Geotechnical Investigation Report - Parkland County...Geotechnical Investigation Report BF09254...

Prepared for:

Lex3 Engineering Inc.

Red Deer, Alberta 10-Jul-20

Geotechnical Investigation Report

BF09254 Bridge Replacement

Range Road 70 – Approx. 550 m South of Hwy 16

Parkland County, AB

Project No. EA16425

‘Wood’ is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries



Parkland County, AB

Project No. EA16425

Prepared for: Lex3 Engineering Inc.

Prepared by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions

5681 70 Street

Edmonton, AB T6B 3P6

10-Jul-20

Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions).

save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent

that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than

the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not

be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute

an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this

report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third-Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and

for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access

it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever

arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death

resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.



Project No. EA16425 | 7/10/2020 Page ii

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Field Program ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Visual Pavement Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.0 Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Soil Stratigraphy .................................................................................................................................................. 2

3.2 General Stratigraphy .......................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2.1 Pavement Structure ........................................................................................................................... 3

3.2.2 Clay Fill .................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2.3 Clay ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2.4 Gravel and Clay Till ............................................................................................................................ 4

3.2.5 Sand ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2.6 Gravel ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 5

4.1 General Geotechnical Considerations ......................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Site Grading and Backfill .................................................................................................................................. 5

4.3 Excavations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6

4.4 Sideslopes .............................................................................................................................................................. 6

4.5 Frost Action ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

4.6 Limit States Foundation Design .................................................................................................................... 7

4.7 Driven Steel Pile Foundations ........................................................................................................................ 8

4.7.1 Design for Compressive/Tensile Loading ................................................................................. 8

4.7.2 Lateral Load Resistance of Piles .................................................................................................... 9

4.7.3 Group Effects ......................................................................................................................................10

4.7.4 Negative Skin Friction .....................................................................................................................10

4.8 Retaining Walls ..................................................................................................................................................11

4.9 Site Classification for Seismic Response ..................................................................................................11

4.10 Pavement Design Recommendations .......................................................................................................12

4.11 Drainage ...............................................................................................................................................................12

4.12 Testing and Inspection ....................................................................................................................................12

5.0 Closure ...................................................................................................................................................................................13



Project No. EA16425 | 7/10/2020 Page iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Borehole Location and Depth Summary .................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2: Pavement Structure Thicknesses ................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 3: Atterberg Limits of A Clay Fill Sample......................................................................................................................... 3

Table 4: Atterberg Limits of A Clay Sample ............................................................................................................................... 4

Table 5: Groundwater Observations ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Table 6: Soil Parameters Used in Slope Stability Analyses ................................................................................................... 6

Table 7: Typical Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Deep Foundations ...................................................................... 8

Table 8: Unfactored ULS Parameters for Axial Capacity of Driven Piles ......................................................................... 9

Table 9: Reduction Factors for Laterally Loaded Pile Groups .......................................................................................... 10

Table 10: Soil Parameters for Retaining Walls and Soil Retention Systems ............................................................... 11

Table 11: Spectral Acceleration (5% Damped) – NBCC 2015 ........................................................................................... 11

Table 12: Minimum Pavement Structures ................................................................................................................................ 12

Appendices

Appendix A: Borehole Location Plan

Appendix B: Borehole Logs and Explanation of Terms and Symbols

Appendix C: Slope Stability Analyses Results

Appendix D: Limitations



Project No. EA16425 | 7/10/2020 Page 1 of 13

1.0 Introduction

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, a division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood) was retained by

Lex3 Engineering Inc., to conduct a geotechnical investigation for the proposed BF09254 bridge

replacement, located on Range Road 70, approximately 550 m South of Highway 16, in Parkland County,

Alberta. The bridge replacement is in the Legal Subdivision (LSD) NW-18-53-6-W5. The purpose of the

geotechnical evaluation was to investigate the subsoil and groundwater conditions at the site and to

provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for bridge foundations for the bridge

replacement. It is understood that driven steel piles are the preferred foundation type for this bridge.

It was understood from Lex3, that the final grade of the roadway will be raised by up to 2.8 m prior to the

bridge replacement.

This report summarizes the results of the field and laboratory testing programs, and provides discussion

and recommendations on the design of the bridge substructure, deep foundation design parameters,

excavation and backfilling procedures, seismic site classification, and other associated geotechnical aspects

of the development.

2.0 Geotechnical Investigation

2.1 Field Program

Prior to field drilling, Wood conducted the necessary underground utility clearances on the site through

Alberta One-Call. A pre-drilling hazard assessment, traffic accommodation strategy and a toolbox safety

meeting were conducted by the field crew before commencing the borehole drilling.

The field drilling program was carried out on 16 June 2020. Two boreholes, BH20-01 and BH20-02, were

drilled on the south and north sides of the existing bridge BF09254, to depths of 16.3 m and 17.8 m below

ground surface (bgs), respectively. Both boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped

with solid stem augers owned and operated by SPT Drilling Ltd., of St. Albert, Alberta. The borehole locations

are indicated on Figure 1 in Appendix A.

Supervision of the drilling, soil sampling and logging of the various soil strata was performed by Wood

personnel. Disturbed soil samples were obtained from the auger cuttings and from the Standard Penetration

Test (SPT) split barrel sampler for soil classification and laboratory testing. SPTs were conducted at regular

intervals to assess the in-situ strength of the soil types encountered.

A slotted PVC standpipe was installed in borehole BH20-01 at the completion of drilling to allow for future

monitoring of the groundwater levels. The annulus between the PVC standpipe and the borehole wall was

backfilled with sand and soil cuttings and capped at the ground surface with bentonite chips and cold mix

asphalt. A wellhead protection box was installed in borehole BH20-01 to protect the standpipe. The

groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes during drilling and those measured on 26 June 2020

are reported on the borehole logs.

All soil samples and auger cuttings were visually examined and classified in the field in accordance with the

Modified Unified Soil Classification System (MUSCS) and the results are provided in the borehole logs

included in Appendix B. Summary sheets outlining the terms, abbreviations and symbols used on the

borehole logs are also included with the borehole logs in Appendix B. A summary of the completed

borehole locations and drilling depths is provided in Table 1.




Table 1: Borehole Location and Depth Summary

Borehole

ID

Approximate Coordinates (1) Drilled Depth (m) (2)

Northing (m) Easting (m)

BH20-01 5938915 639949 16.3

BH20-02 5938869 639954 17.8 (1) Coordinates are Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 11, NAD 83 datum. Borehole coordinates were measured using a

hand-held GPS and should be considered approximate. (2) Drill depths were measured from top of ground surface at time of the investigation.

2.2 Visual Pavement Assessment

A visual assessment of the current pavement condition in the vicinity of the bridge was conducted on 16

June 2020. The visual observation results were as follows:

Generally, the roadway surface condition was considered to be good;

Slight centerline cracking was observed;

No transverse cracks were observed; and

No fatigue cracking or structural failures were observed.

2.3 Laboratory Testing

All geotechnical soil samples were transported to our Edmonton laboratory for routine laboratory testing.

The tests included soil moisture contents, and two Atterberg limits. The results of the testing can be found

on the borehole logs in Appendix B.

3.0 Subsurface Conditions

3.1 Soil Stratigraphy

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in each borehole are presented on the

borehole logs provided in Appendix B. The boundaries indicated on the borehole log typically represent

transitions from one soil type/consistency to another, and due to the method of drilling, do not necessarily

represent exact depths between soil layers/consistencies. Due to the method of drilling, depths of the

various soil types/consistencies/densities noted on the borehole log may vary by ±0.3 m from the actual

depth. The subsurface conditions were established only at the borehole locations and might vary beyond

the borehole locations.

3.2 General Stratigraphy

The generalized subsurface stratigraphy (from uppermost to lowermost strata) encountered in the

boreholes comprised:

Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP) with a thickness of 100 to 110 mm, and gravel fill extending to depths

ranging from 400 mm to 500 mm bgs;

Clay fill, encountered below the pavement structure in both boreholes, extending to a depth of 2.6 m

in borehole BH20-01 and 6.4 m in borehole BH20-02;

Native clay, encountered below the clay fill in both boreholes, extending up to depths of up to 8.5 m

bgs;




Gravel, encountered below the native clay in BH20-02, extending to a depth of 10.1 m bgs;

Clay till, encountered below the native clay and extended to a depth of 10.1 m in borehole BH20-01;

and encountered below the gravel and extended to a depth of 12.1 m bgs in BH20-02;

Sand, encountered below the clay till, and extended to a depth of 15.5 m in borehole BH20-01 and to

16.5 m in borehole BH20-02; and

Gravel, encountered below the sand and extended to the termination depth of both boreholes.

3.2.1 Pavement Structure

Both boreholes were advanced through a layer ACP underlain by granular material. A summary of the

pavement structure encountered is shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Pavement Structure Thicknesses

Borehole ID

Approximate

Borehole

Location

ACP Thickness

(mm)

Granular Thickness

(mm)

Total Pavement

Structure (mm)

BH20-01

11 m N of

bridge deck,

SBL

100 300 400

BH20-02

9 m S of

bridge deck,

NBL

110 390 500

3.2.2 Clay Fill

Clay fill was encountered underneath the pavement structure gravel in both boreholes, extending to depths

of 2.6 m bgs in in borehole BH20-01 and 6.4 m bgs in boreholes BH20-02. The clay fill was silty, and

contained trace to some organic, some to no sand, and trace to no gravel. A layer of organics with a

thickness of 25 mm was encountered at 1.5 m depth in borehole BH20-01 and at 2.0 m depth in borehole

BH20-02. Wood debris were also encountered in the clay fill in borehole BH20-02 at depths of 3.1 m and

5.6 m bgs. Generally, the clay fill was dark grey in colour.

Moisture contents in the clay fill generally ranged from 30 percent to 46 percent.

One Atterberg limit test was conducted in this soil unit, with the results shown below.

Table 3: Atterberg Limits of a Clay Fill Sample

Sample

ID

Sample

Depth

(m)

In-Situ

Moisture

Content

(%)

Liquid

Limit,

WL

Plastic

Limit

WP

Plasticity

Index

IP

Soil

Classification

BH20-02 1.5 40.4 80.8 30.0 50.8 CH

CH= High plastic clay

SPT N values in the clay fill typically ranged from 6 to 10, indicating a firm to stiff consistency.




3.2.3 Clay

Native clay was encountered below the clay fill, extending to depths of 8.5 m bgs in in borehole BH20-01

and 8.3 m bgs in boreholes BH20-02. The clay was silty with trace sand, and dark grey in colour. Moisture

contents in the clay ranged from 36 percent to 60 percent.

One Atterberg limit test was conducted in the clay, with the results shown below.

Table 4: Atterberg Limits of a Clay Sample

Sample

ID

Sample

Depth

(m)

In-Situ

Moisture

Content

(%)

Liquid

Limit,

WL

Plastic

Limit

WP

Plasticity

Index

IP

Soil

Classification

BH20-01 5.3 50.1 73.7 31.8 41.9 CH

SPT N values in the clay typically ranged from 4 to 9, indicating a firm to stiff consistency.

3.2.4 Gravel and Clay Till

A layer of gravel was encountered below the high plastic native clay in borehole BH20-02, extending from

8.3 m to 10.1 m bgs. The gravel was poorly graded, sandy and contained some clay. SPT N values in the

gravel ranged from 12 to 17, indicating a compact density.

Clay till was encountered below the native clay and below the gravel, extending to depths of 10.1 m bgs in

borehole BH20-01 and 12.1 m bgs in boreholes BH20-02, respectively. The clay till was silty with some sand,

medium plastic, dark grey, and contained trace gravel, trace coal and trace shale inclusions. Moisture

contents in the clay till ranged from 18 percent to 31 percent.

SPT N values in the clay till ranged from 7 to 12, indicating a firm to stiff consistency.

3.2.5 Sand

Sand was encountered below the clay till in both boreholes, extending to a depth of 15.5 m in borehole

BH20-01 and 16.5 m in borehole BH20-02. The sand was medium grained, silty, contained trace gravel, and

was dark brown in colour. Moisture contents in the sand ranged from 16 percent to 25 percent.

SPT N values in the sand ranged from 8 to 21, indicating a loose to compact density.

3.2.6 Gravel

Gravel was encountered below the sand, extending to the termination depths of both boreholes. The gravel

was sandy, poorly graded and saturated. Moisture contents in the sand ranged from 16 percent to 25

percent.

SPT N values in the gravel ranged from 53 to 50 for 125 mm, indicating very dense density.

3.3 Groundwater

A standpipe piezometer was installed in borehole BH20-01 to permit short term monitoring of groundwater

levels. Table 5 summarizes groundwater seepage observed during drilling and the groundwater level

measured in the standpipe ten days later.




Table 5: Groundwater Observations

Borehole

ID

Depth of

Standpipe

(m)

Depth of Slough at

Drilling Completion

(m)

Depth of Water at

Drilling Completion

(m)

Measured

Groundwater Level on

June 26, 2020 (m)

BH20-01 9.4 8.5 3.9 2.7

BH20-02 - 9.3 3.4 -

These water level measurements are considered preliminary and may not represent stabilized conditions.

The groundwater level is likely related to the water level in the creek under the bridge. Seasonal fluctuations

in groundwater levels should be expected in response to snow melt, heavy rainfall, flooding or other weather

events. Future water level monitoring can be conducted to confirm the magnitude of groundwater

fluctuations at the site.

4.0 Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations

4.1 General Geotechnical Considerations

The investigation showed that the site has satisfactory soil conditions for the proposed replacement bridge

foundations. Steel piles driven into the very dense gravel are considered a suitable foundation option for

the bridge foundations. Further information on driven steel piles can be found in Section 4.7.

4.2 Site Grading and Backfill

It is understood that the grade of the roadway will be raised by up to 2.8 m to accommodate the new

bridge. Prior to fill placement, the existing surface ACP should be stripped and removed from site. The

underlying subsurface granular fill materials (existing gravel fill) may be suitable for reuse as Granular Base

Course (GBC) provided they meet the Alberta Transportation requirements for Designation 2 Class 20

granular material, or equivalent.

Following the removal of the pavement structure, the uppermost 150 mm of the exposed surface should

be scarified and recompacted to no less than 98% of the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD)

at or near the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC), prior to placement of engineered fill. In general, the

engineered fill should consist of low to medium plastic clay, be placed in uniform 300 mm thick loose lifts

and compacted to 98 percent SPMDD at a moisture content of optimum to 2 percent above optimum

moisture content. If hand-portable compaction equipment is required in confined compaction zones then

thinner lifts should be used such that lift thickness is compatible with the compaction effort available with

the portable equipment (i.e. jumping jack equipment should be 150 mm loose lifts in thickness)

The final prepared subgrade should be proof roll tested, with an axle load of 80 kN, to check for soft, loose

or non-uniform areas. Any such areas detected should reworked and recompacted. To promote positive

drainage, the surface of the subgrade should be prepared with a cross slope of 2% or greater.

In addition to the general site grading required to prepare the road surface, the bridge abutments will

require placement of backfill behind the abutment retaining walls. It is recommended that granular material

consisting of Alberta Transportation Designation 2 Class 25 Granular fill be used for backfill behind the

backwalls. Granular material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent SPMDD at a moisture

content within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. The upper 300 mm beneath the approach slab

should be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent SPMDD at a moisture content within 2 percent of the

optimum moisture content. Only hand operated compaction equipment should be used to compact fill




within 0.9 m of wing walls, or other walls with unbalanced earth pressure, to avoid damage due to lateral

stresses caused by compaction.

It should be noted that organic soils were encountered in the fill materials below the existing pavement

structure. If the existing clay fill is re-used for backfill, it must contain no more than 5 percent organic

material. Clay that contains more than 5 percent organic content should be removed and disposed of off-

site or be used for landscaping.

Fill should not be frozen at the time of placement, nor should the fill be placed on a frozen subgrade.

4.3 Excavations

Permanent slopes less than 4 m in height, such as backslopes or headslopes for abutments, may be

designed at slopes of 2H:1V within the near surface clay soils. Where the recommended slope angle cannot

be accommodated, the soil should be removed for a distance of approximately 3 m behind the slope face

and be replaced with compacted engineered fill. Groundwater control and drainage should be provided as

necessary to prevent buildup of hydrostatic groundwater pressure behind the replacement fill. Slope angles

for slopes more than 4 m in height should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Traffic safety and roadway

maintenance considerations may require slopes flatter than 2H:1V. Temporary excavations may be designed

at 1H:1V in the clay soils encountered at the site.

4.4 Sideslopes

Slope stability analyses were carried out to assess the sideslope slope stability for 3H:1V, 2.5H:1V, and 2H:1V

slopes using the limit equilibrium slope stability analysis software program Slope/W. Based on the existing

ground condition and the maximum design thickness for the new fill, the soil profile used in the analyses

consisted of 2.8 m of new fill material over 3.5 m of existing clay fill, overlying foundation clay soil.

The soil parameters used in the analyses as presented in Table 6 below, were determined based on the

results of the geotechnical investigation and our past experiences with similar soils.

Table 6: Soil Parameters Used in Slope Stability Analyses

Soil Type

Bulk Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Effective

Cohesion C’

(kPa)

Effective Friction

Angle φ’ (º)

New Low to Medium Plastic Clay Fill 19 3 28

Existing High Plastic Embankment Clay

Fill and Foundation Soil 18 2 22

For the sideslope stability analysis, the groundwater table was conservatively estimated as being at the same

elevation as the surrounding ground surface, to provide an allowance for porewater pressure increase

during construction of the new fill.

As shown on Figure 2 through 4 in Appendix C, the calculated factors of safety for the sideslope are 1.47,

1.32, and 1.15 for slopes of 3H:1V, 2.5H:1V, and 2H:1V, respectively.

Based on a minimum long-term sideslope factor of safety 1.3, the sideslope of the embankment can be

constructed with a slope of 2.5H:1V. If the locally accepted minimum long-term sideslope factor of safety is

1.5, the sideslopes should be constructed at a slope of 3H:1V.

The existing 3.5 m high fill was successfully constructed over the native high plastic clay subgrade many

years previous and porewater pressures in the subgrade have returned to equilibrium levels. Thus, it is not




expected that instability will develop in the embankment subgrade or sideslopes in response to the addition

of a 2.8 m thickness of new fill. As a precaution, it is recommended that vibrating wire piezometers be

installed in the new fill areas for each embankment to monitor the response of the groundwater level to the

addition of the new fill during the construction period.

The sideslopes should be constructed in accordance with applicable health and safety standards, specifically

the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Code.

4.5 Frost Action

The near surface clay fill on the site is expected to be moderately frost susceptible. The estimated average

depth of frost penetration for the near surface soils is 1.7 m for a mean annual Air Freezing Index (AFI) of

1,450 degree-days Celsius, and 2.2 m for a 50 year return period AFI of 2,400 degree-days.

The 50-year return period frost penetration depth is generally used for design purposes.

The estimated frost penetration depth is for a uniform soil type with no insulative cover.

4.6 Limit States Foundation Design

The design parameters provided in the following sections are under the framework of Limit State Design

(LSD) methodology. Limit states are defined as conditions under which a structure or its component

members no longer perform their intended function, and are generally classified into the main groups of

Ultimate Limit State or Serviceability Limit State. Each of these limit states are discussed in more detail

below.

Ultimate Limit State (ULS)

Ultimate Limit States are primarily concerned with collapse mechanisms for the structure and, hence, safety.

Foundation designs using a limit states design approach should satisfy the following design equation:

niinSR

Where:

Rn - Factored geotechnical resistance.

- Geotechnical resistance factor.

Rn - Nominal (ultimate) geotechnical resistance determined using unfactored geotechnical

parameters.

iSni - Summation of the factored overall load effects for a given load combination condition.

i - Load factor corresponding to a particular load.

Sni - Specified load component of the overall load effects (e.g. dead load due to weight of

structure or live load due to wind).

i - Various types of loads such as dead load, live load, wind load, etc.

Geotechnical resistance factors as provided by the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code for deep

foundations are provided in Table 7. The critical design events and their corresponding load combination

and load factors should be assessed and determined by the structural engineer.




Table 7: Typical Geotechnical Resistance Factors for Deep Foundations

Limit State Test Method/Model Geotechnical

Resistance Factors

Compression

Static analysis 0.4

Static test 0.6

Dynamic analysis 0.4

Dynamic test 0.5

Tension Static analysis 0.3

Static test 0.5

Lateral Static analysis 0.5

Static test 0.5

Settlement or lateral deflection Static analysis 0.8

Static test 0.9

Note: Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, S6-14. April 2016. Table 6.2, p 232

Serviceability Limit State (SLS)

Serviceability Limit States are primarily concerned with mechanisms that restrict or constrain the intended

use or function of the structure. For foundation design, serviceability limit states are usually associated with:

► Excessive foundation movements (e.g. settlement, differential settlement, heave, etc.)

► Unacceptable foundation vibrations.

In general, the format criteria for serviceability limit states can be expressed as follows:

Serviceability Limit ≥ Effect of Service Loads

Serviceability Limit States are evaluated using unfactored geotechnical settlement properties (i.e.

compressibility, Young’s Modulus, etc.) to determine a SLS bearing pressure which, when applied to the

foundation soil, will not exceed a specified serviceability criteria. However, the load settlement behaviour of

foundations is complex, and, notwithstanding the non-linear nature of the soil, depends on the foundation

type and foundation configuration. Generally, the recommended pile design parameters provided for the

bridge foundation in this report are based on a vertical pile settlement of less than 10 mm under the design

load.

4.7 Driven Steel Pile Foundations

It is understood that the preferred foundation system for the support of structural loads is driven steel piles.

As previously discussed in Section 4.1, driven steel piles founded in the very dense gravel are considered a

feasible option at the site given the site subsurface conditions.

4.7.1 Design for Compressive/Tensile Loading

The unfactored shaft and toe resistance parameters presented in Table 8 are recommended for the design

of driven steel piles at the site. Geotechnical resistance factors of 0.4 and 0.3 should be applied for

compressive and uplift loads respectively, for ULS design.




Table 8: Unfactored ULS Parameters for Axial Capacity of Driven Piles

Depth Below Ground Surface (m) Shaft Resistance

(kPa) Toe Resistance (kPa) 1

Frost and Existing Fill Zone (0 to 6.5) 0 0

Firm Clay (6.5 to 8.5) 25 0

Stiff Clay Till, Gravel, and Sand (8.5 to 12) 40 0

Loose to Compact Sand (12 to 16) 70 1500

Gravel (below 16) 120 2500 1 Unfactored ULS toe resistance for pile diameters less than 0.5 m.

The shaft resistance should not be considered in the existing or new fill zone. The frost zone is considered

to be the soil 2.2 m in thickness extending below where the vertical abutment wall intersects the

embankment slope.

Where practical driving refusal occurs, the piles may be designed on the basis of the allowable fibre stress

of the steel. The factored ULS geotechnical resistance of the pile should be determined by multiplying the

cross-sectional area of steel at the pile tip by 0.4fy, where fy is the yield strength of the steel. The design

value for the steel yield strength for determining allowable load should be limited to 250 MPa.

Piles should be designed to resist uplift due to adfreeze based on an adfreeze uplift value of 100 kPa (for

steel piles) applied over a 2.2 m thick frost zone. Resistance to adfreeze uplift is provided by shaft friction

below the frost zone as well as by dead load carried by the pile.

As a preliminary guide, steel piles should be driven using maximum hammer energies per blow of 450 to

600 J per square centimetre of pile cross section. Piles should not be driven beyond practical refusal, which

may be taken, on a preliminary basis, as 10 to 12 blows per each 25 mm interval for the last 150 mm of

driving. The value for practical driving refusal should be determined using WEAP analysis when the pile

sections/lengths and type of driving equipment are known.

When uniform high driving resistance has been observed over a substantial length of driving, without

practical refusal being obtained, adjustment to the pile length could be considered in consultation with the

designer. Driving should be stopped immediately if abrupt penetration refusal is encountered, or if pile

damage is occurring, and the pile capacity should be assessed in consultation with this office.

Where the design is based on driving set criteria, the elevations of the tops of previously installed piles

within 5 pile diameters should be monitored during subsequent adjacent pile installation. Piles that have

heaved should be re-driven.

In the case of H-piles, the skin friction values should be applied to the net perimeter of the piles. The end

bearing values should be applied to the gross (plugged) end area of the pile.

4.7.2 Lateral Load Resistance of Piles

The lateral load resistance of piles depends essentially both on the stiffness of the pile and the strength of

the surrounding soil. Analytical methods using soil-pile load interaction curves (p-y curves) offer a widely

accepted basis for predicting pile-soil interaction with practical accuracy and simplicity. However, to use the

p-y curve method to assess pile lateral resistance capacity, the pile configurations, and the operational

requirements of the supported facilities need to be known. Therefore, this may be performed during later

stages of the project when more information on the pile geometry and loading conditions becomes

available.




4.7.3 Group Effects

Axial Loading

In accordance with the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CAN/CSA-S6-06), where the centre-to-

centre spacing of piles at the underside of the pile cap is less than 3 pile diameters or less than 750 mm,

the effects of interaction between piles shall be considered. The factored vertical resistance of a pile group

shall be determined as follows:

► The factored geotechnical resistance of a group of piles bearing on rock, dense sand, or hard till

with no weak strata beneath the bearing layer shall be taken as the sum of the factored axial

geotechnical resistances of the individual piles in the group; or

► The factored geotechnical resistance of a group of piles that derive their resistance primarily from

shaft friction shall be taken as the lesser of the following:

► the sum of the factored geotechnical resistances of the individual piles in the group; or

► the factored geotechnical resistance of an equivalent block enclosing the pile group

Lateral Loading

If it is desirable to limit the horizontal deflection of a pile group to that of a single pile, then the load on the

adjacent piles must be multiplied by a reduction factor. The recommended reduction factors for pile groups

are provided in Table 9, below.

Table 9: Reduction Factors for Laterally Loaded Pile Groups

4.7.4 Negative Skin Friction

The final grade of the roadway will be raised and newly added fill materials are expected in the abutment

areas. Driven steel piles installed through the fill may therefore be subjected to downdrag due to long term

settlement of the fill materials.

The downdrag load increases the structural load on the pile and thus has to be accounted for when

evaluating the structural limit state of the pile. The negative skin friction may be calculated as a triangular

distribution through the newly added fill at the pile locations, equal to 6.6 x H kPa, where H varies from zero

to the new fill depth. The downdrag loads are unfactored and an appropriate structural load factor should

be applied.

It is important to note that downdrag load and transient live load do not combine, and that two separate

structural loading cases should be considered: permanent load plus downdrag load, but no transient load;

and permanent load plus transient live load, but no downdrag load. The structural pile capacity is not

Spacing Between Pile Centres (Pile Diameters) Reduction Factor

8 1.00

7 0.90

6 0.75

5 0.65

4 0.50

3 0.40




expected to be a governing factor for driven steel piles for this project. Downdrag does not reduce the ULS

geotechnical pile capacity.

4.8 Retaining Walls

Retaining walls up to approximately 4 m in height may be required at the bridge abutment areas to limit

the lateral extent of sideslopes and headslopes. The following soil parameters may be used in design of

gravity retaining wall systems. It should be noted that the following assumptions are associated with the

parameters provided in Table 10.

► The retained fill has a level backslope;

► No surcharge loads and earthquake load are considered; and

► Sufficient sub-drainage will be provided behind the wall, and hence water pressure will not build

up behind the wall.

Table 10: Soil Parameters for Retaining Walls and Soil Retention Systems

Soil Type

Active Earth

Pressure

Coefficient

Ka

At Rest Earth

Pressure

Coefficient K0

Passive Earth

Pressure

Coefficient Kp

Friction Angle

(º)

Soil Unit

Weight

(kN/m3)

Engineered Fill

Cohesive Soil 0.38 0.55 2.66 27 18

Engineered Fill

Granular Soil 0.27 0.43 3.69 35 21

For protection against the effects of frost, positive drainage should be provided behind earth retaining

structures, and the bases of the structures should be provided with 2.2 m of soil cover, or an equivalent

amount of insulation.

4.9 Site Classification for Seismic Response

In the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2015), the seismic hazard is described by spectral

acceleration values at various periods and the peak ground acceleration (PGA). The spectral acceleration is

a measure of ground motion that takes into account the sustained shaking energy produced by an

earthquake at a particular period. The spectral acceleration values for the site under a 1 in 2,475-year

earthquake were obtained by using the Online Seismic Hazard Interpolator provided by Natural Resources

Canada. Table 11 summarizes the spectral acceleration for firm ground at the subject site.

Table 11: Spectral Acceleration (5% Damped) – NBCC 2015

Period (s) PGA Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(2.0) Sa(5.0) Sa(10.0)

Acceleration 0.076 g 0.125 g 0.079 0.023 0.006 0.003

For foundation effects, the NBCC incorporates site effects by categorizing the subsoil into six types based

on the average shear wave velocity (Vs) or standard penetration resistance (N60) for the upper 30 m.

A site class D may be used for the design of the proposed structures. Shear wave velocity data was not

obtained from this site, and borings were not advanced to 30 m depth. This seismic classification is based




on the SPT ‘N’ values within the depths drilled at the site, as well as on the assumption that the soil strength

below the depths drilled is at least as high as that encountered at the borehole termination depths.

4.10 Pavement Design Recommendations

It is understood that roadway reconstruction is required to accommodate the proposed change in bridge

elevation. The roadway section requiring reconstruction is approximately 200 to 300 m in length.

A flexible pavement design was performed in accordance with the guidelines described in the Alberta

Transportation (AT) Pavement Design Manual 1997 which adopts the pavement design procedures of

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993. Based on a reliability

of 85%, and a 20 year estimated design traffic volume of 3 x 105 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALs).

Based on the performance of the existing roadway, a pavement structure similar to the pavement structure

observed on site is recommended, as provided in Table 12.

Table 12: Minimum Pavement Structures

Layer Thickness (mm)

Asphalt Concrete Pavement (ACP) 100

Granular Base Course (GBC) 350

Design SN 89

SN Required 85

The GBC materials should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of SPMDD within +/-3.0

percent of OMC, and consist of consisting of AT Designation 2, Class 20 aggregate, or equivalent.

The ACP should be constructed in 2 lifts, be compacted to a minimum of 97 % of the Marshal Mix Design

and should comply with the latest Parkland County Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete Paving procedures.

4.11 Drainage

It is recommended that the geometric design of the roadway includes provision for an adequate ditch

drainage system capable of directing surface and sub-surface water away from the top of subgrade and

pavement structure. The design of the drainage system should be in accordance with the Highway

Geometric Design Guide published by Alberta Transportation, or equivalent. Roadside ditches should be

sized adequately to accommodate the anticipated flows during storm events and should be graded towards

low-lying discharge points. To protect the subgrade from wetting and weakening, it is also recommended

to maintain the bottom of ditches a minimum of 1.0 m below the top of subgrade.

4.12 Testing and Inspection

All engineering design recommendations presented in this report are based on the two boreholes advanced

on the site, and on the assumption that an adequate level of inspection will be provided during construction

and that all construction will be carried out by a suitably qualified contractor experienced in foundation and

earthworks construction. An adequate level of inspection is considered to be:

► For deep foundations: design review and full-time inspection during construction

► For earthworks: full time monitoring and compaction testing

Appendix A

Borehole Location Plan

NTS

PROJECT:

A1

Pri

nte

d:

07

/08

/20

1

1:4

4 A

MA

:\M

at\

PR

OJE

CT

S\A

ll P

roje

cts

\16

40

1-1

64

50

\EA

16

42

5 -

Le

x3

BF

09

25

4 -

RR

70

- G

eo

In

v\R

ep

ort

\[F

igu

re 1

- B

H L

oca

tio

ns.x

lsx]L

an

dsca

pe

EA16425

CLIENT:

LEX3 ENGINEERING INC. July 2020

BF09254 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

TITLE:BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

DATE: JOB No.: FIGURE No.: REV.

BH20-01

BH20-02

Appendix B

Borehole Logs and Explanation of Terms and Symbols

ASPHALT100 mm thickGRAVEL FILLsandy, some silt, well graded, brown, damp, 300 mm thickCLAY FILLsilty, trace organics, high plastic, stiff, dark grey, moist

... organic seam, 25 mm thick at 1.5 m

... some sand, trace gravel below 1.6 m

... some organic, black below 2.3 m

CLAYsilty, trace sand, high plastic, stiff, dark grey, moist

... no sand, firm, wet below 3.2 m

... sand layer, 25 mm thick, some seepage at 8.3 mCLAY TILLsilty, some sand, trace gravel, trace coal, medium plastic,firm, dark grey, moist

... trace shale inclusions below 9.3 m

9

12

6

6

4

9

D1

G2

D3

G4

D5

G6

D7

G8

D9

G10

D11

G12

ASPH

FILL

CH

CH

CI

6/26/2020

6/16/2020

COMPLETION DEPTH: 16.3 mCOMPLETION DATE: 6/16/20

BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

10

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

0

ENTERED BY: NRLOGGED BY: NRREVIEWED BY: YY

Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE

BOREHOLE NO.: BH20-01

PROJECT NO.: EA16425

ELEVATION:


SITE: RR70, 500 m S of Hwy 16

SBL, 11 m N of Bridge, 11U N:5938915 E:639949

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel

Lex3 Engineering Ltd.

SPT Drilling Ltd.

Solid Stem Auger

Environment & Infrastructure Solutions5681 - 70 Street NW

Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 3P6A:\

MA

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\AL

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\16

40

1-1

64

50

\EA

16

42

5 -

LE

X3

BF

09

25

4 -

RR

70

- G

EO

IN

V\B

H L

OG

S\E

A1

64

25

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

7/1

0 1

1:5

0 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

SANDsilty, medium grained, compact, dark brown, wet, seepage

... gravelly below 15 m

GRAVELsandy, poorly graded, very dense, saturated

BOREHOLE TERMINATED AT 16.3 m DEPTHBorehole remained open to 8.5 m with water accumulationat 3.9 m below existing grade 10 minutes after drillingcompletion.Borehole was installed with a 25 mm standpipe, slotted from6.4 to 9.4 m.Borehole was backfilled with drill cuttings, bentonite and aroad box installed at the surface.Water level at 2.7 m on 26 June 2020.

7

14

21

50/125

D13

G14

D15

G16

D17

G18

G19

G20

D21

SM

GP


BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 40 60 80

Page 2 of 2

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

20

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

10


Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE



ELEVATION:



SBL, 11 m N of Bridge, 11U N:5938915 E:639949

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel


SPT Drilling Ltd.

Solid Stem Auger



MA

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\AL

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\16

40

1-1

64

50

\EA

16

42

5 -

LE

X3

BF

09

25

4 -

RR

70

- G

EO

IN

V\B

H L

OG

S\E

A1

64

25

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

7/1

0 1

1:5

0 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

USC

S

SLO

TTED

PIEZ

OM

ETER

50/125

ASPHALT110 mm thickGRAVEL FILLsandy, some silt, well graded, brown, damp, 390 mm thickCLAY FILLsilty, trace sand, trace gravel, trace organics, high plastic,firm, dark grey, moist

... organic layer, 25 mm thick at 2.0 m

... wood debris, some organic at 3.1 m

... wood debris, gravelly, some organic, seepage below 5.6m

CLAYsilty, trace sand, high plastic, firm, dark grey, moist

GRAVELsandy, some clay, poorly graded, dark grey, wet, seepage

6

7

10

6

5

12

G1

D2

G3

D4

G5

D6

G7

D8

G9

D10

G11

D12

G13

ASPH

FILL

CH

CH

GP

6/16/2020


BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

10

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

0


Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE



ELEVATION:



NBL, 11 m N of Bridge, 11U N:5938869 E:639954

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel


SPT Drilling Ltd.

Solid Stem Auger



MA

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\AL

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\16

40

1-1

64

50

\EA

16

42

5 -

LE

X3

BF

09

25

4 -

RR

70

- G

EO

IN

V\B

H L

OG

S\E

A1

64

25

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

7/1

0 1

1:5

0 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

CLAY TILLsilty, some sand, trace gravel, trace coal, medium plastic,stiff, dark grey, moist... highly weathered shale layer, 150 m thick, at 10.3 m

SANDsilty, trace gravel, medium grained, loose, dark brown, wet

... no soil recovery on auger below 15.5 m

GRAVELsandy, poorly graded, very dense, saturated

BOREHOLE TERMINATED AT 17.8 m DEPTHBorehole remained open to 9.3 m with water accumulationat 3.4 m below existing grade 10 minutes after drillingcompletion.Borehole was backfilled with drill cuttings, bentonite and acold mix asphalt at the surface.

17

12

8

11

53

D14

G15

D16

G17

D18

G19

D20

D24

CI

SM

GP


BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 40 60 80

Page 2 of 2

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

20

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

10


Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE



ELEVATION:



NBL, 11 m N of Bridge, 11U N:5938869 E:639954

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel


SPT Drilling Ltd.

Solid Stem Auger



MA

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\AL

L P

RO

JEC

TS

\16

40

1-1

64

50

\EA

16

42

5 -

LE

X3

BF

09

25

4 -

RR

70

- G

EO

IN

V\B

H L

OG

S\E

A1

64

25

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

7/1

0 1

1:5

0 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS

The terms and symbols used on the borehole logs to summarize the results of field investigation and subsequent laboratory testing are described in these pages. It should be noted that materials, boundaries and conditions have been established only at the borehole locations at the time of investigation and are not necessarily representative of subsurface conditions elsewhere across the site. TEST DATA

Data obtained during the field investigation and from laboratory testing are shown at the appropriate depth interval. Abbreviations, graphic symbols, and relevant test method designations are as follows:

*C Consolidation test *ST Swelling test DR Relative density TV Torvane shear strength *k Permeability coefficient VS Vane shear strength *MA Mechanical grain size analysis w Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) and hydrometer test wl Liquid limit (ASTM D 423) N Standard Penetration Test

(CSA A119.1-60) wp Plastic Limit (ASTM D 424)

Nd Dynamic cone penetration test Ef Unit strain at failure NP Non plastic soil γ Unit weight of soil or rock pp Pocket penetrometer strength (kg/cm²) γd Dry unit weight of soil or rock *q Triaxial compression test ρ Density of soil or rock qu Unconfined compressive strength ρd Dry Density of soil or rock *SB Shearbox test Cu Undrained shear strength SO4 Concentration of water-soluble sulphate → Seepage ▼ Observed water level

* The results of these tests are usually reported separately

Soils are classified and described according to their engineering properties and behaviour. The soil of each stratum is described using the Unified Soil Classification System1

modified slightly so that an inorganic clay of “medium plasticity” is recognized.

The modifying adjectives used to define the actual or estimated percentage range by weight of minor components are consistent with the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual2

.

Relative Density and Consistency:

Cohesionless Soils Cohesive Soils Relative Density SPT (N) Value Consistency Undrained Shear Approximate Strength cu (kPa) SPT (N) Value Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-12 0-2 Loose 4-10 Soft 12-25 2-4 Compact 10-30 Firm 25-50 4-8 Dense 30-50 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30

The number of blows by a 63.6kg hammer dropped 760 mm to drive a 50 mm diameter open sampler attached to “A” drill rods for a distance of 300 mm.

Standard Penetration Resistance (“N” value)

1 “Unified Soil Classification System”, Technical Memorandum 36-357 prepared by Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

Mississippi, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. Vol. 1 March 1953. 2 ”Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual”, 4th Edition, Canadian Geotechnical Society, 2006.

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

(MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

BY

WE

IGH

T S

MA

LL

ER

TH

AN

75

µm)

OR

GA

NIC

SIL

TS

& C

LA

YS

BE

LO

W "

A"

LIN

E

CLA

YS

AB

OV

E "

A"

LIN

E

NE

GL

IGIB

LE

OR

GA

NIC

CO

NT

EN

T

SIL

TS

BE

LO

W "

A"

LIN

E

NE

GL

IGIB

LE

OR

GA

NIC

CO

NT

EN

T

SA

ND

S

MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

TH

E

CO

AR

SE

FR

AC

TIO

N

SM

ALL

ER

TH

AN

4.7

5m

m

GR

AV

ELS

MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

TH

E

CO

AR

SE

FR

AC

TIO

N

LA

RG

ER

TH

AN

4.7

5m

m

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

BY

WE

IGH

T L

AR

GE

R T

HA

N 7

5µm

)MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL DESCRIPTION

MODIFIED UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

MH

CL

CI

CH

OL

OH

PtHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

LIMESTONE

SANDSTONE

OILSAND

SHALE

FILL (UNDIFFERENTIATED)SILTSTONE

SOIL COMPONENTS

SPECIAL SYMBOLS

FRACTION

PASSING PERCENT

DEFINING RANGES OF

PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF

MINOR COMPONENTS

DESCRIPTORGRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND

COARSE

MEDIUM

FINE

35-50

20-35

10-20

1-10

76mm 19mm

19mm 4.75mm

4.75mm 2.00mm

2.00mm

OVERSIZED MATERIAL

ROUNDED OR SUBROUNDED:

COBBLES 76mm TO 200mm

BOULDERS > 200mm

NOT ROUNDED:

ROCK FRAGMENTS > 76mm

ROCKS > 0.76 CUBIC METRE IN VOLUME

AND

Y/EY

SOME

TRACE

ALL SIEVE SIZES MENTIONED ON THIS CHART ARE U.S. STANDARD A.S.T.M. E.11

RED

RED

YELLOW

YELLOW

RED

RED

YELLOW

YELLOW

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES

GREEN

BLUE

GREEN

BLUE

GREEN

BLUE

ORANGE

ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

60

W < 50%L

W < 50%L

W < 30%L

30% <W < 50%L

W > 50%L

W < 50%L

W > 50%L

D (D )

D10

CU >6; CC D DX10 60

602

= = = 1 to 3

60D (D )

D10

CU >4; CCD DX10 60

302

= =

75µm

425µm 75µm

425µm

FINES (SILT OR CLAY

BASED ON

PLASTICITY)

1.

2. COARSE GRAIN SOILS WITH 5 TO 12% FINES GIVEN COMBINED GROUP SYMBOLS,

E.G. GW-GC IS A WELL GRADED GRAVEL SAND MIXTURE WITH CLAY BINDER

BETWEEN 5 AND 12% FINES.

CL - ML

CL

CI

CH

OH & MH

ML & OL

0

4

7

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

'' A ''

LINE

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X (%

)

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY CHART FOR

SOILS PASSING 425 µm SIEVE

ATTERBERG LIMITS

BELOW "A" LINE OR

P.I. LESS THAN 4

ATTERBERG LIMITS

ABOVE "A" LINE

P.I. MORE THAN 7

ATTERBERG LIMITS

BELOW "A" LINE OR

P.I. LESS THAN 4

ATTERBERG LIMITS

ABOVE "A" LINE

P.I. MORE THAN 7

= 1 to 3

STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, AND OFTEN

FIBEROUS TEXTURE

NOT MEETING ABOVE

REQUIREMENTS

NOT MEETING ABOVE

REQUIREMENTS

CLASSIFICATION IS

BASED UPON

PLASTICITY CHART

(SEE BELOW)

WHENEVER THE NATURE OF THE FINES

CONTENT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, IT

IS DESIGNATED BY THE LETTER "F", E.G. SF

IS A MIXTURE OF SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY

ORGANIC SOILS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY

CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM

PLASTICITY, SILTY CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY

OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDS OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,

ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT

PLASTICITY

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY

MIXTURES

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-

CLAY MIXTURES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT

MIXTURES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

CONTENT

OF FINES

EXCEEDS

12 %

CONTENT

OF FINES

EXCEEDS

12 %

GROUP

SYMBOL

GRAPH

SYMBOL

COLOUR

CODE

LABORATORY

CLASSIFICATION

CRITERIA

U.S. STANDARD

SIEVE SIZE

RETAINED

GREEN-

BLUE

CLEAN GRAVELS

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

DIRTY GRAVELS

(WITH SOME

FINES)

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

DIRTY SANDS

(WITH SOME

FINES)

NOTES:

Appendix C

Slope Stability Analysis Results

1.468

-34 -29 -24 -19 -14 -9 -4 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

Name: High Plastic ClayModel: Mohr-CoulombUnit Weight: 18 kN/m³Cohesion': 2 kPaPhi': 22 °

Name: Low to Medium Plastic Clay FillModel: Mohr-CoulombUnit Weight: 19 kN/m³Cohesion': 3 kPaPhi': 28 °

Figure 2. 3H:1V Slope

1.317

-34 -29 -24 -19 -14 -9 -4 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13



Figure 3. 2.5H:1V Slope

1.148

-34 -29 -24 -19 -14 -9 -4 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36-15

-13

-11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

9

11

13



Figure 4. 2H:1V Slope

Appendix D

Limitations


LIMITATIONS TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented herein are subject

to the following:

a) The contract between Wood and the Client, including any subsequent written amendment or

Change Order dully signed by the parties (hereinafter together referred as the “Contract”);

b) Any and all time, budgetary, access and/or site disturbance, risk management preferences,

constraints or restrictions as described in the contract, in this report, or in any subsequent

communication sent by Wood to the Client in connection to the Contract; and

c) The limitations stated herein.

2. Standard of care: Wood has prepared this report in a manner consistent with the level of skill and are

ordinarily exercised by reputable members of Wood’s profession, practicing in the same or similar

locality at the time of performance, and subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable

to the scope of work, and terms and conditions for this assignment. No other warranty, guaranty, or

representation, expressed or implied, is made or intended in this report, or in any other

communication (oral or written) related to this project. The same are specifically disclaimed, including

the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

3. Limited locations: The information contained in this report is restricted to the site and structures

evaluated by Wood and to the topics specifically discussed in it, and is not applicable to any other

aspects, areas or locations.

4. Information utilized: The information, conclusions and estimates contained in this report are based

exclusively on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) the accuracy and completeness of

data supplied by the Client or by third parties as instructed by the Client, and iii) the assumptions,

conditions and qualifications/limitations set forth in this report.

5. Accuracy of information: No attempt has been made to verify the accuracy of any information

provided by the Client or third parties, except as specifically stated in this report (hereinafter “Supplied

Data”). Wood cannot be held responsible for any loss or damage, of either contractual or extra-

contractual nature, resulting from conclusions that are based upon reliance on the Supplied Data.

6. Report interpretation: This report must be read and interpreted in its entirety, as some sections could

be inaccurately interpreted when taken individually or out-of-context. The contents of this report are

based upon the conditions known and information provided as of the date of preparation. The text of

the final version of this report supersedes any other previous versions produced by Wood.

7. No legal representations: Wood makes no representations whatsoever concerning the legal

significance of its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including but not

limited to, ownership of any property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With

respect to regulatory compliance issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and change.

Such interpretations and regulatory changes should be reviewed with legal counsel.


8. Decrease in property value: Wood shall not be responsible for any decrease, real or perceived, of the

property or site’s value or failure to complete a transaction, as a consequence of the information

contained in this report.

9. No third party reliance: This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless

expressly stated otherwise in the report or Contract. Any use or reproduction which any third party

makes of the report, in whole or in part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any

information or conclusions in the report is the sole responsibility of such third party. Wood does not

represent or warrant the accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for purpose or usefulness of

this document, or any information contained in this document, for use or consideration by any third

party. Wood accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered

by any such third party as a result of actions taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on this

report or anything set out therein. including without limitation, any indirect, special, incidental,

punitive or consequential loss, liability or damage of any kind.

10. Assumptions: Where design recommendations are given in this report, they apply only if the project

contemplated by the Client is constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this

report. It is the sole responsibility of the Client to provide to Wood changes made in the project,

including but not limited to, details in the design, conditions, engineering or construction that could in

any manner whatsoever impact the validity of the recommendations made in the report. Wood shall

be entitled to additional compensation from Client to review and assess the effect of such changes to

the project.

11. Time dependence: If the project contemplated by the Client is not undertaken within a period of

18 months following the submission of this report, or within the time frame understood by Wood to

be contemplated by the Client at the commencement of Wood’s assignment, and/or, if any changes

are made, for example, to the elevation, design or nature of any development on the site, its size and

configuration, the location of any development on the site and its orientation, the use of the site,

performance criteria and the location of any physical infrastructure, the conclusions and

recommendations presented herein should not be considered valid unless the impact of the said

changes is evaluated by Wood, and the conclusions of the report are amended or are validated in

writing accordingly.

Advancements in the practice of geotechnical engineering, engineering geology and hydrogeology

and changes in applicable regulations, standards, codes or criteria could impact the contents of the

report, in which case, a supplementary report may be required. The requirements for such a review

remain the sole responsibility of the Client or their agents.

Wood will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any events or emergent

circumstances or facts occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.

12. Limitations of visual inspections: Where conclusions and recommendations are given based on a

visual inspection conducted by Wood, they relate only to the natural or man-made structures, slopes,

etc. inspected at the time the site visit was performed. These conclusions cannot and are not

extended to include those portions of the site or structures, which were not reasonably available, in

Wood’s opinion, for direct observation.


13. Limitations of site investigations: Site exploration identifies specific subsurface conditions only at

those points from which samples have been taken and only at the time of the site investigation. Site

investigation programs are a professional estimate of the scope of investigation required to provide a

general profile of subsurface conditions.

The data derived from the site investigation program and subsequent laboratory testing are

interpreted by trained personnel and extrapolated across the site to form an inferred geological

representation and an engineering opinion is rendered about overall subsurface conditions and their

likely behaviour with regard to the proposed development. Despite this investigation, conditions

between and beyond the borehole/test hole locations may differ from those encountered at the

borehole/test hole locations and the actual conditions at the site might differ from those inferred to

exist, since no subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal all

subsurface details and anomalies.

Final sub-surface/bore/profile logs are developed by geotechnical engineers based upon their

interpretation of field logs and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Customarily, only the final

bore/profile logs are included in geotechnical engineering reports.

Bedrock, soil properties and groundwater conditions can be significantly altered by environmental

remediation and/or construction activities such as the use of heavy equipment or machinery,

excavation, blasting, pile-driving or draining or other activities conducted either directly on site or on

adjacent terrain. These properties can also be indirectly affected by exposure to unfavorable natural

events or weather conditions, including freezing, drought, precipitation and snowmelt.

During construction, excavation is frequently undertaken which exposes the actual subsurface and

groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations, which may differ from those

encountered at the test locations. It is recommended practice that Wood be retained during

construction to confirm that the subsurface conditions throughout the site do not deviate materially

from those encountered at the test locations, that construction work has no negative impact on the

geotechnical aspects of the design, to adjust recommendations in accordance with conditions as

additional site information is gained and to deal quickly with geotechnical considerations if they arise.

Interpretations and recommendations presented herein may not be valid if an adequate level of

review or inspection by Wood is not provided during construction.

14. Factors that may affect construction methods, costs and scheduling: The performance of rock and

soil materials during construction is greatly influenced by the means and methods of construction.

Where comments are made relating to possible methods of construction, construction costs,

construction techniques, sequencing, equipment or scheduling, they are intended only for the

guidance of the project design professionals, and those responsible for construction monitoring. The

number of test holes may not be sufficient to determine the local underground conditions between

test locations that may affect construction costs, construction techniques, sequencing, equipment,

scheduling, operational planning, etc.

Any contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should draw their own conclusions as to how

the subsurface and groundwater conditions may affect their work, based on their own investigations

and interpretations of the factual soil data, groundwater observations, and other factual information.


15. Groundwater and Dewatering: Wood will accept no responsibility for the effects of drainage and/or

dewatering measures if Wood has not been specifically consulted and involved in the design and

monitoring of the drainage and/or dewatering system.

16. Environmental and Hazardous Materials Aspects: Unless otherwise stated, the information contained in

this report in no way reflects on the environmental aspects of this project, since this aspect is beyond

the Scope of Work and the Contract. Unless expressly included in the Scope of Work, this report

specifically excludes the identification or interpretation of environmental conditions such as

contamination, hazardous materials, wild life conditions, rare plants or archeology conditions that

may affect use or design at the site. This report specifically excludes the investigation, detection,

prevention or assessment of conditions that can contribute to moisture, mould or other microbial

contaminant growth and/or other moisture related deterioration, such as corrosion, decay, rot in

buildings or their surroundings. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding

odours, colours, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational

purposes

17. Sample Disposal: Wood will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and rock samples after 30 days

following the release of the final geotechnical report. Should the Client request that the samples

be retained for a longer time, the Client will be billed for such storage at an agreed upon rate.

Contaminated samples of soil, rock or groundwater are the property of the Client, and the Client

will be responsible for the proper disposal of these samples, unless previously arranged for with

Wood or a third party.

Geotechnical Investigation Report - Parkland County...Geotechnical Investigation Report BF09254...

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Investigation Report - Parkland County...Geotechnical Investigation Report BF09254...