August 14, 2018 Addendum No. 02 File Reference Number: RFP … · 2020. 11. 6. · File No.: 15010...

August 14, 2018

Addendum No. 02

File Reference Number: RFP 2018 094

Title: ONTC Retaining Wall Construction – Mile 112.07 Temagami

Subdivision

RE: Clarifications/Questions

Please note the following clarifications regarding the above referenced RFP:

1. Question - Note 4 for precast concrete says “lagging finish to be textured concrete via form liner.” Textured concrete can be interpreted in different ways. Can you provide clarification on what type of finish would be required?

Answer – The type of finish required is Grave Finish.

2. Is there a Geotechnical report available for this project?

Answer – Yes, it is attached to this addendum.

Regards, Julie Piche Contract Administrator [email protected]

DRAFT

SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT ONR M112.07 TEMAGAMI SUBDIVISION

NEW LISKEARD, ONTARIO

Report

to

HATCH

Pouya Pishgah-Gilani, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer,

Mohamed Hosney, P.Eng. Project Engineer Date: March 31, 2016 Steve Sather, P.Eng. File: 15010 Review Principal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1 3. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES ............................................................................. 2 4. LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................... 2 5. DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................... 3

5.1 Ballast and Sub-ballast ............................................................................................ 3 5.2 Pavement Structure ................................................................................................. 3 5.3 Fill ............................................................................................................................ 4 5.4 Silty Clay ................................................................................................................. 4 5.5 Sand ........................................................................................................................ 5 5.6 Silty Sand Till ........................................................................................................... 5 5.7 Groundwater Conditions .......................................................................................... 6

6. MISCELLANEOUS .................................................................................................... 6 7. SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 7

7.1 Previous Instability and Improvements .................................................................... 7 8. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 8

8.1 M112.00 TSD Stability ............................................................................................. 8 8.2 M112.00 TSD Remedial Measures ......................................................................... 9 8.3 M112.07 TSD Stability ........................................................................................... 10 8.4 M112.07 Remedial Measures ............................................................................... 11

9. CLOSURE ............................................................................................................... 11

Statement of General Conditions

APPENDICES

Appendix A Record of Borehole Sheets Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C Borehole Locations and Soil Strata Drawing Appendix D Slope Stability Analysis Output

Client: Hatch Date: March 31, 2016 File No.: 15010 Page: 1 of 11 E file: 15010 Draft Report Marxh24_17

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the geotechnical data obtained from a field investigation to (1) assess the east side slope instability at M112.07 TSD and provide geotechnical design for possible mitigation measure(s), and (2) evaluation of stability of the west slope at M112 TSD, which is an area previously repaired by Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) few years ago. Thurber carried out the investigation as a sub-consultant to Hatch.

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.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

The study area is located at Mile 112.07 of the Ontario Northland Temagami Subdivision near New Liskeard, Ontario. The railway at this location is oriented in a north-south direction at about EL 197.5 m.. The railway alignment is generally parallel to the shoreline of Lake Timiskaming located approximately 200m east of the track. A four lane arterial road (Lakeshore Road) is located at the toe of the slope between the railway and the lake shoreline at about 188 m Elevation. The crest of the slope locally is at approximately EL 210 m.

The surficial geologic mapping for the area (Gao, 2010, Map 2657) indicates that the majority of the area is covered by fine-grained glaciolacustrine deposits (silt and clay). Localized areas of granular material (sand) associated with former shoreline or deltaic features are also shown in the general area. Steep wave cut slopes are also noted in the mapping parallel to and somewhat higher than the existing shoreline.

The section of the railway where the east side slope instability was observed at M112.07 TSD is located approximately 700 m north of the Radley Hill Road, New Liskeard, ON. The length of the slope instability section at this location is approximately 25-30 m and it falls within a curved track section that is approximately aligned in the north to south direction with the outside of the curve facing eastward. The existing slope is heavily vegetated with low shrubs.

The slope instability on the west side of the track at M112.00 TSD, was also investigated and the stability assessed. Moreover, it is understood that the west side slope at M112 TSD has been repaired by ONTC a few years ago, including re-grading the slope and improvements to the subsurface and surface drainage.

The topography surrounding the site is undulating and slopes toward the east. The land use generally consists of residential properties and undeveloped forested land.


3. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

The field investigation for this project was carried out between December 6 to 8th, 2016, during which time a total of 6 boreholes denoted as Boreholes 16-01 to 16-06 were advanced. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the Borehole Locations Plan provided in Appendix F.

A track-mounted CME 55 drill rig operated by was used. The boreholes were advanced using hollow stem augers to depths between 2.6 m and 15.7 m. In all boreholes, soil samples were obtained at selected intervals with a 50 mm outside diameter split spoon sampler driven in conjunction with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). Vane shear tests were carried out at selected intervals within silty clay.

Groundwater conditions were observed in the open boreholes throughout the drilling operations. Piezometers were installed in two (2) of the boreholes (Boreholes 15-02 and 15-05) to permit measurement of the groundwater levels at the site. The piezometers consisted of 25 mm diameter PVC pipe, with a slotted screen sealed at a selected depth within the borehole. The remaining boreholes were backfilled in general accordance with Ontario Regulation 903.

The field investigation was supervised on a full-time basis by a member of Thurber’s technical staff who marked/staked the boreholes in the field, arranged for the clearance of subsurface utilities, directed the drilling, sampling and in-situ testing operations, logged the boreholes and processed the recovered soil samples for transport to Thurber’s laboratory for further examination and testing.

4. LABORATORY TESTING

Routine laboratory testing was carried out at Thurber’s laboratory. The recovered soil samples were subjected to Visual Identification (VI) and to natural moisture content determination. Selected samples were also subjected to grain size distribution analysis (hydrometer and/or sieve) and Atterberg Limits testing, where appropriate. Laboratory testing results are summarized on the Record of Borehole sheets included in Appendix A and are presented on the figures included in Appendix B.


5. DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Details of the encountered soil stratigraphy are presented on the Record of Borehole sheets included in Appendix A. A general description of the stratigraphy, based on the conditions encountered in the boreholes, is given in the following paragraphs. However, the factual data presented on the Record of Borehole sheets takes precedence over this general description and must be used for interpretation of the site conditions. It should be recognized and expected that soil conditions may vary between and beyond borehole locations.

The general stratigraphy encountered in the boreholes varies somewhat depending on the location of the boreholes. Cross-sections showing the conditions encountered in the boreholes are shown in Drawing 15010-2 in Appendix C.

The borehole drilled at the crest of the slope (16-05) encountered topsoil and clay fill overlying native silty clay which was in turn underlain by a dense sand deposit extending to the maximum depth of investigation.

The three boreholes advanced adjacent to the ONR track (16-01, 16-02, 16-06) encountered ballast and granular fill overlying silty clay, except at 16-06 where the fill rests directly on the dense sand deposit. At borehole 16-01, sand till was encountered beneath the silty clay.

The two boreholes (16-03 and 16-04) advanced on the shoulder of Lakeshore Road near the toe of slope encountered pavement structure (asphalt, sand and gravel, sand) overlying silty clay or silty sand till.

5.1 Ballast and Sub-ballast

Ballast comprising crushed rock was encountered in boreholes 16-01, 16-02 and 16-06. The thickness encountered varied from 1.2 to 2.4 m below ground surface. A 0.6 m thick layer of sand was encountered beneath the ballast at BH 16-01.

5.2 Pavement Structure

The pavement structure encountered at Lakeshore Road comprised 100 mm thick layer of asphalt overlying sand and gravel extending down to 0.61 m. A layer of compact sand fill, trace silt was encountered beneath the sand and gravel to a maximum depth of 1.45 m depth.


5.3 Fill

Silty clay fill was encountered beneath the topsoil at BH 16-05 and extending down to 1.5 m depth. The fill was described as brown, silty clay with occasional sand and occasional rootlets. The moisture content of samples recovered in this unit varied from 16 to 19%. The SPT N-values ranged from 8 to 12, indicating stiff consistency.

5.4 Silty Clay

The silty clay deposit was encountered beneath the fill layer at boreholes 16-01, 16-02, 16-03 and 16-05. The upper 2 to 3 m of the deposit is desiccated with higher strength and lower moisture content than the underlying silty clay. The deposit is brown to grey and contains occasional sand and silt seams. The thickness of the deposit, where encountered at the boreholes, varied from 0.8m to 13.3 m. The moisture content ranges from 19 to 56 %. The Atterberg limit tests are summarized in the table below.

TABLE 5.1 Atterberg Limit Tests

Borehole Depth (m) Plasticity index

Liquid limit

Water content (%)

Unified Classification

16-01 3.4 26 48 32 CI 16-01 6.4 30 53 32 CH 16-02 4.9 17 35 33 CL 16-05 6.4 29 50 41 CH 16-05 14.0 26 47 42 CI

The SPT N-values recorded in the silty clay deposit ranged from 4 to 21 blows per 0.3 m of penetration. The peak undrained shear strength based on vane shear test results ranged from 47 to 90 kPa, indicating firm to stiff consistency. The shear strength generally decreases at greater depths. Remolded vane tests indicate residual shear strength ranging from 13 kPa to 30 kPa, and low sensitivity. The vane shear test data is summarized in the table below.


TABLE 5.2 VANE SHEAR TESTS

Borehole Depth (m)

Vane Shear strength

Peak (kPa)

Vane Shear strength

Remolded (kPa)

Sensitivity

16-01 5.6 63 17 3.8 16-05 4.1 89 30 3.0 16-05 7.2 60 17 3.5 16-05 10.2 55 15 3.7 16-05 13.3 47 13 3.7

5.5 Sand

A deposit of sand with trace to some silt was encountered below the silty clay layer in borehole 16-05 and below the fill in borehole 15-06. The sand was brown in colour and fine to medium grained. The thickness of the sand deposit was not measured since the boreholes terminated in the deposit.

SPT ‘N’ values recorded in the sand deposit ranged from 8 to 80 blows per 0.3 m of penetration up to 100 blows per 0.250 m of penetration, indicating loose to very dense conditions. Measured moisture contents within the samples varied between 4 percent and 8 percent.

The results of grain size distribution analyses carried out on selected samples of the sand are presented on the Record of Borehole Sheets included in Appendix A and on the figures in Appendix B. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are summarized below:

Soil Particle Percentage (%) Gravel 0 Sand 88

Silt & clay 12

5.6 Silty Sand Till

A layer of silty sand till was encountered beneath the silty clay layer in boreholes BH16-01, 16-03 and beneath the fill in borehole 16-04. The boreholes terminated in this unit, so the thickness was not determined.


SPT ‘N’ values recorded in the silty sand till ranged from 6 to >100 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a loose to very dense relative density. Measured moisture contents within the silty sand till varied between 8 percent and 11 percent.

The results of grain size distribution analyses carried out on selected samples of the silty sand till are presented on the Record of Borehole Sheets included in Appendix A and on the laboratory figures in Appendix B. The results of the grain size distribution analyses are summarized below:

Soil Particle Percentage (%) Gravel 8 to 10 Sand 50 to 54 Silt 20 to 23

Clay 15 to 17

5.7 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater conditions were observed during drilling operations and groundwater levels were measured in the open boreholes upon completion of drilling. The groundwater levels measured in the open boreholes and in the piezometers are summarized below.

Borehole Date Water Level (m) Remark Depth Elevation 16-02 December 7, 2016 4.6 192.7 dry 16-05 December 8, 2016 14.0 196.2 Open Borehole

The groundwater levels above are short-term readings and seasonal fluctuations of the groundwater level are to be expected. In particular, the groundwater levels may be at a higher elevation after periods of significant or prolonged precipitation.

6. MISCELLANEOUS

Thurber marked the borehole locations in the field and obtained subsurface utility clearances prior to drilling. The coordinates and ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were provided to Thurber by Hatch.

George Downing Drilling of Hawksbury, Ontario supplied and operated the drilling, sampling and in-situ testing equipment for the field investigation. The field investigation was supervised on a full-time basis by a member of Thurber’s technical staff. Overall supervision of the field program was conducted by Mr. Mohamed Hosney, P.Eng. of Thurber.


7. SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT

This section of the report presents an interpretation of the geotechnical data and provides and assessment of the current stability as well as recommendations for improving the stability of the slope over the longer term.

The stability of two separate slopes was assessed, including the slope west (uphill) of the track at M112.00 and the slope to the east (downhill) of the track at M112.07 Temagami Subdivision. Details of the two areas are summarized in the following table.

TABLE 7.1 – SLOPE GEOMETRY

Parameter M112.00 M112.07

Location relative to track west east

Length of slope (m), parallel to

track 120 25

Slope height (m) 13 8.5

Average Slope inclination 2.5H:1V 1.3H: 1V

Existing improvements Subdrainage system Regraded slope

Timber retaining walls

7.1 Previous Instability and Improvements

Previous Instability M112.00 TSD

At M112 TSD, previous reporting indicates that slope movements had occurred upslope and adjacent to the track during April 2002 (based on Merlex Engineering Ltd. report submitted to ONTC in May 2002). The report also indicates that a slope movement detection system had been installed at this location prior to 2002.

Based on contract drawings for phase II remedial measures prepared by D.F. Elliot Consulting Engineers Ltd. dated September 2004 (Drawing number 04E-001; project No. 2004-013). Previous remedial measures implemented at the site includes:

a. 150 mm diameter finger drain system installed at approximately 10 m intervals and connected to a subdrain which outlets about 75 m north of the slide areas,


b. slope regrading, c. Erosion control rock protection area (10m x 12 m) d. Improvement to ditch along south limit of slide area

Previous Instability - M112.07 TSD

Previous reporting by Merlex Engineering in April 1997, indicates occurrence of active instability east of the track in this area. Following site investigation, the remedial measures recommended at that time included an interceptor drainage trench installed to the west of the track and French drains installed on the slope face to the east of the track.

A site inspection was carried out by M. Hosney of Thurber Engineering Ltd. and Paul Zachariasz, P.Eng. of Hatch to M112.07 TSD on September 01, 2016. The site conditions noted in this area consisted of ballast migration through, and underneath, deteriorated and tilted wood retaining wall supporting a 0.5 m difference in ground level at the crest of the east side slope. Replacement of the retaining wall with an engineered retaining wall or flattening of the east side slope were initially proposed.

8. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Slope stability analyses were carried out using the commercially available slope stability program GEO-SLOPE, applying the Morgenstern-Price method. The characteristics of the slopes along the M112.00 TSD and M112.07 TSD sites are represented by cross sections A-A’ and B-B’, respectively. The cross sections are presented on the “Borehole Plan and Stratigraphic Profile” drawing in Appendix D. The groundwater levels used in the analysis were based on previous site data and observations from the recent investigation. The slope stability analysis results are discussed in the following sections for each site location.

8.1 M112.00 TSD Stability

Section B-B’ has a slope inclination of about 2.5H:1V at west side of the railway track at M112 TSD. A slope stability analyses was carried out to evaluate the stability of the slope under previous failed conditions, based on the soil conditions in boreholes 16-05 and 16-06 and existing conditions including drainage improvements made at the toe of slope. The estimated factors of safety for effective stress conditions are summarized in Table 8.1.


Table 8.1 - Computed Factors of Safety – M112.00 TSD

Case Factor of

Safety

Figure

(Appendix D)

Previous failure

(back analysis) 0.97 1

Existing Conditions 1.35 2

Toe wall Option 1.54 3

Reinforcement Option 1.51 4

It is understood that the slope to the west of the track at M112.00 TSD has been previously improved by ONTC as shown in the contract drawings dated 2004 including construction of a subsurface drainage system, slope re-grading and placement of rock protection to control surface erosion. A back analysis of the previously failed conditions was carried out to assess the applicable shear strength parameters under the assumed drainage conditions. Further stability analysis was carried out based on the existing drainage system which was assumed to be functioning sufficiently to lower the water-table as shown. Additional stability analyses were also carried out to assess the improvement of stability associated with the construction of two proposed improvement options as shown in the table.

8.2 M112.00 TSD Remedial Measures

Based on the slope stability analysis, the stability of the existing slope at M112.00 currently meets the minimum requirement of 1.3, but this situation is dependent on maintaining low groundwater levels in the silty clay. Maintaining the serviceability of the drainage system in the future therefore is critical to maintaining an acceptable level of stability at this location. The existing drainage system should therefore be inspected periodically and observations should be made to assess blockage or potential damage and regular maintenance applied to keep the drainage system functioning properly.

Where additional stability is required, further improvements can be made to the slope to increase the factor of safety to 1.5. The slope reinforcement option was based on a preliminary anchor load of 400kN applied at approximately 2 m spacing. Additional detailed assessment of preferred option would be required if selected for further design.


8.3 M112.07 TSD Stability

Based on the survey data provided by Hatch, Section A-A’ has an average slope inclination of about 1.3H:1V (horizontal to vertical) at east side of the railway track. Slope stability analyses were carried out to assess the stability of the slope under the existing conditions, and based on the subsurface conditions from boreholes 16-01 through 16-04. The small timber retaining wall at the crest of the slope is supported by steel t-bars which do not provide sufficient lateral resistance, and was therefore not modelled directly in the stability calculations. The computed factors of safety for the slope are summarized in Table 8.2.

Table 8.2 - Computed Factors of Safety – M112.07 TSD

Case Factor of Safety Figure

(Appendix D)

Existing Slope Undrained 1.13

Long term 0.99

5

6

Toe wall with 2.3H:1V slope Long term 1. 95 7

Figure 5 shows the factor of safety of the overall slope under the existing undrained condition is approximately 1.1 which is lower than the acceptable standard for slope stability of 1.3. Furthermore, the effective stress analysis ( for long term conditions) indicate that the slope is not stable over the long term and it’s current stability appears to depend on maintaining the slope free from groundwater and the associated pore pressures.

Under effective stress conditions, which are representative of longer term behaviour, the factor of safety is approximately one. Based on these results, the stability of the existing steep slope is therefore currently dependant on maintaining a condition free of positive pore pressure. It is expected that changes which result in excess moisture infiltration in this area may initiate further instability. Options which may be considered for improving stability would typically include: drainage improvement, slope reinforcement, or slope flattening.


The drainage improvement option is not likely to stabilize the slope sufficiently since the water-table is relatively low within the slope. The remaining mitigation options are discussed in the following section.

8.4 M112.07 Remedial Measures

Slope Reinforcement

The options are available for slope reinforcement, including installation of a retaining walls, slope flattening or installation of anchors (or soil nails) on the slope itself. A slope stability analysis was carried out to assess the required geometry and forces for each option. The results of the analysis are summarized in Appendix D.

Slope reinforcement using soil nails or anchors has been considered for stabilization. The analysis indicates that relatively large resistance loads would be needed, requiring relatively deep anchors and close anchor spacing. This option is therefore not considered to be practical.

Installation of soldier piles at the crest of the slope was also considered. The soldier pile system would need to be designed by a firm specializing in this type of shoring system. This option would support the track but would not stabilize the slope to the east of the soldier pile wall. Further stabilization work downslope of the wall would likely be required in the future.

Slope Flattening

The options for slope flattening are constrained by the presence of Lakeshore Road at the toe of the slope. Slope flattening could be effected be construction of a retaining wall at the toe of the slope and placement of fill on the slope to achieve a reduced inclination and improved stability. The design of this option will depend on the location of the property line for the adjacent highway right-of-way. Slope stability analysis, shown in Appendix D indicates that the factor of safety for the slope could be improved to about 2.0 using this option and a slope inclination of 2.3H:1V.

9. CLOSURE

We trust the above provides the information you require at this time. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

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

Record of Borehole Sheets

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON TEST HOLE LOGS

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 naked eye COARSE GRAIN SOIL DESCRIPTION (50% greater than 0.075mm) TERMINOLOGY PROPORTION Trace or Occasional < 10% Some 10 to 20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20 to 35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) 35 to 50% TERMS DESCRIBING CONSISTENCY (COHESIVE SOILS ONLY) DESCRIPTIVE TERM UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa) APPROX. SPT(1) “N” VALUE Very Soft < 10 < 2 Soft 10 to 25 (POCKET PEN) 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 (0.5-1) 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 100 (1-2) 8 to 15 Very Stiff 100 to 200 (2-4) 15 to 30 Hard > 200 (>4) > 30 (1) Standard Penetration Test – the number of blows from a 63.5kg hammer falling through 0.76m to advance a 60 degree truncated cone 0.3m

LEGEND FOR TEST HOLE LOGS

Shelby Tube A – Casing SPT Grab/Auger sample Core No Recovery • MC – Moisture Content (% by Weight) as determined by sample

Water Level Cvane Shear Strength Determination by Field Insitu Vane Cpen Shear Strength Determination by Pocket Penetrometer Clab Shear Strength Determination using a Laboratory Vane Apparatus CU Undrained Shear Strength determined by Unconfined Compression Test AS/GS/BS Auger Sample/Grab Sample/ Block Sample SS Split-spoon SC Soil core AED Oedometer test TXL Triaxial test

TERMS DESCRIBING DENSITY(COHESIONLESS SOILS) HIERARCHY OF SOIL STRENGTH PREDICTION

DESCRIPTIVE TERM SPT “N” VALUE 1) Laboratory Triaxial Testing 2) Field Insitu Vane Testing 3) Laboratory Vane Testing 4) SPT Value 5) Pocket Penetrometer

Very Loose < 4 Loose 4 to 10

Compact 10 to 30

Dense 30 to 50

Very Dense > 50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

12

15

5

5

12

16

59

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

s

BALLAST

SAND, occasional gravel, compact, brown,moist: (FILL)

CLAY, silty, firm to stiff, brown to grey,moist

Very stiff

SAND, some silt, occasional clay, tracegravel, very dense, brown: (TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE AT 9.8m.BOREHOLE OPEN TO 9.8m AND DRYUPON COMPLETION.BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHBENTONITE HOLEPLUG TO 3.0m,CUTTINGS AND BENTONITE HOLEPLUGTO 0.9m, THEN BALLAST TO SURFACE.

Grain Size Analysis:



Cl 42%

Cl 53%

Cl 57%

Si 58%/

Si 47%/

Si 43%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 0%/

Sa 0%/

Sa 0%/

Sa 0%/

1.22

1.83

8.84

9.75

196.07

195.46

188.45

187.54

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

20 40 60 80 100

N 5 261 708.1 E 599 314.0SHEET 1 OF 1

ONR-Slope Stability

December 7, 2016

PP

GA

M112-07 Temagami Subdivision

December 7, 2016 DATUM Geodetic

THU

RBE

R2S

TEL

-150

10.G

PJ 2

/14/

17RECORD OF BOREHOLE 16-01

15010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

w

CHECKED

wl ADD

ITIO

NAL

LAB.

TES

TIN

G

PROJECT(m

etre

s)

:

:

BOR

ING

MET

HO

D

DESCRIPTION

Q -

wp

ORSTANDPIPE

(m)

rem V -

STR

ATA

PLO

T

ELEV. WATER CONTENT, PERCENT

SHEAR STRENGTH: Cu, KPa

INSTALLATION

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

LOCATIONSTARTEDCOMPLETED

::::

40 80 120 160

Project No.

Cpen

DEP

TH S

CAL

E

BLO

WS/

0.3m

nat V -

DEPTH

NU

MBE

R

TYPE

PIEZOMETER

SAMPLESSOIL PROFILE

WATER LEVEL UPON COMPLETION

10 20 30 40

LOGGED

COMMENTS

WATER LEVEL IN WELL/PIEZOMETER

GROUND SURFACE 197.290.00

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

15

6

4

5

6

15

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

s

CRUHED STONE/BALLAST, compact toloose, grey, moist: (FILL)

CLAY, silty, firm, brown, moist

Stiff

END OF BOREHOLE AT 5.2m.BOREHOLE OPEN TO 5.2m AND DRYUPON COMPLETION.Piezometer installation consists of 25mmdiameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe with a1.52m slotted screen.

Bentonite

Filter Sand

SlottedScreen



Cl 54%

Cl 40%

Si 46%/

Si 60%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 0%/

Sa 0%/

Sa 0%/

2.29

5.18

194.98

192.09


20 40 60 80 100

N 5 261 698.8 E 599 308.5SHEET 1 OF 1

ONR-Slope Stability

December 7, 2016

PP

GA



THU

RBE

R2S

TEL

-150

10.G

PJ 2

/7/1


15010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

w

CHECKED

wl ADD

ITIO

NAL

LAB.

TES

TIN

G

PROJECT(m

etre

s)

:

:

BOR

ING

MET

HO

D

DESCRIPTION

Q -

wp

ORSTANDPIPE

(m)

rem V -

STR

ATA

PLO

T



INSTALLATION



::::

40 80 120 160

Project No.

Cpen

DEP

TH S

CAL

E

BLO

WS/

0.3m

nat V -

DEPTH

NU

MBE

R

TYPE

PIEZOMETER

SAMPLESSOIL PROFILE


10 20 30 40

LOGGED

COMMENTS


GROUND SURFACE 197.270.00

1

2

3

4

5

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

26

17

21

6

76

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

s

ASPHALT: (100mm)SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt, compact,brown, moist: (FILL)SAND, trace silt, compact, brown, moist:(FILL)

CLAY, silty, some sand, brown, moist

SAND, silty, some clay, trace gravel, looseto very dense, brown, moist: (TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.4m.BOREHOLE OPEN TO 3.4m AND DRY.BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHBENTONITE HOLEPLUG AND CUTTINGSTO 0.3m, CONCRETE TO 0.2m, THENASPHALT PATCH TO SURFACE.




Cl 55%

Cl 15%

Si 21%/

Si 22%/

Si & Cl 7%Gr 56%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 9%/

Sa 37%/

Sa 24%/

Sa 54%/

0.09

0.61

1.45

2.29

3.35

188.16

187.32

186.48

185.42


20 40 60 80 100

N 5 261 720.6 E 599 326.1SHEET 1 OF 1

ONR-Slope Stability

December 6, 2016

PP

GA



THU

RBE

R2S

TEL

-150

10.G

PJ 2

/7/1


15010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

w

CHECKED

wl ADD

ITIO

NAL

LAB.

TES

TIN

G

PROJECT(m

etre

s)

:

:

BOR

ING

MET

HO

D

DESCRIPTION

Q -

wp

ORSTANDPIPE

(m)

rem V -

STR

ATA

PLO

T



INSTALLATION



::::

40 80 120 160

Project No.

Cpen

DEP

TH S

CAL

E

BLO

WS/

0.3m

nat V -

DEPTH

NU

MBE

R

TYPE

PIEZOMETER

SAMPLESSOIL PROFILE


10 20 30 40

LOGGED

COMMENTS


GROUND SURFACE 188.77

1

2

3

4

SS

SS

SS

SS

28

13

30

50/0.150

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

s

ASPHALT: (100mm)SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt, compact,brown, moist: (FILL)SAND, trace silt, occasional gravel, brown,moist: (FILL)

SAND, silty, some clay, trace gravel,dense to very dense, brown: (TILL)

END OF BOREHOLE AT 2.6m ON AUGERREFUSAL.BOREHOLE OPEN TO 2.6m AND DRY.BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHCUTTINGS TO 0.3m, CONCRETE TO0.2m, THEN ASPHALT PATCH TOSURFACE.

Grain Size Analysis:Cl 18%Si 22%/Gr 8%/ Sa 52%/

0.10

0.61

1.22

2.59

188.01

187.40

186.03


20 40 60 80 100

N 5 261 701.9 E 599 328.7SHEET 1 OF 1

ONR-Slope Stability

December 6, 2016

PP

GA



THU

RBE

R2S

TEL

-150

10.G

PJ 2

/7/1


15010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

w

CHECKED

wl ADD

ITIO

NAL

LAB.

TES

TIN

G

PROJECT(m

etre

s)

:

:

BOR

ING

MET

HO

D

DESCRIPTION

Q -

wp

ORSTANDPIPE

(m)

rem V -

STR

ATA

PLO

T



INSTALLATION



::::

40 80 120 160

Project No.

Cpen

DEP

TH S

CAL

E

BLO

WS/

0.3m

nat V -

DEPTH

NU

MBE

R

TYPE

PIEZOMETER

SAMPLESSOIL PROFILE


10 20 30 40

LOGGED

COMMENTS



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

8

12

14

14

8

6

4

6

6

6

6

6

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

s

TOPSOIL: (75mm)CLAY, silty, occasional sand, occasionalrootlets, stiff, brown, moist: (FILL)

CLAY, silty, occasional sand seams, firmto stiff, grey, moist

Occasional silt seams

SAND, trace silt, very dense, brown

Bentonite

Filter Sand

SlottedScreen






Cl 83%

Cl 70%

Cl 59%

Cl 59%

Cl 57%

Si 17%/

Si 30%/

Si 41%/

Si 41%/

Si 43%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 0%/

Gr 0%/

Sa 0%/

Sa 0%/

Sa 0%/

Sa 0%/

Sa 0%/

0.08

1.52

14.78

208.68

195.42


20 40 60 80 100

N 5 261 675.5 E 599 258.0SHEET 1 OF 2

ONR-Slope Stability

December 7, 2016

PP

GA



THU

RBE

R2S

TEL

-150

10.G

PJ 2

/14/


15010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

w

CHECKED

wl ADD

ITIO

NAL

LAB.

TES

TIN

G

PROJECT(m

etre

s)

:

:

BOR

ING

MET

HO

D

DESCRIPTION

Q -

wp

ORSTANDPIPE

(m)

rem V -

STR

ATA

PLO

T



INSTALLATION



::::

40 80 120 160

Project No.

Cpen

DEP

TH S

CAL

E

BLO

WS/

0.3m

nat V -

DEPTH

NU

MBE

R

TYPE

PIEZOMETER

SAMPLESSOIL PROFILE


10 20 30 40

LOGGED

COMMENTS



50

51

56

13 SS 80

SAND, trace silt, very dense, brown, moist

END OF BOREHOLE AT 15.7m.BOREHOLE OPEN TO 15.7m ANDWATER LEVEL AT 14.0m.Piezometer installation consists of 25mmdiameter Schedule 40 PVC pipe with a1.52m slotted screen.

15.70194.50


20 40 60 80 100

N 5 261 675.5 E 599 258.0SHEET 2 OF 2

ONR-Slope Stability

December 7, 2016

PP

GA



THU

RBE

R2S

TEL

-150

10.G

PJ 2

/14/


15010

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

w

CHECKED

wl ADD

ITIO

NAL

LAB.

TES

TIN

G

PROJECT(m

etre

s)

:

:

BOR

ING

MET

HO

D

DESCRIPTION

Q -

wp

ORSTANDPIPE

(m)

rem V -

STR

ATA

PLO

T



INSTALLATION



::::

40 80 120 160

Project No.

Cpen

DEP

TH S

CAL

E

BLO

WS/

0.3m

nat V -

DEPTH

NU

MBE

R

TYPE

PIEZOMETER

SAMPLESSOIL PROFILE


10 20 30 40

LOGGED

COMMENTS


1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

13

15

6

8

22

43

Hol

low

Ste

m A

uger

s

CRUSHED STONE/BALLAST, compact toloose, grey, moist: (FILL)

SAND, some silt, loose to compact, brown,moist

Dense

END OF BOREHOLE AT 5.2m.BOREHOLE OPEN TO 5.2m AND DRY.BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITHBENTONITE HOLEPLUG AND CUTTINGSTO SURFACE.

Grain Size Analysis:Gr 0%/ Sa 87%/

2.36

5.18

194.83

192.01


20 40 60 80 100

N 5 261 656.1 E 599 310.9SHEET 1 OF 1

ONR-Slope Stability

December 7, 2016

PP

GA


THU

RBE

R2S

TEL

-150

10.G

PJ 2

/7/1


15010

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

w

CHECKED

wl ADD

ITIO

NAL

LAB.

TES

TIN

G

PROJECT(m

etre

s)

:

:

BOR

ING

MET

HO

D

DESCRIPTION

Q -

wp

ORSTANDPIPE

(m)

rem V -

STR

ATA

PLO

T



INSTALLATION



::::

40 80 120 160

Project No.

Cpen

DEP

TH S

CAL

E

BLO

WS/

0.3m

nat V -

DEPTH

NU

MBE

R

TYPE

PIEZOMETER

SAMPLESSOIL PROFILE


10 20 30 40

LOGGED

COMMENTS



M112 Temagami Subdivision

Si & Cl 13%

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

LEGEND

16 8

FINE GRAINED

3/8"3 6"4 4 1/4"3"1 1/2"1"1/2" 3/4"100 50

BOREHOLE DEPTH (m) ELEV. (m)

2.596.407.922.594.880.38

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SYMBOL

16-0116-0116-0116-0216-0216-03

194.70190.89189.37194.68192.39188.39

Size of openings, inchesU.S.S. Sieve size, meshes/inch

SAND GRAVEL

3040 10

COARSEFINECOARSEMEDIUMFINESILT and CLAY COBBLESIZE

60200

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

TH

AN

FIGURE B1

Date

Project

Prep'd

Chkd.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E D

ISTR

IBU

TIO

N -

THU

RBE

R T

EL-1

5010

.GPJ

2/9

/17

ANPP

ONR-Slope Stability

February 201715010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

LEGEND

16 8

FINE GRAINED

3/8"3 6"4 4 1/4"3"1 1/2"1"1/2" 3/4"100 50


1.832.591.831.833.354.88


SYMBOL

16-0316-0316-0416-0516-0516-05

186.94186.18186.79208.37206.85205.32


SAND GRAVEL

3040 10


60200

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

TH

AN

FIGURE B2

Date

Project

Prep'd

Chkd.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E D

ISTR

IBU

TIO

N -

THU

RBE

R T

EL-1

5010

.GPJ

2/9

/17

ANPP

ONR-Slope Stability

February 201715010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

LEGEND

16 8

FINE GRAINED

3/8"3 6"4 4 1/4"3"1 1/2"1"1/2" 3/4"100 50


6.4014.024.88


SYMBOL

16-0516-0516-06

203.80196.18192.31


SAND GRAVEL

3040 10


60200

GRAIN SIZE, mm

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

TH

AN

FIGURE B3

Date

Project

Prep'd

Chkd.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E D

ISTR

IBU

TIO

N -

THU

RBE

R T

EL-1

5010

.GPJ

2/9

/17

ANPP

ONR-Slope Stability

February 201715010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

CL


3.356.404.886.40

14.02

SYMBOL

16-0116-0116-0216-0516-05

193.94190.89192.39203.80196.18

LEGEND

CL-ML

ML

CL

CI

OL

MI-OI

CH

MH-OH

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

LIQUID LIMIT

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTSFIGURE B4

Date

Project

Prep'd

Chkd.

THU

RBA

LT T

EL-1

5010

.GPJ

2/9

/17

ANPP

ONR-Slope Stability

February 201715010

Appendix C

Drawings

Appendix D

Stability Analysis

15010 ONR – Slope Stability M112 Temagami Subdivision

Section Case Condition Factor of Safety Figure

M112.00

1‐ Failed Condition Effective Stress 0.97 1

2‐ Existing with Drainage Effective Stress 1.35 2 3‐ Toe Wall with 3.5H:1V

Slope

Effective Stress 1.54 3

4‐ Reinforcement Effective Stress 1.51 4

M112.07 1‐ Existing Condition Undrained 1.13 5 Effective Stress 0.99 6 2‐ Toe Wall with

1V:2.3H Slope

Effective Stress 1.95 7

FIGURE 1

Fill

Silty Clay

Fill

Silty Sand

0.97Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 ° Name: Silty Clay Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 ° Name: Silty Sand Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³ Cohesion: 0 kPa Phi: 34 °

15010 ONR - Slope StabilityM112 Temagami SubdivisionCase 1-Failed ConditionEffective Stress Analysis

Distance0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Elev

atio

n

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

FIGURE 2

Fill

Silty Clay

Fill

Silty Sand

1.35

Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 ° Name: Silty Clay Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 ° Name: Silty Sand Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³ Cohesion: 0 kPa Phi: 34 °

15010 ONR - Slope StabilityM112 Temagami SubdivisionCase 2 -Drainage - Existing SlopeEffective Stress Analysis

Main Drainage T rench

Distance0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Ele

vatio

n

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

FIGURE 3

Fill

Silty Clay

Silty Sand

Retaining WallFill

Granular Fill

1.54

Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 ° Name: Silty Clay Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 ° Name: Silty Sand Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³ Cohesion: 0 kPa Phi: 34 ° Name: Retaining Wall Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³ Cohesion: 200 kPa Phi: 38 ° Name: Granular Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 21 kN/m³ Cohesion: 0 kPa Phi: 36 °

15010 ONR - Slope StabilityM112 Temagami SubdivisionCase 3-Toe Wall Undrained Analysis

Main Drainage Trench

Distance0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Ele

vatio

n

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

FIGURE 4

Fill

Silty Clay

Fill

Silty Sand


15010 ONR - Slope StabilityM112 Temagami Subdiv isionCase 2-ReinforcementEffective Stress Analysis

Main Drainage Trench

Distance0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Elev

atio

n

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

FIGURE 5

Silty Clay

Silty Sand

Fill

Fill


15010 ONR - Slope StabilityM112.07 Temagami SubdivisionExisting Slope - Drained Condition

Distance0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Elev

atio

n

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

FIGURE 6

Silty Clay

Silty Sand

Fill

Fill


15010 ONR - Slope StabilityM112.07 Temagami SubdivisionExisting Slope - Drained Condition

Distance0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Elev

atio

n

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

FIGURE 7

Silty Clay

Silty Sand

Fill

Fill

Retaining Wall

Granular Fill

1.95

Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 0 kPa Phi: 30 ° Name: Silty Clay Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 18 kN/m³ Cohesion: 5 kPa Phi: 25 ° Name: Silty Sand Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³ Cohesion: 0 kPa Phi: 32 ° Name: Granular Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 21 kN/m³ Cohesion: 0 kPa Phi: 36 ° Name: Retaining Wall Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 22 kN/m³ Cohesion: 200 kPa Phi: 38 °

15010 ONR - Slope StabilityM112.07 Temagami SubdivisionCase 2 - Toe WallEffective Stress Analysis - 6 m high retaining wall

Distance0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Elev

atio

n

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

15010 Draft Report March31_17.pdfSymbols and Terms Used on Test Hole Logs.pdfDESCRIPTIVE TERM SPT “N” VALUE1) Laboratory Triaxial Testing

August 14, 2018 Addendum No. 02 File Reference Number: RFP … · 2020. 11. 6. · File No.: 15010...

Documents

Transcript of August 14, 2018 Addendum No. 02 File Reference Number: RFP … · 2020. 11. 6. · File No.: 15010...