Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation - Oakville - environment...Shoreplan Engineering Limited May 20, 2014 Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Oakville File No. 11-13-3179 Terraprobe Page

Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation

Terraprobe Consulting Geotechnical & Environmental Engineering Construction Materials Inspection & Testing

Terraprobe Inc.Greater Toronto Hamilton – Niagara Central Ontario Northern Ontario 11 Indell Lane 903 Barton Street, Unit 22 220 Bayview Drive, Unit 25 1012 Kelly Lake Rd., Unit 1 Brampton, Ontario L6T 3Y3 Stoney Creek, Ontario L8E Barrie, Ontario L4N 4Y8 Sudbury, Ontario P3E 5P4 (905) 796-2650 Fax: 796-2250 (905) 643-7560 Fax: 643-7559 (705) 739-8355 Fax: 739-8369 (705) 670-0460 Fax: 670-0558

www.terraprobe.ca

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

TANNERY AND WATERWORKS PARKS SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO Prepared for: Shoreplan Engineering Limited 55 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 800 Toronto, Ontario M4P 1G8 Attention: Mr. Milo Sturm, P. Eng.

File No. 11-13-3179

May 20, 2014 ©Terraprobe Inc.

Distribution: 4 Copies - Shoreplan Engineering Limited 1 Copy - Terraprobe Inc., Brampton

Shoreplan Engineering Limited May 20, 2014

Tannery and W aterworks Parks, Oakville File No. 11-13-3179

TerraprobePage No. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3. FIELD PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 Topsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 Earth Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.3 Native Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.5 Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.1 Slope Inspection and Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.2 Slope Stability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.3 Erosion Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.4 Overlook Feature Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7. LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

APPENDIXAbbreviations, Terminology and General InformationBorehole LogsSieve and Hydrometer AnalysisAtterberg Limits Test ResultsFigure 1 - Site Location PlanFigure 2 - Borehole Location and Site Features PlanFigures 3A to 3C - Slope Cross SectionsSlope Stability Analysis ResultsPhotographsInformation on Helical Pier® Foundation System



TerraprobePage No. 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Terraprobe Inc. was retained by Shoreplan Engineering Limited to conduct a geotechnical slope stability

investigation for the shoreline improvement works along the Tannery and Waterworks Parks located in the

Town of Oakville, Ontario. The concept plan for the revitalization of this area would primarily include

stabilization and rehabilitation of the existing shoreline protection measures, as well as improvement to the

existing and construction of a new water front trail section behind (north) the existing shoreline protection

works within Tannery Park, starting from the east-end of the site (west shore of Oakville Harbour) and

extending approximately to the west-end of Tannery Park. The new waterfront trail construction would also

include one overlook feature which would be located behind the shoreline protection works near the west-end

of Tannery Park below the existing wooden staircase.

This report encompasses the geotechnical slope stability investigation of the subject slope located along

Tannery Park West and Walker Street Promenade shoreline to determine the prevailing subsurface soil and

shallow ground water conditions, a detailed visual slope inspection to review the existing slope conditions

within the study area, and a detailed slope stability analysis. Based on the results of the investigation, review

and detailed analysis, this report provides geotechnical engineering recommendations pertaining to the long-

term stability of the subject slope as well as geotechnical design recommendations for the construction of

the proposed outlook feature (structure).

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The site is located south of Walker Street, between Oakville Harbour and Kerr Street, in the Town of

Oakville, Ontario. The study area consists of a shoreline slope located along Lake Ontario between Oakville

Harbour and Kerr Street, and is approximately 500 m long. The general location of the site is shown on

Figure 1. For the purpose of site description, Lakeshore Road is assumed to be oriented in an east-west

direction.

The existing shoreline protection at Tannery Park consists of rubble and an irregularly placed (and/or

damaged armourstone wall (revetment) along the base of a high bank, while the existing shoreline protection

for Waterworks Park consists of mostly dumped rubble fronting with an eroding relatively low-height bank.

There is also a small stone beach deposit towards the west-end of the site. A storm sewer outlet is located

at the west-end of Tannery Park that would eventually be at risk if shoreline stabilization and rehabilitation

works are not carried out. There is a walk/path (Waterfront Trail) that runs across the site located behind

the shoreline at the east-end and along the top of the shoreline slope as it extends west towards Walker Street

Promenade (Reach 2), as shown on Figure 2. A few residential houses are situated on the tableland on the

south side of Walker Street between the Wilson Street and Chisholm Street.




Based on the information provided by the client, it is understood that the project would include stabilization

and rehabilitation works for the shoreline (along the Tannery and Waterworks Parks) and improvement to

existing pathway/trail as well as construction of a new water front trail section behind (north) the shoreline

protection works within Tannery Park from the east-end of the site (west-shore of Oakville Harbour) and

extending approximately to the west-end of Tannery Park. The new water front trail works would also

include construction of an overlook feature behind the shoreline protection works near the west end of

Tannery Park below the existing wooden staircase.

A geotechnical investigation of the potential stability and shoreline erosion risks to the shoreline slope within

the study area was therefore carried out to provide geotechnical design recommendations and guidance for

the shoreline improvements and the trail design.

3. FIELD PROCEDURE

The field investigation was conducted on December 3 and 4, 2013 and consisted of drilling and sampling of

four (4) exploratory boreholes extending to depths varying from about 4.5 m (Borehole 4) to 12.0 m

(Borehole 1) below existing ground surface. Boreholes 1 to 3 were advanced on the tableland in a relatively

close proximity of the slope crest, while Borehole 4 was advanced at the bottom of the slope near the

shoreline at the proposed lookout feature footprint. The approximate location of the boreholes are presented

on Figure 2.

The boreholes were staked out in the field by Terraprobe. Various public utility agencies and a private utility

locate subcontractor were contacted to clear the borehole locations of possible buried utilities prior to

drilling.

The boreholes were drilled by a specialist drilling contractor using a small/compact drill rig (Mini Mole) with

power auger. The boreholes were advanced using continuous flight solid stem auger, and were sampled

generally at 0.75 m and 1.5 m intervals with a conventional 50 mm diameter split barrel sampler when the

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was carried out (ASTM D 1586). The field work (drilling, sampling and

testing) was observed and recorded by a member of our field engineering staff, who logged the borings and

examined the samples as they were obtained.

All samples obtained during the investigation were sealed into clean plastic jars and transported to our

laboratory for detailed inspection and testing. Samples were examined (tactile) in detail by a geotechnical

engineer, and classified according to visual and index properties. Laboratory testing consisted of water

content determination on all samples; a Sieve and Hydrometer analysis on nine (9) selected soil samples

(Borehole 1, Samples 5, 13 and 15B; Borehole 2, Samples 4 and 8; Borehole 3, Samples 4 and 8; and




Borehole 4, Samples 3 and 5), and Atterberg Limit tests on six (6) selected soil samples (Borehole 1, Samples

5 and 15B; Borehole 2, Samples 4 and 8; Borehole 3, Sample 8 and Borehole 4, Sample 3). The measured

natural water contents of individual samples and the results of the Sieve and Hydrometer analysis and

Atterberg Limits tets are plotted on the enclosed borehole logs at respective sampling depths. The laboratory

test results are also summarized in Section 4.4 of this report, and appended.

Unstabilized water levels were monitored in the open boreholes upon completion of drilling. Piezometer

consisting of 25 mm diameter PVC tubing was installed in each borehole to facilitate shallow ground water

monitoring. The details of the piezometers are shown on the enclosed borehole logs. Water levels were also

measured in the piezometers on January 6, 2014, about five weeks following the subsurface investigation.

The results of the ground water monitoring are summarized in Section 4.5 of this report.

The borehole ground surface elevations were estimated from the topographic survey (prepared by J. H.

Gelbloom Surveying Limited, O.L.S., Project No. 07-103, received on February 4, 2014) provided by the

client . It should be noted that the borehole elevations noted on the borehole logs are approximate, and

provided only for the purpose of relating borehole soil stratigraphy. This information should not be used or

relied on for other purposes.

4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The results of the boreholes are summarized below and recorded on the accompanying Borehole Logs. This

summary is intended to correlate this data to assist in the interpretation of the subsurface conditions

encountered at the site.

It should be noted that the soil conditions are confirmed at the borehole locations only and may vary between

and beyond the borehole locations. The stratigraphic boundaries as shown on the logs represent an inferred

transition between the various strata, rather than a precise plane of geologic change.

In summary, the boreholes encountered a surficial layer of topsoil underlain by a zone of earth fill materials

which was in turn underlain by undisturbed native soil deposit extending to the full depth of investigation

at all borehole locations.

4.1 Topsoil

A surficial layer of topsoil was encountered at all borehole locations, varying in thickness from about 75 mm

(Borehole 2) to 150 mm (Borehole 3). The topsoil was dark brown to black in colour and predominantly

consisted of a clayey silt matrix.




It must be noted that the topsoil thickness is confirmed at the borehole locations only, and may vary between

and beyond the boreholes. Further, this information may not be sufficient for estimating topsoil quantities

present across the site.

4.2 Earth Fill

Earth fill materials were encountered at all boreholes beneath the surficial topsoil layer. The composition

of earth fill materials varied across the site from clayey silt, some sand to sandy with trace amounts of gravel;

to sand, some silt to silty with trace to some amounts of gravel and clay. Sporadic and intermittent organic

staining was observed within the earth fill materials in Boreholes 1, 2 and 4 at varying depths. Trace

amounts of ash and cinders were also noted in the earth fill materials in Borehole 1 at a depth of about 8.2

m below existing grade.

The Standard Penetration Test results (‘N’ Values) obtained from earth fill materials varied from 5 to 50

blows per 300 mm of penetration, indicating a loose to dense relative density (cohesionless soils) and a firm

to very stiff consistency (cohesive soils).

The measured moisture contents of the earth fill materials ranged from 8 to 25 percent by weight, indicating

a generally moist to locally wet condition.

4.3 Native Soils

The earth fill materials were underlain by undisturbed native soil deposit in all boreholes. In Boreholes 2,

3 and 4, a layer of cohesionless soil deposit was encountered underlying the earth fill materials which

extended to a depth of about 7.6 m (Borehole 3) to the full depth of investigation in Boreholes 2 and 4 (about

8.7 m and 4.5 m below grade, respectively). The composition of the cohesionless deposit varied from silt

with trace to some sand and trace to some clay, to sand with trace to some silt and trace amounts of clay and

gravel. Underlying the earth fill materials in Borehole 1 (at about 10.9 m below grade) and the cohesionless

deposit in Borehole 3 (at about 7.6 m below grade), a glacial till deposit was encountered. The glacial till

consisted of a cohesive clayey silt to silt and clay matrix with embedded sand and gravel particles, and

extended to the full depth of investigation (up to about 12.0 m depth below grade).

The Standard Penetration Test results (‘N’ Values) obtained from the undisturbed native soil samples varied

from 17 to 60 blows per 300 mm of penetration, and 50 blows per 15 to 100 mm of penetration, indicating

a compact to very dense relative density (cohesionless soils) and a very stiff to hard consistency (cohesive

soils).




The measured moisture contents of the undisturbed native soil samples ranged from 1 to 25 percent by

weight, indicating a damp to moist and locally wet condition.

Numerous shale fragments and auger refusal were encountered at deeper depth in all boreholes which may

be indicative of the presence of bedrock of Georgian Bay Formation at depths varying from about 4.5 m

(Borehole 4) to 12.0 m (Borehole 1) below existing grade. It should be noted that the bedrock confirmation

through rock coring was not included in the scope of our work.

The bedrock of the Georgian Bay Formation, typically found in the general area, is a deposit predominantly

comprising thin to medium bedded blue-grey shale of Upper Ordovician age. The bedrock contains interbeds

of grey calcareous shale, limestone/dolostone and calcareous sandstone which are discontinuous and

nominally 50 to 300 mm thick.

The augered borehole method used at this site is conventionally accepted investigative practice. However,

the augering and interval sampling method does not define the bedrock surface with precision, particularly

where the surface of the rock is weathered, weaker and easily penetrated by the auger. The auger

refusal/spoon bouncing is generally indicative of a presence of a relatively less weathered/sound shale and/or

limestone/dolostone layers. The inferred bedrock depth/elevations at the borehole locations, as noted on the

borehole logs, were inferred from the borehole augering, auger grinding, spoon sampling/refusal and

bouncing, therefore actual bedrock surface elevations may vary from the inferred elevations noted on the

borehole logs.

4.4 Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

The geotechnical laboratory testing consisted of water content determination on all samples, while a Sieve

and Hydrometer analysis was conducted on nine (9) selected soil samples. The measured natural water

contents of individual samples are plotted on the enclosed borehole logs at the respective sampling depths.

The results of the Sieve and Hydrometer (grain size) analysis are appended and noted on the borehole logs.

A summary of the Sieve and Hydrometer (grain size) analysis results is presented as follows:




Borehole No.Sample No.

SamplingDepth

below Grade

Percentage (By Weight)Description

(MIT Classification System)Gravel Sand Silt Clay

Borehole 1

Sample 53.3 m 6 32 36 26 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel

Borehole 1

Sample 139.4 m 2 72 19 7

SAND, some silt, trace clay, trace

gravel

Borehole 1

Sample 15B10.9 m 14 23 40 23 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, some gravel

Borehole 2

Sample 42.5 m 2 24 41 33 CLAYEY SILT, sandy, trace gravel

Borehole 2

Sample 85.6 m 0 11 73 16 SILT, some clay, some sand

Borehole 3

Sample 42.5 m 3 83 14 SAND, some silt, trace gravel

Borehole 3

Sample 87.8 m 0 2 52 46 SILT AND CLAY, trace sand

Borehole 4

Sample 31.8 m 10 20 43 27

CLAYEY SILT, some sand, trace

gravel

Borehole 4

Sample 53.3 m 0 70 19 11 SAND, some silt, some clay

Atterbergs Limits Tests were also carried out on six (6) selected soil samples. The results were plotted on

A-Line Graph (refer to enclosed Figures, Atterbergs Limits Test Results) and are summarized as follows:


SamplingDepthbelowGrade

LiquidLimit

(Wl) %

PlasticLimit

(Wp) %

PlasticityIndex(Ip) %

NaturalWater

Content(Wn) %

Description

Borehole 1

Sample 53.3 m 27 17 10 17 Slightly Plastic

Borehole 1

Sample 15B10.9 m 24 15 9 11 Slightly Plastic

Borehole 2

Sample 42.5 m 37 23 14 25 Slightly Plastic

Borehole 2

Sample 85.6 m 20 16 4 14

Slightly Plastic/Slight or LowCompressibility




SamplingDepthbelowGrade

LiquidLimit

(Wl) %

PlasticLimit

(Wp) %

PlasticityIndex(Ip) %

NaturalWater

Content(Wn) %

Description


Borehole 3Sample 8

7.8 m 32 18 14 25 Slightly Plastic

Borehole 4Sample 3

1.8 m 29 18 11 17 Slightly Plastic

4.5 Ground Water

The depth of ground water was measured in the open boreholes upon completion of drilling. Water levels

were also measured in the standpipe piezometers on January 6, 2014 installed in the boreholes, about five

weeks following the field investigation. The water level measurements taken in the open boreholes during

the field investigation and in the standpipe piezometers during our subsequent site visit are summarized as

follows:

BoreholeNo.

Depth ofBoring below

Grade

Depth to Cavebelow Grade

Water Level at theTime of Drilling

below Grade

Water Level in Piezometerbelow Grade / Elevation

on January 6, 2014

1 12.0 m open 11.3 m 11.1 / 74.7 m

2 8.7 m open dry 5.3 / 79.0 m

3 8.6 m open dry 7.6 / 77.0 m

4 4.5 m open 3.4 m 3.4 / 74.9 m

It should be noted that the ground water level may fluctuate seasonally depending on the amount of

precipitation, surface runoff and lake water level.




5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following discussion and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from this investigation

and are intended for the use of the owner and the design engineer. Contractors bidding or providing services

on this project should review the factual data and determine their own conclusions regarding construction

methods and scheduling.

This report is provided on the basis of these terms of reference and on the assumption that the design features

relevant to the geotechnical analyses will be in accordance with applicable codes, standards and guidelines

of practice. If there are any changes to the site development features, or there is any additional information

relevant to the interpretations made of the subsurface information with respect to the geotechnical analyses

or other recommendations, then Terraprobe should be retained to review the implications of these changes

with respect to the contents of this report.

5.1 Slope Inspection and Mapping

A visual inspection of the slope area was conducted on November 13, 2013. General information pertaining

to the existing slope features such as slope profile, slope drainage, watercourse features, vegetation cover,

structures in the vicinity of the slope, erosion features and slope slide features, was obtained during this

inspection. A brief summary of the results of the visual inspection is presented below. Photographs taken

during the inspection are appended. The general location of the site features and photographs are shown on

the Borehole Location and Site Features Plan (Figure 2).

Topographic data of the site (prepared by J. H. Gelbloom Surveying Limited, OLS, Project No. 07-103,

received on February 4, 2014) was provided by the client and is enclosed (Figure 2). A total of six (6) cross

sections (Sections A-A’ to F-F’), were inferred from the topographic information provided and our field

observations to prepare slope models for the long-term slope stability analysis. The cross-sections were

selected on the basis of the slope height and inclination to represent the critical slope conditions present

within the study area. The sections included a portion of the tableland extending across the slope down to

the shoreline of Lake Ontario. The location of the selected slope cross-sections are presented on Figure 2,

and the details of the slope profiles are presented on Figures 3A to 3C.

The slope inclination within the study area varies from about 1.5 to 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical with

localized steeper or flatter areas. The slope height varies from about 4 to 9 m within the study area. The

slope was noted to be generally vegetated with grass, weeds, shrubs and numerous young and mature trees

except for the easterly portion of the slope (Borehole 1) where the slope vegetation predominantly consisted

grass, weed and bushes. Although a few bent, leaning and fallen trees were noted, the tree trunk growth of

the majority of the trees was generally straight and upright. Exposed root mass and trunk base creep was also




noted at a few locations. There were no obvious signs of any recent slope instability such as tension cracks,

slump or scarp zones. Further, there was no evidence of surface or rill erosion, as the slope generally

included a vegetation cover with a few patchy bare areas.

There is an existing network of pathways traversing along both Waterworks and Tannery Parks. The

pathway within Waterworks Park runs in a east-west direction within the lower terrace of the shoreline, and

primarily on the tableland within Tannery Park. These two sections of the pathways are connected by a

wooden stairway situated on the slope near the west-end of Tannery Park, providing the access form the

upper pathway at Tannery Park to the lower pathway at Waterworks Park. Another walkway starting from

Walker Street, runs in a roughly north-south direction approximately through the middle of Tannery Park

and extends across the slope down to the parking lot situated at the southeast portion of the site. The

tableland between the Waterworks and Tannery Parks also includes private properties consisting of

townhouses fronting on Walker Street.

Base on the information provided by the client, the shoreline is divided into four Reaches (Reaches 1 to 4)

within the study area. Reach 1 is identified from the west-end of the site to close to Wilson Street

(Waterworks Park), the shoreline portion roughly between Wilson Street and Chisholm Street is identified

as Reach 2 (Walker Street Promenade), the shoreline across from Chisholm Street to close to the west-end

of the parking lot area is identified as Reach 3 (Tannery Park West), while the shoreline from the west-end

of the parking lot to the east-end of the site (west shore of Oakville Harbour) is identified as Reach 4

(Tannery Park East). The shoreline at Reach 1 (Waterworks Park) consists of dumped rubble (rocks and

concrete pieces), while at Reach 2 (Walker Street Promenade) and west half of Reach 3 (Tannery Park West)

it consists of armourstone revetment, while the east half of Reach 3 (Tannery Park West) and Reach 4

(Tannery Park East) the shoreline erosion protection measure primarily consists of rubble.

In general, there were no obvious signs of recent slope instability (bulges, tension cracks etc.), slope slide

or erosion features (rills, gullies etc.) within the study area. Although the slope at locations appeared to be

relatively steep but, in general, the slope overall appeared to be stable.

5.2 Slope Stability Analysis

A detailed engineering analysis of slope stability was carried out for the selected slope cross-sections

utilizing computer software SLIDE (version 6.0), developed by Rocscience Inc. The slope stability analyses

were based on an effective stress limit equilibrium analysis for long-term slope stability using Morgenstern-

Price, Spencer, Bishop and Janbu methods. These methods of analysis allow the calculation of Factors of

Safety for hypothetical or assumed failure surfaces through the slope. The analysis method is used to assess




potential for movements of large masses of soil over a specific failure surface which is often curved or

circular.

For a specific failure surface, the Factor of Safety is defined as the ratio of the available soil strength

resisting movement, divided by the gravitational forces tending to cause movement. The Factor of Safety

of 1.0 represents a "limiting equilibrium" condition where the slope is at a point of pending failure since the

soil resistance is equal to the forces tending to cause movement. The analysis involves dividing the sliding

mass into many thin slices and calculating the forces on each slice. The normal and shear forces acting on

the sides and base of each slice are calculated. It is an iterative process that converges on a solution. It is

usual to require a Factor of Safety greater than one (1) to ensure stability of the slope. The typical Factor

of Safety used for engineering design of slopes for stability ranges from about 1.3 to 1.5 for developments

situated close to the slope crest.

The analysis was carried out by preparing a model of the slope geometry and subsurface conditions and

analyzing numerous different failure surfaces through the slope in search of the minimum or critical Factor

of Safety for specific conditions. The pertinent data obtained from topographic mapping, slope profiles,

slope mapping, and the borehole information, were input for the slope stability analysis. Many calculations

were carried out to examine the Factors of Safety for varying depths for potential failure surfaces. A

graphical presentation of the results of the analysis is provided in the appendix section, and presents critical

slip surfaces and corresponding minimum factors of safety for potential slope slides. Based on the borehole

information and our experience, the following average soil properties were utilized for the soil strata in the

slope stability analysis:

StratumUnit Weight

(kN/m )3

Angle ofinternal friction

Cohesion(kPa)

Fill - Clayey 19 30° 2

Fill - Sandy 19 32° 0

Silt, trace to some clay 20 34° 2

Sand 20 36° 0

Clayey Silt/Silt and Clay Till 21 32° 12

The above soil strength parameters are based on effective stress analysis for long-term slope stability. It is

noted that the above soil parameters are conservative and actual site soils are stronger.




Unstabilized water levels were measured to be at depths of about 11.3 and 3.2 m below grade in Boreholes

1 and 4, while Boreholes 2 and 3 remained dry upon completion of drilling. The ground water levels

measured in the piezometers on January 6, 2013, were noted to be at about 3.4 m (Elev. 74.9 m) in Borehole

4 and to about 11.1m below grade (Elev. 74.7 m) in Borehole 1. The measured ground water level

observations were incorporated into the respective slope model for slope stability analysis.

The analysis was conducted for existing slope conditions for Sections C-C’, E-E’ and F-F’ for normal ground

water level (long-term). Conservatively, slope stability analysis was also conducted for the same sections

for elevated ground water level condition with assumed water level located to be within about 1 m of the

ground surface to model short-term, temporary and infrequent condition. The slope stability analysis results

are presented in the appendix, and are summarized below:

SectionAverage Slope Inclination

Type of Slope Slide

Minimum Factor of Safety forPotential Slope Slides

NormalGround Water

ElevatedGround Water

Section C-C’ 1.5 H : 1 V Overall Slope Slide 1.33 1.27

Section E-E’ 1.5 H : 1 V Overall Slope Slide 1.31 1.21

Section F-F’ 2.0 H : 1 V Overall Slope Slide 1.40 1.24

The computed minimum factors of safety for the analyzed sections ranged between 1.31 to 1.40 for normal,

and between 1.21 to 1.27 for elevated (short-term, temporary and infrequent) ground water conditions.

The proposed land use pertaining to the current study consists of trail construction and shoreline

improvement works which can be categorized as a “Light” land use, as per the following MNR Policy

Guidelines which allow a minimum Factor of Safety range of 1.2 to 1.3 for slope stability, as follows:




TYPE LAND-USESDESIGN MINIMUM

FACTOR OF SAFETY

APASSIVE: no buildings near slope; farm field, bush, forest, timberland, woods,

wasteland, badlands, tundra1.1

B

LIGHT: no habitable structures near slope; recreational parks, golf courses, buried

small utilities, tile beds, barns, garages, swimming pools, sheds, satellite dishes, dog

houses

1.2 to 1.3

C

ACTIVE: habitable or occupied structures near slopes; residential, commercial, and

industrial buildings, retaining walls, storage/warehousing of non-hazardous

substances

1.3 to 1.5

D

INFRASTRUCTURE and PUBLIC USE: public use structures and buildings (i.e.

hospitals, schools, stadiums), cemeteries, bridges, high voltage power transmission

lines, towers, storage/warehousing of hazardous materials, waste management

areas

1.4 to 1.5

The computed minimum factors of safety for the analyzed sections range between 1.31 to 1.40 for normal

ground water condition. Therefore, the minimum factors of safety obtained from the slope stability analysis,

for the sections analyzed, are considered adequate and acceptable in consideration of the MNR Guidelines

for “Light” land use.

In addition, the slope was also analyzed with an assumed (hypothetical) elevated ground water level

condition (water level assumed to be within about 1 m below ground surface), significantly higher than the

stabilized ground water level measured in the piezometers. Although the formation of this excessive high

pore water pressure (elevated water level) within the soils comprising the slope is unlikely, nevertheless, the

effect of this assumed elevated water level on the slope stability was analyzed to simulate short-term,

temporary and infrequent ground water level condition. The results of this analysis resulted in the minimum

factors of safety varying from 1.21 to 1.27 for the sections analyzed. For a short-term and temporary

condition, resulting from a potentially significantly high ground water, a minimum factor of safety of 1.2 is

recommended for “Light” land use. The computed factors of safety for sections analyzed meet and exceed

the recommended factor of safety of 1.2 for the short-term, temporary and elevated groundwater level

condition, and are considered adequate. Therefore, based on the slope stability analysis results, the site slope

is considered to be stable for both long-term and temporary/elevated ground water level conditions for the

intended “Light” land use.

We understand that the proposed shoreline improvement works would include construction of a section of

waterfront trail within Tannery Park, between the slope toe and the shoreline protection works, extending

from east-end of the site (west shore of Oakville Harbour) to the west-end of Tannery Park. The design

details of the proposed trail were not available at the time of preparing this report. We understand that the




proposed water front trail, especially within Reach 3 (Tannery Park West), would be situated close to the

slope due to space constraint between the shoreline protection works and the slope toe. It is recommended

that the proposed waterfront trail should be setback a minimum of 3 m from the slope crest and toe (as

applicable) for the safety of the trail users, to help protect against potential surficial soil slumping, and/or

potential tree/debris falls.

5.3 Erosion Risks

We understand that a coastal engineering assessment will be carried out as part of the detailed design of the

proposed works. Proper shoreline erosion protection measures will be incorporated and maintained in the

long-term along the waterline within the study area to prevent/minimize the shoreline erosion affecting the

subject slope toe.

Based on the above, it is our understanding that the slope toe will not be subjected to wave erosion and

therefore a toe erosion setback may not be applicable.

5.4 Overlook Feature Foundation

As noted before, the proposed water front trail works would also include construction of an overlook feature

which would be located west of Tannery Park below the existing wooden staircase. Borehole 4 was

advanced within the general area of the proposed overlook feature. This borehole encountered a surficial

layer of topsoil underlain by earth fill materials extending to a depth of about 4.0 m below the existing grade.

The composition of the earth materials varied with depth from clayey silt with some sand to sandy silt/sand.

The earth fill materials were inturn underlain by undisturbed native soil deposit comprising sand with some

silt, extending to the full depth of investigation (about 4.5 m below the existing grade) where the borehole

was terminated due to the auger refusal likely on probable/inferred bedrock.

The overlook feature can be supported on augered cast-in-situ concrete piles/caissons bearing onto the

underlying inferred bedrock. A net geotechnical reaction of 600 kPa at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and

factored geotechnical resistance of 900 kPa at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) are recommended for the design

of augered cast-in-situ concrete piles supported on the underlying bedrock. It must be noted that the bedrock

depth at this location was not confirmed as the confirmation of the bedrock by rock coring was beyond the

scope of our works, and therefore, the depth of bedrock may vary from the estimated depth noted in the

borehole. It is recommended that all augered cast-in-situ concrete pile bases must be evaluated by a qualified

geotechnical engineer to ensure that they are founded on bedrock and the pile base subgrade conditions are

consistent with the design bearing pressure intended by the geotechnical engineer.




The cast-in-situ concrete piles are end bearing units and must be cleaned prior to concrete placement.

Excavation and installation of the caissons must conform to all applicable sections of the Occupational

Health and Safety Act. It must be ensured that all the foundations are provided with a minimum of 1.2 m

of soil cover for frost protection.

Consideration may also be given to support the proposed overlook feature structure on helical pier foundation

system (see enclosed information). Helical screw anchors can be drilled to sufficient depth in order to obtain

adequate resistance for required support. Screw anchors require little to no excavation and therefore, it is

generally a suitable foundation option where incompetent soils of significant thickness are present over the

deeper competent soils/bedrock, and the ground water levels are relatively high as well as excavation is

required through wet cohesionless soils for foundation construction. Helical screw anchors can be installed

with minimum ground disturbance.

There are specific companies which specialize in the helical screw anchor design and installation, and can

provide further information on the methodology, detailed design, installation and certification. The following

average soil strength parameters may be used for the site soils:

bulkSoil unit weight (( )

(kN/m )3

Angle of Internal Friction (N)

(degree)

Cohesion (c)

(kPa)

Fill - Clayey Silt 19 30 2

Fill - Silty Sand/Sand 19 32 0

Sand 20 36 0

Silt 20 34 2

Clayey Silt/Silt and Clay 21 32 12

6. SUMMARY

The borehole data indicates that the site slope consists of earth fill materials underlain by competent native

soil deposit. Based on the results of the slope stability analysis, the site slope is considered to be stable for

the proposed “Light” land use.

It is recommended that the proposed trail should be setback a minimum of 3 m from the slope crest and toe

(as applicable) for the safety of the trail users, to help protect against potential surficial soil slumping and/or

potential tree/debris falls.




The following general constraints on the redevelopment are recommended:

a) site development and construction activities should be conducted in a manner which do not

result in surface erosion of the slope. In particular, site grading and drainage should be

designed to prevent direct concentrated or channelized surface runoff from flowing directly

over the slope. Water drainage from road drainage/trail, and the like should not be permitted

to flow over the slope, but a minor sheet flow may be acceptable,

b) a healthy vegetative cover should be maintained on the slope. In order to promote vegetative

growth on the slope face, waste must not be discarded over the slope,

c) the configuration of the slope should not be altered without prior consultation with a

geotechnical engineer and approval from the concerned authorities. In particular, the slope

should not be steepened,

d) a temporary silt fence should be erected and maintained around the work area during

construction, and

e) all approvals and permits must be secured from concerned agencies prior to the site

construction.

It is recommended that the final site grading plan be reviewed by Terraprobe to ensure that they are

consistent with the above recommendations.

7. LIMITATIONS AND USE OF REPORT

It must be recognized that there are special risks whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to

identify subsurface conditions. A comprehensive sampling and testing programme implemented in

accordance with the most stringent level of care may fail to detect certain conditions. Terraprobe has

assumed for the purposes of providing advice, that the conditions that exist between sampling points are

similar to those found at the sample locations. The conditions that Terraprobe has interpreted to exist

between sampling points can differ from those that actually exist. It must also be recognized that the passage

of time, natural occurrences, and direct or indirect human intervention at or near the site have the potential

to alter subsurface conditions.

The discussion and recommendations are based on the factual data obtained from the investigation and are

intended for use by the owner and its retained designers in the design phase of the project. Since the project




is still in the design stage, all aspects of the project relative to the subsurface conditions cannot be

anticipated. Terraprobe should review the design drawings and specifications prior to the construction. If

there are changes to the project scope and development features; the interpretations made of the subsurface

information, the geotechnical design parameters and comments relating to contractibility issues and quality

control may not be relevant to the revised project. Terraprobe should be retained to review the implications

of changes with respect to the contents of this report.

The investigation at this site was conceived and executed to provide information for project design and slope

stability analysis. It may not be possible to drill a sufficient number of boreholes or samples and report them

in a way that would provide all the subsurface information that could have an effect on construction costs,

techniques, equipment, and scheduling. Contractors bidding on or undertaking work on this project should

therefore, in this light, be directed to decide on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations

of the factual investigation results. They should be cognizant of the risks implicit in subsurface investigation

activities so that they may draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect them.

This report was prepared for the express use of Shoreplan Engineering Limited and its retained design

consultants. It is not for use by others. This report is copyright of Terraprobe Inc. and no part of this report

may be reproduced by any means, in any form, without the prior written permission of Terraprobe Inc. and

Shoreplan Engineering Limited who are the authorized users.

It is recognized that the regulatory agencies in their capacities as the planning and building authorities under

Provincial statues, will make use of, and rely upon this report, cognizant of the limitations thereof, both

expressed and implied.

APPENDIX

TERRAPROBE INC.

Terraprobe ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

SAMPLING METHODS AS auger sample CORE cored sample DP direct push FV field vane GS grab sample SS split spoon ST shelby tube WS wash sample

PENETRATION RESISTANCE Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance ('N' values) is defined as the number of blows by a hammer weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) required to advance a standard 50 mm (2 in.) diameter split spoon sampler for a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.). Dynamic Cone Test (DCT) resistance is defined as the number of blows by a hammer weighing 63.6 kg (140 lb.) falling freely for a distance of 0.76 m (30 in.) required to advance a conical steel point of 50 mm (2 in.) diameter and with 60° sides on 'A' size drill rods for a distance of 0.3 m (12 in.)."

COHESIONLESS SOILS

Compactness ‘N’ value

very loose < 4 loose 4 – 10 compact 10 – 30 dense 30 – 50 very dense > 50

COHESIVE SOILS

Consistency ‘N’ value Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

very soft < 2 < 12 soft 2 – 4 12 – 25 firm 4 – 8 25 – 50 stiff 8 – 15 50 – 100 very stiff 15 – 30 100 – 200 hard > 30 > 200

COMPOSITION Term (e.g) % by weight

trace silt < 10 some silt 10 – 20 silty 20 – 35 sand and silt > 35

TESTS AND SYMBOLS

MH mechanical sieve and hydrometer analysis

w, wc water content

wL, LL liquid limit

wP, PL plastic limit

IP, PI plasticity index

k coefficient of permeability

γ soil unit weight, bulk

Gs specific gravity

φ’ internal friction angle

c’ effective cohesion

cu undrained shear strength

Unstabilized water level

1st water level measurement

2nd water level measurement

Most recent water level measurement

Undrained shear strength from field vane (with sensitivity)

Cc compression index

cv coefficient of consolidation

mv coefficient of compressibility

e void ratio

FIELD MOISTURE DESCRIPTIONS Damp refers to a soil sample that does not exhibit any observable pore water from field/hand inspection.

Moist refers to a soil sample that exhibits evidence of existing pore water (e.g. sample feels cool, cohesive soil is at plastic limit) but does not have visible pore water

Wet refers to a soil sample that has visible pore water

BOREHOLELOGS

TERRAPROBE INC.

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

spoon wet

6 32 36 26

2 72 19 7

8

7

13

14

11

9

14

12

17

20

21

50

23

28

78.27.6

77.68.2

100mm TOPSOIL

FILL, clayey silt, some sand to sandy,trace gravel, (sporadic organic staining),firm to very stiff, reddish brown, moist

FILL, sand and gravel, some silt,compact, reddish brown, wet

FILL, sand, some silt to silty, trace clay,trace to some gravel, trace organics,compact to dense, brown to dark brown,moist...trace ash, cinders

LiquidLimit

(continued next page)

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

85

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

Typ

e

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Unconfined Pocket Penetrometer

Field Vane Lab VaneN

umbe

r

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

40 80 120 160

SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES

PlasticLimit

Dynamic ConeNatural

Water Content

85.8

GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

(MIT)

Moisture / Plasticity

10 20 30

PL LLMC

Lab Dataand

Comments

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Gra

phic

Log

ElevDepth

(m)Description

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r

SAGR SI CL

Project No.:

Date started :

Sheet No. :

Shoreplan Engineering Ltd.

Tannery and Waterworks Parks

Oakville, Ontario

Drilling Method : Solid stem augers

Position : E: 607836, N: 4810548 (UTM 17T)

Rig type : MINI MOLE

11-13-3179

December 3, 2013

1 of 2

Client :

Project :

Location :

Elevation Datum : Geodetic

LOG OF BOREHOLE 1li

bra

ry:

libra

ry -

ter

rapr

obe

gint

.glb

re

po

rt:

terr

apro

be s

oil l

og

file

: 11

-13-

3179

bh

logs

.gpj

Terraprobe

Penetration Test Values(Blows / 0.3m)

10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

14

15A

15B

16

17

WATER LEVEL READINGSDate Water Depth (m) Elevation (m)

Jan 6, 2014 11.1 74.7

14 23 40 23

auger grinding veryhard

spoon wet

auger grinding veryhard

spoon bouncing

28

79 /200mm

50 /100mm

50 /15mm

74.910.9

73.812.0

FILL, sand, some silt to silty, trace clay,trace to some gravel, trace organics,compact to dense, brown to dark brown,moist (continued)

CLAYEY SILT, some sand to sandy,trace to some gravel, shale fragments,hard, grey, damp to moist(GLACIAL TILL)

END OF BOREHOLEAuger refusal on inferred bedrock

Unstabilized water level measured at11.3 m below ground surface; boreholewas open upon completion of drilling.

25 mm piezometer installed.

LiquidLimit

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

75

74

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

Typ

e

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

11

12



umbe

r


40 80 120 160

SOIL PROFILE

(continued)

SAMPLES

PlasticLimit

Dynamic ConeNatural

Water Content


(MIT)


10 20 30

PL LLMC

Lab Dataand

Comments

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Gra

phic

Log

ElevDepth

(m)Description

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r

SAGR SI CL

Project No.:

Date started :

Sheet No. :



Oakville, Ontario


Position : E: 607836, N: 4810548 (UTM 17T)


11-13-3179

December 3, 2013

2 of 2

Client :

Project :

Location :


LOG OF BOREHOLE 1li

bra

ry:

libra

ry -

ter

rapr

obe

gint

.glb

re

po

rt:

terr

apro

be s

oil l

og

file

: 11

-13-

3179

bh

logs

.gpj

Terraprobe


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


Jan 6, 2014 5.3 79.0

auger grinding

2 24 41 33

0 11 73 16

spoon bouncing,auger grinding,refusal

11

9

50 /75mm

10

14

26

19

17

40

33

50 /15mm

80.53.8

79.74.6

75.68.7

75mm TOPSOIL

FILL, clayey silt, some sand to sandy,trace gravel, (sporadic organic staining),stiff, brown, moist

...possible stone fragments

FILL, silty sand, with clay lumps,compact, brown, moist

SILT, trace to some clay, trace to somesand, trace gravel, compact to verydense, brown, moist

...sandy

...numerous shale fragments


Borehole was dry and open uponcompletion of drilling.


LiquidLimit

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

76

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

Typ

e

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8



umbe

r


40 80 120 160

SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES

PlasticLimit

Dynamic ConeNatural

Water Content

84.3


(MIT)


10 20 30

PL LLMC

Lab Dataand

Comments

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Gra

phic

Log

ElevDepth

(m)Description

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r

SAGR SI CL

Project No.:

Date started :

Sheet No. :



Oakville, Ontario


Position : E: 607772, N: 4810496 (UTM 17T)


11-13-3179

December 3, 2013

1 of 1

Client :

Project :

Location :


LOG OF BOREHOLE 2li

bra

ry:

libra

ry -

ter

rapr

obe

gint

.glb

re

po

rt:

terr

apro

be s

oil l

og

file

: 11

-13-

3179

bh

logs

.gpj

Terraprobe


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Jan 6, 2014 7.6 77.0

3 83 (14)

spoon slightly wet

0 2 52 46

auger slightlygrinding, spoonbouncing

5

15

45

32

27

60

22

20

80 /25mm

84.40.2

83.11.5

78.56.1

77.07.6

76.08.6

150mm TOPSOIL

FILL, sand, some silt, loose to compact,brown, moist

SAND, trace to some silt, trace gravel,compact to very dense, brown, damp tomoist

...wet

SILT, some sand, some clay, compact,brown, moist

SILT AND CLAY, trace sand, very stiff,grey, moist(GLACIAL TILL)



Borehole was dry and open uponcompletion of drilling.


LiquidLimit

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

84

83

82

81

80

79

78

77

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

Typ

e

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8



umbe

r


40 80 120 160

SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES

PlasticLimit

Dynamic ConeNatural

Water Content

84.6


(MIT)


10 20 30

PL LLMC

Lab Dataand

Comments

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Gra

phic

Log

ElevDepth

(m)Description

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r

SAGR SI CL

Project No.:

Date started :

Sheet No. :



Oakville, Ontario


Position : E: 607703, N: 4810457 (UTM 17T)


11-13-3179

December 4, 2013

1 of 1

Client :

Project :

Location :


LOG OF BOREHOLE 3li

bra

ry:

libra

ry -

ter

rapr

obe

gint

.glb

re

po

rt:

terr

apro

be s

oil l

og

file

: 11

-13-

3179

bh

logs

.gpj

Terraprobe


10 20 30 40

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6A

6B

7


Jan 6, 2014 3.4 74.9

10 20 43 27

0 70 19 11

spoon wet

spoon bouncing,auger refusal

8

11

8

13

12

44

100 /50mm

77.50.8

75.33.1

74.34.0

73.84.5

125mm TOPSOIL

FILL, clayey silt, sandy, trace gravel,stiff, brown, moist

FILL, clayey silt, some sand to sandy,trace gravel, (sporadic organic staining),stiff, brown, moist

FILL, sand, some silt to silty, trace tosome clay, compact, brown, moist to wet

...stone fragments

SAND, some silt, dense, brown, moist towet



Unstabilized water level measured at 3.2m below ground surface; borehole wasopen upon completion of drilling.


LiquidLimit

Ele

vatio

n S

cale

(m)

78

77

76

75

74

Uns

tabi

lized

Wat

er L

evel

Typ

e

Dep

th S

cale

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4



umbe

r


40 80 120 160

SOIL PROFILE

GROUND SURFACE

SAMPLES

PlasticLimit

Dynamic ConeNatural

Water Content

78.3


(MIT)


10 20 30

PL LLMC

Lab Dataand

Comments

SP

T 'N

' Val

ue

Inst

rum

ent

Det

ails

Gra

phic

Log

ElevDepth

(m)Description

Hea

dspa

ceV

apou

r

SAGR SI CL

Project No.:

Date started :

Sheet No. :



Oakville, Ontario


Position : E: 607715, N: 4810416 (UTM 17T)


11-13-3179

December 4, 2013

1 of 1

Client :

Project :

Location :


LOG OF BOREHOLE 4li

bra

ry:

libra

ry -

ter

rapr

obe

gint

.glb

re

po

rt:

terr

apro

be s

oil l

og

file

: 11

-13-

3179

bh

logs

.gpj

Terraprobe


10 20 30 40

SIEVE ANDHYDROMETER

ANALYSIS

TERRAPROBE INC.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Gravel (%)Depth (m) Elev. (m)

MIT SYSTEM

Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)SampleHole ID

Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS5 3.3 82.5 6 32 36 261

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL

COARSE MEDIUM FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Title:

11-13-3179File No.:

Terraprobe11 Indell Lane, Brampton Ontario L6T 3Y3

(905) 796-2650

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

CLAYEY SILT, SANDY, TRACE GRAVEL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS13 9.4 76.4 2 72 19 71

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


SAND, SOME SILT, TRACE CLAY, TRACE GRAVEL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

15B 10.9 74.9 14 23 40 231

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


CLAYEY SILT, SANDY, SOME GRAVEL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS4 2.5 81.8 2 24 41 332

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


CLAYEY SILT, SANDY, TRACE GRAVEL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS8 5.6 78.7 0 11 73 162

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


SILT, SOME CLAY, SOME SAND

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS4 2.5 82.1 3 83 (14)3

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


SAND, SOME SILT,TRACE GRAVEL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS8 7.8 76.8 0 2 52 463

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


SILT AND CLAY, TRACE SAND

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS3 1.8 76.5 10 20 43 274

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


CLAYEY SILT, SOME SAND, TRACE GRAVEL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

Percent R

etained (%

)

Grain Size (mm)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


MIT SYSTEM


Per

cent

Pas

sing

(%

)

(Fines, %)

SS5 3.3 75.0 0 70 19 114

MIT

SY

ST

EM SAND

CLAYSILT

2µm60µm2mm

COBBLESGRAVEL


Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


SAND, SOME SILT, SOME CLAY

ATTERBERGLIMITS

TEST RESULTS

TERRAPROBE INC.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line

Depth (m) Elev. (m)SampleBorehole

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH

Very High Extremely HighHighLow

Upper Plasticity Range

ML

CL - ML

Liquid Limit (LL, %)

SS5 3.3 82.5 17 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC

MLorOL

1

LL (%) PI (%)

10

DescriptionPL (%)

27

Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650

ATTERBERG LIMITS CHART

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line


Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH



ML

CL - ML


15B 10.9 74.9 15 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC

MLorOL

1

LL (%) PI (%)

9

DescriptionPL (%)

24

Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line


Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH



ML

CL - ML



MLorOL

2

LL (%) PI (%)

14

DescriptionPL (%)

37

Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line


Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH



ML

CL - ML


SS8 5.6 78.7 16 SLIGHTLY PLASTIC, SLIGHT OR LOW COMPRESSIBILITY

MLorOL

2

LL (%) PI (%)

4

DescriptionPL (%)

20

Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line


Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH



ML

CL - ML



MLorOL

3

LL (%) PI (%)

14

DescriptionPL (%)

32

Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MHor

OH

A - Line


Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI,

%)

CL

CL

CH



ML

CL - ML



MLorOL

4

LL (%) PI (%)

11

DescriptionPL (%)

29

Title:

11-13-3179File No.:


(905) 796-2650


FIGURES

TERRAPROBE INC.

SLOPE STABILITYANALYSISRESULTS

TERRAPROBE INC.

1.331.331.331.33

Material Name Color Unit Weight(kN/m3)

Cohesion(kPa) Phi (deg)

Fill ‐ Clayey Silt 19 2 30

Fill ‐ SiltySand/Sand 19 0 32

Silt 20 2 34

Sand 20 0 36

Silt and Clay Till 21 12 32

Bedrock 24

Critical Slip Surface

Silt and Clay Till

Bedrock

Fill - Silty Sand/Sand1.5H : 1V

Centres of Radii

Factor of Safety Contours

Armour Stone

Lake Ontario

Sand

Silt

Sand

Fill - Clayey Silt

Safety Factor1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00+

110

100

9080

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Analysis Description Section C-C - Normal Ground Water Level - Existing SlopeMethod SpencerScale 1:250Drawn By Navid HatamiFile Name Sec C-C - NGWL - ES.slimFile No. 11-13-3179Date 5/14/2014

ProjectTannery and Water Works Parks

SLIDEINTERPRET 6.015

1.271.271.271.27





Silt 20 2 34

Sand 20 0 36

Silt and Clay Till 21 12 32

Bedrock 24


Silt and Clay Till

Bedrock

1.5H : 1V

Centres of Radii


Armour Stone

RFE +/- 76.0 m

Sand

Silt

Sand

Fill - Clayey Silt

Fill - Silty Sand/Sand

Safety Factor1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00+

110

100

9080

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Analysis Description Section C-C - High Ground Water Level - Existing SlopeMethod SpencerScale 1:250Drawn By Navid HatamiFile Name Sec C-C - HGWL - ES.slimFile No. 11-13-3179Date 5/14/2014



1.311.311.311.31





Silt 20 2 34

Bedrock 24


Silt

Bedrock

Fill - Clayey Silt 1.5H : 1V

Centres of Radii


Stone Beach

Lake Ontario


Safety Factor1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00+

100

9590

8580

75

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Analysis Description Section E-E - Normal Ground Water Level - Existing SlopeMethod SpencerScale 1:200Drawn By Navid HatamiFile Name Sec E-E - NGWL - ES.slimFile No. 11-13-3179Date 5/13/2014



1.211.211.211.21



Fill Clayey Silt 19 2 30

Fill SiltySand/Sand 19 0 32

Silt 20 2 34

Bedrock 24

Critical Slip SurfaceSilt

Bedrock

Fill - Clayey Silt 1.5H : 1V

Centres of Radii


Stone Beach

RFE +/- 76.0 m


Safety Factor1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00+

100

9590

8580

75

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Analysis Description Section E-E - High Ground Water Level - Existing SlopeMethod SpencerScale 1:200Drawn By Navid HatamiFile Name Sec E-E - HGWL - ES.slimFile No. 11-13-3179Date 5/20/2014



1.401.401.401.40





Clayey Silt Till 21 12 32

Bedrock 24


Clayey Silt Till

Bedrock

Fill - Clayey Silt

2H : 1V

Lake Ontario

Centres of Radii


Stone BeachFill - Silty Sand/Sand

Safety Factor1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00+

110

100

9080

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Analysis Description Section F-F - Normal Ground Water Level - Existing SlopeMethod SpencerScale 1:250Drawn By Navid HatamiFile Name Sec F-F - NGWL - ES.slimFile No. 11-13-3179Date 5/14/2014



1.241.241.241.24





Clayey Silt Till 21 12 32

Bedrock 24


Clayey Silt Till

Bedrock

Fill - Clayey Silt

2H : 1V

Lake Ontario

Centres of Radii


Stone BeachFill - Silty Sand/Sand

Safety Factor1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00+

110

100

9080

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Analysis Description Section F-F - High Ground Water Level - Existing SlopeMethod SpencerScale 1:250Drawn By Navid HatamiFile Name Sec F-F - HGWL - ES.slimFile No. 11-13-3179Date 5/20/2014



PHOTOGRAPHS

TERRAPROBE INC.

Tannery and Water Works Parks, Oakville File No. 11-13-3179

Terraprobe

Photograph 1 – Looking west along the slope crest. Slope surface is covered with tall grass and weed at the easterly portion.

Photograph 2 – Looking west towards the vegetated slope face.


Terraprobe

Photograph 3 – Looking west along the slope toe. The trail is located at the slope toe.

Photograph 4 – Looking west along the shoreline. Shoreline is lined with concrete blocks/stones.


Terraprobe

Photograph 5 – Another view of the shoreline protection consisting of concrete blocks/stones.

Photograph 6 – Looking north towards the slope. Slope is covered with young trees, shrubs, bushes, weeds and grass.


Terraprobe

Photograph 7 – Looking west along the shoreline. Shoreline consists of armour stone blocks.

Photograph 8 – Looking west along the leaf littered slope surface. Vegetation cover on the slope includes young and mature trees, weed, bushes and shrubs.


Terraprobe

Photograph 9 – Looking west, another view of the vegetated slope.

Photograph 10 – A few leaning and fallen trees are visible on the slope, however, the majority of tree trunk growth is straight and upright.


Terraprobe

Photograph 11 – Looking west along the slope crest. A wooden staircase is providing acces to the lower near-shore area. The slope vegetation includes mature trees.

Photograph 12 – Looking west, another view of the slope crest close to the houses. Tree root-mass and creep are visible.


Terraprobe

Photograph 13 – Looking west along the slope crest along the private properties (house backyards).

Photograph 14 – Looking east towards the slope face. A few leaning trees are visible on the slope.


Terraprobe

Photograph 15 – Looking northeast towards the slope. A wooden staircase structure is providing access to lower near-shore area.

Photograph 16 – Another view of the vegetated slope.


Terraprobe

Photograph 17 – A sewer outfall is visible on the slope.

Photograph 18 – Looking east along the shoreline. Remenant of armour stone revetment is visible along the shoreline.


Terraprobe

Photograph 19 – Looking west along the shoreline in Reach 2. Armour stone revetment is visible in the foreground.

Photograph 20 – Looking north towards the slope behind the houses.


Terraprobe

Photograph 21 – Another view of the slope with armour stone retaining wall near the trail/path.

Photograph 22 – Looking east along the shoreline. Armour stone revetment followed by a narrow sandy gravely beach is visible.


Terraprobe

Photograph 23 – Looking west along the shoreline. Concrete pieces, big stones and logs are visible along the shoreline.

Photograph 24 – Looking east along the shoreline. Concrete pieces, big stones and logs are visible along the shoreline.


Terraprobe

Photograph 25 – Looking northeast, an outfall is located close to the shoreline.

Photograph 26 – Looking east along the shoreline containing concrete and stone blocks.

INFORMATION ONHELICAL-PIERTM

FOUNDATIONSYSTEM

TERRAPROBE INC.

Appendix E Geotechnical Investigation - Oakville - environment...Shoreplan Engineering Limited May 20, 2014 Tannery and Waterworks Parks, Oakville File No. 11-13-3179 Terraprobe Page

Documents