Geotechnical Consultants

20 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, L5A 3X8 | maheen.sani@gcd.com

December 5th, 2016

Dr. Ryley A. Beddoe

In House Representative
Municipality of Toronto
47 Bay Street, Unit 102
Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3

Dear Dr. R. Beddoe:

Attached is the geotechnical report which contains the geotechnical investigation conducted
by my team and I. It summarizes the outcome of constructing stormwater ponds vs. storage
units and provides you with the best recommendation.

The attached report includes an introduction to the proposed project, a brief description of the
desired projects, scope of services, site conditions, geotechnical investigation, laboratory
testing, investigation findings, engineering analysis, engineering recommendation, limitations,
risk analysis and an appendix including all figures and tables used to prepare this report.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached report, please do not hesitate to
contact me at any time. I look forward to being awarded another design contract by the
Municipality of Toronto.

Sincerely,

Maheen Sani

Department of Civil Engineering

Course Number: CIVL 3110

Course Title: Soil Mechanics
Semester/Year: Fall 2016
Instructor: Dr. R. Beddoe

Geotechnical Site Investigation Report

Submission Date: Monday, December 5th, 2016

Maheen Sani

Table of Contents
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Scope of Services ............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Site Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 Geotechnical Investigation ..................................................................................... 2

2.1 Field Exploration ................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Borehole Log ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................. 3
2.31 Lab Test No.1 .................................................................................................................. 3
2.32 Lab Test No.2 .................................................................................................................. 3
2.33 Lab Test No.3 .................................................................................................................. 4
2.34 Lab Test No.4 .................................................................................................................. 4

3.0 Investigation Findings ............................................................................................ 5

3.1 Field and Laboratory Test Data.......................................................................................... 5
3.2 Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Engineering Analysis .............................................................................................. 5

5.0 Engineering Recommendation............................................................................... 7
6.0 Limitations ............................................................................................................... 7
7.0 Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................... 8
8.0 Figures and Tables.................................................................................................. 8
9.0 References ............................................................................................................... 9
10.0 Appendix .............................................................................................................. 10

List of Tables
Table 1. Borehole Specifications

Table 2. Cost Associated with Boreholes

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

1.0

Introduction

Geotechnical Consultants (GCS) was retained by the Municipality of Toronto to

perform a site investigation. This report consists of the geotechnical site
investigation, the laboratory tests, and the final recommendations for the proposed
projects.

1.1

Project Description
Municipality of Toronto is looking to construct on a 105-ha site to continue
growth and development in their community by developing this land for
residential purposes. GCS has performed a geotechnical site investigation
to assist the Municipality of Toronto with the most safe, sustainable and cost
efficient final recommendations.

Stormwater Ponds
GCS understands that the proposed project will involve the
construction of two stormwater ponds that must contain 500,000 m3
of water in each. The pond will be kept at is maximum capacity
throughout the year and will be drained periodically for maintenance.
GCS is looking to determine suitable dimensions for the stormwater
pond that would allow for additional leftover space to be used for
residential development. GCS is also looking to determine and
mitigate concerns that could arise while digging the pond while
considering all other safety requirements.

Self-Storage Units
The Municipality of Toronto is considering using the property to
house self-storage units as another option. The proposed project will
construct this facility directly onto the clay layer allowing them to
recuperate the overall cost of the project. Structural engineers have
informed GCS that the storage units will a surcharge load of 400 kPa
to the soil. They have also confirmed that the load will cover a
sufficient area and 1D settlement can be assumed. The Municipality
of Toronto is requesting GCS to determine the expected settlement
and solutions to limit the settlement. GCS will also determine how
long it will take for final settlement to occur and the types of tests that
are required to determine this information.

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

1.2

Scope of Services
The purpose of this study is to provide geotechnical information regarding
soil and rock conditions at the proposed location of construction and to
provide geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction.
The results of the final investigation consist of field and laboratory tests,
engineering analysis and additional findings. The following is a detailed
scope of the investigation:
1. Collecting geological and geotechnical maps related to the project
2. Site visits to collect information about the topography of the site,
geological features, and determining any additional concerns present at
the site.
3. Description of surface and subsurface site conditions that GCS
encounters during field investigation.
4. Drill Four (4) boreholes and take samples of disturbed and undisturbed
soil to laboratory for testing.
5. Performing necessary field and laboratory testing including Visual Identification
of soils, Atterberg Limits, Standard Proctor Compaction test, Constant-head
Permeability test, Unconfined Compression test, Direct Shear test, Odometer
Test and Triaxial Compression Test.
6. Apply engineering principals and analyze the results.
7. Develop recommendations and conclusions concerning final design and
construction for the most safe, sustainable and cost efficient results.
8. Submit all findings with the final report upon completion of contract with the
Municipality of Toronto.

1.3

Site Conditions
The proposed 105 ha property is currently being used for mixed farming
purposes. The geologic setting consists of glacial till deposits with thickness
of 20m. There are one or more coarse-grain aquifers based on regional
records and there is potential for clay layers. The bedrock consists of Late
Ordovician age blue-grey shale-dominated unit with siltstone and limestone
that dip on a regional scale to the south 5m / km. Please refer to the
Appendix A for more information.

2.0 Geotechnical Investigation

2.1 Field Exploration
The proposed site was investigated to determine the types of soil present.
The investigation was conducted using the Standard penetration test was
conducted using a hollow stem auger. Penetrometer of 150mm was dug
into the undisturbed soil until it reached a depth of 300mm. The 63.5 kg
hammer was used from a height of 762mm and was dropped on the soil.
2

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.
The number of blows were recorded. It was assumed that only 60% of the
potential energy was transmitted into the soil to correct N values. The SPT
was a simple method to obtain samples of undisturbed soil. However,
Geotechnical consultants are aware that it may not be as reliable as the
results that can be obtained using the Test Pit method. There was a total of
four (4) bore holes. The specific location of boreholes can be found in
Appendix A.

2.2

Borehole Log
The borehole log shown in Appendix A confirms that the soil layers beneath
the ground consist of non-homogenous clay and sandy silt till at various
depths. There will be one way drainage due to shale bedrock at a depth of
20 m. The borehole log confirms that the proposed site is sufficient for the
desired projects.

2.3

Laboratory Testing

The following tests were conducted to determine the behavior of the soils present
on site.

2.31 Lab Test No. 1

Basic Soil Properties and Soil Classification
This lab test was conducted to visually identify soils after obtaining
samples in the field. The samples were visually inspected to
determine color, grain size, grading, odor, and presence of
carbonates in all soil samples. In total, 6 samples were observed and
identified using the Munsell Color Chart. The test concluded the
types of soil that were found. The results can be found in Appendix
C.

Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit Determination

The Atterberg limits test helps one identify the change of state
between liquid and plastic limits of a soil over a large range of water
contents. Specifically, Atterberg limits are those water contents that
are the boundary conditions for the change of states of soils. A lab
experiment was conducted on the soil sample obtained to determine
the liquid limit, the plastic limit, and the plasticity index of an oven
dried sample of a fine-grained soil that was sieved through ASTM
No. 40 sieve (0.425 mm). The equipment used for this experiment
can be found in Appendix C.

2.32 Lab Test No. 2

Standard Proctor Compaction Test
To determine the compaction characteristics of the moist soil sample
passing through ASTM sieve no.4, the standard proctor compaction
3

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.
test was conducted using a compaction. This test is very important
before the geotechnical investigation for the proposed site can take
place. The compaction of a soil sample improves the shear strength
of a soil, reduces its compressibility, and determines the soils
resistance to erosion. This is very important as we need to ensure
that the foundation of our structure is not exposed to erosion, frost
damages and is built on a strong layer of soil.

Constant-head Permeability Test

To determine the coefficient of permeability known as the hydraulic
conductivity of a soil, the constant-head permeability test along with
the falling-head permeability test was conducted. The test was used
to find the coefficient of permeability for a fine, uniform sand sample.

2.33 Lab Test No. 3

Unconfined Compression Test
The unconfined compression test was conducted to determine the
undrained shear strength of the fine grain soil sample. The test
applied a vertical stress to maintain the undrained conditions in the
soil sample.

Direct Shear Test

The Direct shear test was conducted to determine the MohrCoulomb shear strength of soil samples. The test determined the
cohesion and angel of internal friction of soil particles. The test
sheared the sample of the soil in a horizontal plane with the
application of a vertical force.

2.34 Lab Test No. 4

Oedometer Test
The one-dimensional compression test was conducted to determine
the consolidation behavior of the soil sample. The coefficient of
consolidation (Cv), compression index (Cc) and the pre-consolidation
pressure (p) was determined. The sample experienced 90% of
average consolidation while its vertical deformation was recorded.
The detailed procedure and results can be found in Appendix C.

Triaxial Compression Tests

The Triaxial compression test was conducted to obtain the shear
strength of saturated fine grained soils. It was conducted due to its
accurate results and unique feature of controlling the drainage of
pore-water pressures. Out of the three possible Triaxial Test, this lab
focused on the consolidated undrained triaxial test. Further details
and results can be found in Appendix C.
4

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

3.0
3.1

Investigation Findings
Field and Laboratory Test Data
The field and laboratory test data concluded that the proposed site consists
of clay and sandy silt till. The site will have one way drainage as the bedrock
is of shale material. The liquid limit of the clay sand is 23% and its plastic
limit is 8%. The optimum water content was found to be 90%. The coefficient
of permeability was found to be 0.009cm/s which is small, therefore it was
concluded that the soil is unsaturated. The undrained shear strength of the
soil sample was found to be 41.95 kPa. The shear strength of the soil was
found to be 157.44 kPa and its internal angle of friction was found to be 25.

3.2

Subsurface Conditions
The Ground-Penetrating radar (GPR) was conducted to determine
subsurface conditions. It is an electro-magnetic wave technique used to
image soil and ground structures. The results concluded that the subsurface
of the proposed site consists of a 0.2 m thick glacial till.

3.3

Groundwater Conditions
The groundwater conditions at the proposed site are assumed to be
hydrostatic as there will be no removal or any addition to the ground water
within or below the soil.

4.0

Engineering Analysis

Stormwater Pond:
There are two storm water ponds required that must contain 500,000m 3 of water
in each. The ponds will be at capacity most of the year but will drain periodically
for maintenance purposes due to settlement of dirt and other solids at the bottom
of the pond. The location of the pond is proposed to be in a residential area which
means that safety of children must be considered in the designing of these ponds.
The following assumptions are made for the design purposes of the stormwater
ponds:
1. The pond will be designed to suffice an area that suffers from heavy rain and
to treat run off within 24 hours. A 3:1 ratio of permanent pool volume to storm
water runoff was considered, resulting in a 90% removal rate.
2. The bottom layer of the pond is sufficient to prevent seepage. However, layers
of soil in between may need to be compacted in optimum wet conditions to
provide the best seal.
3. The storm water pond is designed to treat run off generated by storm water.
4. The proposed dimensions of the pond are the following:
1
1
= (1 + (2 1)

1 + 1 2
~500,0003
5

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.
Base 1 = 75m
Base 2 = 150m
Height = 65m
Partial Height = 32.5m
Length = 127m
The total surface area of the pond = 8125 m2

5. Vegetation and seeding should be done as soon as possible after fine grading
is complete.
6. A sediment and erosion plan must be considered during construction activities.
The dimensions were chosen to ensure that the stormwater pond serves the required
purposes of preventing flooding in the surrounding area. It was assumed that the area
consists of heavy rainfall due to which the 3:1 volume to stormwater runoff ratio was
considered. The dimensions were selected to be in a trapezoidal shape to ensure that
the stormwater pond covers a sufficient surface area around residential land to prevent
flooding the area. The depth was chosen to be 60m with 5m of depth available for
additional stormwater. The stormwater pond is designed over a large surface area to
safely drain overflows to downstream drainage systems. When digging the pond,
there are several factors to be considered. When digging the ponds, grade
embankments will be required to prevent flooding in surrounding residential areas
as well as roads near the site. Since the proposed design is a trapezoidal shape the
excavation should be simple as the natural slope in a clay material is of trapezoidal
shape. There would also be a need for cofferdams to provide an enclosed area while
the water is being pumped out to create a dry work environment for work to proceed.
The site does not consist of any trees as it is seen in the topographic map of the site
in Appendix A. The excavation of the pond will require careful procedures as the
seepage pressures may cause the soil to cave in. This can be prevented by additional
shoring methods.
When performing maintenance work and ponds have been drained, it is important that
all aquatic life is relocated. It is also important that once all debris and sediments
are cleared, seeding should be done right away to ensure growth of new
vegetation. It is recommended that maintenance is done often to avoid accumulation
of sediments. It would prevent damaged pipes, loss of vegetation, and erosion.
Along the floors of the pond a Teraferm FM 200 blanket could be placed. It is an
erosion protection blanket and can be used to prevent erosion on pipes. Since we are
dealing with Clay structures that are dispersed, the soil is more prone to erosion and
weathering.
The ponds should be located (500m South, 250m West) because as it is shown in the
borehole log, this is the ideal location to prevent two-way drainage and keep the pond
at desired water levels. This location consists of a heavy clayey and dense sandy silt
till which can be compacted properly to prevent seepage. It also consists of a very
minor cobbles and gravel layer in comparison to the rest of the land. The second pond
can be constructed on (250 m North, 500 East), this location consists of similar
situations.

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

Self-storage Units:
If the rate of loading exceeds the rate of pore pressure dissipation the excess
pore water generation causes settlement. Settlement is related to how fast
water can drain from the pores. To limit settlement, it is important to drain the
soil, compact it to increase its density. This will improve the mechanical
properties of the soil and limit settlement overtime. Another important method
often used is reducing groundwater level to decrease water pressure. This will
reduce effective stress and assist in consolidation purposes. The soil will settle
by 2.6m in 2 years. This is a significant amount of settlement and is not deemed
safe. Settlement can be limited by ensuring that loads on the soil are not
exceeding the loads that the soil can take. The soil is sufficient to bare shear
its self-weight and additional weight of 50 kPa. The soil will stop settling in 2
years after all the excess pore waters have dissipated. Other tests that can be
performed to obtain this information include the Plate Load Test. This test is
performed to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a soil and its settlement
under a given load. It is conducted using a steel plate placed at the foundation
of the soil and recording the corresponding settlement.

5.0

Engineering Recommendation
Geotechnical consultants recommend that the proposed site should be used
for stormwater ponds as well as other residential purposes. This will ensure
that the soil is supporting a constant expected weight. Storage units may load
the soil with additional loads apart from its self-weight resulting in additional
settlement in long term. Therefore, the most sustainable, cost-efficient
method for the City of Toronto would be to proceed with stormwater pond
construction.

6.0

Limitations
This report has been prepared with minimal field experience and knowledge.
The analysis and recommendations presented are based on knowledge
learned in an undergraduate course of Soil Mechanics and the resulted data
obtained from various laboratory experiments. The report has been prepared
for the exclusive use of a student project and does not resemble any existing
or planned site.

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

7.0

Risk Analysis
There may be additional risks that the contractors may encounter. Due to
limitations in the scope of work, geotechnical consultants have not searched
additional literature for such possibilities. Geotechnical consultants
recommend that the contractor explores additional undetected and
unexpected cost overruns in construction or possible failure to mitigate any
difficulties that may arise during construction.

Mild Risk of Flooding

Stormwater Pond
Moderate risk of seepage
pressure caving in soil
during maintenance

Project

Selfstorage Units

8.0

Risk of human, chemical,

and physical factors
increasing rate or pore
water dissipation

Figures and Tables

Table 1 - Borehole Specifications

BH

Distance North or South from

Center

Distance East or West

from Center

Depth

1
2
3
4

700 North
500 South
700 South
0

0
200 West
300 West
0

20.6
23.9
23.9
21.1

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.
Table 2 - Cost Associated with Boreholes

9.0

Hours

Budget:
$12,000

Field Tech. Rate:

$75/hour

Drill Rig Rate:

$175/hour

BH Total ($)

8
8
8
7

Drilling ($)
500
500
500
500

Field Tech.
598
598
598
528

Drill Rig ($)

1394
1394
1394
1231

2492
2492
2492
2258

References

[1] Beddoe, Ryley. "Soil Mechanics Notes." Soil Mechanics Notes (2016): n. pag. Print.
[2] Budhu, Muni. Soil Mechanics and Foundations. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
[3] "Fixing a Leaking Pond (Water Quality)." Water Quality (Penn State Extension). N.p., n.d.
Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
[4] "Index of Ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/CDrom/FAO_Training/FAO_Training/General/x6709f/." Index
of Ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/CDrom/FAO_Training/FAO_Training/General/x6709f/. N.p., n.d.
Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
[5] "MEA Report Writing Guide | Typefaces." Scribd. Scribd, n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2016.

MLA formatting by BibMe.org.

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

10.0 Appendix

10

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

Appendix A: Figures
(site location map, soil boring location map, interpreted geologic cross section)

11

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

Appendix B: Subsurface
Explorations Data
(boring log key, boring logs)

12

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

Laboratory Test Results

(all test results, summary sheets, graphs, tables)

13

This information was created for the sole purpose of a student project and bears no
resemblance to any existing or planned site.

Design Calculations
(detailed calculations to assess 2 design options and final selection)

14