Based on the borehole findings, the culvert foundation must be supported on

undisturbed native subsoil or engineered fill consisting of granular material.
The recommended soil pressures for the design of footings are listed below:
Maximum Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure (SLS) = 100 kPa

Factored Ultimate Soil Bearing Pressure (ULS) = 160 kPa
The suitable founding level for the above recommended bearing pressures lies at
El. 254.0± m.
The recommended soil pressures incorporate a safety factor of 3. The total and
differential settlements of the footings are estimated to be 25 mm and 15 mm,
respectively.
The footing subgrade must be inspected by a geotechnical engineer, or a geotechnical

technician under the supervision of geotechnical engineer, to assess its suitability for
bearing the designed foundations. The subgrade of the foundations should be
protected by a concrete mud-slab immediately after exposure. This will prevent any
disturbance of subsoil.
Alternatively, the culvert can be supported by a Helical Pile Foundation System

installed into competent soil strata. The load carried by the Helical Piles is directly
related to the installation torque of the anchor in the underlying competent soil
stratum. For preliminary design purpose, the carrying capacity of Helical Pilers of
200 mm diameter, extending to a depth of 20 m +, is approximately 500 kN (SLS)
and 800 kN (ULS). The capacity can be determined based on the type of pile being
used and should be confirmed by performing in situ static load tests on the working
piles. The founding elevations and design capacity of the Helical Piles should be
determined by the prospective Helical Pile Foundation Systems contractor. The cost
impact and the feasibility of the development based on the type of foundation used
should be carefully considered.
The foundations should have at least 1.2 m of earth cover for protection against frost
action, or should extend to below the anticipated scouring depth, whichever is
greater.
The footings must meet the requirements specified in the latest Ontario Building
Code. As a guide, the structure should be designed to resist an earthquake force
using Site Classification ‘D’ (stiff soil).
6.2 Wing Wall Construction
The backfill against the wing walls must consist of free-draining material with
subdrains or weepholes to drain the accumulated water behind the walls. This
measure is to prevent a build-up of ice pressure behind the wall which would impact
its structural integrity. Rip-rap should be placed along the wet perimeter to prevent
toe erosion, and the side slopes of the embankment should be sodded to protect
against rainwash erosion.
6.3 Backfilling in Trenches and Excavated Areas
The backfill around the culvert structure must be conducted simultaneously on both
sides. The on-site inorganic soils are generally suitable for trench backfill; however,
they should be sorted free of any topsoil, deleterious materials and foreign matter
prior to the backfilling.
The backfill in the trenches should be compacted to at least 95% of its maximum
Standard Proctor dry density in the lower portion. In the zone within 1.0 m below the
road subgrade, the materials should be compacted with the water content 2% to 3%
drier than the optimum, and the compaction should be increased to at least 98% of the
respective maximum Standard Proctor dry density. This is to provide the required
stiffness for pavement construction. In the lower zone, the compaction should be
carried out on the wet side of the optimum; this allows a wider latitude of lift
thickness.
In normal construction practice, the problem areas of settlement largely occur

adjacent to manholes, catch basins, services crossings, foundation walls and columns.
In areas which are inaccessible to a heavy compactor, imported sand backfill should
be used. Unless compaction of the backfill is carefully performed, the interface of the
native soils and the sand backfill will have to be flooded for a period of several days.
The narrow trenches for services crossings should be cut at 1 vertical:

2 or + horizontal so that the backfill can be effectively compacted. Otherwise, soil
arching will prevent the achievement of proper compaction. The lift of each backfill
layer should either be limited to a thickness of 20 cm, or the thickness should be
determined by test strips.
One must be aware of the possible consequences during trench backfilling and
exercise caution as described below:
• When construction is carried out in freezing winter weather, allowance should

be made for these following conditions. Despite stringent backfill monitoring,
frozen soil layers may inadvertently be mixed with the structural trench
backfill. Should the in situ soil have a water content on the dry side of the
optimum, it would be impossible to wet the soil due to the freezing condition,
rendering difficulties in obtaining uniform and proper compaction.
• In areas where the culvert construction is carried out during winter months,
prolonged exposure of the trench walls will result in frost heave within the soil
mantle of the walls. This may result in some settlement as the frost recedes,
and repair costs will be incurred prior to final surfacing of the new pavement.
• To backfill a deep trench, one must be aware that future settlement is to be
expected, unless the side of the cut is flattened to at least 1 vertical:
1.5+ horizontal, and the lifts of the fill and its moisture content are stringently
controlled; i.e., lifts should be no more than 20 cm (or less if the backfilling
conditions dictate) and uniformly compacted to achieve at least 95% of the
maximum Standard Proctor dry density, with the moisture content on the wet
side of the optimum.
• It is often difficult to achieve uniform compaction of the backfill in the lower
vertical section of a trench which is an open cut or is stabilized by a trench
box, particularly in the sector close to the trench walls or the sides of the box.
These sectors must be backfilled with sand. In a trench stabilized by a trench
box, the void left after the removal of the box will be filled by the backfill. It
is necessary to backfill this sector with sand, and the compacted backfill must
be flooded for 1 day, prior to the placement of the backfill above this sector,
i.e., in the upper sloped trench section. This measure is necessary in order to
prevent consolidation of inadvertent voids and loose backfill which will
compromise the compaction of the backfill in the upper section. In areas

where groundwater movement is expected in the sand fill mantle, anti-seepage
collars should be provided.
6.4 Pavement Design
Based on the borehole findings, the recommended pavement design for the reinstated
road is presented in Table 2.
Table 2 - Pavement Design

Course Thickness (mm) OPS Specifications
Asphalt Surface 40 HL-3
Asphalt Binder 65 HL-8
Granular Base 150 Granular ‘A’ or equivalent
Granular Sub-base 450 Granular ‘B’ or equivalent
In preparation of the subgrade, the ground surface must be proof-rolled. Any soft
organics, deleterious materials and foreign matter should be subexcavated and
replaced by properly compacted, organic-free earth fill. The final subgrade must
consist of uniform material with cross-falls towards the boundary, swales or
subdrains.
In the zone within 1.0 m below the pavement subgrade, the backfill should be
compacted to at least 98% of its maximum Standard Proctor dry density, with the
water content 2% to 3% drier than the optimum. In the lower zone, a 95% or +
Standard Proctor compaction is considered adequate.
All the granular bases should be compacted to their maximum Standard Proctor dry
density.
The pavement subgrade will suffer a strength regression if water is allowed to

saturate the mantle. The following measures should, therefore, be incorporated in the
construction procedures and pavement design:
• If the pavement construction does not immediately follow the trench

backfilling, the subgrade should be properly crowned and smooth-rolled to
allow interim precipitation to be properly drained.
• Areas adjacent to the pavement should be properly graded to prevent ponding
of large amounts of water during the interim construction period.
• Curb subdrains will be required. The subdrains should consist of filter-sleeved
weepers to prevent blockage by silting and should extend towards a positive
outlet where water can be removed.
• If the pavement is to be constructed during wet seasons and extensively soft
subgrade occurs, the granular sub-base should be thickened in order to
compensate for the inadequate strength of the subgrade. This can be assessed
during construction.
6.5 Soil Parameters
The recommended soil parameters for the project design are given in Table 3.
Table 3 - Soil Parameters

Unit Weight and Bulk Factor Unit Weight Estimated
(kN/m3) Bulk Factor
Bulk Submerged Loose Compacted
Earth Fill 21.5 11.5 1.20 1.00
Sandy Silt and Silty Fine Sand 20.5 10.5 1.20 0.95
Table 3 - Soil Parameters (cont’d)

Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients
Active At Rest Passive
Ka K0 Kp
Compacted Earth Fill 0.42 0.59 2.37
Sandy Silt and Silty Fine Sand 0.32 0.48 3.12
Coefficients of Friction
Between Concrete and Granular Base 0.53
Between Concrete and Sound Natural Soil 0.38
Strength Parameters for Retaining Wall Design
Cohesion Internal Friction Angle
c’ (kPa) φ’ (degrees)
Engineered Fill 0 26
Sandy Silt and Silty Fine Sand 0 31
6.6 Excavation
Excavation should be carried out in accordance with Ontario Regulation 213/91.
The sides of the open cut should be flattened to 1 vertical:1.5 or + horizontal; where it
is extended into wet or saturated soils, the sides should be flattened to 1 vertical:
3 or + horizontal. Alternatively, the open cut should be stabilized by proper shoring.
In the areas where a vertical cut is necessary, it must be carried out in a trench box or
it must be properly shored. In the design of the trench box and/or shoring structure,
the recommended lateral earth pressure distribution for the revealed soils are given in
Diagram 1.
Diagram 1 - Lateral Earth Pressure
H - Height of Pit in metres

γ - See Section 6.5
H
+ h h - Height of groundwater level
γw - 9.8 kN/m3
0.65 γ Ka H
γw h
In calculating the lateral earth pressure for the shoring structure, the soil parameters
are provided in Section 6.5. The soil above the trench box must be cut at
1 vertical:1.5 or + horizontal.
For excavation purposes, the types of soils are classified in Table 4.
Table 4 - Classification of Soils for Excavation

Material Type
Earth Fill, Dewatered Silt and Silty Fine Sand 3
Water-Bearing Silt and Silty Fine Sand 4
As previously discussed, the groundwater yield from the silt and silty fine sand will
be appreciable and persistent. An appropriate dewatering scheme and/or a temporary
channel diversion will be required for the duration of the project construction.
Prospective contractors must assess the in situ subsurface conditions prior to

excavation by digging test pits to at least 0.5 m below the intended bottom of
excavation. These test pits should be allowed to remain open for a period of at least
4 hours to assess the trenching conditions.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND DESCRIPTION OF TERMS
The abbreviations and terms commonly employed on the borehole logs and figures, and in the text of the
report, are as follows:
SAMPLE TYPES SOIL DESCRIPTION

AS Auger sample Cohesionless Soils:
CS Chunk sample
DO Drive open (split spoon) ‘N’ (blows/ft) Relative Density
DS Denison type sample 0 to 4 very loose
FS Foil sample 4 to 10 loose
RC Rock core (with size and percentage 10 to 30 compact
recovery) 30 to 50 dense
ST Slotted tube over 50 very dense
TO Thin-walled, open
TP Thin-walled, piston
WS Wash sample Cohesive Soils:
Undrained Shear
PENETRATION RESISTANCE Strength (ksf) ‘N’ (blows/ft) Consistency
Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance: less than 0.25 0 to 2 very soft

0.25 to 0.50 2 to 4 soft
A continuous profile showing the number of 0.50 to 1.0 4 to 8 firm
blows for each foot of penetration of a 1.0 to 2.0 8 to 16 stiff
2-inch diameter, 90° point cone driven by a 2.0 to 4.0 16 to 32 very stiff
140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. over 4.0 over 32 hard
Plotted as ‘ • ’
Standard Penetration Resistance or ‘N’ Value: Method of Determination of Undrained

Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils:
The number of blows of a 140-pound
hammer falling 30 inches required to x 0.0 Field vane test in borehole; the number
advance a 2-inch O.D. drive open sampler denotes the sensitivity to remoulding
one foot into undisturbed soil.
 Laboratory vane test
Plotted as ‘’
 Compression test in laboratory
WH Sampler advanced by static weight For a saturated cohesive soil, the undrained
PH Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure shear strength is taken as one half of the
PM Sampler advanced by manual pressure undrained compressive strength
NP No penetration
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

1 ft = 0.3048 metres 1 inch = 25.4 mm
1lb = 0.454 kg 1ksf = 47.88 kPa
Soil Engineers Ltd. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Reference No: 1603-S116
U.S. BUREAU OF SOILS CLASSIFICATION
GRAVEL SAND
SILT CLAY
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE V. FINE
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

GRAVEL SAND
SILT & CLAY
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 270 325
3" 2-1/2" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8"
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Percent Passing
10
0
100 Grain Size in millimeters 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Project: Proposed Culvert

Location: Albion Hills Conservation Area Liquid Limit (%) = -
16500 Regional Road 50, Town of Caledon Plastic Limit (%) = -
Borehole No: 1 Plasticity Index (%) = -
Sample No: 2 Moisture Content (%) = 26
Depth (m): 4.8 Estimated Permeability
Figure: 3
Elevation (m): 257.7 (cm./sec.) = 10-7
Classification of Sample [& Group Symbol]: SILTY CLAY, Fill
a tr. of sand
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Reference No: 1603-S116
GRAVEL SAND
SILT CLAY

GRAVEL SAND
SILT & CLAY
4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 270 325
3" 2-1/2" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8"
100
90
BH.2/Sa.3
80
70
60
BH.1/Sa.5
50
40
30
20
Percent Passing
10
0
Project: Proposed Culvert BH./Sa. 1/5 2/3

Location: Albion Hills Conservation Area Liquid Limit (%) = - -
16500 Regional Road 50, Town of Caledon Plastic Limit (%) = - -
Borehole No: 1 2 Plasticity Index (%) = - -
Sample No: 5 3 Moisture Content (%) = 14 19
Depth (m): 9.4 6.3 Estimated Permeability
Figure: 4
Elevation (m): 253.1 256.0 (cm./sec.) = 10-5 10-4
Classification of Sample [& Group Symbol]: SANDY SILT
a tr. of clay
Soil Engineers Ltd. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Reference No: 1603-S116
GRAVEL SAND
SILT CLAY

GRAVEL SAND
SILT & CLAY
4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 270 325
3" 2-1/2" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8"
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Percent Passing
10
0
Project: Proposed Culvert

Location: Albion Hills Conservation Area Liquid Limit (%) = -
16500 Regional Road 50, Town of Caledon Plastic Limit (%) = -
Borehole No: 2 Plasticity Index (%) = -
Sample No: 13 Moisture Content (%) = 20
Depth (m): 21.6 Estimated Permeability
Figure: 5
Elevation (m): 240.7 (cm./sec.) = 10-3
Classification of Sample [& Group Symbol]: SILTY FINE SAND
a tr. of clay

1603-S116 FINAL Soil Report - Wing Wall Construction

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

1603-S116 FINAL Soil Report - Wing Wall Construction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A REPORT TO

GRECK AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED

A SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR

ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA

REFERENCE NO. 1603-S116

3 Copies - Greck and Associates Limited

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

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................. 2

3.0 FIELD WORK ........................................................................................ 3

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................. 4

4.1 Earth Fill ....................................................................................... 4

5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ........................................................ 9

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 10

6.1 Culvert Foundations ..................................................................... 11

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT................................................................. 19

Table 1 - Estimated Water Content for Compaction ........................................ 7

Diagram 1 - Lateral Earth Pressure ..................................................................18

Borehole Logs ........................................................................ Figures 1 and 2

In accordance with email authorization dated March 29, 2016 from

The findings and resulting geotechnical recommendations are presented in this

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project includes the construction of a new open-bottom concrete

3.0 FIELD WORK

The holes were advanced at intervals to the sampling depths by a truck-mounted,

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Detailed descriptions of the encountered subsurface conditions are presented on the

4.1 Earth Fill (Both Boreholes)

• Highly frost susceptible with high soil-adfreezing potential.

4.3 Compaction Characteristics of the Revealed Soils

Table 1 - Estimated Water Content for Compaction

It is difficult to monitor the lifts of backfill placed in deep trenches; therefore, it is

5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. An appropriate dewatering scheme and/or a temporary channel diversion will

between boreholes. Should this become apparent during construction, a geotechnical

6.1 Culvert Foundations

Based on the borehole findings, the culvert foundation must be supported on

Maximum Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure (SLS) = 100 kPa

The footing subgrade must be inspected by a geotechnical engineer, or a geotechnical

Alternatively, the culvert can be supported by a Helical Pile Foundation System

6.2 Wing Wall Construction

6.3 Backfilling in Trenches and Excavated Areas

In normal construction practice, the problem areas of settlement largely occur

The narrow trenches for services crossings should be cut at 1 vertical:

• When construction is carried out in freezing winter weather, allowance should

compromise the compaction of the backfill in the upper section. In areas

6.4 Pavement Design

Table 2 - Pavement Design

The pavement subgrade will suffer a strength regression if water is allowed to

• If the pavement construction does not immediately follow the trench

6.5 Soil Parameters

Table 3 - Soil Parameters

Table 3 - Soil Parameters (cont’d)

Excavation should be carried out in accordance with Ontario Regulation 213/91.

Diagram 1 - Lateral Earth Pressure

H - Height of Pit in metres

For excavation purposes, the types of soils are classified in Table 4.

Table 4 - Classification of Soils for Excavation

Prospective contractors must assess the in situ subsurface conditions prior to

SAMPLE TYPES SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance: less than 0.25 0 to 2 very soft

Standard Penetration Resistance or ‘N’ Value: Method of Determination of Undrained

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS