Appendix H - Geotechnical and Pavement Report

York Region – Elgin Mills Road Class EA
Environmental Study Report
Appendix H
Geotechnical and Pavement Report
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY
ELGIN MILLS ROAD (Y.R. 49)
BATHURST STREET (Y.R. 38) TO YONGE STREET (Y.R. 1)
TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL, YORK REGION
.
Report Submitted To:
Hatch Mott MacDonald
Steven Sather, P.Eng.

Review Principal
Mark Farrant, P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer
August 9, 2016 Mark Popik, P.Eng.

File: 19-1605-184 Senior Pavement Engineer
103, 2010 Winston Park Drive, Oakville, ON L6H 5R7 T: 905 829 8666 F: 905 829 1166
thurber.ca
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 1
2.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Physiography .............................................................................................................. 1
2.3 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 2
3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 2
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Existing Pavement Condition ...................................................................................... 4
4.2 Existing Pavement Structure....................................................................................... 4
4.3 Subgrade Soil ............................................................................................................. 5
4.4 Groundwater Levels.................................................................................................... 6
4.5 Chemical Analysis ...................................................................................................... 7
5.0 PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN ..................................................................... 7
5.1 Traffic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 8
5.2 ESALs Calculations .................................................................................................... 8
5.3 AASHTO Pavement Design ........................................................................................ 8
5.4 New Flexible Pavement Design .................................................................................. 9
5.5 Pavement Rehabilitation Analysis ..............................................................................10
5.6 Pavement Rehabilitation Alternatives ........................................................................11
6.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS............................................14
6.1 Pavement Rehabilitation ............................................................................................14
6.2 Pavement Widening Areas ........................................................................................14
6.3 New Pavement Materials ...........................................................................................15
6.4 Existing Pavement Materials......................................................................................15
6.5 Transition Treatments ................................................................................................16
6.6 Pavement Drainage ...................................................................................................16
6.7 Subgrade Preparation................................................................................................17
6.8 Culverts .....................................................................................................................17
6.9 Excavation and Groundwater Control ........................................................................21
6.10 Storm Sewer Installation ............................................................................................22
6.11 Corrosion Potential of Soils........................................................................................22
6.12 Management of Excess Materials ..............................................................................23
6.13 Construction Inspection and Testing ..........................................................................23
7.0 CLOSURE .....................................................................................................................23
Statement of Limitations and Conditions
Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

File No. 19-1605-184
APPENDICES
Appendix A Photographs of Typical Conditions

Appendix B Pavement Surface Condition Evaluation Forms
Appendix C Borehole Location Plan
Appendix D Pavement and Foundation Borehole Logs
Appendix E Laboratory Test Results
Appendix F Chemical Analysis – Certificates of Analysis
Appendix G DARWin Pavement Design Analysis

File No. 19-1605-184
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation carried out by Thurber
Engineering Ltd. (Thurber) for the improvement of Elgin Mills Road between Bathurst Street and
Yonge Street, located in the Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario. The work was undertaken by
Thurber Engineering Ltd. (Thurber) for Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) as part of a Schedule 'C'
Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Regional Municipality of York (York Region or the
Client).
The purpose of this investigation was to obtain existing pavement condition and geotechnical
subsurface information along the proposed improvements and based on the findings, to provide
preliminary pavement and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements to the
existing roadway. The investigation was carried out in general accordance with Thurber’s
proposal letter No. 114-3856 to HMM.
It is a condition of this report that Thurber's performance of its professional services is subject to
the attached Statement of Limitations and Conditions.
This report uses the International System of Units (SI Units).
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Background
It is understood that the Region is undertaking this Environmental Assessment (EA) study to
improve the functional and structural capacity of the above noted section of Elgin Mills Road. The
project includes identification of alternative solutions for the improvement of the roadway. The
alternatives being considered for this pavement and geotechnical investigation will include:
 Rehabilitation of existing pavement;

 Widening – two-lanes in both directions, including shared centre-turn lane;
 Installation of new storm sewer system; and
 Culvert extension to accommodate pavement widening.
2.2 Physiography
The Quaternary geologic mapping for the site (OGS Map P.2204, 1980) indicates that the soil
conditions in the project area mainly consist of glacial tills ranging in composition from clayey silt
to sandy silt till. The bedrock, which is greater than 30 m depth, in the area comprises Upper-
Ordovician shale, limestone, dolomite and sandstone of the Georgian Bay Formation (Map 2197,

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 1 of 24
1970). Recently, land development, agriculture and road construction activities in the area have
likely resulted in placement of anthropogenic (fill) deposits in some areas.
The study area is located within a physiographic region known as the South Slope: the southern
slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The South Slope region is gently sloped and faintly
drumlinized, although no drumlins are present within the study area.
The topography within the study area is gently undulating from a ground surface elevation of
approximately 253 m to 240 m above sea level, with a gradual downwards slope eastwards
towards Yonge Street.
The typical foundation frost penetration depth expected within the project area is 1.5 m.
2.3 Existing Conditions
Elgin Mills Road currently comprises a three-lane cross section, constructed with a semi-urban
platform from Bathurst Street to Regent Street/Shaftsbury Avenue (Regent Street) with a curb
and gutter along the westbound pavement edge, and a gravel shoulder and a ditch along the
eastbound direction. From Regent Street to Yonge Street, Elgin Mills Road has an urban
platform, with curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. At signalized intersections, Elgin
Mills Road widens to include turn lanes and/or a secondary driving lane. The centre median is
paved and serves as a left turn lane, providing access to residential properties on both sides of
the roadway.
Elgin Mills Road, within the project limits, has an asphalt pavement surface, and a posted speed
limit of 50 km/hr.
At various locations within the project area, three culverts containing two tributaries of the East
Don River and one tributary of German Mills Creek cross beneath Elgin Mills Road.
3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
A field investigation was carried out in May 2015 and comprised of a pavement surface condition
survey, borehole drilling, and laboratory testing on recovered samples of granular base/subbase
and pavement subgrade soil.
The visual pavement surface condition survey was completed within the project limits on
May 6, 2015 to assess the condition of the existing pavement surface, and identify the type and
severity of the specific pavement distresses present at that time. Typical photographs of existing
conditions are provided in Appendix A, while pavement condition evaluation forms are provided
in Appendix B.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 2 of 24
The borehole investigation included a total of 17 boreholes: 12 boreholes drilled through the
existing pavement to depths of 2.1 m, and 5 foundation boreholes drilled to a depth of 5.0 m to
provide data for potential culvert extensions and sewer installations. Boreholes 15-02, 15-05,
and 15-18 were drilled adjacent to creek crossings. Monitoring wells were installed in the deeper
boreholes in order to permit measurement of the groundwater level and for hydrogeological
evaluation purposes. Upon completion, all boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings, or
bentonite hole-plug.
Prior to the start of the drilling investigation, utility clearances were obtained through Ontario-1-
Call. Boreholes were positioned in order to avoid conflicts with existing infrastructure, including a
watermain located beneath the westbound lane. Therefore all boreholes other than BH 15-18
(Station 2+110) were advanced in the EB lane and/or shoulder, and Borehole 15-09 (Station
1+205) was limited to only pavement core sampling due to an underground utility conflict.
A road occupancy permit was obtained prior to commencement of drilling. Traffic control was
provided by Direct Traffic Management, while the boreholes were advanced using track-mounted
CME-55 drill rigs supplied and operated by DBW Drilling Ltd.
A plan of the borehole locations is provided in Appendix C, and borehole logs are provided in
Appendix D. Boreholes logs for the shallow boreholes (2.1 m depth) are presented in tabular
format, while logs for deeper boreholes are provided on separate record of borehole sheets. The
borehole locations were established in the field, relative to existing site features. The
approximate ground elevations at the boreholes were established based on elevation contours
on a topographic survey drawing provided by HMM.
The field investigation was carried out under the full-time supervision of Thurber technical staff.
All boreholes were logged in the field. Soil samples were identified, placed in labelled containers
and transported back to Thurber’s laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory test
results are provided in Appendix E.
Selected soil samples were submitted to a qualified laboratory for analytical testing to assess
disposal requirements for excess excavated materials, corrosivity potential of soils, and potential
site contamination. The laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix F.
Groundwater conditions in the open boreholes were observed during drilling. Monitoring wells
were installed in both culvert location for hydrogeological purposes to measure/test groundwater
conditions.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 3 of 24
4.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
4.1 Existing Pavement Condition
A detailed pavement surface distress survey was completed for Elgin Mills Road (within the
project limit) in accordance with the MTO Document SP-022 (Flexible Pavement Condition
Rating Guidelines for Municipalities). The condition assessment of the Elgin Mills Road
pavement was sub-divided into two segments based on the pavement surface condition. The
condition of the pavement surface on Elgin Mills Road between Bathurst Street and Regent
Street was considered to be in fair to poor condition, while the pavement section from Regent
Street and Yonge Street was considered to be in fair condition.
Predominant distresses in the pavement section between Bathurst Street and Regent Street
included frequent to extensive moderate transverse cracking, frequent slight to moderate
longitudinal/construction joint cracking, and slight to moderate map cracking. The eastbound
lanes were generally considered to be in worse condition than the westbound lane, as this area
often included moderate to severe alligator cracking, with slight to moderate edge pavement
cracking. Overall the ride condition rating for this section of Elgin Mills was considered to be fair
to poor, as the ride was considered to be relatively uncomfortable, with frequent bumps and
depressions.
The segment between Regent Street and Yonge Street was found to be in fair condition, with
patches and cracking through most of the area. Pavement distresses in this segment typically
comprised frequent slight to moderate severity patches, intermittent slight to moderate
transverse cracking and longitudinal joint cracking. Localized distressed areas also included
slight to moderate map cracking. Overall the ride condition rating for this section of Elgin Mills
was considered to be fair, as the ride was somewhat comfortable with intermittent bumps or
depressions.
4.2 Existing Pavement Structure
4.2.1 Asphalt
The asphalt thickness based on core samples in the travel lanes of Elgin Mills Road was
observed to be variable, with thicknesses ranging from 120 to 170 mm. Although the shoulder
adjacent to the eastbound lane generally comprised a gravel surface, a 75 mm layer of asphalt
was observed at Station 0+205 (BH 15-02).
4.2.2 Granular Base/Subbase

Underlying the asphalt surface, the pavement structure on Elgin Mills comprised a granular
base/subbase that varied from sand with silt, trace gravel to sand with gravel, trace of silt. The

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 4 of 24
granular base/subbase thicknesses varied from 580 to 1220 mm, although the granular layer
extended to depths beyond 2.1 m at Stations 1+325 (BH 15-10) and 1+430 (BH 15-11).
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ‘N’ values obtained in the granular base/subbase ranged from
16 to 68 blows per 0.3 m penetration, indicating that the granular material varies from compact to
very dense. The moisture content of the retrieved samples ranged from 2 to 7%.
Grain Size analysis was completed on selected samples of granular base/subbase material that
indicate that the granular material generally follows OPSS Gradation specifications for Granular
B, Type I though most of the samples were finer than specification requirements in passing the
75 µm sieve size. It should be noted that gradations slightly exceeding the percent passing on
the 75 µm sieve size are common for samples collected from existing roadways, and could be
the result of construction activities (i.e. compaction efforts) and/or the drilling operation. To
confirm the suitability of the reuse of existing granular base material, additional laboratory testing
is required during construction. The grain size analysis results are shown on Figure E1 in
Appendix E.
4.2.3 Pavement Subgrade

Subgrade soils within the frost penetration depth (1.5 m) beneath the pavement varied from silty
clay fill and clayey silt, to silty sand and sandy silt, to silty clay till. Laboratory testing indicated
these soils to have a low to moderate susceptibility to frost heave, with a low to moderate
potential for soil erodibility. The moisture conditions of the subgrade soils beneath the pavement
typically vary from dry to moist, with the moisture content for the subgrade soil ranging from 11 to
17%. The results of gradation analyses on selected soil samples are shown on Figures E2 to E4
in Appendix E.
4.3 Subgrade Soil
Below the frost penetration depth, the subgrade soils encountered at the foundation borehole
locations consisted of silty sand to silty clay till, with zones of silty sand to sandy silt or silt.
Descriptions of these subgrade soils are provided below:
4.3.1 Silty Sand

A deposit of silty sand with some clay was encountered below the pavement in Borehole 15-05,
where the silty sand extended to a depth of 4.0 m below the ground surface. Borehole 15-05
was drilled adjacent to the culvert at a tributary of the East Don River, and therefore the silty
sand is likely a fluvial deposit near the tributary. The silty sand was very loose to loose, based
on SPT ‘N’ values from 2 to 10 blows per 0.3 m penetration. Moisture contents measured in the

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 5 of 24
silty sand ranged from 6 to 15%. The results of a gradation analysis conducted on a sample of
the silty sand is shown on Figure E3 in Appendix E.
4.3.2 Silty Clay Till
A sandy, silty clay till deposit was encountered in Boreholes 15-01 to 15-04, 15-06 to 15-08, and
15-12 to 15-18. The till deposit extended to depths of 4.6 to 4.9 m, except at Borehole 15-02,
which was terminated in the till at 5.0 m deep. SPT ‘N’ values recorded in the till ranged from 8
to 56, indicating a stiff to hard consistency. Atterberg Limits test results on the silty clay indicated
that the deposit has low plasticity, with a group symbol of CL. The moisture content of the till
ranged from 10 to 18%. The results of gradation analyses conducted on selected samples of the
till are shown on Figure E4 in Appendix E, and the Atterberg Limits test results are shown on
Figures E6 and E7.
4.3.3 Silt
Beneath the silty clay till unit, a deposit of silt was encountered at Boreholes 15-05, 15-07, 15-12,
and 15-18. These boreholes were terminated at a depth of 5.0 m within the silt deposit, which
ranged in composition from silt with some sand and trace clay to sandy silt with trace clay. The
silt was very dense, based on SPT ‘N’ values from 50 to 86 blows per 0.3 m penetration. The
moisture content of the silt ranged from 18 to 25%. The results of gradation analyses conducted
on the silt samples are shown on Figure E5 in Appendix E.
4.4 Groundwater Levels
All boreholes were dry upon completion of drilling, with the exception of BH 15-05, adjacent to a
culvert, at Station 0+580 (EB Lane) where groundwater was observed at a depth of 3.55 m.
Monitoring wells were installed in 5 boreholes in order to measure the groundwater level. The
water level measurements are summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 – Groundwater Level Measurements

Water Level Date of
Borehole No. Station
Depth (m) Reading
Dry May 25, 2015
BH 15-02 0+205
3.09 m June 22, 2015
3.55 m May 25, 2015
BH 15-05 0+580
2.55 m June 22, 2015
Dry May 25, 2015
BH 15-07 0+975
4.39 m June 22, 2015
Dry May 25, 2015
BH 15-12 1+490
Dry June 22, 2015
Dry May 25, 2015
BH 15-18 2+110
1.76 m June 22, 2015

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 6 of 24
The recorded levels are short-term readings and seasonal fluctuations are to be expected. The
groundwater level may be at a higher elevation after the spring snowmelt or after periods of
heavy rainfall.
4.5 Chemical Analysis
Selected granular and soil samples were submitted to AGAT Laboratories for analytical testing to
assess disposal requirements for excess excavated materials, corrosivity potential of soils, and
potential site contamination. The laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix F.
Four samples of the fill and native soils were submitted for analysis of Metals and Inorganics.
The analytical results were compared to the O. Reg. 153 (as amended) Table 2 standards (Full
Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Groundwater Condition). The
concentrations of all parameters tested met the standards established in Table 2 for Industrial,
Commercial and Community land use, with the exception of Electrical Conductivity and Sodium
Adsorption Ratio in a sample of granular fill from Borehole 15-07, which likely reflects the
localized effect of road de-icing salt.
Two samples of the fill and native soils were also subjected to toxicity characteristic leaching
procedures (TCLP) analysis of inorganic parameters in accordance with O. Reg. 558/00. The
concentrations of all parameters tested were below the leachate quality criteria presented in
Schedule 4 of O. Reg. 558/00.
Due to the presence of 2 gas stations at the intersection of Elgin Mills Road and Bathurst Street,
and historical evidence of former gas stations at the intersection of Elgin Mills Road and Yonge
Street, two samples of the fill soils (granular fill and silty clay fill) were submitted for analysis of
Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1-F4, including Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes
(BTEX). Both samples met the O.Reg. 153 (as amended) Table 2 standards for Industrial
Commercial and Community land use for the petroleum hydrocarbon parameters tested.
The results of corrosivity testing on two samples are discussed in Section 6.11.
5.0 PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN
The recommendations are based on the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions
encountered during the investigation. The soil conditions may vary between and beyond the
borehole locations, and accordingly geotechnical inspection during construction is important to
assess any variation of subsurface conditions and to provide additional recommendations if
necessitated by such variations.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 7 of 24
5.1 Traffic Analysis
Traffic information used for this investigation was provided by HMM Technical Memo “AADT
Volumes for Elgin Mills Road Prepared for the Elgin Mills Road West Class EA - Bathurst Street
to Yonge Street” issued August 13, 2015. A summary of the collected 2014 Average Annual
Daily Traffic (AADT) on Elgin Mills Road have been provided in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 – Elgin Mills Traffic Information

2014 Commercial
Segments Direction
AADT Truck
EB 9,569 3.3 %
Bathurst Street to Hiram Road
WB 9,385 2.2 %
EB 10,323 3.5 %
Creekview Avenue and Yonge Street
WB 10,310 2.6 %
The provided traffic volumes were forecasted to 2018 traffic volumes when construction was
assumed to be completed. Forecasted 2018 AADT was 23,225.
For the purposes of developing 20-year pavement designs, Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
between Creekview Avenue and Yonge Street was considered. Commercial truck traffic used in
the design analysis was 3.5%, as indicated in the report for the eastbound lane. A consistent
traffic growth rate of 3.0 percent was also applied.
5.2 ESALs Calculations
The traffic data was used to determine the pavement damage caused by the anticipated traffic
volumes. Using axle load equivalency factors, the different axle loads and axle groups are
converted to a standard axle load known as an Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs). The
ESALs calculation was completed in accordance with the MTO Procedures for Estimating Traffic
Loads for Pavement Designs. It has been assumed that the average truck factor for trucks using
Elgin Mills Road is expected to be 2.5.
Based on the provided traffic information, the calculated 20-year design ESALs for Elgin Mills
Road is 8.0 million. It is noted that the ESALs calculated for the purposes of developing
pavement designs assume widening of the platform on Elgin Mills Road to two lanes in each
direction.
5.3 AASHTO Pavement Design
The pavement design analysis was carried out using the methodology outlined in the 1993
AASHTO “Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures”, as modified by the Ministry’s

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 8 of 24
“Adaptation and Verification of AASHTO Pavement Design Guide for Ontario Conditions”, and
the MTO “Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual”. This analysis was completed to
determine the structural requirements for the new pavement structure for Elgin Mills Road.
The AASHTO procedure for the design of flexible pavements determines a required Structural
Number that characterizes the structural capacity of the pavement layers, for a given set of
inputs. The following design inputs were used in the AASHTO design analysis.
 Design period = 20 years

 Initial serviceability, (Pi) = 4.4
 Terminal serviceability (Pt) = 2.2
 Reliability level (R) = 90 percent
 Overall standard of deviation (So) = 0.44
 Mean soil resilient modulus (MR) = 30 MPa
Soils information obtained from the pavement investigation indicate that the native subgrade in
this area generally comprised of clayey silt to sandy clayey silt soils, with moist conditions. A
conservative 30 MPa was selected as the subgrade strength in the design analysis to represent
soil conditions within the project limits.
Based on design input parameters and the calculated ESALs, a required design structural
number (SNDes) of 134 mm required for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of the existing
pavement structure. The details of the pavement design analysis from the AASHTO DARWin 3.0
software is provided in Appendix G.
5.4 New Flexible Pavement Design
Based on the above structural requirements, site considerations, and input from the design team,
the following new pavement structure is required should full reconstruction be considered for
Elgin Mills Road.
165 mm Hot Mix Asphalt

150 mm Granular Base
525 mm Granular Subbase
It is noted that in areas of pavement widening, the new granular subbase thickness will need to
be increased to match or exceed the thickness of the existing granular base/subbase material,
so that positive sub-surface drainage is maintained across the pavement widening area.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 9 of 24
5.5 Pavement Rehabilitation Analysis
The existing pavement on Elgin Mills Road within the project limits was evaluated to determine
their functional and structural capacity of supporting the anticipated future traffic volumes. The
understanding of these requirements is critical for the development of future rehabilitation
strategies.
5.5.1 Functional Requirements

The functional capacity of a roadway is a measure of how well the pavement serves the user.
This serviceability index is often referred to as 'Ride Comfort', and is reflective of the pavement
condition at a particular time during the service life of the pavement. Pavement distress that
impact a pavements functional ability to serve the travelling public include: transverse cracking;
potholes; ravelling; patches; as well as heave and swells.
As noted in previous sections, the pavement surface on Elgin Mills Road is generally considered
to be in fair to poor condition. In consideration of the poor to fair functional condition,
rehabilitation treatments for the improvement of the existing roadway will need to address these
functional distresses.
5.5.2 Structural Requirements

The structural capacity of a pavement is related to the physical condition of the roadway.
Pavement distress adversely affects the load-carrying capability of the pavement structure.
Structural failure of a pavement usually includes but not necessarily limited to alligator/ fatigue
cracking, rutting and distortions. Based on the visual pavement surface condition survey, a
number of structural distresses were observed, which indicate that structural strengthening will
be required as part of the rehabilitation of the existing pavement.
The rehabilitation design for the pavements within the project limits were determined using the
AASHTO 1993 overlay design methodology to assess the structural capacity of the existing
pavement, and determine the overlay thickness required to meet the structural design
requirements. Structural layer and drainage coefficients used to determine the existing
pavement strength include:

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 10 of 24
Table 5.2 - Pavement Rehabilitation Design - Structural and Drainage Coefficients
Structural Drainage
Pavement Layer
Coefficient Coefficient
New Hot Mix Asphalt 0.42 1.0
New Granular Base 0.14 1.0
Existing Asphalt Layer 0.28 1.0
Existing Granular Material 0.08 0.9
Based on the thickness and condition of the existing pavement, the structural design analysis
indicates that the existing roadway would require a structural strengthening of 51 mm (SN),
which correlated to 125 mm of new Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) overlay to be placed over the existing
pavement structure.
Detailed results of the AASHTO overlay design analysis are provided in Appendix F.
5.6 Pavement Rehabilitation Alternatives
Based on the AASHTO pavement design analysis, and the completed pavement evaluation of
the in-situ pavement structure on Elgin Mills Road, the existing roadway is considered
structurally and functionally deficient to support anticipated traffic levels for the next 20 years.
Therefore, rehabilitation alternatives of this roadway will be required to improve the functional
and structural capacity of this roadway.
Various rehabilitation options are considered for the improvements of Elgin Mills Road, with each
option assessed for the treatments ability to address the observed distress, the level of effort
required, and the amount of improvement expected. Other constraints, such as grade raise
limitations, were also considered in selecting the most appropriate rehabilitation strategy.
5.6.1 Partial-Depth Removal and Placement of HMA Overlay
A common technique for the functional rehabilitation of flexible pavements is a mill and overlay
strategy. This strategy involves the partial depth removal of the existing HMA followed by an
overlay, of similar thickness, with new HMA. This strategy does not include remediation of
existing distress areas, although strengthening could be completed by increasing the thickness
of the asphalt overlay.
This rehabilitation alternative is often referred to as a ‘holding strategy’, and considering the
extent of structural deficiencies of the existing pavement; it would be expected that many of

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 11 of 24
these distresses will reflect through the overlay within the first couple of years. As a result of the
short service life expected with this rehabilitation strategy, it is not considered further in this
analysis.
5.6.2 Partial-Depth Removal, Localized Repairs and Placement of HMA Overlay

To reduce the rate of reflection cracking through the overlay, the ‘mill and overlay’ strategy could
be combined with base repairs of underlying distresses prior to the placement of the asphalt
overlay. Areas exhibiting fatigue, or multiple, cracking would require full depth removal of the
asphalt to the granular base. Treatment of existing distress would include a combination of saw
cut with removal/replacement of larger areas or crack strip milling. The localized repairs would
be combined with a multiple lift overlay to provide the structural strengthening required.
This rehabilitation alternative is often considered when localized pavement repairs are within
20 percent of the entire roadway surface. In consideration of the extent of observed pavement
distresses throughout the project limits, it would be expected that a significant percentage of the
existing pavement would need full depth repairs. For this reason, this option is not considered
further in this analysis.
5.6.3 Pulverize with New HMA
An alternative rehabilitation solution to address cracked flexible pavements is to pulverize (Full

Depth In-Place Reclamation) the existing HMA, grade and compact, followed by placement of a
new HMA overlay. This rehabilitation method would eliminate the occurrence of reflection
cracking, permit re-profiling the road grade, and improve the overall ride quality of the pavement.
Furthermore, in pulverizing the existing asphalt, the thickness of the granular base would be
increased and provide some additional pavement strengthening.
This rehabilitation strategy is expected to strengthen the existing pavement structure by a SN of

69 mm, although a grade raise of 190 mm can be expected. In consideration of the excessive
grade raise that accompanies this rehabilitation alternative, it is not considered a viable strategy
for Elgin Mills Road, and will not be considered further in the analysis.
5.6.4 Pulverize with Expanded Asphalt Stabilization and New HMA Overlay
A suitable alternative to ‘Pulverize and Overlay’ option is to supplement the lower binder course
with an expanded asphalt stabilization layer. The expanded/foamed asphalt method is an in-
place recycling technique that uses foamed asphalt to stabilize a designed thickness of the
pulverized material.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 12 of 24
57 mm, although a grade raise of 120 mm can be expected. However, the process of stabilizing
the pulverized base can be significantly complicated with the presence of utility access covers,
watermain valves, and other iron works that are present on Elgin Mills Road. Furthermore,
should sewer installation be required beneath the existing pavement, or pavement widening
considered, this rehabilitation strategy would result in extensive modifications of the proposed
treatment. For this reason, the rehabilitation option of pulverize with expanded asphalt
stabilization is not considered a viable rehabilitation strategy and is not considered further in the
design analysis.
5.6.5 Cold-in-Place Recycling Alternative

Cold-in-Place Recycling (CIP) is an on-site process for the rehabilitation of asphalt-surfaces.
The process is carried out in-place and reuses the existing bituminous material to a depth
between 65 and 150 mm. The old asphalt is mixed with emulsified asphalt, and repaved to the
required grade and profile. After a curing period, dependant on the emulsion used, the recycled
material is surfaced with an asphalt overlay.
For the CIP process to be most effective the existing asphalt thickness must be greater than
150 mm to prevent the equipment from breaking through the bottom of the asphalt layer. Based
on the results of the pavement investigation, the existing asphalt thickness was found to have a
variable thickness with a few areas with an asphalt thickness of 120 mm. Furthermore, this
process is also complicated with the presence of iron works within the roadway platform. For this
reason, the rehabilitation option of pulverize with expanded asphalt stabilization is not considered
a viable rehabilitation strategy and is not considered further in the design analysis.
5.6.6 Full Depth Asphalt Removal with new HMA

Another viable rehabilitation option is to completely remove the existing asphalt surface, followed
by the placement of new asphalt. A complete asphalt replacement is usually considered when
the original pavement no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended (e.g., geometrics,
structural capacity), restoration is too costly, or when grade raises need to be minimized.
Another benefit to this alternative is that the new asphalt thickness can be designed to provide
the structural strengthening required, with minor grading of the exposed granular material
completed as required.
Should this alternative be considered, the existing asphalt would be removed full depth, with the
underlying granular graded to accommodate the placement of a new pavement surface.
However, in consideration of the high content of fines within the existing granular material, it will

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 13 of 24
be necessary to also include a layer of new granular base material to provide a stable base prior
to paving the new asphalt material.

53 mm, with an expected grade raise of 150 mm. This rehabilitation alternative is considered
viable for the rehabilitation of Elgin Mills Road, where the grade raise can be accommodated.
5.6.7 Full Pavement Reconstruction

Full pavement reconstruction is usually considered when the condition of the existing pavement
has reach the end of the pavement life, or when the quality and thickness of the in-place material
are not adequate for the construction of the new pavement structure. Based on the results of the
field investigation, the existing granular material on Elgin Mills Road should be adequate for
reuse as granular subbase material, therefore full reconstruction should not be required.
However, should the geometric design review of this roadway indicate that grade raises are to be
minimized (or reduced) as a result of the rehabilitation treatment, then full reconstruction of the
existing pavement will be required to accommodate the full granular base and subbase
thicknesses.
6.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Pavement Rehabilitation
The recommended pavement rehabilitation strategy for the existing pavement on Elgin Mills
Road should consist of removing the existing asphalt, placing 150 mm of new granular base
material, followed by paving 160 mm of new asphalt. The new asphalt shall comprise of the
following material type and layer thicknesses:
50 mm HL1
110 mm HDBC (2 lifts)
6.2 Pavement Widening Areas
The recommended new pavement structure in all pavement widening areas, shall consist of:
50 mm HL1
110 mm HDBC (2 lifts)
150 mm Granular 'A' Base
900 mm Granular 'B' Subbase

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 14 of 24
In all pavement widening areas, excavation for the new pavement structure should commence at
the existing pavement edge. The existing materials should be removed to a depth of 1.21 m,
with the exposed subgrade shaped, graded, and compacted with a 3 percent crossfall to provide
positive subsurface drainage toward the new curbline.
It is important to note that in all pavement widening areas, the thicknesses of the new pavement
structure must match, or exceed the thickness of the existing pavement.
6.3 New Pavement Materials
6.3.1 Asphalt Pavement

All Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) material should meet the requirements of OPSS 310, and The
Regional Municipality of York (York Region) Specifications. All asphalt lifts should be placed and
compacted to levels between 92 and 96.5 percent of the Marshall Maximum Relative Density
(MRD). The recommended asphalt cement grade for all mixes should be PG 64-28, and shall
conform to OPSS 1101. Aggregates for the asphalt mixes should be in accordance with OPSS
1003.
Should the Region consider using Superpave asphalt mixes for this project, the recommended
HL1 material should be substituted with a Superpave 12.5FC1 asphalt mix, and the HDBC
asphalt material should be replaced with a Superpave 19 asphalt materials. As the 20-year
design ESALs for the intersection is estimated to be approximately 8 million, a Traffic Category C
designation should be used in preparing all Superpave asphalt mix designs
6.3.2 New Granular Material

All new granular subbase material should consist of OPSS Granular B Type I, while the granular
base material should consist of OPSS Granular A. All new granular material should meet the
requirements of OPSS 1010, and be compacted to 100 percent of the Standard Proctor
Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) within 2 percent of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), and
should be carried the entire width of the roadway platform to maintain appropriate drainage.
6.4 Existing Pavement Materials
The existing pavement materials should be removed, full depth, to allow for the construction of
the new pavement platform.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 15 of 24
6.4.1 Existing Asphalt Material
The existing asphalt removed from Elgin Mills Road can be recycled into new asphalt material, or
blended with new granular material up to 30 percent.
6.4.2 Existing Granular Base/Subbase

The existing granular base/subbase material was found to generally meet the OPSS Gradation
requirements for Granular B, Type I, but had slightly elevated fines in some samples. Existing
granular material can be reused as granular subbase in new pavement widening areas, subject
to confirmation by inspection during construction. Alternatively, the existing granular material can
be reused as embankment fill material in pavement widening areas prior to the construction of
the new pavement structure.
6.5 Transition Treatments
Smooth transitions are required in all areas where the new pavement meets the existing asphalt
surface. All longitudinal and transverse joints should meet the requirements of OPSS 310. All
longitudinal joints should be staggered between the asphalt lifts. The staggering of the
longitudinal joints should be accomplished by offsetting the paving edge in the upper asphalt
course by a minimum of 150 mm.
At the paving limits, the transverse tie-in should be trimmed to a depth of the surface course, full
width, to provide a straight clean vertical surface so that the new asphalt material can be placed
flush with the top of the existing pavement surface. At all transverse tie-ins to existing
pavements, the top lift of asphalt should extend a minimum of 5 m in length beyond the
transverse joint in the upper binder lift.
6.6 Pavement Drainage
In all areas, the new pavement structure should be constructed to provide positive cross lateral
drainage at the top of subgrade, as well as the pavement surface. The top of subgrade should be
sloped at a minimum 3 percent grade, while the pavement surface should be constructed with a
minimum 2 percent crossfall. Subgrade drainage should outlet to subdrains or open ditches.
Subdrains should be included and conform to Regional standards. Drainage ditches in rural
areas should be constructed in accordance with OPSD 200.010, and be suitable to provide
drainage of the subgrade.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 16 of 24
6.7 Subgrade Preparation
In all areas of pavement widening, the surficial vegetation and topsoil should be removed, and
excavated or engineered fill placed to achieve stable, competent subgrade. The underlying
subgrade soils graded as required to accommodate the new pavement platform. The exposed
subgrade should be compacted and proof-rolled with a heavy roller and examined to identify
areas of unstable subgrade. Any soft/wet areas identified should be subexcavated and replaced
with approved material within 2 percent of Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), and compacted to
at least 98 percent of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).
6.8 Culverts
As part of the proposed road widening of Elgin Mills Road, three culverts may require extension:
 The existing 2.2 m diameter corrugated steel pipe (CSP) at approximate Sta. 0+200
(invert Elev. 242.9 to 242.4 m);
 The existing 1.8 m diameter CSP at approximate Sta. 0+580 (invert Elev. 245.3 to
244.6 m); and
 The existing approximately 3 m wide concrete box culvert at approximate Sta. 2+120
(approximate invert Elev. 238 m).
We understand from HMM that the culvert at Sta. 2+120 may not be included in the current
phase of road improvements, however recommendations are provided in this report for reference
purposes.
The stratigraphy encountered in Borehole 15-02 near the culvert near Sta. 0+200 consisted of
asphalt, granular fill and silty clay fill to a depth of 1.5 m, underlain by native stiff silty clay till.
At the culvert near Sta. 0+580, the stratigraphy in Borehole 15-05 near the culvert consisted of
asphalt and granular fill to a depth of 0.8 m, overlying native loose to very loose silty sand to
4.0 m deep, underlain by very dense silt.
At the culvert near Sta. 2+120, the stratigraphy in Borehole 15-18 consisted of asphalt, granular
fill and sand fill to a depth of 2.1 m, underlain by hard silty clay till and very dense silt.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 17 of 24
6.8.1 Foundation Design
The bases of any culvert extensions should be placed at the same level or lower than the
existing culvert bases, and founded on native stiff to hard or compact to very dense soil. The
CSP extensions should be placed on a minimum 300 m thick layer of bedding material consisting
of OPSS Granular A or Granular B Type II, as per OPSD 802.010.
The culvert invert level at Sta. 0+200 is below the depth investigated in Borehole 15-02, which
was terminated at 5.0 m deep in silty clay till. It is anticipated that the silty clay may be underlain
by very dense silt, which was encountered below the till and silty sand deposits in Boreholes
15-05, 15-07, 15-12 and 15-15. However, if the ultimate design of the project includes extension
of this culvert, an additional borehole should be advanced at this culvert extension location
during detailed design to confirm the founding soil conditions.
All existing fill, topsoil, organic/streambed deposits and soft/loose soils should be removed from
the culvert subgrade prior to placement of the culvert bedding material. Inspection and approval
of the exposed base by a geotechnical engineer is recommended. In order to maintain the
culvert extensions at the same or lower elevation as the existing culverts, the grade should be
raised if necessary using Granular A backfill, compacted to 100% of SPMDD. Accordingly, an
engineered fill pad will likely be required to raise the grade for the culvert at Sta. 0+580, where
the soil conditions in Borehole 15-05 consist of very loose silty sand at the invert level.
The anticipated culvert subgrade conditions and recommended design bearing resistances at the
concrete culvert at Sta. 2+120 are presented in Table 6.1, based on minimum footing widths of
0.6 m.
Table 6.1 – Recommended Culvert Bearing Resistances
Depth Below Factored
Bearing
Culvert Reference Final Grade at Anticipated Bearing
Resistance
Location Boreholes Borehole Subgrade Resistance
at SLS (kPa)
Location (m) at ULS (kPa)
Sta. 2+120 15-18 3.0 Hard silty clay till 375 250
The bearing values provided are for vertical, concentric loads only. Effects of load inclination
and eccentricity must be considered.
Horizontal resistance against sliding may be developed by frictional resistance between the
concrete culvert base and the underlying soil. For cast-in-place concrete, an ultimate friction

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 18 of 24
factor of 0.4 is recommended on hard silty clay till. A suitable safety factor should be applied to
this value.
Applicable comments regarding excavation and groundwater control during culvert installation
are presented in Section 6.9.
6.8.2 Frost Cover
The depth of frost penetration at this site is approximately 1.2 m. Any culvert extensions to be
constructed within the frost penetration depth should include frost tapers as per OPSD 803.031,
constructed suing OPS Granular B Type II, with a 10H:1V slope.
6.8.3 Backfill and Lateral Earth Pressures

Backfill to the culverts and any headwalls should consist of free-draining, non-frost susceptible
granular materials conforming to OPS Granular A or Granular B Type II requirements.
Reference should be made to the backfill arrangements stipulated in OPSD 802 series, 803.010,
3121.150 and 3190.100, as appropriate.
Widened embankment slopes beyond the culverts should be constructed at the same slope
inclination as the existing embankment, but not steeper than 2H:1V.
The lateral earth pressures acting on the culvert (and any headwalls), assuming full drainage
from behind the walls, may be computed using the following pressure distribution:
p = K (H + q)
where p = lateral earth pressure acting at depth H, kPa

K = earth pressure coefficient (see Table 6.2 below)
 = unit weight of retained soil or backfill, kN/m3 (see Table 6.2 below)
H = depth below top of wall where pressure is computed, m
q = surcharge pressure including traffic loads, kPa
Table 6.2 lists the unfactored parameters recommended for design, for an essentially level
ground surface or for sloping backfill (2H:1V) behind and in front of the culvert and walls:

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 19 of 24
Table 6.2 – Earth Pressure Parameters
Retained Material
OPSS Granular A or Granular
OPSS Granular B Type I
Parameter B Type II
Horizontal Sloping Horizontal Sloping
Surface Backfill Surface Backfill
Behind Wall (2H:1V) Behind Wall (2H:1V)
Unit Weight, kN/m3 22.8 22.8 21.2 21.2
Friction Angle, degrees 35 35 32 32
Active Pressure
0.27 0.38 0.31 0.46
Coefficient, Ka
At-Rest Pressure
0.43 - 0.47 -
Coefficient, K0
Passive Pressure
3.7 - 3.3 -
Coefficient, Kp
If lateral movement is not permissible and/or the wall is restrained from lateral yielding, the
at-rest pressure coefficient, Ko, should be used. If the wall design allows lateral yielding (non-
rigid structure), the active earth pressure coefficient, Ka, may be used.
The earth pressure coefficients in the table above do not include potential compaction effects
that must be included in the design. Compaction effects should be considered as per the
Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC).
Wall backfill should be placed in maximum 200 mm loose lifts and compacted to 95% of the
material’s SPMDD. The backfill should be placed and compacted in simultaneous equal lifts on
both sides of the culvert, and the top of the backfill elevation should be the same on both sides of
the culvert at all times. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used adjacent to the walls
and roof of the culvert or headwalls.
Design of the culvert headwalls must incorporate measures such as weepholes as per OPSD
3190.100 to permit drainage of the backfill and avoid potential build-up of hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls.
6.8.4 Erosion and Scour Protection

Erosion protection should be provided at the new culvert inlet and outlet areas. Vegetation
cover, riprap or other protective measures should be established on the creek banks to protect
against surficial erosion and seepage-induced material loss. Design of the scour and erosion
protection measures must consider hydrologic/hydraulic factors.
A concrete/steel cut-off wall or clay seal should be installed at the culvert inlet to minimize the
potential for seepage through the granular bedding and backfill material and avoid consequent

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 20 of 24
erosion of these materials. The clay seal should have a minimum thickness of 0.5 m, completely
surround the culvert, extend laterally the width of the granular backfill material, and extend above
the high water level. The material used for the clay seal should conform to the requirements of
OPSS 1205.
Frost treatment for the concrete culvert should be done as per OPSD 803.010.
6.9 Excavation and Groundwater Control
Excavations for culvert foundations and open cut installation of sewers will primarily extend
through the existing roadway pavement structure and into native silty sand, silty clay till, and silt
deposits. Use of a hydraulic excavator should be suitable for excavation within these materials.
Provision should be made for handling and removal of possible obstructions in the fill and
cobbles or boulders in the till soils.
All temporary excavations must be carried out in accordance with the current Occupational
Health and Safety Act (OHSA) of Ontario and local regulations. In general, the pavement
structure and subgrade soils are classified as Type 3 soils, with the exception of silty sand below
the water table near culverts, which is classified as Type 4 soil.
Where space restrictions preclude excavation of inclined slopes, sewer installation may be
carried out using a trench box or temporary shoring. If the trench depth exceeds 6 m, the support
system must be designed specifically for this project.
The design of all members of the support system should include the effects of surcharge loads
such as those imposed by construction equipment and highway traffic. Soil should not be
stockpiled within a horizontal distance from the excavation wall equal to the depth of excavation.
Groundwater was measured at depths of 1.8 to 4.4 m below the ground surface in four of the
boreholes and was at shallower depth (1.8 to 3.1 m deep) near the creek crossings. Considering
the observations during drilling and the consistency of the soils on site, dewatering of shallow
excavations will be required. Concentrated seepage and instability of the trench walls and base
may be experienced where cohesionless layers are encountered below the groundwater level,
including at the culvert locations. Further, localized zones of perched water may be encountered
in the fill. Sumps and pumps or suitable well point systems may be required dependent on the
conditions at a particular location. Borehole 15-05 near the culvert at Station 0+580 encountered
water-bearing, cohesionless silty sand, and therefore may require additional groundwater control
measures, such as carrying out the foundation excavations within a water-tight, sheetpile
enclosure, or utilizing well point systems for dewatering.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 21 of 24
Temporary stream diversion measures such as impervious dykes and/or sandbagging should be
provided to divert surface water runoff and stream flow away from the culvert excavations at all
times during construction.
6.10 Storm Sewer Installation
New storm sewers may be installed along Elgin Mills Road as part of the roadway improvements.
Excavations and control of groundwater for sewer installations should follow the
recommendations provided in Section 6.9.
Prior to placement of the pipe bedding, the base of the sewer trench should be maintained in a
dry condition, free of loose or disturbed material. The pipe must be placed on a uniformly
competent subgrade. Pipe bedding materials, compaction and cover should follow OPSD
802.030 to 803.034, and/or York Region specifications.
In areas where a less competent subgrade is encountered, it may be necessary to increase the
sewer bedding thickness. Any excessively soft, loose or compressible materials at the pipe
subgrade should be subexcavated and replaced with OPS Granular A material compacted to at
least 95 percent of SPMDD.
Trench backfill materials should be placed and compacted as per OPSS 401. Where the sewer
trench is located beneath the roadway, OPSS Granular A or B material, or unshrinkable fill
should be employed as backfill.
Where the sewer trench is located outside of the roadway, the portion of the trench above the
pipe cover can be backfilled with excavated till provided it is unfrozen and free of organics, debris
and other deleterious materials. The placement moisture content should be within about
2 percent of the OMC for efficient compaction, and the till must be adequately broken down and
compacted in the trench.
6.11 Corrosion Potential of Soils
Two samples of the fill and native soils (sand fill and clayey silt) were submitted to AGAT
Laboratories for corrosivity analysis to evaluate the potential for corrosion to metal pipes and
fittings, as well as sulphate attack on concrete. The results of the testing are included in
Appendix F. The test results indicate the following:
 The potential for sulphate attack on concrete pipes and foundations from the surrounding
soil is considered to be low due to the low concentration of sulphate in the samples
tested.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 22 of 24
 The low resistivity results indicate that there is a high potential for corrosion towards
steel, gray or ductile cast-iron pipes, and other metals.
 If metal structural elements are used on the project, appropriate corrosion protection
measures must be provided.
6.12 Management of Excess Materials
Based on the available subsurface information and the analytical results of selected samples,
excess materials from the site may generally be classified as a “non-subject waste” in
accordance with O.Reg. 558/00 and disposed of at a suitable receiving site or reused on-site.
Tested materials recovered from the geotechnical investigation were found to meet the
standards established in Table 2 of the Regulation for Industrial, Commercial and Community
land use, with the exception of Electrical Conductivity and Sodium Adsorption Ratio in one
sample, which likely reflects the effects of road de-icing salt, and may impact vegetation growth if
placed near the surface of a receiving site.
Should materials require off-site disposal, the acceptance criteria stipulated by individual fill
receivers may vary, and some receivers may require that all results meet the stringent Table 1
background standards of O.Reg. 511/09 or other specified criteria.
Excavated asphalt and roadway granular material may be reused as described in Section 6.4
above or disposed of appropriately off-site. If disposed of off-site, asphalt should not be mixed
with excess excavated soil; some fill receivers may not accept excess excavated soils if they
contain asphalt.
Excavated native soils free from deleterious material and organics may be reused on site for
general fill purposes subject to geotechnical approval.
6.13 Construction Inspection and Testing
It is recommended that geotechnical inspection and testing by qualified personnel be provided

during construction. The inspection and testing should include observation and inspection of
sewer trench, culvert, and pavement subgrade conditions, compaction testing of backfill and
pavement materials, as well as concrete and asphalt testing.
7.0 CLOSURE
Full time supervision of the field activities including obtaining utility clearances and direction of
the drilling operations was provided by experienced Thurber personnel, while drilling and

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 23 of 24
sampling equipment was supplied and operated by DBW Drilling Ltd. The provided information
was supplemented by a field investigation program and Thurber's experience with the project
area and similar projects of this type.
We note any changes in materials, or construction procedures, may have a significant impact on
assumptions made for the purposes of developing the recommended pavement designs. It is
strongly suggested that all materials and construction practices be completed in accordance with
York Region and Ontario standards and specifications.

File No. 19-1605-184 Page 24 of 24
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
1. STANDARD OF CARE
This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering or environmental consulting practices in the applicable jurisdiction.
No other warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made.
2. COMPLETE REPORT
All documents, records, data and files, whether electronic or otherwise, generated as part of this assignment are a part of the Report, which is of a
summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Thurber by the Client, communications between
Thurber and the Client, and any other reports, proposals or documents prepared by Thurber for the Client relative to the specific site described herein,
all of which together constitute the Report.
IN ORDER TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN, REFERENCE MUST BE
MADE TO THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT. THURBER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY ANY PARTY OF PORTIONS OF THE REPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE
TO THE WHOLE REPORT.
3. BASIS OF REPORT
The Report has been prepared for the specific site, development, design objectives and purposes that were described to Thurber by the Client. The
applicability and reliability of any of the findings, recommendations, suggestions, or opinions expressed in the Report, subject to the limitations provided
herein, are only valid to the extent that the Report expressly addresses proposed development, design objectives and purposes, and then only to the
extent that there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the said descriptions provided to Thurber, unless Thurber is specifically
requested by the Client to review and revise the Report in light of such alteration or variation.
4. USE OF THE REPORT
The information and opinions expressed in the Report, or any document forming part of the Report, are for the sole benefit of the Client. NO OTHER
PARTY MAY USE OR RELY UPON THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF WITHOUT THURBER’S WRITTEN CONSENT AND SUCH
USE SHALL BE ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THURBER MAY EXPRESSLY APPROVE. Ownership in and copyright for the contents
of the Report belong to Thurber. Any use which a third party makes of the Report, is the sole responsibility of such third party. Thurber accepts no
responsibility whatsoever for damages suffered by any third party resulting from use of the Report without Thurber’s express written permission.
5. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT
a) Nature and Exactness of Soil and Contaminant Description: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, geological units, contaminant materials
and quantities have been based on investigations performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1. Classification and
identification of these factors are judgmental in nature. Comprehensive sampling and testing programs implemented with the appropriate
equipment by experienced personnel may fail to locate some conditions. All investigations utilizing the standards of Paragraph 1 will involve an
inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected and all documents or records summarizing such investigations will be based on
assumptions of what exists between the actual points sampled. Actual conditions may vary significantly between the points investigated and the
Client and all other persons making use of such documents or records with our express written consent should be aware of this risk and the
Report is delivered subject to the express condition that such risk is accepted by the Client and such other persons. Some conditions are subject
to change over time and those making use of the Report should be aware of this possibility and understand that the Report only presents the
conditions at the sampled points at the time of sampling. If special concerns exist, or the Client has special considerations or requirements, the
Client should disclose them so that additional or special investigations may be undertaken which would not otherwise be within the scope of
investigations made for the purposes of the Report.
b) Reliance on Provided Information: The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report have been prepared on the basis of conditions in
evidence at the time of site inspections and on the basis of information provided to Thurber. Thurber has relied in good faith upon representations,
information and instructions provided by the Client and others concerning the site. Accordingly, Thurber does not accept responsibility for any
deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the Report as a result of misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations, or fraudulent acts
of the Client or other persons providing information relied on by Thurber. Thurber is entitled to rely on such representations, information and
instructions and is not required to carry out investigations to determine the truth or accuracy of such representations, information and instructions.
c) Design Services: The Report may form part of design and construction documents for information purposes even though it may have been issued
prior to final design being completed. Thurber should be retained to review final design, project plans and related documents prior to construction
to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of the Report. Any differences that may exist between the Report’s recommendations and the
final design detailed in the contract documents should be reported to Thurber immediately so that Thurber can address potential conflicts.
d) Construction Services: During construction Thurber should be retained to provide field reviews. Field reviews consist of performing sufficient and
timely observations of encountered conditions in order to confirm and document that the site conditions do not materially differ from those
interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of the report. Adequate field reviews are necessary for Thurber to provide letters of assurance,
in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities.
6. RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting projects often have the potential to encounter pollutants or hazardous substances and the
potential to cause the escape, release or dispersal of those substances. Thurber shall have no liability to the Client under any circumstances, for the
escape, release or dispersal of pollutants or hazardous substances, unless such pollutants or hazardous substances have been specifically and
accurately identified to Thurber by the Client prior to the commencement of Thurber’s professional services.
7. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENTS OF CLIENT
The information, interpretations and conclusions in the Report are based on Thurber’s interpretation of conditions revealed through limited investigation
conducted within a defined scope of services. Thurber does not accept responsibility for independent conclusions, interpretations, interpolations and/or
decisions of the Client, or others who may come into possession of the Report, or any part thereof, which may be based on information contained in
the Report. This restriction of liability includes but is not limited to decisions made to develop, purchase or sell land.
HKH/LG_Dec 2014
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS OF TYPICAL CONDITIONS

Appendix A
Elgin Mills Road Class EA Study
Photographs of Typical Conditions
Typical Photograph #1
Eastbound Lane at Station 0+360
(Looking Wessterly at Tennery Ct)
(Looking Wessterly)
Appendix A
Photographs of Typical Conditions
(Looking Easterly)
Westbound Lane at Station 1+845
(Looking Westerly)
APPENDIX B
PAVEMENT SURFACE CONDITION EVALUATION FORMS

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION FORM (MUNICIPALITIES)
Road No. (Street): Elgin Mills Road W. Location from: Bathurst St To: Regent St
Section Length: 1.25 (Km) Survey Date: 06-May-15 Traffic Direction: B B (Both Directions); N (North); S (South);
(East); W (West)
E
F: Freeway, C: Connecting Link, A: Major Arterial,

Contract No: Work Project No: Class: M M: Minor Arterial, R: Residential
Pavement Condition Rating: 55 Riding Condition Rating: 5 Evaluated by: Riyad Islam
Density of
Severity of Density of Distress
Distress (Extent of Shoulder Distress Manifestion Severity of Distress
Distress (Extent of Occurrence, %)
Occurrence, %)
Right Left Right Left
Dominant Type Distress
10 8 6 4 2 0 Slight Moderate Severe Slight Moderate Severe <20 20-50 >50 <20 20-50 >50
Intermittent
Fair
Extensive
Excellent Good Poor Very Poor Pavement Edge
X
Frequent
Paved Full
Weighting
Paved Shoulder
Moderate
Severe Separation
Slight
Paved Cracking
<20 20-50 >50 Partial Breakup and
Pavement Distress Manifestion Potholes
(wi) 1 2 3 1 2 3 DMI Surface
Ravelling 1 3.0 0.00 Treated Distortion
Flushing 2 0.5 0.00 Pavement Edge
Primed
Surface Defects Potholes 3 1.0 x x 4.00 Curb Separation
Pavement Edge Breaks 4 1.5 x x 6.00

Manholes & Catchbasins 5 1.0 x x 4.00 Maintenance Treatment
Rippling and Shoving 6 1.0 0.00 Extent of
Extent of Occurrence, %
Surface Deformations
Wheel Track Rutting 7 3.0 x x 15.00
Pavement Shoulder
Occurrence, %
Distortion 8 1.0 x x 4.00 <10 10-20 20-50 <10 10-20 20-50
Utility Trenches 9 1.0 0.00 1 2 3 1 2 3
Longitudinal 10 1.0 x x 4.00 Manual Patching Manual Patching
Transverse 11 1.0 x x 4.00 Machine Patching x Manual Spray Patching
Cracking Pavement Edge 12 1.0 x x 4.00 Manual Spray Patching Manual Chip Seal
Map 13 1.5 x x 6.00 Manual Chip Seal Crack Rout & Seal
Alligator 14 3.0 x x 12.00 Machine Chip Seal
Fog Seal
Ride Comfort Rating (RCR) from 0-10: 5.0 TOTAL DMI 63.00 Surface Treatment
Back-calculated PCI Value: 54.1 Manual Burn & Seal
Crack Rout & Seal
Distress comments (Items not covered above): Other Comments (e.g. subsections, additional contracts):
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION FORM (MUNICIPALITIES)
Road No. (Street): Elgin Mills Road W. Location from: Bathurst St To: Regent St
Section Length: 0.9 (Km) Survey Date: 06-May-15 Traffic Direction: B B (Both Directions); N (North); S (South);
(East); W (West)
E
F: Freeway, C: Connecting Link, A: Major Arterial,

Contract No: Work Project No: Class: M M: Minor Arterial, R: Residential
Pavement Condition Rating: 65 Riding Condition Rating: 6 Evaluated by: Riyad Islam
Density of
Severity of Density of Distress
Distress (Extent of Shoulder Distress Manifestion Severity of Distress
Distress (Extent of Occurrence, %)
Occurrence, %)
Right Left Right Left
Dominant Type Distress
10 8 6 4 2 0 Slight Moderate Severe Slight Moderate Severe <20 20-50 >50 <20 20-50 >50
Intermittent
Fair
Extensive
Excellent Good Poor Very Poor Pavement Edge
Frequent
X Paved Full
Weighting
Paved Shoulder
Moderate
Severe Separation
Slight
Paved Cracking
<20 20-50 >50 Partial Breakup and
Pavement Distress Manifestion Potholes
(wi) 1 2 3 1 2 3 DMI Surface
Ravelling 1 3.0 0.00 Treated Distortion
Flushing 2 0.5 0.00 Pavement Edge
Primed
Surface Defects Potholes 3 1.0 x x 2.00 Curb Separation
Pavement Edge Breaks 4 1.5 0.00

Manholes & Catchbasins 5 1.0 x x 2.00 Maintenance Treatment
Rippling and Shoving 6 1.0 0.00 Extent of
Extent of Occurrence, %
Surface Deformations
Wheel Track Rutting 7 3.0 x x 9.00
Pavement Shoulder
Occurrence, %
Distortion 8 1.0 x x 2.00 <10 10-20 20-50 <10 10-20 20-50
Utility Trenches 9 1.0 x x 4.00 1 2 3 1 2 3
Longitudinal 10 1.0 x x 3.00 Manual Patching x Manual Patching
Transverse 11 1.0 x x 4.00 Machine Patching x Spray Patching
Cracking Pavement Edge 12 1.0 x x 3.00 Manual Spray Patching Manual Chip Seal
Map 13 1.5 x x 3.00 Manual Chip Seal Crack Rout & Seal
Alligator 14 3.0 0.00 Machine Chip Seal
Fog Seal
Ride Comfort Rating (RCR) from 0-10: 6.0 TOTAL DMI 32.00 Surface Treatment
Back-calculated PCI Value: 69.3 Manual Burn & Seal
Crack Rout & Seal
Distress comments (Items not covered above): Other Comments (e.g. subsections, additional contracts):
APPENDIX C
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

x
x x x
0+200
0+150
0+100
0+050
0+000
x
x
x x x
x
x
x x
x
x x x x x
0+200
0+250
0+300
0+350
0+400
FILENAME: H:\Drafting\19\1605\184\ted5184-BoreholePlans.dwg
x x
x
x
x
x
PLOTDATE: Sep 17, 2015 - 3:31 PM

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD
LEGEND
ELGIN MILLS
CLASS EA STUDY ENGINEER : DRAWN : APPROVED :
BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN RI MFA MP

DATE : SCALE : DRAWING No.
JOB# 19-1605-184 SEPTEMBER 2015 1:500 19-1605-184-1

x
x x x x x
0+600
0+550
0+500
0+450
x
x
x
x
x x
0+800
0+750
0+700
0+650
LEGEND
ELGIN MILLS

JOB# 19-1605-184 SEPTEMBER 2015 1:500 19-1605-184-2

x
x
x x
0+950
1+000
0+900
0+850
x
x
x x
1+150
1+100
1+200
1+050
LEGEND
ELGIN MILLS

JOB# 19-1605-184 SEPTEMBER 2015 1:500 19-1605-184-3

x
x
x x
x x
1+400
1+300
1+350
1+250
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x
1+450
1+500
1+600
1+550
x x x
x
x
LEGEND
ELGIN MILLS

JOB# 19-1605-184 SEPTEMBER 2015 1:500 19-1605-184-4

1+650
1+700
1+750
1+800
2+000
1+900
1+950
1+850
x

LEGEND
ELGIN MILLS

JOB# 19-1605-184 SEPTEMBER 2015 1:500 19-1605-184-5

2+150
2+100
2+050
LEGEND
ELGIN MILLS

JOB# 19-1605-184 SEPTEMBER 2015 1:500 19-1605-184-6

APPENDIX D
PAVEMENT AND FOUNDATION BOREHOLE LOGS

SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES
1. TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS
CLASSIFICATION PARTICLE SIZE VISUAL IDENTIFICATION

Boulders Greater than 200mm same
Cobbles 75 to 200mm same
Gravel 4.75 to 75mm 5 to 75mm
Sand 0.075 to 4.75mm Not visible particles to 5mm
Silt 0.002 to 0.075mm Non-plastic particles, not visible to
the naked eye
Clay Less than 0.002mm Plastic particles, not visible to
the naked eye
2. COARSE GRAIN SOIL DESCRIPTION (50% greater than 0.075mm)
TERMINOLOGY PROPORTION
Trace or Occasional Less than 10%
Some 10 to 20%
Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20 to 35%
And (e.g. sand and gravel) 35 to 50%
3. TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY (COHESIVE SOILS ONLY)
DESCRIPTIVE TERM UNDRAINED SHEAR APPROXIMATE SPT(1) ‘N’

STRENGTH (kPa) VALUE
Very Soft 12 or less Less than 2
Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4
Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8
Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15
Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30
Hard Greater than 200 Greater than 30
NOTE: Hierarchy of Soil Strength Prediction 1) Laboratory Triaxial Testing

2) Field Insitu Vane Testing
3) Laboratory Vane Testing
4) SPT value
5) Pocket Penetrometer
4. TERMS DESCRIBING DENSITY (COHESIONLESS SOILS ONLY)
DESCRIPTIVE TERM SPT “N” VALUE

Very Loose Less than 4
Loose 4 to 10
Compact 10 to 30
Dense 30 to 50
Very Dense Greater than 50
5. LEGEND FOR RECORDS OF BOREHOLES
SYMBOLS AND SS Split Spoon Sample WS Wash Sample AS Auger (Grab) Sample
ABBREVIATIONS TW Thin Wall Shelby Tube Sample TP Thin Wall Piston Sample
FOR PH Sampler Advanced by Hydraulic Pressure PM Sampler Advanced by Manual Pressure
SAMPLE TYPE WH Sampler Advanced by Self Static Weight RC Rock Core SC Soil Core
Undisturbed Shear Strength

Sensitivity = ----------------------------------
Remoulded Shear Strength
Water Level
Cpen Shear Strength Determination by Pocket Penetrometer
(1) SPT ‘N’ Value Standard Penetration Test ‘N’ Value – refers to the number of blows from a 63.5kg hammer free falling a
height of 0.76m to advance a standard 50 mm outside diameter split spoon sampler for 0.3 m depth into undisturbed ground.
(2) DCPT Dynamic Cone Penetration Test – Continuous penetration of a 50 mm outside diameter, 60 conical
steel point attached to “A” size rods driven by a 63.5 kg hammer free falling a height of 0.76 m. The resistance to cone
penetration is the number of hammer blows required for each 0.3 m advance of the conical point into undisturbed ground.
UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION
GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
GW Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or
GRAVEL no fines.
AND GP Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little
GRAVELLY or no fines.
COARSE SOILS GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
GRAINED GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
SOILS SW Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no
SAND AND fines.
SANDY SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no
SOILS fines.
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.
ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or
clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity.
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
SILTS AND clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.
FINE CLAYS (WL < 30%).
GRAINED WL < 50% CI Inorganic clays of medium plasticity, silty clays.
SOILS (30% < WL < 50%).
OL Organic silts and organic silty-clays of low plasticity.
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
SILTS AND sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.
CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
WL > 50% OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic
silts.
HIGHLY Pt Peat and other highly organic soils.
ORGANIC
SOILS
CLAY SHALE
SANDSTONE
SILTSTONE
CLAYSTONE
COAL
Appendix D
Elgin Mills Road Class EA
Bathurst Street to Yonge Street
Pavement Borehole Logs Sept 11, 2015
Elgin Mills Road Station 1+090 EB Lane BH 15- 08

0- 130 Asph
Station 0+070 EB Lane BH 15- 01 130- 1.2 Br Sa W Si Tr Gr Moist
0- 170 Asph 1.2- 1.5 Br Sa(y) Si W Cl Moist
170- 750 Br Sa W Si Tr Gr Moist 1.5- 2.1 Br Sa(y) Si W Cl (Hard) Moist
750- 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa Tr Gr Moist Nvalue=36 blows / 300mm
w @ 1.3m = 12% w @ 1.8m = 12%
1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa (Hard) Moist
Nvalue=69 blows / 300mm Station 1+205 EB Lane BH 15- 09
w @ 1.8m = 12% 0- 170 Asph
Borehole could not be drilled on account
Station 0+340 EB Lane BH 15- 03 of conflict with underground utility
0- 130 Asph
130- 1.2 Br Sa W Si Tr Gr Moist
w @ 1.0m = 7% Station 1+325 EB Lane 2 BH 15- 10
Percent Passing 4.75 mm = 93% 0- 170 Asph
75 µm = 25% 170- 1.2 Br Sa W Gr Some Si Moist
Slightly Finer Than Granular B Type I w @ 0.6m = 5%
1.2- 1.5 Br Sa Some Si Tr Gr Moist
1.2- 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa Tr Gr Moist
1.5- 2.1 Br Sa Some Si Tr Gr Tr Cl Moist
1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa (V.Stiff) Moist
(Loose)
Nvalue=28 blows / 300mm Nvalue=7 blows / 300mm
w @ 1.8m = 14% w @ 1.9m = 11%
Percent Passing 4.75 mm = 100% Percent Passing 4.75 mm = 95%
75 µm = 76% 75 µm = 18%
5 µm = 29% 5 µm = 4%
Frost Susceptibility = MSFH Frost Susceptibility = LSFH
Soil Erodibility = 0.28 Soil Erodibility = 0.07
Plastic Limit = 15%
Liquid Limit = 28%
Plasticity Index = 13% Station 1+430 EB Lane 2 BH 15- 11
MTC Classification = CL 0- 130 Asph
130- 1.5 Br Sa W Gr Some Si Moist
Station 0+475 EB Lane BH 15- 04
1.5- 2.1 Br Sa Some Si Tr Gr Tr Cl Moist
0- 120 Asph (Compact)
120- 1.2 Br Sa W Si Tr Gr Moist
Nvalue=18 blows / 300mm
1.2- 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa Tr Gr Moist
w @ 1.8m = 9%
1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa (V.Stiff) Moist
0- 140 Asph
Station 0+740 EB Lane BH 15- 06 140- 1.2 Br Sa W Gr Some Si Dry
0- 140 Asph w @ 1.0m = 4%
140- 1.2 Br Sa W Si Tr Gr Moist 1.2- 1.5 Br Cl(y) Si Some Sa Moist
1.2- 1.5 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa Moist 1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Cl Some Sa (V.Stiff) Moist
1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Cl W Sa (Hard) Moist Nvalue=20 blows / 300mm
Nvalue=34 blows / 300mm w @ 1.8m = 12%
w @ 1.8m = 9%
Appendix D
Pavement Borehole Logs Sept 11, 2015
Station 1+680 EB Lane BH 15- 14 Station 2+030 EBL BH 15- 17

0- 140 Asph 0- 150 Asph
140- 1.2 Br Sa W Gr Some Si Moist 150- 1.2 Br Sa W Gr Some Si Dry
w @ 1.0m = 5% w @ 1.0m = 4%
Percent Passing 4.75 mm = 77% 1.2- 1.5 Br Sa W Si Some Cl Moist
75 µm = 14% 1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Sa(y) Cl (Hard) Moist
Slightly Finer Than Granular B Type I Nvalue=50 blows / 100mm
1.2- 1.5 Br Cl(y) Si Some Sa Moist w @ 1.8m = 12%
1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Cl Some Sa (V.Stiff) Moist
w @ 1.8m = 15%
Percent Passing 4.75 mm = 100%
75 µm = 80%
5 µm = 29%
Frost Susceptibility = MSFH
1 Soil Erodibility = 0.31
Plastic Limit = 15%
Liquid Limit = 28%
Plasticity Index = 13%
MTC Classification = CL

0- 140 Asph
140- 750 Br Sa W Gr Some Si Moist
w @ 0.5m = 7%
750- 1.5 Br Cl(y) Si Some Sa Moist
1.5- 2.1 Moist
Br Si(y) Cl W Sa (V.Stiff)

w @ 1.3m = 12%

0- 120 Asph
120- 1.2 Br Sa W Gr Some Si Dry
w @ 1.0m = 5%
1.2- 1.5 Br Sa(y) Cl(y) Si Moist
1.5- 2.1 Br Si(y) Sa(y) Cl (Firm) Moist
Nvalue=7 blows/ 300 mm
w @ 1.8m = 17%
Percent Passing 4.75 mm = 100%
75 µm = 69%
5 µm = 30%
Frost Susceptibility = LSFH
Soil Erodibility = 0.18
Plastic Limit = 15%
Liquid Limit = 27%
Plasticity Index = 12%
MTC Classification =CL
RECORD OF BOREHOLE BH 15-02
PROJECT : Elgin Mills Class EA Study Project No. 19-1605-184
LOCATION : Sta. 0+205 EB OSH
STARTED : May 25, 2015 SHEET 1 OF 1
COMPLETED : May 25, 2015 DATUM Geodetic
SHEAR STRENGTH: Cu, KPa
BORING METHOD
SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES COMMENTS nat V - Q-

DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
rem V - Cpen
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
BLOWS/0.3m
(metres)
40 80 120 160
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION
NUMBER
OR
RESISTANCE PLOT
TYPE
ELEV. WATER CONTENT, PERCENT STANDPIPE
DESCRIPTION INSTALLATION
DEPTH w
wp wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40
GROUND SURFACE 248.30

ASPHALT: (75mm) 0.00
248.22
0.08 Concrete
SAND, some gravel, trace silt, compact,
brown, moist: (FILL) 1 SS 16
247.54
CLAY, silty, with sand, trace gravel, stiff, 0.76
grey, moist: (FILL)
1 2 SS 14
246.78 Bentonite
CLAY, silty, sandy, trace gravel, stiff, grey, 1.52
moist: (TILL) 3 SS 12
2
Solid Stem Augers
4 SS 14
Filter Sand
3
5 SS 14
Slotted
Screen
4
6 SS 8
5 243.27
END OF BOREHOLE AT 5.03m. 5.03
Well installation consists of 50mm diameter
Schedule 40 PVC pipe with a 1.52m slotted
screen.
WATER LEVEL READINGS:

6 DATE DEPTH(m) ELEV.(m)
May 25/15 Dry

Jun. 22/15 3.09 245.21
8
THURBER2S 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
WATER LEVEL UPON COMPLETION WATER LEVEL IN WELL/PIEZOMETER LOGGED : AN
June 22, 2015 CHECKED : MEF
LOCATION : Sta. 0+580 EB Lane
BORING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
rem V - Cpen
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
BLOWS/0.3m
(metres)
40 80 120 160
NUMBER
OR
RESISTANCE PLOT
TYPE
DEPTH w
wp wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40

247.45 Concrete
SAND, with silt, trace gravel, compact, 0.15 1 SS 26
brown, moist: (FILL)
246.84
SAND, silty, some clay, loose to very 0.76
loose, dark brown, moist
1 2 SS 10
Bentonite
3 SS 6
2
Solid Stem Augers
4 SS 2
Filter Sand
3
5 SS 3 Grain Size Analysis:
Gr 0%/ Sa 68%/ Si 21%/ Cl 11%
Slotted
243.64
Screen
4 SILT, some sand, trace clay, very dense, 3.96
brown, moist
Grain Size Analysis:

6 SS 50 Gr 0%/ Sa 13%/ Si 79%/ Cl 8%
5 242.57
Piezometer installation consists of 50mm
diameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe with a
1.52m slotted screen.

May 25/15 3.55 244.05

Jun. 22/15 2.55 245.05
8
THURBER2S 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15
BORING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
rem V - Cpen
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
BLOWS/0.3m
(metres)
40 80 120 160
NUMBER
OR
RESISTANCE PLOT
TYPE
DEPTH w
wp wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40

253.10 Concrete
SAND, with silt, trace gravel, very dense to 0.15 1 SS 68
compact, brown, moist to dry: (FILL)

1 2 SS 22 Gr 7%/ Sa 72%/ Si & Cl 21%
252.03
CLAY, silty, sandy, hard, brown, moist: 1.22
Bentonite
(TILL)(CL)

3 SS 39 Gr 0%/ Sa 33%/ Si 39%/ Cl 28%
2
Solid Stem Augers
4 SS 50 >>
Filter Sand
3
5 SS 47 Gr 0%/ Sa 34%/ Si 37%/ Cl 29% >>
Slotted
Screen
4
248.53
SILT, some sand, very dense, grey, wet 4.72 6 SS 86
5 248.22

May 25/15 Dry

Jun. 22/15 4.39 248.86
8
THURBER2S 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15
BORING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
rem V - Cpen
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
BLOWS/0.3m
(metres)
40 80 120 160
NUMBER
OR
RESISTANCE PLOT
TYPE
DEPTH w
wp wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40

248.96 Concrete
SAND, with gravel, some silt, dense, 0.14 1 SS 34
brown, moist: (FILL)
248.34
SILT, clayey, sandy, very stiff, brown, dry 0.76
to moist
1 2 SS 19
247.73 Bentonite
CLAY, silty, sandy, hard, brown: (TILL) 1.37

3 SS 49 Gr 0%/ Sa 33%/ Si 36%/ Cl 31%
2
Solid Stem Augers
4 SS 38
Filter Sand
3
5 SS 56 Gr 0%/ Sa 27%/ Si 55%/ Cl 18%
Slotted
Screen
4
244.53
SILT, sandy, trace clay, very dense, grey, 4.57
moist to wet 6 SS 73 Gr 0%/ Sa 28%/ Si 67%/ Cl 5%
5 244.07

May 25/15 Dry

Jun. 22/15 Dry
8
THURBER2S 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15
CHECKED : MEF
LOCATION : Sta. 2+110 WB Lane 2
BORING METHOD

DEPTH SCALE
LAB. TESTING
ADDITIONAL
rem V - Cpen
STRATA PLOT
PIEZOMETER
BLOWS/0.3m
(metres)
40 80 120 160
NUMBER
OR
RESISTANCE PLOT
TYPE
DEPTH w
wp wl
(m) 20 40 60 80 100 10 20 30 40

240.95 Concrete
SAND, with gravel, some silt, very dense 0.15
to compact, brown, dry to moist: (FILL) 1 SS 59

1 2 SS 28 Gr 23%/ Sa 60%/ Si & Cl 17%
Bentonite
239.73
SAND, with silt, some clay, trace gravel, 1.37
compact, green/grey, moist: (FILL)
3 SS 14 Gr 9%/ Sa 49%/ Si 28%/ Cl 14%
2
Hollow Stem Augers
238.97
CLAY, silty, sandy, hard, grey, moist to 2.13
dry: (TILL)(CL) Filter Sand
4 SS 48 >>
3
5 SS 46 Gr 0%/ Sa 32%/ Si 43%/ Cl 25%
Slotted
Screen

236.22 6 SS 57 Gr 0%/ Sa 17%/ Si 78%/ Cl 5%
SILT, some sand, trace clay, very dense, 4.88
236.07
5 grey, wet 5.03
END OF BOREHOLE AT 5.03m.

May 25/15 Dry

Jun. 22/15 1.76 239.34
8
THURBER2S 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15
APPENDIX E
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Elgin Mills Class EA Study
FIGURE E1
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRANUALR BASE/SUBBASE
U.S.S. Sieve size, meshes/inch Size of openings, inches
200 100 60 50 40 30 16 10 8 4 3 3/8"1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 3" 4 1/4" 6"

100
GRANULAR B, TYPE I
90
80
70
PERCENT FINER THAN
60
50
GRANULAR A
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
GRAIN SIZE, mm
SILT and CLAY FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE

COBBLE
FINE GRAINED SAND GRAVEL SIZE
LEGEND
SYMBOL BOREHOLE DEPTH (m) ELEV. (m)
BH 15-03 0.66 249.64
BH 15-07 0.99 252.26
BH 15-14 0.67 244.93
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION - THURBER 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15
BH 15-18 0.99 240.11
Date September 2015 Prep'd AN

Project 19-1605-184 Chkd. MEF
FIGURE E2
SILTY CLAY FILL
200 100 60 50 40 30 16 10 8 4 3 3/8"1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 3" 4 1/4" 6"

100
90
80
70
PERCENT FINER THAN
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
GRAIN SIZE, mm

COBBLE
LEGEND
BH 15-03 1.58 248.72
BH 15-14 1.58 244.02

FIGURE E3
SAND, Some Silt to Silty
200 100 60 50 40 30 16 10 8 4 3 3/8"1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 3" 4 1/4" 6"

100
90
80
70
PERCENT FINER THAN
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
GRAIN SIZE, mm

COBBLE
LEGEND
BH 15-05 3.35 244.25
BH 15-10 1.31 248.99
BH 15-18 1.75 239.35

FIGURE E4
SILTY CLAY TILL
200 100 60 50 40 30 16 10 8 4 3 3/8"1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 3" 4 1/4" 6"

100
90
80
70
PERCENT FINER THAN
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
GRAIN SIZE, mm

COBBLE
LEGEND
BH 15-07 1.75 251.50
BH 15-07 3.28 249.97
BH 15-12 1.75 247.35
BH 15-12 3.28 245.82

BH 15-16 1.65 241.55
BH 15-18 3.28 237.82

FIGURE E5
SILT
200 100 60 50 40 30 16 10 8 4 3 3/8"1/2" 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 3" 4 1/4" 6"

100
90
80
70
PERCENT FINER THAN
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
GRAIN SIZE, mm

COBBLE
LEGEND
BH 15-05 4.80 242.80
BH 15-12 4.80 244.30
BH 15-18 4.80 236.30

FIGURE E6
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
60
CH
50
40
PLASTICITY INDEX
CI
30
CL
20
10
CL
CL-ML MI-OI MH-OH
ML OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
LIQUID LIMIT
LEGEND
BH 15-03 1.58 248.72
BH 15-07 1.75 251.50
BH 15-07 3.28 249.97
BH 15-14 1.58 244.02
BH 15-16 1.65 241.55
BH 15-18 1.75 239.35
THURBALT 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15

FIGURE E7
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
60
CH
50
40
PLASTICITY INDEX
CI
30
CL
20
10
CL
CL-ML MI-OI MH-OH
ML OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
LIQUID LIMIT
LEGEND
BH 15-18 3.28 237.82
THURBALT 19-1605-184.GPJ 9/17/15

APPENDIX F
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS – CERTIFICATES OF ANALYSIS

5835 COOPERS AVENUE
Certificate of Analysis MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T981109 TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
PROJECT: 19-1605-184 http://www.agatlabs.com
CLIENT NAME: THURBER ENGINEERING LTD ATTENTION TO: MARK FARRANT
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Deanna Przycki
Corrosivity Package
DATE RECEIVED: 2015-06-04 DATE REPORTED: 2015-06-12
BH15-7, SS#2, BH15-13,
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 2'6"-4'0" 1200-1950
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil Soil
DATE SAMPLED: 5/26/2015 5/26/2015
Parameter Unit G/S RDL 6623184 RDL 6623238
Sulfide % 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Chloride (2:1) µg/g NA 8 1660 2 282
Sulphate (2:1) µg/g 8 47 2 52
pH (2:1) pH Units NA 9.23 NA 9.24
Electrical Conductivity (2:1) mS/cm 1.4 0.005 2.57 0.005 0.601
Resistivity (2:1) ohm.cm 1 389 1 1660
Redox Potential (2:1) mV 5 234 5 244
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to ON T2 S ICC CT

6623184 * Sulphide analysis was performed at AGAT Laboratories Vancouver.
EC/Resistivity, pH, Chloride, Sulphate and Redox Potential were determined on the extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water: 1 part soil).
Elevated RDL indicates the degree of sample dilution prior to the analysis to keep analytes within the calibration range, reduce matrix interference and/or to avoid contaminating the instrument.
6623238 * Sulphide analysis was performed at AGAT Laboratories Vancouver.
EC/Resistivity, pH, Chloride, Sulphate and Redox Potential were determined on the extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water: 1 part soil).
Certified By:
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1) Page 1 of 5
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
FAX (905)712-5122
O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)
BH15-7, SS#2, BH15-7, BH15-13, BH15-2, SS#4,
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 2'6"-4'0" 150-1200 1200-1950 7'6"-9'6"
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil Soil Soil Soil
DATE SAMPLED: 5/26/2015 5/26/2015 5/26/2015 5/25/2015
Parameter Unit G/S RDL 6623184 6623237 6623238 6623242
Antimony µg/g 40 0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8
Arsenic µg/g 18 1 2 2 2 2
Barium µg/g 670 2 29 18 65 65
Beryllium µg/g 8 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 0.5
Boron µg/g 120 5 <5 <5 7 <5
Boron (Hot Water Soluble) µg/g 2 0.10 <0.10 0.33 <0.10 0.23
Cadmium µg/g 1.9 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Chromium µg/g 160 2 9 14 17 16
Cobalt µg/g 80 0.5 3.9 2.3 7.2 6.2
Copper µg/g 230 1 8 6 13 12
Lead µg/g 120 1 5 5 7 13
Molybdenum µg/g 40 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Nickel µg/g 270 1 8 5 15 13
Selenium µg/g 5.5 0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Silver µg/g 40 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
Thallium µg/g 3.3 0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Uranium µg/g 33 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Vanadium µg/g 86 1 16 15 24 26
Zinc µg/g 340 5 24 21 32 48
Chromium VI µg/g 8 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2
Cyanide µg/g 0.051 0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040
Mercury µg/g 3.9 0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 1.4 0.005 2.57 0.839 0.601 1.28
Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA 12 NA 36.3 3.65 6.34 9.53
pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction pH Units NA 7.85 7.92 10.6 8.25

6623184-6623242 EC & SAR were determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil). pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract prepared at 2:1 ratio.
Certified By:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
FAX (905)712-5122
O. Reg. 558 Metals and Inorganics
BH15-2, SS#5, BH15-16,
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 10'-11'6" 120-1200
DATE SAMPLED: 5/25/2015 5/26/2015
Parameter Unit G/S RDL 6623240 6623241
Arsenic Leachate mg/L 2.5 0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Barium Leachate mg/L 100 0.100 0.608 0.347
Boron Leachate mg/L 500 0.050 <0.050 0.103
Cadmium Leachate mg/L 0.5 0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Chromium Leachate mg/L 5.0 0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Lead Leachate mg/L 5.0 0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Mercury Leachate mg/L 0.1 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Selenium Leachate mg/L 1.0 0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Silver Leachate mg/L 5.0 0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Uranium Leachate mg/L 10.0 0.050 <0.050 <0.050
Fluoride Leachate mg/L 150 0.05 0.10 0.33
Cyanide Leachate mg/L 20.0 0.05 <0.05 <0.05
(Nitrate + Nitrite) as N Leachate mg/L 1000 0.70 <0.70 <0.70
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to Regulation 558
Certified By:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
FAX (905)712-5122
O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)
BH15-18, SS#2, BH15-01,
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: 2'6"-4'0" 1500-2100
DATE SAMPLED: 5/26/2015 5/25/2015
Parameter Unit G/S RDL 6623243 6623245
Benzene µg/g 0.32 0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Toluene µg/g 6.4 0.08 <0.08 <0.08
Ethylbenzene µg/g 1.1 0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Xylene Mixture µg/g 26 0.05 <0.05 <0.05
F1 (C6 to C10) µg/g 5 <5 <5
F1 (C6 to C10) minus BTEX µg/g 55 5 <5 <5
F2 (C10 to C16) µg/g 230 10 <10 <10
F3 (C16 to C34) µg/g 1700 50 75 <50
F4 (C34 to C50) µg/g 3300 50 89 <50
Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons µg/g 3300 50 NA NA
Moisture Content % 0.1 4.5 10.8
Surrogate Unit Acceptable Limits
Terphenyl % 60-140 110 111

6623243-6623245 Results are based on sample dry weight.
The C6-C10 fraction is calculated using Toluene response factor.
The C10 - C16, C16 - C34, and C34 - C50 fractions are calculated using the average response factor for n-C10, n-C16, and n-C34.
Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons are not included in the Total C16-C50 and are only determined if the chromatogram of the C34 - C50 hydrocarbons indicates that hydrocarbons >C50 are present.
The chromatogram has returned to baseline by the retention time of nC50.
Total C6 - C50 results are corrected for BTEX contributions.
This method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory.
nC6 and nC10 response factors are within 30% of Toluene response factor.
nC10, nC16 and nC34 response factors are within 10% of their average.
C50 response factor is within 70% of nC10 + nC16 + nC34 average.
Linearity is within 15%.
Extraction and holding times were met for this sample.
Fractions 1-4 are quantified with the contribution of PAHs. Under Ontario Regulation 153, results are considered valid without determining the PAH contribution if not requested by the client.
Quality Control Data is available upon request.
Certified By:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
Guideline Violation MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
FAX (905)712-5122
SAMPLEID SAMPLE TITLE GUIDELINE ANALYSIS PACKAGE PARAMETER GUIDEVALUE RESULT
6623184 BH15-7, SS#2, 2'6"-4'0" ON T2 S ICC CT Corrosivity Package Electrical Conductivity (2:1) 1.4 2.57
6623184 BH15-7, SS#2, 2'6"-4'0" ON T2 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Electrical Conductivity 1.4 2.57
6623184 BH15-7, SS#2, 2'6"-4'0" ON T2 S ICC CT O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil) Sodium Adsorption Ratio 12 36.3
GUIDELINE VIOLATION (V1) Page 5 of 5

APPENDIX G
DARWIN PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS

1997 AASHTO Pavement Design
DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWare
Computer Software Product
Thurber Engineering Ltd.
Flexible Structural Design Module

New Pavement Construction
Flexible Pavement Design
Flexible Structural Design
80-kN ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 7,977,884

Initial Serviceability 4.4
Terminal Serviceability 2.2
Reliability Level 90 %
Overall Standard Deviation 0.44
Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 30,000 kPa
Stage Construction 1
Calculated Design Structural Number 134 mm
Simple ESAL Calculation
Performance Period (years) 20

Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 23,225
Number of Lanes in Design Direction 1
Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 100 %
Percent Trucks in Design Direction 50 %
Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater 3.5 %
Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) 2
Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate 0%
Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate 3%
Growth Compound
Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 7,977,884
Specified Layer Design
Struct Drain
Coef. Coef. Thickness Width Calculated
Layer Material Description (Ai) (Mi) (Di)(mm) (m) SN (mm)
1 HMA 0.42 1 160 3.6 67
2 Granular A 0.14 1 150 3.6 21
3 Granular B 0.09 1 525 3.6 47
Total - - - 835 - 135
Page 1
Layered Thickness Design
Thickness precision Actual
Struct Drain Spec Min Elastic Calculated

Coef. Coef. Thickness Thickness Modulus Width Thickness Calculated
Layer Material Description (Ai) (Mi) (Di)(mm) (Di)(mm) (kPa) (m) (mm) SN (mm)
1 HMA 0.42 1 - 100 2,750,000 3.6 157 66
2 Granular A 0.14 1 150 - 250,000 3.6 150 21
3 Granular B 0.09 1 - 500 150,000 3.6 523 47
Total - - - - - - - 830 134
Page 2

Overlay Design Module

Existing Pavement Rehabilitation
Asphalt Overlay Design
AC Overlay of AC Pavement
Structural Number for Future Traffic 134 mm
Effective Existing Overlay

Design Method Structural Number (mm) Structural Number (mm)
Component Analysis 72 62
Remaining Life - -
Non-Destructive Testing - -
Structural Number for Future Traffic
Future 18-kip ESALs Over Design Period 7,977,884

Subgrade Resilient Modulus 30,000 kPa
Calculated Structural Number for Future Traffic 134 mm
Effective Pavement Thickness - Component Analysis Method
Structural Drainage Thickness

Layer Material Description Coefficient Coefficient (mm)
1 Existing HMA 0.28 1 140
2 Existing Granular Subbase 0.08 0.9 610
Milling Thickness 40 mm
Calculated Results
Calculated Pavement Structural Number Before Milling 83 mm

Calculated Effective Pavement Structural Number 72 mm
Page 1
Struct Drain
1 New HMA 0.42 1 150 3.7 63
Total - - - 150 - 63
Page 2


Pulverize Existing with New HMA


Growth Compound
Struct Drain
1 New Asphalt Surface 0.42 1 160 3.7 67
2 Pulverized Material 0.14 1 300 3.7 42
3 Existing Granular 0.08 0.9 600 3.7 43
Total - - - 1,060 - 152
Page 1

1 HMA 0.42 1 - 100 2,750,000 3.7 157 66
2 Pulverized Material 0.14 1 300 - 250,000 3.7 300 42
3 Existing Granular 0.08 0.9 - 550 150,000 3.7 550 40
Total - - - - - - - 1,007 148
Page 2


Expanded Asphalt Stabilization Pavement Design


Growth Compound
Struct Drain
2 Expanded Asphalt Stab 0.25 1 150 3.7 38
3 Pulverized Material 0.14 1 150 3.7 21
Total - - - 990 - 140
Page 1

1 HMA 0.42 1 90 - 2,750,000 3.7 90 38
2 Expanded Asphalt Stab 0.25 1 - 150 1,500,000 3.7 150 38
3 Pulverized Material 0.14 1 150 - 250,000 3.7 150 21
4 Existing Granular 0.08 0.9 - 550 150,000 3.7 550 40
Total - - - - - - - 940 136
Page 2


Cold-in-place Recycling Pavement Design


Growth Compound
Struct Drain
2 Cold-in-Place Recycling 0.35 1 120 3.7 42
Total - - - 840 - 136
Page 1

1 HMA 0.42 1 120 - 2,750,000 3.7 120 50
2 Cold-in-Place Recycling 0.35 1 - 120 2,000,000 3.7 120 42
3 Exiting Granular 0.08 0.9 - 550 150,000 3.7 578 42
Total - - - - - - - 818 134
Page 2


New Asphalt Surface Pavement Design


Growth Compound
Struct Drain
2 New Granular Base 0.14 1 150 3.7 21
3 Existing Granular Base/Subbase 0.08 0.9 650 3.7 47
Total - - - 960 - 135
Page 1

1 HMA 0.42 1 - 100 2,750,000 3.7 157 66
2 Granular Base 0.14 1 150 - 250,000 3.7 150 21
3 Granular Subbase 0.09 1 - 350 150,000 3.7 523 47
Total - - - - - - - 830 134
Page 2

Appendix H - Geotechnical and Pavement Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix H - Geotechnical and Pavement Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

York Region – Elgin Mills Road Class EA

Environmental Study Report

Report Submitted To:

Hatch Mott MacDonald

Steven Sather, P.Eng.

Mark Farrant, P.Eng.

August 9, 2016 Mark Popik, P.Eng.

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

Appendix A Photographs of Typical Conditions

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

This report uses the International System of Units (SI Units).

2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION

 Rehabilitation of existing pavement;

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

2.3 Existing Conditions

3.0 INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

4.2 Existing Pavement Structure

4.2.2 Granular Base/Subbase

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

4.2.3 Pavement Subgrade

4.3 Subgrade Soil

4.3.1 Silty Sand

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

4.3.2 Silty Clay Till

4.4 Groundwater Levels

Table 4.1 – Groundwater Level Measurements

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

4.5 Chemical Analysis

5.0 PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND DESIGN

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

Table 5.1 – Elgin Mills Traffic Information

5.2 ESALs Calculations

5.3 AASHTO Pavement Design

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

 Design period = 20 years

5.4 New Flexible Pavement Design

165 mm Hot Mix Asphalt

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

5.5.1 Functional Requirements

5.5.2 Structural Requirements

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

5.6 Pavement Rehabilitation Alternatives

5.6.1 Partial-Depth Removal and Placement of HMA Overlay

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

5.6.2 Partial-Depth Removal, Localized Repairs and Placement of HMA Overlay

5.6.3 Pulverize with New HMA

An alternative rehabilitation solution to address cracked flexible pavements is to pulverize (Full

This rehabilitation strategy is expected to strengthen the existing pavement structure by a SN of

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

5.6.5 Cold-in-Place Recycling Alternative

5.6.6 Full Depth Asphalt Removal with new HMA

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

This rehabilitation strategy is expected to strengthen the existing pavement structure by a SN of

5.6.7 Full Pavement Reconstruction

6.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

6.2 Pavement Widening Areas

Client: Hatch Mott MacDonald Date: August 9, 2016

6.3 New Pavement Materials

6.3.1 Asphalt Pavement

6.3.2 New Granular Material

6.4 Existing Pavement Materials