A REPORT TO

TOWN OF NEWMARKET

A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR

AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

16780 YONGE STREET

TOWN OF NEWMARKET

REFERENCE NO. 1708-S019

OCTOBER 2017

DISTRIBUTION

3 Copies - Town of Newmarket

1 Copy - Soil Engineers Ltd. (Richmond Hill)
Reference No. 1708-S019 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 Topsoil .................................................................................................. 4

4.2 Silty Clay .............................................................................................. 5
4.3 Silt and Sandy Silt ................................................................................ 6
4.4 Compaction Characteristics of the Revealed Soils.............................. 8

5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ........................................................... 10

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 12

6.1 Foundations .......................................................................................... 13

6.2 Engineered Fill ..................................................................................... 16
6.3 Slab-On-Grade ..................................................................................... 18
6.4 Garages, Driveways, Sidewalks and
Interlocking Stone Pavement ............................................................... 19
6.5 Underground Services .......................................................................... 19
6.6 Trench Backfilling ............................................................................... 20
6.7 Pavement Design.................................................................................. 22
6.8 Soil Parameters..................................................................................... 24
6.9 Excavation ............................................................................................ 25

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT .................................................................... 26

Reference No. 1708-S019 iii

TABLES

Table 1 - Estimated Water Content for Compaction ..................................... 8

Table 2 - Groundwater Levels .......................................................................10
Table 3 - Founding Levels .............................................................................14
Table 4 - Pavement Design ............................................................................23
Table 6 - Soil Parameters ...............................................................................24
Table 7 - Classification of Soils for Excavation ............................................25

DIAGRAM

Diagram 1 - Frost Protection Measures (Foundations) .................................15

ENCLOSURES

Borehole Logs ............................................................... Figures 1 to 5

Grain Size Distribution Graphs .................................... Figures 6 and 7
Borehole Location Plan ............................................... Drawing No. 1
Subsurface Profile ......................................................... Drawing No. 2
 Reference No. 1708-S019 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In accordance with written authorization dated August 1, 2017, from Ms. Sepideh
Majdi, of Town of Newmarket, a geotechnical investigation was carried out at
16780 Yonge Street, in the Town of Newmarket, for an existing residential property.

The purpose of the investigation was to reveal the subsurface conditions and to
determine the engineering properties of the disclosed soils.

The findings and resulting geotechnical recommendations are presented in this

Report.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 2

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Town of Newmarket is situated on Schomberg Lake (glacial) plain where drift
has been partly eroded and filled, in places, with lacustrine clay, silt and sand.

The investigated site is situated at the northwest corner of Mulock Drive and Yonge
Street, in the Town of Newmarket. The site area is occupied by a residential home
and the area is generally grass-covered with trees. The ground surface is relatively
flat and level, with minor undulations.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 3

3.0 FIELD WORK

The geotechnical field work, consisting of 5 boreholes (Borehole Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and

9) to depths of 6.6 m and 6.7 m, was performed on September 1, 2017, at the
locations shown on the Borehole Location Plan, Drawing No. 1. One monitoring
well was installed at Borehole 1 for future groundwater monitoring.

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

continuous-flight power-auger machine equipped for soil sampling. 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 were recorded by a Geotechnical
Technician.

The sampling depths and the depths of the soil strata changes were referred to the
prevailing ground surface at each of the borehole locations.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 4

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Detailed descriptions of the encountered subsurface conditions are presented on the

Borehole Logs, comprising Figures 1 to 5, inclusive. 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 disclosed that beneath a veneer of topsoil, the site is generally
underlain by strata of silty clay, silt and sandy silt.

4.1 Topsoil (All Boreholes)

The revealed topsoil ranges from 25 to 43 cm thick. It is dark brown in colour,

indicating that it contains appreciable amounts of roots and humus. These materials
are unstable and compressible under loads; therefore, the topsoil is considered to be
void of engineering value. Due to its humus content, it may produce volatile gases
and generate an offensive odour under anaerobic conditions. Therefore, the topsoil
must not be buried below any structures or deeper than 1.2 m below the finished
grade, so it will not have an adverse impact on the environmental well-being of the
developed areas.

Since the topsoil is considered void of engineering value, it can only be used for
general landscaping and landscape contouring purposes. A fertility analysis can
determine the suitability of the topsoil as a planting material. In places, thicker
topsoil than that revealed by the boreholes may occur.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 5

4.2 Silty Clay (Boreholes 6, 8 and 9)

The silty clay stratum was encountered beneath a layer of silt and extends to the
maximum investigated depth at all above boreholes. The clay is laminated with wet
sand and silt seams and layers, showing that it is a lacustrine deposit.

The obtained ‘N’ values range from 16 to 31, with a median of 25 blows per 30 cm
of penetration, indicating that the consistency of the clay is stiff to very stiff, being
generally very stiff.

The Atterberg Limits of 2 representative samples and the water content of the
samples were determined. The results are plotted on the Borehole Log and
summarized below:

Liquid Limit 29% and 30%

Plastic Limit 16% and 17%
Natural Water Content 17% to 20% (median 19%)

The above results show that the clay is a cohesive material with low plasticity. The
natural water content values generally lie slightly above its plastic limits, confirming
the generally very stiff consistency of the clay as determined from the ‘N’ values.

Grain size analyses were performed on 2 samples of the silty clay; the results are
plotted on Figure 6.

Based on the above findings, the following engineering properties are deduced:
• High frost susceptibility and high soil-adfreezing potential.
• Low water erodibility.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 6

• Low permeability, with an estimated coefficient of permeability of

10-7 cm/sec, an estimated percolation rate of over 80 min/cm, and runoff
coefficients of:
Slope
0% - 2% 0.15
2% - 6% 0.20
6% + 0.28
• A cohesive-frictional soil, its shear strength is derived from consistency and
augmented by the internal friction of the silt. Its shear strength is moisture
dependent.
• The clay will be prone to sloughing if it is exposed for prolonged periods in
steep cuts. This would generally be initiated by infiltrating precipitation or
groundwater seeping out from the silt and fine sand layers.
• A very poor pavement-supportive material, with an estimated California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 3% or less.
• Moderately high corrosivity to buried metal, with an estimated electrical
resistivity of 2500 ohm⋅cm.

4.3 Silt and Sandy Silt (All Boreholes)

The silt deposits were encountered at various depths and extends to the maximum
depth at Boreholes 1 and 7. The silt is laminated with seams and layers of silty clay
and fine sand. The laminated structure shows that the silt is a glaciolacustrine
deposit.

The natural water content values of the silts range from 6% to 24%, with a median of
19%, indicating it is in a moist to wet condition. The wet samples are water bearing
and became highly dilatant when shaken by hand.
Reference No. 1708-S019 7

The obtained ‘N’ values range from 3 to 65, with a median of 20 blows per 30 cm of
penetration, indicating that the relative density of the silts is loose to very dense,
being generally compact.

A grain size analysis was performed on 1 representative sample of the silt and the
result is plotted on Figure 7.

Based on the above findings, the engineering properties relating to the project are
given below:

• Highly frost susceptible, with high soil-adfreezing potential.

• Highly water erodible; they are susceptible to migration through small
openings under seepage pressure.
• Relatively low permeability, with an estimated coefficient of permeability of
10-6 cm/sec, an estimated percolation rate of 30 min/cm, depending on the
clay content, and runoff coefficients of:
Slope
0% - 2% 0.15
2% - 6% 0.20
6% + 0.28
• The soil has a high capillarity and water retention capacity.
• A frictional soil, its shear strength is density dependent. Due to the dilatancy,
the strength of the wet silt 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 in shear strength.
• In excavation, the moist silt will be stable in relatively steep cuts, while the
wet silt will slough and run slowly with seepage bleeding from the cut face,
and the bottom will boil under a piezometric head of 0.3 m.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 8

• A poor pavement-supportive material, with an estimated CBR value of 6%.

• Moderately low corrosivity to buried metal, with an estimated electrical
resistivity of 5000 ohm·cm.

4.4 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
Determined
Standard Proctor Compaction
Natural Water
Soil Type Content (%) 100% (optimum) Range for 95% or +
17 to 20
Silty Clay 18 14 to 23
(median 19)
6 to 24
Silt and Sandy Silt 11 to 13 7 to 17
(median 19)

Based on the above findings, the silty clay is generally suitable for a 95% or +
Standard Proctor compaction. However, the silts are generally too wet and will
require aeration or mixing with drier soils prior to structural compaction.

The silty clay should be compacted using a heavy-weight, kneading-type roller. The
silts can be compacted by a smooth roller with or without vibration, depending on
the water content of the soil being compacted. The lifts for compaction should be
Reference No. 1708-S019 9

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.

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 pavement
subgrade be carried out on the wet side of the optimum. This would allow a wider
latitude of lift thickness.

One should be aware that with considerable effort, a 90%± Standard Proctor
compaction of the wet silts 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 of rest, the density of the compacted mantle has increased to over 95%
of its maximum Standard Proctor dry density.

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
foundation or bedding of the sewer and slab-on-grade 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.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 10

5.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater seepage encountered during augering was recorded on the field logs. The
level of groundwater and/or the occurrence of cave-in were measured upon completion
of the boreholes; the data are plotted on the Borehole Logs and listed in Table 2.

Table 2 - Groundwater Levels

Soil Colour
Changes Measured Groundwater/
Brown to Seepage Encountered Cave-In* Level
Grey During Augering On Completion
Borehole
BH No. Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) Amount Depth (m)
1 6.7 3.8 0.8 Some 5.8
6 6.6 4.0 0.5 Some Dry
7 6.6 6.6+ 0.5 Some Dry
8 6.6 4.0 0.5 Some Dry
9 6.6 4.0 0.4 Slight 4.3

Groundwater was measured at depths of 5.8 m and 4.3 m below the prevailing ground
surface at Boreholes 1 and 9, respectively. The remaining boreholes were dry upon
completion of the field work. The groundwater level will be subject to seasonal
fluctuations.

The soil colour changes from brown to grey at depths of 3.8 m and 4.0 m below the
prevailing ground surface, indicating that the soils in the upper zone have oxidized.
The encountered groundwater levels generally represent the groundwater regime of
the site at the time of the investigation, and the groundwater regime is subject to
seasonal fluctuation.
Reference No. 1708-S019 11

The groundwater yield from the silty clay, due to its low permeability, is expected to
be small and limited. However, in the strata of silt, the groundwater yield is
expected to be moderate.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 12

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The investigation has disclosed that beneath a veneer of topsoil, the site is underlain
by strata of stiff to very stiff, generally very stiff silty clay; and loose to very dense,
generally compact silt and sandy silt. The surficial soils are weathered to depths of
0.7 m and 1.4 m below the prevailing ground surface.

Groundwater was measured at depths of 5.8 m and 4.3 m below the prevailing ground
surface at Boreholes 1 and 9, respectively. The remaining boreholes were dry upon
completion of the field work. The groundwater level will be subject to seasonal
fluctuations.

The groundwater yield from the silty clay, due to its low permeability, is expected to
be small and limited. However, in the strata of silts, the groundwater yield is
expected to be moderate.

The geotechnical findings which warrant special consideration are presented below:

1. The topsoil must be stripped for the project construction. This material is
unsuitable for engineering applications; therefore, it should be placed in the
landscaped areas only and should not be buried below any structures, or deeper
than 1.2 m below the exterior finished grade of the project.
2. The sound natural soils are suitable for normal spread and strip footing
construction. However, due to the presence of topsoil and weathered soil, the
footing subgrade must be inspected by either 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 foundations.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 13

3. For slab-on-grade construction, any weathered, soft or loose soils should be

subexcavated, aerated and properly compacted prior to the placement of the
slab. Any new material for raising the grade should consist of organic-free soil
compacted to at least 98% of its maximum Standard Proctor dry density. The
slab should be constructed on a granular base, 20 cm thick, consisting of
20-mm Crusher-Run Limestone, or equivalent, compacted to its maximum
Standard Proctor dry density.
4. A Class ‘B’ bedding, consisting of compacted 20-mm Crusher-Run Limestone,
is recommended for the construction of the underground services. Where
water-bearing silt occurs, the sewer joints should be leak-proof, or wrapped
with an appropriate waterproof membrane to prevent subgrade migration.
5. The revealed soils are highly frost susceptible, with high soil-adfreezing
potential. Where they are used to backfill against foundation walls, special
measures must be incorporated into the building construction to prevent serious
damage due to soil adfreezing.

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 Foundations

Based on the borehole findings, the recommended soil pressures and suitable
founding levels are presented in Table 3.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 14

Table 3 - Founding Levels

Recommended Maximum Allowable Soil Pressure (SLS)/
Factored Ultimate Soil Bearing Pressure (ULS) and
Suitable Founding Level
70 kPa (SLS) 150 kPa (SLS) 200 kPa (SLS) 300 kPa (SLS)
110 kPa (ULS) 250 kPa (ULS) 320 kPa (ULS) 480 kPa (ULS)
BH No. Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m) Depth (m)
1 1.0 or + - 3.8 or + 5.4 or +
6 - 1.0 or + 1.6 or + 6.2 or +
7 1.0 or + 1.6 or + 2.4 or + 6.2 or +
8 - - 1.0 or + 2.4 or +
9 - 1.0 or + 2.4 or + -

Where earth fill is required to raise the site, it is generally more economical to place
the fill in an engineered manner for normal footing construction. The requirements
for engineered fill construction are discussed in Section 6.2.

The recommended soil pressure (SLS) incorporates a safety factor of 3. The total
and differential settlements of the footings are estimated to be 25 mm and 15 mm,
respectively.

The foundations exposed to weathering and in unheated areas should have at least
1.2 m of earth cover for protection against frost action, or must be properly
insulated.

To ensure that the condition of the subgrade is compatible with the foundation design
requirements, the footing subgrade of the normal foundations must be inspected by a
geotechnical engineer, or a senior technician under the supervision of a geotechnical
engineer.

If higher bearing is required due to the existing soil condition, further investigation
with deeper boreholes will be required for deep foundation recommendations, such
as caissons or piles.
Reference No. 1708-S019 15

Where a basement is contemplated, perimeter subdrains and dampproofing of the

foundation walls will be required. All the subdrains must be encased in a fabric
filter to protect them against blockage by silting, and must be connected to a positive
outlet.

The occurring soils are high in frost heave and soil-adfreezing potential. If these
soils are to be used for the foundation backfill, the foundation walls should be
shielded by a polyethylene slip-membrane for protection against soil adfreezing.
The membrane will allow vertical movement of the heaving soil (due to frost)
without imposing structural distress on the foundations. The recommended
measures are schematically illustrated in Diagram 1.

Diagram
Diagram 11 -- Frost
Frost Protection
Protection Measures
Measures (Foundations)
(Foundations)

Folded Heavy Polyethylene

Slip-Membrane (Closed End Up)
1.2m

Subdrain Encased in Fabric Filter

Covered with 19-mm Clear Stone

The necessity to implement the above recommendations should be further assessed

by a geotechnical engineer at the time of construction.

The design of the foundations should meet the requirements specified in the latest
Ontario Building Code, and the structure should be designed to resist an earthquake
force using Site Classification ‘D’ (stiff soil).
 Reference No. 1708-S019 16

6.2 Engineered Fill

Where earth fill is required to raise the site, or where extended footings are
necessary, the engineering requirements for a certifiable fill for road construction,
municipal services, slab-on-grade, and footings designed with a Maximum
Allowable Soil Pressure (SLS) of 150 kPa and a Factored Ultimate Soil Bearing
Pressure (ULS) of 250 kPa for normal footings are presented below:

1. The topsoil must be removed.

2. The highly weathered soils must be subexcavated, and the subgrade must be
inspected and proof-rolled prior to any fill placement.
3. Inorganic soils must be used, and they must be uniformly compacted in lifts
20 cm thick to 98% or + of their maximum Standard Proctor dry density up to
the proposed finished grade. The soil moisture must be properly controlled
on the wet side of the optimum.
4. If imported fill is to be used, it should be inorganic soils, free of deleterious
material with environmental issue (contamination). Any potential imported
earth fill from off site must be reviewed for geotechnical and environmental
quality by the appropriate personnel as authorized by the developer or
agency, before it is hauled to the site.
5. If foundations are to be built soon after the fill placement, the densification
process for the engineered fill must be increased to 100% of the maximum
Standard Proctor compaction.
6. If the engineered fill is to be left over the winter months, adequate earth cover
or equivalent must be provided for protection against frost action.
7. The engineered fill must extend over the entire graded area; the engineered
fill envelope and finished elevations must be clearly and accurately defined in
the field, and they must be precisely documented by qualified surveyors.
Reference No. 1708-S019 17

Foundations partially on engineered fill must be reinforced by two

15-mm steel reinforcing bars in the footings and upper section of the
foundation walls, or be designed by a structural engineer, to properly
distribute the stress induced by the abrupt differential settlement (about
15 mm) between the natural soil and engineered fill.
8. The engineered fill must not be placed during the period from late November
to early April when freezing ambient temperatures occur either persistently or
intermittently. This is to ensure that the fill is free of frozen soils, ice and
snow.
9. Where the fill is to be placed on a bank steeper than 1 vertical:3 horizontal,
the face of the bank must be flattened to 3 + so that it is suitable for safe
operation of the compactor and the required compaction can be obtained.
10. Where the ground is wet due to subsurface water seepage, an appropriate
subdrain scheme must be implemented prior to the fill placement, particularly
if it is to be carried out on sloping ground.
11. The fill operation must be inspected on a full-time basis by a technician under
the direction of a geotechnical engineer.
12. The footing and underground services subgrade must be inspected by the
geotechnical consulting firm that supervised the engineered fill placement.
This is to ensure that the foundations are placed within the engineered fill
envelope and the integrity of the fill has not been compromised by interim
construction, environmental degradation and/or disturbance by the footing
excavation.
13. Any excavation carried out in certified engineered fill must be reported to the
geotechnical consultant who supervised the fill placement in order to
document the locations of excavation and/or to supervise reinstatement of the
excavated areas to engineered fill status. If construction on the engineered fill
 Reference No. 1708-S019 18

does not commence within a period of 2 years from the date of certification,
the condition of the engineered fill must be assessed for recertification.
14. Despite stringent control in the placement of the engineered fill, variations in
soil type and density may occur in the engineered fill. Therefore, the strip
footings and the upper section of the foundation walls constructed on the
engineered fill may require continuous reinforcement with steel bars,
depending on the uniformity of the soils in the engineered fill and the
thickness of the engineered fill underlying the foundations. Should the
footings and/or walls require reinforcement, the required number and size of
reinforcing bars must be assessed by considering the uniformity as well as the
thickness of the engineered fill beneath the foundations. In sewer
construction, the engineered fill is considered to have the same structural
proficiency as a natural inorganic soil.

6.3 Slab-On-Grade

The surface of the subgrade must be inspected and proof-rolled. Any topsoil or
highly weathered soils must be subexcavated and replaced with inorganic fill,
compacted to at least 98% of its maximum Standard Proctor dry density prior to
placement of the granular base.

The slab should be constructed on a granular base, 20 cm thick, consisting of

20-mm Crusher-Run Limestone, or equivalent, compacted to 100% of its maximum
Standard Proctor dry density.

A Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of 25 MPa/m is recommended for the design of

the floor slab.
 Reference No. 1708-S019 19

The ground around the building must be graded to direct water away from the
structure to minimize the frost heave phenomenon generally associated with the
disclosed soils.

6.4 Garages, Driveways, Sidewalks and Interlocking Stone Pavement

Due to the high frost susceptibility of the underlying soils, heaving of the pavement
is expected to occur during the cold weather. The driveways at the entrances to the
garage should be backfilled with non-frost-susceptible granular material, with a frost
taper at a slope of 1 vertical:1 horizontal. The garage floor slab and interior garage
foundation walls must be insulated with 50-mm Styrofoam, or equivalent.

Interlocking stone pavement and the sidewalks in areas which are sensitive to frost-
induced ground movement, such as entrances, must be constructed on a free-
draining, non-frost-susceptible granular material such as Granular ‘B’. It must
extend to 1.2 m below the slab or pavement surface and be provided with positive
drainage such as weeper subdrains connected to manholes or catch basins.
Alternatively, the sidewalks and the interlocking stone pavement should be properly
insulated with 50-mm Styrofoam, or equivalent, as approved by a geotechnical
engineer.

The external grade must be designed to slope away from the structure.

6.5 Underground Services

The subgrade for the underground services should consist of properly compacted
inorganic earth fill or natural sound soils. In areas consisting of topsoil or highly
 Reference No. 1708-S019 20

weathered soils, they should be subexcavated and replaced with bedding material
compacted to at least 95% or + of its Standard Proctor compaction.

A Class ‘B’ bedding, consisting of compacted 20-mm Crusher-Run Limestone or

Brampton Class ‘B’ bedding stone, is recommended for the construction of the
underground services.

In order to prevent pipe floatation when the sewer trench is deluged with water, a
soil cover with a thickness equal to the diameter of the pipe should be in place at all
times after completion of the pipe installation.

Openings to subdrains and catch basins should be shielded with a fabric filter to
prevent blockage by silting.

Since the silty clay has moderately high corrosivity to buried metal, the water main
should be protected against corrosion. In determining the mode of protection, an
electrical resistivity of 2500 ohm∙cm should be used. This, however, must be
confirmed by testing the soil along the water main alignment at the time of sewer
construction.

6.6 Trench Backfilling

The on site inorganic soils are suitable for trench backfill. 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 moisture content 2% to 3% drier
than the optimum. In the lower zone, a 95% or + Standard Proctor compaction is
considered to be adequate; however, the material must be compacted on the wet side
of the optimum.
Reference No. 1708-S019 21

In normal underground services construction practice, the problem areas of road

settlement largely occur adjacent to manholes, catch basins, services crossings,
foundation walls and columns. In areas which are inaccessible to a heavy
compactor, sand backfill should be used. The interface of the native soils and the
sand backfill will have to be flooded for a period of several days.

The narrow trenches 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.
Furthermore, the freezing condition will prevent flooding of the backfill when
it is required, such as in a narrow vertical trench section, or when the trench
box is removed. The above will invariably cause backfill settlement that may
become evident within 1 to several years, depending on the depth of the trench
which has been backfilled.
• In areas where the underground services 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
 Reference No. 1708-S019 22

frost recedes, and repair costs will be incurred prior to final surfacing of the
new pavement and the slab-on-grade construction.
• 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.

6.7 Pavement Design

Based on the borehole findings, the recommended pavement design is given in

Table 4.
Reference No. 1708-S019 23

Table 4 - Pavement Design

Course Thickness (mm) OPS Specifications
Asphalt Surface 40 HL-3
Asphalt Binder 50 HL-8
Granular Base 150 20-mm Crusher-Run Limestone
Granular Sub-base 50-mm Crusher-Run Limestone
Parking 300
Fire Route 400

In preparation of the subgrade, the subgrade surface should be proof-rolled; any soft
subgrade, organics and deleterious materials within 1.0 m below the underside of the
granular sub-base should be subexcavated and replaced by properly compacted
organic-free earth fill or granular material.

All the granular bases should be compacted to their maximum Standard Proctor dry
density.

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.

The road subgrade will suffer a strength regression if water is allowed to infiltrate
prior to paving. The following measures should therefore be incorporated in the
construction procedures and road design:
 Reference No. 1708-S019 24

• If the road 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 roads should be properly graded to prevent the 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.
• If the roads are to be constructed during the wet seasons and extensively soft
subgrade occurs, the granular sub-base may require thickening. This can be
assessed during construction.

6.8 Soil Parameters

The recommended soil parameters for the project design are given in Table 6.

Table 6 - Soil Parameters

Unit Weight and Bulk Factor Unit Weight Estimated
(kN/m3) Bulk Factor
Bulk Loose Compacted
Weathered Soil 20.5 1.20 0.98
Silty Clay 20.5 1.30 1.00
Silts 20.5 1.20 1.00
Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients
Active At Rest Passive
Ka Ko Kp
Silty Clay 0.39 0.56 2.56
Silts 0.33 0.50 3.00
 Reference No. 1708-S019 25

6.9 Excavation

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

Excavations in excess of 1.2 m should be sloped at 1 vertical:1 horizontal for

stability.

For excavation purposes, the types of soils are classified in Table 7.

Table 7 - Classification of Soils for Excavation

Material Type
Silty Clay, weathered Soil and Silts above groundwater 3
Silts below groundwater 4

The groundwater yield from the silty clay, due to its low permeability, will be small,
if any, and can be controlled by pumping from sumps. However, the yield from the
silts will likely be moderate, if encountered; pumping from closely spaced sumps or,
if necessary, a well-point dewatering system will be required.

Prospective contractors must be asked to assess the in situ subsurface conditions for
soil cuts 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
JOB NO.: 1708-S019 LOG OF BOREHOLE NO.: 1 FIGURE NO.: 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Existing Residential Property METHOD OF BORING: Flight-Auger

PROJECT LOCATION: 16780 Yonge Street, Town of Newmarket DRILLING DATE: September 1, 2017

Dynamic Cone (blows/30 cm)

SAMPLES
10 30 50 70 90 Atterberg Limits

Depth Scale (m)

PL LL

WATER LEVEL
El. Shear Strength (kN/m2)
(m) SOIL 50 100 150 200
DESCRIPTION
Depth

N-Value
Number
Penetration Resistance
(m) (blows/30 cm) Moisture Content (%)

Type
10 30 50 70 90 10 20 30 40

0.0 Ground Surface

0.0 25 cm TOPSOIL 0 6
0.3 1 DO 8
Loose to compact weathered

1 20
2 DO 19

21
3 DO 15
2
SILT
22
4 DO 11

3
22
5 DO 7

brown
grey 18
4
6 DO 22

18
7 DO 22
5

5.3 Grey, dense to very dense 9

8 DO 65

SANDY SILT
6
9

W.L. @ depth of 5.8 m on completion

9 DO 48

6.7
END OF BOREHOLE 7

Installed 50 mm Ø monitoring well to 6.0 m

completed with 3.0 m screen
Sand backfill from 2.4 m to 6.0 m 8
Bentonite seal from 0.0 m to 2.4 m
Provided with a protective steel casing

10

Soil Engineers Ltd. Page: 1 of 1

JOB NO.: 1708-S019 LOG OF BOREHOLE NO.: 6 FIGURE NO.: 2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Existing Residential Property METHOD OF BORING: Flight-Auger

PROJECT LOCATION: 16780 Yonge Street, Town of Newmarket DRILLING DATE: September 1, 2017

Dynamic Cone (blows/30 cm)

SAMPLES
10 30 50 70 90 Atterberg Limits

Depth Scale (m)

PL LL

WATER LEVEL
El. Shear Strength (kN/m2)
(m) SOIL 50 100 150 200
DESCRIPTION
Depth

N-Value
Number
Penetration Resistance
(m) (blows/30 cm) Moisture Content (%)

Type
10 30 50 70 90 10 20 30 40

0.0 Ground Surface

0.0 38 cm TOPSOIL 0 42
1A DO
20
1B DO 9
Brown, loose to compact weathered
23
2 DO 18 1

20
3 DO 20
SILT
2

17
4 DO 23

Dry on completion
3 18
5 DO 26

4.0 4
Grey, stiff to very stiff

17
6 DO 16
SILTY CLAY 5
occ. wet sand and
silt seams and layers

6
20
7 DO 24
6.6
END OF BOREHOLE
7

10

Soil Engineers Ltd. Page: 1 of 1

JOB NO.: 1708-S019 LOG OF BOREHOLE NO.: 7 FIGURE NO.: 3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Existing Residential Property METHOD OF BORING: Flight-Auger

PROJECT LOCATION: 16780 Yonge Street, Town of Newmarket DRILLING DATE: September 1, 2017

Dynamic Cone (blows/30 cm)

SAMPLES
10 30 50 70 90 Atterberg Limits

Depth Scale (m)

PL LL

WATER LEVEL
El. Shear Strength (kN/m2)
(m) SOIL 50 100 150 200
DESCRIPTION
Depth

N-Value
Number
Penetration Resistance
(m) (blows/30 cm) Moisture Content (%)

Type
10 30 50 70 90 10 20 30 40

0.0 Ground Surface

0.0 38 cm TOPSOIL 0 24
1A DO
19
1B DO 5
Brown, loose to very dense
21
2 DO 9 1
weathered
19
3 DO 17
2

18
4 DO 22

Dry on completion
SILT 3 17
5 DO 17

19
6 DO 25
5

6
17
7 DO 54
6.6
END OF BOREHOLE
7

10

Soil Engineers Ltd. Page: 1 of 1

JOB NO.: 1708-S019 LOG OF BOREHOLE NO.: 8 FIGURE NO.: 4

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Existing Residential Property METHOD OF BORING: Flight-Auger

PROJECT LOCATION: 16780 Yonge Street, Town of Newmarket DRILLING DATE: September 1, 2017

Dynamic Cone (blows/30 cm)

SAMPLES
10 30 50 70 90 Atterberg Limits

Depth Scale (m)

PL LL

WATER LEVEL
El. Shear Strength (kN/m2)
(m) SOIL 50 100 150 200
DESCRIPTION
Depth

N-Value
Number
Penetration Resistance
(m) (blows/30 cm) Moisture Content (%)

Type
10 30 50 70 90 10 20 30 40

0.0 Ground Surface

0.0 36 cm TOPSOIL 0 23
1A DO
20
1B DO 4
Brown, loose to dense weathered
19
2 DO 20 1

18
3 DO 25
SILT 2

18
4 DO 30

Dry on completion
3 16
5 DO 43

4.0 4
Grey, very stiff

17
6 DO 30
SILTY CLAY 5
occ. wet sand and
silt seams and layers

6
18
7 DO 31
6.6
END OF BOREHOLE
7

10

Soil Engineers Ltd. Page: 1 of 1

JOB NO.: 1708-S019 LOG OF BOREHOLE NO.: 9 FIGURE NO.: 5

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed Existing Residential Property METHOD OF BORING: Flight-Auger

PROJECT LOCATION: 16780 Yonge Street, Town of Newmarket DRILLING DATE: September 1, 2017

Dynamic Cone (blows/30 cm)

SAMPLES
10 30 50 70 90 Atterberg Limits

Depth Scale (m)

PL LL

WATER LEVEL
El. Shear Strength (kN/m2)
(m) SOIL 50 100 150 200
DESCRIPTION
Depth

N-Value
Number
Penetration Resistance
(m) (blows/30 cm) Moisture Content (%)

Type
10 30 50 70 90 10 20 30 40

0.0 Ground Surface

0.0 43 cm TOPSOIL 0 38
1A DO
24
1B DO 3
weathered
Loose to dense
20
2 DO 16 1

19
3 DO 15
2
SILT
13
4 DO 23

3 18
5 DO 33

4.0 4
Grey, very stiff

20
6 DO 25

W.L. @ depth of 4.3 m on completion

SILTY CLAY
5
occ. wet sand and
silt seams and layers

6
20
7 DO 23
6.6
END OF BOREHOLE
7

10

Soil Engineers Ltd. Page: 1 of 1

 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Reference No: 1708-S019
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

BH.6/Sa.6
50

40

30
BH.9/Sa.6
20
Percent Passing

10

0
100 Grain Size in millimeters 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

Project: Existing Residential Property BH./Sa. 6/6 9/6

Location: 16780 Yonge Street, Town of Newmarket Liquid Limit (%) = 30 29
Plastic Limit (%) = 17 16
Borehole No: 6 9 Plasticity Index (%) = 13 13
Sample No: 6 6 Moisture Content (%) = 17 20
Depth (m): 4.7 4.7 Estimated Permeability

Figure: 6
Elevation (m): - - (cm./sec.) = 10-7 10-7
Classification of Sample [& Group Symbol]: SILTY CLAY, a trace of fine sand
 Soil Engineers Ltd. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Reference No: 1708-S019
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: Existing Residential Property

Location: 16780 Yonge Street, Town of Newmarket Liquid Limit (%) = -
Plastic Limit (%) = -
Borehole No: 1 Plasticity Index (%) = -
Sample No: 6 Moisture Content (%) = 18
Depth (m): 4.2 Estimated Permeability

Figure: 7
Elevation (m): - (cm./sec.) = 10-6
Classification of Sample [& Group Symbol]: SILT, some clay, a trace of fine sand