quinteconservation.caquinteconservation.ca/site/images/stories/jobs/docs...quinte conservation -...

Quinte Conservation 2061 Old Highway #2, RR #2

Belleville, Ontario K8N 4Z2

2008 Geotechnical Assessment Final Report

Second and Third Depot Lake Dams

H-328605 Rev 0

April 2009

Quinte Conservation - Second and Third Depot Lake Dams 2008 Geotechnical Assessment

Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page i

Quinte 2008 Geotech Assess Rpt Text_Rev0.Doc © Hatch 2006/03

Project Report

April 2009

Quinte Conservation

Second and Third Depot Lake Dams

DISTRIBUTION

B. Keene (Quinte Conservation) F. Chidiac (Hatch)

2008 Geotechnical Assessment

Final Report


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page ii


Table of Contents

Disclaimer

List of Tables List of Figures List of Drawings

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

2. Site Physiographical and Geological Settings .......................................................................................... 3

2.1 Second Depot Lake Dam ............................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Third Depot Lake Dam................................................................................................................... 3

3. 2008 Investigations ................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Survey............................................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Borehole Investigation.................................................................................................................... 4

3.2.1 Second Depot Lake Dam...................................................................................................... 4 3.2.2 Third Depot Lake Dam......................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Geophysical Investigation .............................................................................................................. 5 3.4 Laboratory Testing.......................................................................................................................... 5

4. Piezometers............................................................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Second Depot Lake Dam ............................................................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Falling Head Tests ................................................................................................................ 7

4.2 Third Depot Lake Dam................................................................................................................... 8

5. Geometry of Dams.................................................................................................................................. 9

5.1 Second Depot Lake Dam ............................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Third Depot Lake Dam................................................................................................................... 9

6. Phreatic Surface .................................................................................................................................... 10

6.1 Second Depot Lake Dam ............................................................................................................. 10 6.2 Third Depot Lake Dam................................................................................................................. 10

7. Material Properties................................................................................................................................ 11

7.1 Second Depot Lake Dam ............................................................................................................. 11 7.1.1 Impervious Fill/Core Material ............................................................................................. 11 7.1.2 Granular Fill/Shell Material................................................................................................. 11 7.1.3 Foundation......................................................................................................................... 11 7.1.4 Compatibility of Fill Materials ............................................................................................ 12


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page iii


7.2 Third Depot Lake Dam................................................................................................................. 12 7.2.1 Rock Fill............................................................................................................................. 13 7.2.2 Foundation......................................................................................................................... 13

8. Liquefaction Potential ........................................................................................................................... 14

8.1 Second Depot Lake Dam ............................................................................................................. 14 8.2 Third Depot Lake Dam................................................................................................................. 14

9. Seismic Parameters ............................................................................................................................... 15

9.1 Seismic Design Parameters........................................................................................................... 15 9.2 Probabilistic Assessment .............................................................................................................. 15 9.3 Pseudostatic Analysis ................................................................................................................... 15

10. Stability Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 17

10.1 Method of Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 17 10.2 Load Cases................................................................................................................................... 17 10.3 Results of Analyses....................................................................................................................... 18

10.3.1 Second Depot Lake Dam.................................................................................................... 18 10.3.2 Third Depot Lake Dam....................................................................................................... 18

11. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 20

12. References............................................................................................................................................. 21

Figures Appendix A - Drawings

Appendix B - Borehole Logs

Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results

Appendix D - Geophysical Investigation of the Second and Third Depot Lake Dams, Report by Geophysics GPR International Inc.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page iv


Disclaimer This report has been prepared by Hatch Ltd. for the sole and exclusive use of Quinte Conservation (the “Client”) for the purpose of assisting the management of the Client in making decisions with respect to the Second and Third Depot Lake Dams; and shall not be (a) used for any other purpose, or (b) provided to, relied upon or used by any third party.

This report contains opinions, conclusions and recommendations made by Hatch Ltd., using its professional judgment and reasonable care. Use of or reliance upon this report by Client is subject to the following conditions:

(a) the report being read in the context of and subject to the terms of the agreement between Hatch Ltd. and the Client dated December 21, 2007 (the “Agreement”), including any methodologies, procedures, techniques, assumptions and other relevant terms or conditions that were specified or agreed therein;

(b) the report being read as a whole, with sections or parts hereof read or relied upon in context;

(c) the conditions of the sites may change over time or may have already changed due to natural forces or human intervention, and Hatch Ltd. takes no responsibility for the impact that such changes may have on the accuracy or validity or the observations, conclusions and recommendations set out in this report; and

(d) the report is based on information made available to Hatch Ltd. by the Client or by certain third parties; and unless stated otherwise in the Agreement, Hatch Ltd. has not verified the accuracy, completeness or validity of such information, makes no representation regarding its accuracy and hereby disclaims any liability in connection therewith.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page v


List of Tables No. Title

1 Second Depot Lake Dam Borehole Locations and Objectives

2 Falling Head Tests Results (Second Depot Lake Dam)

3 Summary of the Second Depot Lake Dam Section

4 Summary of the Third Depot Lake Dam Section

5 Second Depot Lake Dam Material Properties

6 Third Depot Lake Dam Material Properties

7 Minimum Slip Surface Thickness (Upstream and Downstream Slopes)

8 Slope Stability Analysis Load Cases

9 Calculated Factor of Safety - Second Depot Lake Dam

10 Calculated Factor of Safety - Third Depot Lake Main Dam

11 Calculated Factor of Safety - Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page vi


List of Figures No. Title

1 Second Depot Lake Dam Location

2 Third Depot Lake Dam Location

3 Falling Head Test in BH08-01 – Second Depot Lake Dam

4 Falling Head Test in BH08-02 – Second Depot Lake Dam

5 Second Depot Lake Dam Section

6 Third Depot Lake Main Dam Section

7 Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam Section

8 Impervious Core Basic Parabola – Second Depot Lake Dam

9 Plasticity Chart – Second Depot Lake Dam

10 Grain-Size Distribution Plots of Embankment Fill Materials – Second Depot Lake Dam

11 Grain-Size Distribution Plots of Embankment Foundation Materials – Second Depot Lake Dam

12 Upstream Stability Under NWL – Second Depot Lake Dam

13 Upstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load – Second Depot Lake Dam

14 Upstream Stability Under Drawdown Condition – Second Depot Lake Dam

15 Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition – Second Depot Lake Dam

16 Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load – Second Depot Lake Dam

17 Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition with Tailwater Level at El 150.9 m – Second Depot Lake Dam

18 Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load with Tailwater Level at El 150.9 m – Second Depot Lake Dam

19 Upstream Stability Under NWL – Third Depot Lake Main Dam

20 Upstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load – Third Depot Lake Main Dam

21 Upstream Stability Under Drawdown Condition – Third Depot Lake Main Dam

22 Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition – Third Depot Lake Main Dam

23 Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load – Third Depot Lake Main Dam

24 Upstream Stability Under NWL – Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

25 Upstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load – Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page vii


List of Figures (cont)

No. Title

26 Upstream Stability Under Drawdown Condition – Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

27 Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition – Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

28 Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load – Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page viii


List of Drawings No. Rev. Title

328605-SD-GT-001 A Second Depot Lake Dam Main Dam Plan, Elevation and Section

328605-TD-GT-001 A Third Depot Lake Dam Main Dam Plan, Elevation and Section


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 1


1. Introduction In 1958, the Napanee Region Conservation Authority constructed a dam at the outlet of Second Depot Lake, which raised the lake water by 6 m and provided storage for excess water. In order to further increase the storage of the low summer flows in the Napanee River, another control dam, the Third Depot Lake Dam, was constructed in two stages and was completed in 1975.

The Second Depot Lake Dam is located at the outlet of the lake it is named after, in Lot 4, Concession 8, Township of Hinchinbrooke, Frontenac County, approximately 11 km northwest of Verona. The location of the dam is shown in Figure 1. The dam was completed in 1958. It is a zoned embankment with pervious shells and an impervious central core. The dam embodies a concrete spillway adjacent to the right abutment. The embankment is approximately 9.5 m high. The crest width varies from 4 m near the concrete structure to 5 m near the left abutment. The embankment slopes are 2.5H:1V upstream and 1.9H:1V downstream.

The Third Depot Lake Dam is located at the outlet of the lake it is named after, in Lot 7, Concession 8, Township of Hinchinbrooke, Frontenac County, approximately 16 km northwest of Verona. The location of the dam is shown in Figure 2. Construction of the dam was completed in two stages. In the initial stage (1970-71), the dam was constructed up to an elevation of 3 m below its current crest level. In the final stage (1974-75), the dam was raised to its current level. It is a rock-fill dam with a central sheetpiling cutoff. The dam has an integral bottom outlet at the right abutment. About 88 m in length, the dam is approximately 14 m high with a crest width varying from 2.7 m at the center to about 5 m at the abutments. The embankment upstream and downstream slopes are 1.6H:1V.

Both dams have been classified as “HIGH” hazard structures according to the draft 1999 Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines (draft ODSG) prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Safety assessment of the dams was carried out by Acres International (April 2004) which concluded that the dams were not safe under seismic loads. It should be noted that conservative estimates for the material properties were used in this assessment. Accordingly, the 2004 dam safety assessment report recommended that drilling investigations be undertaken in order to establish the engineering properties of the embankment and foundation materials which would then be used to re-assess the stability of the embankment dams. In addition, recommendations were made for the installation of piezometers to monitor groundwater and to permit the monitoring of the phreatic surface.

A seismic hazard assessment and stability review of the dams were made by Hatch Acres (formerly Acres International) in August 2006. Similarly, this report recommended that geotechnical and geophysical investigations be undertaken to further delineate the characteristics of embankment and foundation materials.

Quinte Conservation Authority authorized Hatch Energy (formerly Hatch Acres) to proceed with the proposed site investigations in December 2007. Accordingly, the investigative drilling program was initiated in January 2008. The scope included drilling of a total of four boreholes, two at each dam, material sampling and testing, and the installation of a piezometer in each of the four boreholes.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 2


In addition, Geophysics GPR International Inc. (Geophysics GPR) carried out a geophysical survey at the Second and Third Depot Lake dams. The primary goal of this investigation was to determine the shear-wave velocities of the earth embankment dam and foundation material.

This report includes the results of the geotechnical investigation program and the re-assessment of the stability of the Second and Third Depot Lake dams.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 3


2. Site Physiographical and Geological Settings The Second and Third Depot Lake dams are located on Depot Creek which is a tributary to the larger Napanee River.

2.1 Second Depot Lake Dam Regionally, the area is underlain by Precambrian carbonate and clastic sedimentary rocks. The bedrock is generally exposed or has a relatively shallow overburden cover. The overburden is, however, deeper in valleys. The riverbanks rise steeply at the damsites from the riverbed for a height of about 10 m. Overall, the neighbouring terrain has a 10-m relief and is heavily forested. The downstream riverbanks show numerous rock outcrops.

2.2 Third Depot Lake Dam The damsite is situated on Precambrian terrain where peat bogs, rock hummocks, shallow glacial till and rock ridges are common. The relief is gentle to moderate.

The country rock is Precambrian granite and gneiss. Bedrock outcrops are predominantly on the higher ridges, and in the lower areas, the bedrock is covered with shallow deposits of glacial materials and peat.

The site has a rugged and rocky shoreline that rises steeply from the riverbed to a height of about 18 m. Overall, the neighbouring terrain has about 10-m relief, and is heavily forested.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 4


3. 2008 Investigations Field investigations performed at the Second and Third Depot Lake dams included surveying, borehole drilling and geophysical investigation. Laboratory tests were carried out on selected samples at the Hatch Energy geotechnical laboratory in Niagara Falls

3.1 Survey A survey of the Second and Third Depot Lake dams was performed by Hatch Energy on June 5, 2008. The results of the survey, plan and cross-sectional views are shown on Drawings 328605-SD-GT-001 and 328605-TD-GT-001 for the Second and Third Depot Lake dams, respectively (see Appendix A).

3.2 Borehole Investigation

3.2.1 Second Depot Lake Dam Over the period from January 31 to February 5, 2008, two investigative boreholes (BH08-01 and BH08-2) were drilled at the crest. Borehole BH08-01 was drilled through the embankment core just behind the sheetpiling cutoff, and borehole BH08-02, also behind the sheetpiling cutoff, was drilled partly through the granular shell zone but mostly through the core material. Both boreholes were carried down past the overburden, and terminated into bedrock. Drawing 328605-SD-GT-001 (Appendix A) shows the locations of the boreholes. Table 1 summarizes the locations and objectives of the two boreholes.

Table 1: Second Depot Lake Dam Borehole Locations and Objectives

Objectives Borehole

Location Sampling and Testing Piezometer

BH08-01 Crest (1 m downstream of center line)

Embankment fill, foundation and bedrock

In impervious core

BH08-02 Crest (at downstream edge)

Embankment fill, foundation and bedrock

In foundation soil

The drilling was carried out by Walker Drilling Ltd. of Barrie, Ontario. The fieldwork was supervised on a full-time basis by a Hatch Energy geotechnical staff member. A skid-mounted CME 55 drill equipped with hollow stem augers was used.

Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were carried out, using a 2-ft long, standard split-spoon sampler with 1-3/8-in. ID, at regular intervals of 0.76 m. For the most part, the consistency of the core material was firm to stiff. A total of 34 samples were collected. Shelby tube sampling was not undertaken.

Soil and rock samples were collected for laboratory testing, and a standpipe type piezometer was installed in each of the two boreholes. Laboratory tests were carried out at the Hatch Energy geotechnical laboratory in Niagara Falls.

Borehole logs are presented in Appendix B.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 5


3.2.2 Third Depot Lake Dam Drawing 328605-TD-GT-001 (Appendix A) shows the locations of the boreholes drilled at the Third Depot Lake Dam. Drilling of borehole BH08-A, at the dam crest, was initiated on February 6, 2008, by Walker Drilling Ltd. of Barrie, Ontario, and was supervised by the Hatch Energy geotechnical staff member. A skid-mounted CME 55 rotary drill equipped with hollow stem augers and water feed was used in the drilling operation. The drilling advance through the rock fill was very slow from the outset, and encountered high resistance and refusal at a depth of about 5 m. It was then decided to switch to a more powerful, pneumatically operated, Aerotrack HCR 900 rotary-percussion drill. An alternate location, BH08-B about 2.5 m from the BH08-A, was selected. However, even with the new machine, refusal was encountered at a depth of about 5.5 m. The next attempt, at BH08-C, was also unsuccessful with the refusal at about 6 m. Finally, at location BH08-D, at the downstream edge of the crest between locations BH08-A and BH08-B, the percussion drill managed to punch through the full depth of about 15.2 m (50 ft) of the rock-fill embankment. Foundation soil of 2.4 m was encountered before refusal at a depth of 17.7 m, the likely depth to bedrock.

A limitation of the percussion drilling is that the operation does not permit SPTs and sampling. Therefore, an attempt was made at borehole BH08-E, adjacent to borehole BH08-D, to punch through the rock-fill material with the percussion drill and then advance and sample the foundation soil with the rotary drill. Although the percussion drill did advance 15.2 m (50 ft) into the rock-fill embankment, the rotary machine, advancing the same borehole, could only advance 2.4 m before reaching refusal.

Borehole logs for the boreholes drilled at the Third Depot Lake Dam are presented in Appendix B.

3.3 Geophysical Investigation Geophysics GPR carried out a geophysical survey at the Second and Third Depot Lake dams. Data were collected on February 7 and May 27 to 28, 2008. Three seismic methodologies were employed at each of the dams. Shear-wave velocities were measured using the Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) method and structure mappings were made using seismic resonance and refraction.

The primary goal of the geophysical investigation was to determine the shear-wave velocities of the embankment dam and foundation materials. The secondary goal was to map features within the dams that could give insights into the structure of the dams. The Geophysics GPR report (July 2008) is presented in Appendix D.

3.4 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing on the selected samples from the boreholes was carried out primarily for determining the index properties of the soil/fill materials. These tests included

• moisture content: 11

• grain-size distribution: 11

• hydrometer analysis: 8

• Atterberg limits: 6.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 6


The tests were carried out at Hatch Energy’s geotechnical laboratory according to ASTM standards. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 7


4. Piezometers

4.1 Second Depot Lake Dam Standpipe type piezometers were installed in boreholes BH08-01 and BH08-02. Details of piezometer installations are shown on the borehole logs (Appendix B). The tips of the piezometers comprise a 2-in. ID, slotted polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe in a surrounding sand pack and with a bentonite seal above and below. Each piezometer riser pipe was provided with cement collar at the surface and fitted with a protective casing.

Water level measurements were made in the following instances:

• immediately after the installation of the piezometers

• 2 days after the installation

• 4 months after the installation.

These recordings are shown on the borehole logs (Appendix B). It is seen that the water levels in the piezometers have risen with time. This is expected as it will take some time before equalization is achieved after a new standpipe type piezometer is installed.

The purpose of the installations of these piezometers is to monitor pore-water pressures in the dam and its foundation and measure the phreatic surface.

4.1.1 Falling Head Tests The hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of the material surrounding each piezometer tip was estimated using the falling head test method (Cedergren, 1989). The piezometer tip in borehole BH08-01 is located within the impervious fill material while the tip of BH08-02 piezometer is in the foundation sand material. Figures 3 and 4, respectively, show the results of the falling head tests for BH08-01 and BH08-02 piezometers and the corresponding calculated hydraulic conductivity.

These calculations are based on the measured displacement of water level over the relevant time period, after water is introduced into the piezometer during the falling head test (Cedergren, 1989).

Table 2 summarizes the results of the falling head tests.

Table 2: Falling Head Tests Results (Second Depot Lake Dam)

Borehole

Location of Piezometer Tip

Measured Hydraulic Conductivity

(cm/s) BH08-01 Impervious Fill 5.9 x 10-5 BH08-02 Foundation Sand 4.5 x 10-5

It is seen that the measured hydraulic conductivity indicates a low permeability and places these soils in the impervious soil category (Terzaghi et al., 1996).

Lenn109637

Text Box

�


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 8


4.2 Third Depot Lake Dam There are no piezometers at the Third Depot Lake Dam. Piezometric monitoring is not considered necessary for the stability assessment of the free-draining rock fill.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 9


5. Geometry of Dams

5.1 Second Depot Lake Dam Table 3 summarizes the geometry selected for the assessment of the Second Depot Lake Dam. This geometry is based on a drawing in a 1956 report by the Napanee Valley Conservation Authority, and the results of a survey conducted in June 2008.

Table 3: Summary of the Second Depot Lake Dam Section

Crest Elevation (m) 159.31 Upstream Slope 2.5H:1V Downstream Slope 1.9H:1V Crest Width (m) 3.66 Dam Height (m) 9.45

It should be noted that the results of the 2008 survey indicated that the downstream slope of the dam is in fact 1.9H:1V as opposed to the 2H:1V assumed previously. Figure 5 shows the corresponding section of the dam. The composition of the dam is based on the 1956 Napanee Valley Conservation Authority drawing and the results of borehole investigation conducted in 2008.

5.2 Third Depot Lake Dam Table 4 summarizes the geometry selected for the assessment of the Third Depot Lake main dam and the saddle dam. This geometry is based on drawings from Kilborn Engineering (1970), and the results of a survey conducted in June 2008.

Table 4: Summary of the Third Depot Lake Dam Section

Geometry Main Dam Saddle Dam Crest Elevation (m) 168.28 168.10 Upstream Slope 1.6H:1V 1.6H:1V Downstream Slope 1.6H:1V 1.6H:1V Crest Width (m) 4.5 4.5 Dam Height (m) 13.3 6.5

It should be noted that the results of the 2008 survey indicated that the downstream and upstream slopes of the main dam are in fact 1.6H:1V as opposed to the 1.4H:1V assumed previously. Although not surveyed, it was assumed that the saddle dam has the same slopes. Figures 6 and 7 show the corresponding sections of the main dam and the saddle dam, respectively.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 10


6. Phreatic Surface

6.1 Second Depot Lake Dam A graphical method, as described by Craig (1997), was used to establish the phreatic surface and, correspondingly, the pore pressures within the embankment dam and foundation material. The graphical solution requires the plotting of a basic parabola. Figure 8 shows the details of generating the basic parabola for the dam. The phreatic surface is then obtained by applying the prescribed corrections to the basic parabola. Figure 5 shows the estimated phreatic surface.

Also shown in Figure 5 are boreholes BH08-01 and BH08-02 standpipe type piezometers. The latest available water level readings from these piezometers are also shown. It is seen that the piezometer readings correspond reasonably with the estimated phreatic surface.

6.2 Third Depot Lake Dam Figures 6 and 7 show the estimated phreatic surface for the main dam and the saddle dam, respectively. This estimation is deemed adequate considering both dams are embankments made of highly permeable rock fill.

It should be noted that in order to reflect the long-term behaviour of the dam, the sheetpiling was discounted in the estimation of the phreatic surfaces.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 11


7. Material Properties

7.1 Second Depot Lake Dam Figure 5 shows the cross section of the dam and different materials comprising the embankment dam and its foundation. Table 5 shows the material properties used in the stability analysis.

Table 5: Second Depot Lake Dam Material Properties

Material γSat c φ' (kN/m3) (kPa) (o)

Riprap/Rock-Fill Toe 18.0 0 38 Granular Fill 19.0 0 35 Impervious Fill 19.5 0 30 Foundation Soil 21.0 0 34

These material properties were selected based on the results of field investigation and laboratory testing which are described in the following.

7.1.1 Impervious Fill/Core Material The embankment impervious fill comprising the central core consists of medium to high plasticity clay and silt material. With the liquid limit ranging between 45 and 53 and plasticity index between 20 and 24, the plasticity chart is shown in Figure 9. Figure 10 shows the grain-size distribution plots. According to the Unified Soil Classification System, these materials are classified as “fat clay with sand”.

The SPT blow counts for the impervious fill are shown on the borehole logs (Appendix B). An SPT involves driving a standard sampler into the soil using a standard energy hammer blow to the top of the drill rod. The number of blows required for 300 mm (1 ft) of penetration is generally referred to as the ‘N’ value. The ‘N’ values measured for the impervious zone range between 7 and 15 which corresponds to a consistency of firm to stiff.

7.1.2 Granular Fill/Shell Material The shell material comprises mainly sand with gravel. This zone of granular fill was intercepted within the top about 2 m of both boreholes. Figure 10 shows the grain-size distribution plots. The SPT ‘N’ values measured were over 30. The shell material may thus be categorized as dense.

7.1.3 Foundation Borehole BH08-01 indicates that, at the west end of the dam, the embankment is founded on bedrock. While according to BH08-02, it appears that the middle portion of the embankment dam is founded on 4 m of sand with some silt which overlies 3 m of sand with clay material. Figure 11 shows the grain-size distribution plots of these materials.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 12


The SPT ‘N’ values measured indicate that the sandy layer may be loose and thus susceptible to liquefaction. Accordingly, the liquefaction potential of this material is addressed under heading “Liquefaction Potential”.

7.1.4 Compatibility of Fill Materials Second Depot Lake Dam embankment zones comprise a central impervious core supported by granular shell on either side (Figure 5). In such an arrangement, the granular fill serves as a filter and drain. The objective of filters and drains used as seepage control measures for dams is to effectively control the movement of water within the dam. In order to meet this objective, filters and drains must retain the protected core, allow relatively free movement of water, and have sufficient discharge capacity. These necessities are termed, respectively, piping or stability requirement, permeability requirement, and discharge capacity (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1986). The most critical filter function is to act as a safeguard against piping.

To assess the potential for piping, it is necessary to check the compatibility of the two adjacent fill materials. The filter compatibility criteria as defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1994) should be satisfied.

Figure 10 shows the results of grain-size distribution tests on the granular fill and impervious (core) fill materials. A protected material or base soil is defined as the soil immediately adjacent to a filter or drainage zone through which water may pass. The impervious core material is considered the base soil and according to grain-size distribution tests results has a fine content that is less than 85% but more than 40%. Accordingly, this material is categorized as base soil Category 2 (USDA, 1994).

According to the USDA (1994), the filtering criterion to prevent piping requires that the D15 for the granular shell (filter) be less than or equal to 0.7 mm. Where D15 represents the particle size in filter for which 15% by weight of particles are smaller.

As seen in Figure 10, the maximum D15 for the granular fill materials tested is less than 0.15 mm. In reality, the D15 will likely be smaller since the maximum sample size was limited by the split-spoon sampler diameter. The impervious core material is, therefore, found to be compatible with the granular shell material and piping is not considered likely.

7.2 Third Depot Lake Dam Figure 6 shows the cross section of the dam and materials comprising the embankment dam and its foundation. Table 6 shows the properties for the fill and foundation material as used in the stability analysis.

Table 6: Third Depot Lake Dam Material Properties

Material γSat c φ' (kN/m3) (kPa) (o)

Rock Fill (Embankment) 18.0 0 45 Clay Layer (Foundation) 21.0 0 33 Sand Layer (Foundation) 21.0 0 32


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 13


These material properties were selected based on the results of the 2008 field investigation which are described in the following and the assessment of previous investigation results which is described in the 2004 report by Acres International.

7.2.1 Rock Fill Difficulty in drilling through the rock-fill embankment prevented retrieval of core samples for most but the top 1 to 2 m of the embankment section. The material recovered was found to be hard, durable and unweathered rock which appeared to be of high shear strength. Based on performance of the drilling operations, it is inferred that the high strength rock-fill pieces increased in size from gravels to boulders with increasing depth.

7.2.2 Foundation As described in the borehole investigation section, SPTs of the foundation material was precluded by the inability of the rotary drill rig to core through the embankment rock fill overlying the foundation. However, the pneumatically operated rotary-percussion drill advanced through the rock fill and the foundation material. As indicated in Section 3.2.2, at the borehole BH08-D location, the percussion drill advanced through 15.2 m of the rock-fill embankment and 2.4 m of foundation soil before reaching refusal at a depth of 17.7 m (Appendix B).

Although the percussion drill does not allow for collection of samples, it does provide for an appraisal of the foundation condition. In this respect, the percussion drilling indicated a dense foundation soil material. Also, no organic material was encountered underneath the rock-fill embankment.

These observations are further confirmed by the 2008 survey results which indicate no significant settlement of the dam and the geophysical results (Appendix D) which showed a shear-wave velocity in excess of 320 m/s for the foundation material.

An earlier geotechnical investigation also substantiates these interpretations. William Trow Ltd. carried out a subsurface investigation of the main dam and the saddle dam in 1970. This investigation showed that, prior to the construction of the rock-fill dam, the foundation material consisted of organic silt overlying a compact to dense clay layer, which overlies a compact to dense fine sand layer (Acres International, 2004). Contract documents (Kilborn Engineering, 1970) infer the removal of the organic layer from within the dam footprint.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 14


8. Liquefaction Potential

8.1 Second Depot Lake Dam Borehole BH08-02 indicates that the middle portion of the embankment dam is founded on a sand layer (sand with silt) which is about 4 m thick. The SPT ‘N’ values measured indicate that the sand layer may be loose and thus susceptible to liquefaction. Borehole BH08-02 furthermore indicates that the elevation of the top of this layer is el 149.5 m.

Several field tests have gained common usage for evaluation of liquefaction resistance, which other than the SPT also includes shear-wave velocity measurements (Youd et al., 2001). Shear-wave velocities of embankment dam and foundation material were measured during the geophysical investigation (Appendix D).

The geophysical work provides a more comprehensive two-dimensional picture of the embankment dam and its foundation (see Drawing T08033-A1 of Appendix D). It accurately delineates the top of foundation sand layer at el 150 m confirming similar observation made in borehole BH08-02. Considering the more comprehensive nature of the geophysical data, it is deemed appropriate to primarily employ the geophysical data for the assessment of liquefaction potential.

The measured shear-wave velocities indicate a shear-wave velocity in excess of 460 m/s for the foundation sand layer at the center of the dam (Table 1 in Appendix D). According to the state-of-the-art paper by Youd et al. (2001), a shear-wave velocity of more than 240 m/s indicates that the foundation soil is not susceptible to liquefaction.

8.2 Third Depot Lake Dam The geophysical report provides a two-dimensional picture of the embankment dam and its foundation (see Drawing T08033-A2 of Appendix D). The measured shear-wave velocities show a shear-wave velocity in excess of 320 m/s for the foundation material (Table 3 in Appendix D). A shear-wave velocity of more than 240 m/s indicates that the foundation soil is not susceptible to liquefaction (Youd et al., 2001).


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 15


9. Seismic Parameters

9.1 Seismic Design Parameters The consequences of a dam failure are assessed in terms of the incremental hazard potential (IHP) posed by the dam, based on guidelines and procedures given in the draft ODSG (MNR, 1999). The draft ODSG requires that dams withstand ground motions associated with the maximum design earthquake (MDE).

The MDE is selected based on the hazard potential classification and the consequence of dam failure. The dam safety assessment report by Acres International (April 2004) showed that the Second Depot Lake Dam and Third Depot Lake Dam are assigned a “HIGH” consequence category under the draft ODSG. Accordingly a 1:10 000-yr earthquake event is selected as the design load for stability assessment (Acres International, April 2004).

9.2 Probabilistic Assessment A seismic hazard assessment of Second Depot Lake Dam and Third Depot Lake Dam were made by Hatch Acres in August 2006. A probabilistic seismic hazard calculation was carried out for the embankment dams.

For both dams, the estimated peak ground acceleration (PGA) for a 1:10 000-yr earthquake event is 0.30g for a firm ground foundation and 0.21g for a hard rock foundation (Hatch Acres, August 2006).

The 2008 investigation results indicate that both dams are founded on overburden material and, therefore, the PGA value corresponding to a firm ground foundation is to be used in the assessment. Accordingly, a PGA value of 0.30g was used in the slope stability analysis.

9.3 Pseudostatic Analysis The draft ODSG (MNR, 1999) states the following on the pseudostatic analysis and selection of seismic coefficient:

“If the foundation and embankment have no potential for liquefaction, pseudostatic methods of analysis may be used to assess stability. In pseudostatic analysis the dynamic earthquake load is represented by a static load. The inertial forces (earthquake loadings) are determined as the product of the structural mass (or weight) and a "seismic coefficient".

For embankment dams, guidance for the application of pseudostatic analyses, seismic coefficients and factors of safety is provided by the methods discussed in:

• "Considerations in the Earthquake-Resistant Design of Earth and Rockfill Dams," by H. Bolton Seed (19th Rankine Lecture of the British Geotechnical Society, Geotechnique, Vol. XXIX, No. 3, September 1979, pp 215-263

• "Rationalising the Seismic Coefficient Method" by M. Hynes-Griffin and A. Franklin (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, WES, Miscellaneous Paper Gl-84-13, 1984).”


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 16


Hynes-Griffin and Franklin (1984) conclude that “a factor of safety greater than 1.0, with a seismic coefficient equal to ‘one-half’ the predicted bedrock acceleration, would assure that deformations would not be dangerously large”.

The Hynes-Griffin and Franklin 1984 method is adopted in this study. Therefore, a horizontal seismic coefficient equivalent to 0.5 x PGA was used for the pseudostatic slope stability analysis of embankment dams. Accordingly, a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.15g was used in the pseudostatic stability analysis for the Second Depot Lake Dam and Third Depot Lake Dam. The Hynes-Griffin and Franklin method requires a minimum factor of safety of unity.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 17


10. Stability Assessment

10.1 Method of Analysis Stability analysis for the embankment dams were performed according to the limit equilibrium method of slope analysis utilizing the SLOPE/W slope stability program (GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.). All calculations were based on the effective stress analysis. Analysis was performed according to the Morgenstern-Price method of slices with a half-sine function selected for the interslice force function.

Several methods exist to perform slope stability calculations. From a mathematical viewpoint, the appropriate factor of safety is obtained from a slope stability method that satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. In this instance, the Morgenstern-Price method of slices was adopted since this method satisfies both moment and force equilibrium.

Slope stability programs are designed to locate one slip surface with a minimum factor of safety. In some cases, it is appropriate to calculate the factor of safety for selected potential slip surfaces that do not necessarily produce the minimum factor of safety but would be more significant in terms of the consequences of failure. For instance, in slopes that contain cohesionless soil at the face of the slope, the lowest factor of safety may be found for very shallow (infinite slope) slip surfaces, yet shallow sloughing is usually much less important than deeper-seated sliding.

This is the case with the specified material properties for both Second Depot Lake Dam and Third Depot Lake Dam. Consequently, in the stability assessments, the surficial slip surfaces were not considered in the analyses. The SLOPE/W slope stability program allows for specifying a minimum slip surface depth thereby avoiding the analyses of very shallow, near-surface slip surfaces. Table 7 shows the minimum slip surface thicknesses selected for both the upstream and downstream slopes of these dams.

Table 7: Minimum Slip Surface Thickness (Upstream and Downstream Slopes)

Dam

Minimum Slip Surface Thickness

(m) Second Depot Lake Dam 4.0 Third Depot Lake Main Dam 3.5 Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam 2.0

10.2 Load Cases Load cases considered for the upstream and downstream slopes in the stability assessment are summarized in Table 8. The cases considered were normal, extreme (normal water level with earthquake) and rapid drawdown. The case of a maximum flood [probable maximum flood (PMF)] was not considered as a load case in the stability analyses. The reason for this is due to the fact that with the existing conditions the dams would be overtopped during a PMF event.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 18


Table 8: Slope Stability Analysis Load Cases

Load Case Required Factor of Safety Normal, NWL* 1.5 NWL + Seismic Load 1.0 Drawdown 1.2 to 1.3

_______________ * NWL = normal water level.

10.3 Results of Analyses

10.3.1 Second Depot Lake Dam The results of stability analyses are summarized in Table 9. Figures 12 to 16 graphically depict the loading cases analyzed and the minimum factors of safety established for both the upstream and downstream slopes.

Table 9: Calculated Factor of Safety - Second Depot Lake Dam

Upstream Downstream

Load Case

Figure Calculated

Factor of Safety

Figure Calculated

Factor of Safety Normal Water Level (NWL) 12 1.91 15 1.41 NWL + Seismic Load 13 1.01 16 1.0 Drawdown* 14 1.61 NA NA

_______________ * Drawdown has been assumed to occur from the summer water level, el 157.98 m, to the sill level, el 153.21 m.

It is seen that the dam meets most of the acceptance criteria for the load cases considered. The calculated factor of safety of 1.41 for the downstream slope under normal condition is marginally below the required factor of safety of 1.5 (Table 8).

A parametric study showed that if the tailwater level is lowered by 0.7 m to el 150.9 m the required factor of safety under normal condition will be achieved. Figure 17 shows the result of stability analysis for the downstream slope under normal condition with tailwater at el 150.9 m indicating a factor of safety of 1.5 under this condition.

Similarly, the factor of safety under seismic loading will be improved if the tailwater level is lowered. Figure 18 shows the result of stability analysis for the downstream slope under seismic load with tailwater at el 150.9 m. The calculated factor of safety is 1.06.

10.3.2 Third Depot Lake Dam The results of stability analyses are provided in Tables 10 and 11. Figures 19 to 28 graphically depict the loading cases analyzed and the minimum factors of safety established for both dams.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 19


Table 10: Calculated Factor of Safety - Third Depot Lake Main Dam

Upstream Downstream

Load Case

Figure Calculated

Factor of Safety

Figure Calculated


_______________ * Drawdown has been assumed to occur from the summer water level, el 167 m, to the winter water level, el 164.3 m.

Table 11: Calculated Factor of Safety - Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

Upstream Downstream

Load Case

Figure Calculated

Factor of Safety

Figure Calculated


_______________ * Drawdown has been assumed to occur from the summer water level, el 167 m, to the winter water level, el 164.3 m.

It is seen that the dams meet the acceptance criteria for the load cases considered.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 20


11. Summary Pursuant to the recommendations of the 2004 dam safety report by Acres International, geotechnical investigations were conducted to obtain site-specific engineering characteristics of the embankment and foundation materials of the Second and Third Depot Lake dams.

The engineering parameters required for the slope stability re-assessment were estimated from the results of the field investigations, laboratory tests and piezometric monitoring.

The re-assessment of the stability of the dams included limit equilibrium analysis under static and dynamic (earthquake) loading conditions. Conclusions of the results of the analyses were drawn based on the draft ODSG criteria (MNR, 1999).

Based on the findings of the study, the report concludes that Second Depot Lake Dam and Third Depot Lake Main Dam and Saddle Dam meet most of the acceptance criteria for the load cases considered. The only exception is the downstream slope of Second Depot Lake Dam which indicates a factor of safety marginally below the criteria. Further analyses indicated that if the tailwater level of Second Depot Lake Dam is lowered by 0.7 m to el 150.9 m the required factor of safety will be achieved. Accordingly, it is recommended to lower and maintain the tailwater level of Second Depot Lake Dam at or below el 150.9 m.

It is recommended to monitor and record the water levels in the Second Depot Lake Dam piezometers (installed in BH08-01 and BH08-2) on a regular basis (preferably biweekly).


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 21


12. References Acres International Limited. Second Depot Lake Dam - Napanee Watershed, Final Report. April 2004.

Acres International Limited. Third Depot Lake Dam - Napanee Watershed, Final Report. April 2004.

Hatch Acres Limited. Second Depot Lake Dam - Dam Safety Review - Seismicity Assessment and Stability Review. August 2006.

Hatch Acres Limited. Third Depot Lake Dam - Dam Safety Review - Seismicity Assessment and Stability Review. August 2006.

Cedergren, H. R. Seepage, Drainage and Flow Nets. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1989.

Craig, R. F. Soil Mechanics. Sixth Edition. E & FN Spon, UK. 1997.

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. SLOPE/W, Version 5. Calgary, Alberta. 2004.

Hynes-Griffin, M., and A. Franklin. Rationalising the Seismic Coefficient Method. US Army Corps of Engineers, WES, Miscellaneous Paper Gl-84-13. 1984.

International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Embankment Dams Granular Filters and Drains. Bulletin 95. Paris, France. 1994.

Kilborn Engineering Ltd. Drawing No. 769-A-2 – Main Closure Dam - Plan, Profile and Section. Submitted to Napanee Region Conservation Authority. April 1970.

Kilborn Engineering Ltd. Drawing No. 769-A-9 – Saddle Dam - Plan, Profile and Section. Submitted to Napanee Region Conservation Authority. April 1970.

Napanee Valley Conservation Authority. Second Depot Lake Conservation Reservoir – Scheme No. 2. Brief submitted to the Minister of Planning and Development, Ontario. May 1956.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lands & Natural Heritage Branch. Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines, Draft Issue. September 1999.

Terzaghi, K., R. B. Peck, and G. Mesri. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1996.

US Army Corps of Engineers. Engineering and Design - Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams. Publication Number EM 1110-2-1901. September 1986.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service. “Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters.” National Engineering Handbook. Chapter 26, Part 633. 1994.

Youd, T. L. and I. M. Idriss. “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 127, No. 4, pp 297-313. April 2001.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0, Page 22


William Trow Associates Ltd. Foundation Investigation - Proposed Dam - 3rd Depot Lake. Report submitted to Kilborne Engineering Ltd. March 1970.


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0


Figures

Quinte Conservation2008 Geotechnical Assessment

Figure 1

Second Depot Lake Dam Location


Figure 2

Third Depot Lake Dam Location


Figure 3

Falling Head Test in BH08-01 – Second Depot Lake Dam

Project 2nd Depot Lake DamFalling Head Test in Piezometer

Borehole No. BH08-01

static water level = 5.590 mho = 5.590 m

L= 1.52 mD (intake point) 5.00 cm

d (riser pipe) 5 cm

t Readings (h) Δh ht = ho-Δh ht/ho(min) (m) head ratio

0 0 0.000 5.590 1.0000.167 0.1 0.100 5.490 0.9820.333 0.15 0.150 5.440 0.9730.5 0.18 0.180 5.410 0.968

0.667 0.25 0.250 5.340 0.9550.833 0.29 0.290 5.300 0.948

1 0.34 0.340 5.250 0.9391.167 0.4 0.400 5.190 0.9281.333 0.445 0.445 5.145 0.9201.5 0.49 0.490 5.100 0.912

1.667 0.53 0.530 5.060 0.9051.833 0.58 0.580 5.010 0.896

2 0.62 0.620 4.970 0.8892.167 0.66 0.660 4.930 0.8822.333 0.7 0.700 4.890 0.8752.5 0.74 0.740 4.850 0.868

2.667 0.78 0.780 4.810 0.8602.833 0.82 0.820 4.770 0.853

3 0.86 0.860 4.730 0.8463.5 0.97 0.970 4.620 0.8264 1.07 1.070 4.520 0.809

4.5 1.117 1.117 4.473 0.8005 1.260 1.260 4.330 0.775

5.5 1.360 1.360 4.230 0.7576 1.450 1.450 4.140 0.741

6.5 1.540 1.540 4.050 0.7257 1.620 1.620 3.970 0.710

7.5 1.690 1.690 3.900 0.6988 1.780 1.780 3.810 0.682

8.5 1.850 1.850 3.740 0.6699 1.920 1.920 3.670 0.657

9.5 1.990 1.990 3.600 0.64410 2.060 2.060 3.530 0.631

10.5 2.120 2.120 3.470 0.62111 2.190 2.190 3.400 0.608

11.5 2.250 2.250 3.340 0.59712 2.310 2.310 3.280 0.587

12.5 2.360 2.360 3.230 0.57813 2.430 2.430 3.160 0.56514 2.530 2.530 3.060 0.54715 2.640 2.640 2.950 0.52816 2.730 2.730 2.860 0.51217 2.830 2.830 2.760 0.49418 2.920 2.920 2.670 0.47819 3.000 3.000 2.590 0.46320 3.080 3.080 2.510 0.44921 3.160 3.160 2.430 0.43522 3.230 3.230 2.360 0.42223 3.300 3.300 2.290 0.41025 3.430 3.430 2.160 0.38627 3.550 3.550 2.040 0.36529 3.660 3.660 1.930 0.34531 3.760 3.760 1.830 0.32733 3.860 3.860 1.730 0.30935 3.940 3.940 1.650 0.29537 4.020 4.020 1.570 0.28149 4.400 4.400 1.190 0.21373 4.840 4.840 0.750 0.134107 5.160 5.160 0.430 0.077

Permeability calculation:

h1 = 5.490 t1 = 0.2h2 = 2.950 t2 = 15.0

m = transformation ratio, assumed 1

K = 5.9E-07 m/sec

Kd

mLD

L t thh

=

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟

−⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟

2

2 1

1

2

2

8

ln

( )ln

BH08-01 Depth: 7.32 to 8.84 mHead Ratio vs Time

0.01

0.10

1.000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

105

110

Time (min)

Hea

d R

atio

(log

sca

le)

K = 5.9E-07 m/s


Figure 4

Falling Head Test in BH08-02 – Second Depot Lake Dam

Project 2nd Depot Lake DamFalling Head Test in Piezometer

Borehole No. BH08-02

static water level = 5.940 mho = 5.940 m

L= 2.40 mD (intake point) 5.00 cm

d (riser pipe) 5 cm

t Readings (h) Δh ht = ho-Δh ht/ho(min) (m) head ratio

0 0 0.000 5.940 1.0000.333 0.15 0.150 5.790 0.9750.5 0.21 0.210 5.730 0.965

0.667 0.26 0.260 5.680 0.9560.833 0.32 0.320 5.620 0.946

1 0.37 0.370 5.570 0.9381.167 0.425 0.425 5.515 0.9281.333 0.47 0.470 5.470 0.9211.5 0.52 0.520 5.420 0.912

1.667 0.575 0.575 5.365 0.9031.833 0.62 0.620 5.320 0.896

2 0.665 0.665 5.275 0.8882.167 0.715 0.715 5.225 0.8802.333 0.75 0.750 5.190 0.8742.5 0.79 0.790 5.150 0.867

2.667 0.83 0.830 5.110 0.8602.833 0.87 0.870 5.070 0.854

3 0.91 0.910 5.030 0.8473.5 1.03 1.030 4.910 0.8274 1.14 1.140 4.800 0.808

4.5 1.25 1.250 4.690 0.7905 1.370 1.370 4.570 0.769

5.5 1.480 1.480 4.460 0.7516 1.580 1.580 4.360 0.734

6.5 1.680 1.680 4.260 0.7177 1.780 1.780 4.160 0.700

7.5 1.860 1.860 4.080 0.6878 1.960 1.960 3.980 0.6709 2.130 2.130 3.810 0.64110 2.290 2.290 3.650 0.61411 2.440 2.440 3.500 0.58912 2.590 2.590 3.350 0.564

13.25 2.750 2.750 3.190 0.53714 2.840 2.840 3.100 0.52215 2.960 2.960 2.980 0.50216 3.070 3.070 2.870 0.48317 3.170 3.170 2.770 0.46618 3.270 3.270 2.670 0.44920 3.460 3.460 2.480 0.41822 3.630 3.630 2.310 0.38924 3.780 3.780 2.160 0.36426 3.920 3.920 2.020 0.34028 4.040 4.040 1.900 0.32046 4.810 4.810 1.130 0.19056 5.060 5.060 0.880 0.14866 5.240 5.240 0.700 0.11880 5.420 5.420 0.520 0.088

Permeability calculation:

h1 = 5.790 t1 = 0.3h2 = 2.980 t2 = 15.0

m = transformation ratio, assumed 1

K = 4.5E-07 m/sec

BH08-02 Depth: 10.10 to 12.50 mHead Ratio vs Time

0.01

0.10

1.000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

100

Time (min)

Hea

d R

atio

(log

sca

le)

K = 4.5E-07 m/s

Kd

mLD

L t thh

=

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟

−⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟

2

2 1

1

2

2

8

ln

( )ln


Figure 5

Second Depot Lake Dam Section

El. 157.98

2.5H:1V

Granular FillGranular Fill

Impervious Fill

Rockfill

1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 151.6

Foundation Soil (sand with silt)

BH08

-01

BH08

-02

Piezometer Reading on June 5, 2008

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160


Figure 6

Third Depot Lake Main Dam Section

El. 167.00El. 168.28

El. 161.001.6H:1V1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159

161

163

165

167

169


Figure 7

Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam Section

El. 167.00El. 168.10

El. 163.001.6H:1V

1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

Elev

atio

n (m

)

155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169


Figure 8

Impervious Core Basic Parabola - Second Depot Lake Dam

Quinte ConservationSecond Depot Lake Dam

Point G:x = -8.32z = 8.15

Solve for x o:x o = 1.6633

Impervious Fill Downstream Slope Angle (Degrees) = 60.3Impervious Fill Downstream Correction to Basic Parabola = 0.32

z x0 1.66

0.5 1.631 1.51

1.5 1.332 1.06

2.5 0.723 0.31

3.5 -0.184 -0.74

4.5 -1.385 -2.09

5.5 -2.886 -3.75

6.5 -4.697 -5.70

7.5 -6.798 -7.96

8.15 -8.32

oo x

zxx4

2

−=

Phreatic Surface Basic Parabola

00.511.522.533.544.555.566.577.588.59

-10 -5 0Distance, x (m)

Ele

vatio

n, z

(m)


Figure 9

Plasticity Chart - Second Depot Lake Dam

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100Liquid Limit (LL)

Plas

ticity

Inde

x (P

I)BH08-01 @ 3.1 m

BH08-01 @ 5.3 m

BH08-01 @ 8.4 m

BH08-02 @ 8.3 m

BH08-02 @ 9.1 m

BH08-02 @ 14.5 mCL

CH

ML

MH

CL-MLCL - Clays of low to medium plasticityCH - Clays of high plasticityML - Silts with slight plasticityMH - Elastic silt


Figure 10

Grain-Size Distribution Plots of Embankment Fill Materials - Second Depot Lake Dam

3"2.5"

2"1.5"

1"3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

# 4

# 6

# 10

# 16

# 20

# 40

# 10

0

# 20

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100Grain Size (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

BH08-01 @ 0.76 m Granular Fill



BH08-01 @ 3.05 m Impervious Fill





GRAVELSANDCLAY & SILT

FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE


Figure 11

Grain-Size Distribution Plots of Embankment Foundation Materials - Second Depot Lake Dam

3"2.5"

2"1.5"

1"3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

# 4

# 6

# 10

# 16

# 20

# 40

# 10

0

# 20

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100Grain Size (mm)

Perc

ent F

iner

BH08-02 @ 9.91 m Foundation Sand

BH08-02 @ 12.95 m Foundation Sand

BH08-02 @ 14.5 m Foundation Sand with Clay

GRAVELSANDCLAY & SILT

FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE


Figure 12

Upstream Stability Under NWL - Second Depot Lake Dam

1.909

El. 157.98

2.5H:1V

Pervious shellUni t Weight: 19Cohesion: 0Phi : 35

Impervious fi llUni t Weight: 19.5Cohesion: 0Phi : 30

Foundation soi lUni t Weight: 21Cohesion: 0Phi : 34

Rip rap / Rock fil lUni t Weight: 18Cohesion: 0Phi : 38


Imperv ious Fill Rockf ill

1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 151.6

Foundat ion Soil

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159


Figure 13

Upstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load - Second Depot Lake Dam

1.007

El. 157.98

2.5H:1V







1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 151.6

Foundat ion Soil

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159


Figure 14

Upstream Stability Under Drawdown Condition - Second Depot Lake Dam

1.613

El. 153.212.5H:1V







1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 151.6

Foundat ion Soil

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159


Figure 15

Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition - Second Depot Lake Dam

1.413

El. 157.98

2.5H:1V







1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 151.6

Foundat ion Soil

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159


Figure 16

Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load - Second Depot Lake Dam

0.998

El. 157.98

2.5H:1V







1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 151.6

Foundat ion Soil

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159


Figure 17

Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition with Tailwater Level at El 150.9 m -Second Depot Lake Dam

1.498

El. 157.98

2.5H:1V







1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 150.9

Foundat ion Soil

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159


Figure 18

Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load with Tailwater Level at El 150.9 m -Second Depot Lake Dam

1.058

El. 157.98

2.5H:1V







1.9H:1V

El. 159.31

El. 150.9

Foundat ion Soil

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145

147

149

151

153

155

157

159


Figure 19

Upstream Stability Under NWL - Third Depot Lake Main Dam

1.828

El. 167.00El. 168.28

El. 161.001.6H:1V1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer

Rock FillUnit Weight: 18Cohesion: 0Phi: 45

Clay LayerUnit Weight: 21Cohesion: 0Phi: 33

Sand LayerUnit Weight: 21Cohesion: 0Phi: 32

Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145147149151153155157159161163165167169


Figure 20

Upstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load - Third Depot Lake Main Dam

1.017

El. 167.00El. 168.28

El. 161.001.6H:1V1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145147149151153155157159161163165167169


Figure 21

Upstream Stability Under Drawdown Condition - Third Depot Lake Main Dam

1.792

El. 164.30

El. 168.28

El. 161.001.4H:1V1.4H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145147149151153155157159161163165167169


Figure 22

Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition - Third Depot Lake Main Dam

1.565

El. 167.00El. 168.28

El. 161.001.6H:1V1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145147149151153155157159161163165167169


Figure 23

Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load - Third Depot Lake Main Dam

1.013

El. 167.00El. 168.28

El. 161.001.6H:1V1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Elev

atio

n (m

)

145147149151153155157159161163165167169


Figure 24

Upstream Stability Under NWL - Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

1.865

El. 167.00El. 168.10

El. 163.001.6H:1V

1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58

Elev

atio

n (m

)

155157159161163165167169


Figure 25

Upstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load - Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

1.054

El. 167.00El. 168.10

El. 163.001.6H:1V

1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58

Elev

atio

n (m

)

155157159161163165167169


Figure 26

Upstream Stability Under Drawdown Condition - Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

1.617

El. 164.30

El. 168.10

El. 163.00

1.6H:1V 1.6H:1VRock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58

Elev

atio

n (m

)

155157159161163165167169


Figure 27

Downstream Stability Under NWL Condition - Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

1.596

El. 167.00El. 168.10

El. 163.001.6H:1V

1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58

Elev

atio

n (m

)

155157159161163165167169


Figure 28

Downstream Stability Under NWL and Seismic Load - Third Depot Lake Saddle Dam

1.106

El. 167.00El. 168.10

El. 163.001.6H:1V

1.6H:1V

Rock Fill

Clay Layer

Sand Layer




Distance (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58

Elev

atio

n (m

)

155157159161163165167169


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0


Appendix A Drawings


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0


Appendix B Borehole Logs

345

64

12

20

2

56410

11191419

15436

4357

250

2344

250

305

480

610

610

610

580

159.130.17

158.690.61

6633

1.52

480

610

610

610

580

159.130.17

158.690.61

157.931.37

Piezometric waterlevel, Jun 5

0.76

2.29

3.05

3.81

4.57

0

16

157.931.37

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

30

1.37

2.9

3.66

4.42

Granular Surface Topping

Clayey Silt / Core Material,stiff, brownish grey.

Sand with Gravel, someSilt

Clay with Silt, some Sandand trace Gravel / CoreMaterial, soft to stiff, brown/ grey

16

345

4.42


305

2.13

0

0.76

1.52

2.29

3.05

3.81

4.57

Clay with Silt, some Sandand trace Gravel / CoreMaterial, soft to stiff, brown/ grey

30

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

Granular Surface Topping

3.66

Sand with Gravel, someSilt

2.9

0.61

1.37

Clayey Silt / Core Material,stiff, brownish grey.

20

56

95

100

2

56410

11191419

15436

4357

6633

2344

2.13

64

12

41

50

79

100

100

FIELD VANE

100 150 200

COORDINATES:

UNCONFINED

90

1020 60DESCRIPTION

0.0

SYM

BOL

BLO

W C

OU

NTS 10

50

Walker DrillingTrack Mounted CME55Auger DrillDiamond Drilling4-in AugerH-size Casing

H-size

0.61

DIP:

STARTED:FINISHED:INSPECTOR:LOGGED BY:REVIEWED:

DATE:

30

2nd Depot Lake DamSITE:

CLRE

C'Y

(mm

)

WATER CONTENT &ATTERBERG LIMITS

DE

PTH

(m) 80

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION

R - Cloth BagS - Plastic BagU - Wooden BoxY - Core BoxZ - Discarded

N - InsertO - TubeP - Water Content TinQ - JarX - Plastic & PVC Sleeve

E - AugerF - WashG - Shovel GrabK - Slotted

SAMPLING METHOD

W

PROJECT:CLIENT:

4

Variable Head Test

Constant Head Test

OF:

BOREHOLE REPORT

A - Split TubeB - Thin Wall TubeC - Piston SampleD - Core Barrel (sonic or diamond drill)

BH08-01Quinte Conservation Authority

-6

15

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

31 Jan 20084 Feb 2008H ZaidiH Zaidi

Mar 2008

SHIPPING CONTAINER

H-328605

1

Lab. Permeability

HOLE:Second Depot Lake Dam PAGE:

Project:

LN

LIQUIDLIMIT

WWP

PLASTICLIMIT

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

79

DEPTH (m)

DEP

TH

95

100

100

100

-5

HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY (m/s)

40

50

REMARKS AND GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

SAGR

56

SPT N-VALUES

CONTRACTOR:DRILL TYPE:METHOD SOIL: ROCK:CASING:

PIEZ

OM

ETER

INST

ALLA

TIO

N

44.542

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

RE

C'Y

(%)

SAMPLE or RUN

SYM

BOL

QUICK TRIAXIAL

(%)

LAB VANE

SI

DIP DIRECTION:

POCKET PEN.

-4

N/AN/A159.31147.30

CORE:

10

-76.77

1

2

3

4

ELEV.

-

ELEVATIONSDATUM:PLATFORM:GROUND:END OF HOLE:

45TYPE

/N

UM

BER

41

159.3

150.468.84

150.009.3

5.34

6.1

6.86

7.62

8.38

9.15

9.3

10.7

RQD = 40%

153.355.95

Water Level, Feb 7

3455

0

1

6

2246

151.837.47

3556

152.596.71

000

30/75

>50

610

580

610

610

100

50

560

1140

RQD = 93%

2387

Water Levelduring drilling

150.009.3

5.9e-07

580

14

12

0

1

6

2246

2387

3556

3455

000

30/75

610

610

610

100

50

560

1140

153.355.95

152.596.71

151.837.47

150.468.84

>50

5.95

6.71

7.47

8.23

8.99

9.3

10.7

Water Level, Feb 7


RQD = 40%

RQD = 93%

Clay and Silt, some Sandand trace Gravel / CoreMaterial, soft to stiff, brown/ grey

34

38

AS8

AS9

AS10

AS11

AS12

AS13

D1

D2

5.18

Clayey Silt some Gravel /Core Material, soft to stiff,brown / grey

Rock chips, Grey

Bedrock

5.34


8

14

12

100

95

100

16

40

88

52

49

100

6.1

6.86

7.62

8.38

9.15

9.3

10.7

45

20-6

PIEZ

OM

ETER

INST

ALLA

TIO

N


UNCONFINED

30

-5

200DE

PTH

(m)

SAMPLE or RUN

RE

C'Y

(%)

10

SPT N-VALUES

FIELD VANE

15

SYM

BOL -4ELEV.

50 CLSI


DEPTH (m)

10

QUICK TRIAXIAL

BLO

W C

OU

NTS


SA150

PAGE:HOLE:




SAMPLING METHOD

W

PROJECT:


4

PLASTICLIMIT

Variable Head Test

OF:

BOREHOLE REPORT


BH08-01CLIENT:

Lab. Permeability

80

DEP

TH

6040

6

7

8

9

10

11

SHIPPING CONTAINER Constant Head Test

2

DESCRIPTION

Second Depot Lake DamQuinte Conservation Authority

Project:

LN

LIQUIDLIMIT

WWP

H-328605

9.3

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

Bedrock

Rock chips, Grey

Clay and Silt, some Sandand trace Gravel / CoreMaterial, soft to stiff, brown/ grey


38

10.7

8.99

8.23

7.47

6.71

5.95

5.18

100


95

100

100

16

8

40

88

34

(%)

LAB VANE


5.9e-07

TYPE

/N

UM

BER

RE

C'Y

(mm

)


POCKET PEN.GR100

AS8

D2

D1

AS13

AS12

AS11

AS10

10

AS9

52

49

UNCONFINED

CL

80

50

ELEV.

TYPE

/N

UM

BER

SA100 GRPOCKET PEN.

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION20

-4

BLO

W C

OU

NTS REMARKS

AND GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

END OF BOREHOLE

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

WATER CONTENT &ATTERBERG LIMITSQUICK TRIAXIAL

10DEPTH (m)

SYM

BOL

SI

147.3012

RE

C'Y

(mm

)12147.30

12


LAB VANE

12

(%)

10

END OF BOREHOLE

W



HOLE:PAGE:

Constant Head TestNATURALMOISTURECONTENT

PW WN

Project:

Quinte Conservation AuthoritySecond Depot Lake Dam

PLASTICLIMIT

BH08-01


BOREHOLE REPORT


SAMPLING METHOD

Variable Head Test

4

CLIENT:PROJECT:

L

OF:

30

10

SAMPLE or RUN

LIQUIDLIMIT

DE

PTH

(m)

200

-5

45RE

C'Y

(%)

15


PIEZ

OM

ETER

INST

ALLA

TIO

N-6

Lab. Permeability

3

H-328605

SHIPPING CONTAINER

12

40

SPT N-VALUES

DEP

TH

FIELD VANE

DESCRIPTION60

150

H-328605

BOREHOLE REPORT

OF:BH08-01CLIENT:

PROJECT: Second Depot Lake DamQuinte Conservation Authority

1 PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION 0 - 0.61m cement around riser 0.61 - 5.51m hydrated bentonite pellets and cement mix around riser 5.51 - 7.01m hydrated bentonite pellets around riser pipe 7.01 - 7.31m coarse sand pack around riser pipe 7.31 - 8.84m coarse sand pack around slotted PVC pipe 8.84 - 9.15m coarse sand pack around riser pipe 9.15 - 12.0m hydrated bentonite pellet bottom seal

note: pvc pipe, 50mm id, flush coupled.

.2 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 31-Jan-08 2:00pm EL 150.76m (during drilling) 07-Feb-08 3:30pm EL 153.60m 05-Jun-08 11:00am EL 154.54m (in piezometer)

Project:

HOLE:PAGE: 4 4

NOTES/COMMENTS

610

11152220

11963

4367

4567

3457

346

410

300

610

610

39

610

610

157.781.52

157.172.13

410

4.57

100

610

157.781.52

157.172.13

0

0.76

1.52

2.29

14954

3.81

8

Water Level, Feb 7

48

75

3.05

1010

14

0.61

1.37

2.13

2.9

4.42

AS7

Sand, some Silt, traceGravel

67

49

67

100

100

3.66

610

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

3.05

0

0.76

610

2.29

3.66

3.81

4.57

1.52

Clay and Silt, trace Sandand Gravel

14

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7 Water Level, Feb 7

Sand, some Silt, traceGravel

4.42

0.61

1.37

2.13

2.9

Sand and Gravel, some silt14954

39

8

11152220

11963

4367

4567

3457

346

410

300

410 75

Clay and Silt, trace Sandand Gravel

48

67

49

67

100

100

100

100

2

3

60

15200

COORDINATES:

100

20

FIELD VANE

DESCRIPTION

0.050

10

RE

C'Y

(mm

)

Walker DrillingTrack Mounted CME55Auger DrillDiamond Drilling4-in AugerH-size Casing

H-size

-6

DIP:

100

SYM

BOL

Sand and Gravel, some silt150 CL

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)WATER CONTENT &ATTERBERG LIMITS

DE

PTH

(m) 80


90

UNCONFINED


DATE:

SITE:

30


SAMPLING METHOD

W

PROJECT:CLIENT:

5


Variable Head Test

HOLE:OF:

BOREHOLE REPORT


BH08-02

L

4 Feb 20085 Feb 2008H ZaidiH Zaidi

Mar 2008

SHIPPING CONTAINER

H-328605

1

Lab. Permeability

Second Depot Lake Dam


Project:

N

LIQUIDLIMIT

WWP

PLASTICLIMIT


Constant Head Test

PAGE:Quinte Conservation Authority

40

2nd Depot Lake DamCONTRACTOR:DRILL TYPE:METHOD SOIL: ROCK:CASING:

GR SA


1

2

3

4

ELEV.

-

SYM

BOL

2

3

SPT N-VALUES

10

PIEZ

OM

ETER

INST

ALLA

TIO

N-5 REMARKS AND GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

DEP

TH

N/AN/A159.31141.30

45

DEPTH (m)

10

LAB VANE

SI

DIP DIRECTION:

POCKET PEN.

-4

BLO

W C

OU

NTS

TYPE

/N

UM

BER

CORE:

159.3

QUICK TRIAXIAL

RE

C'Y

(%)

(%)

SAMPLE or RUN


13

9.14

9.91

10.67


2222

8

6.86

84

8

0

0

7

2256

5679

3446


610

7

2256

5679

3446

3578

2222

2233

0022

8.25

610

7.62

610

610

510

200

310

510

149.549.76

5.34

6.1

2233

0000

3578

34

AS9

AS11

AS12

AS13

AS14

AS15

0022

0000

610

610

610

610

510

200

310

149.549.76

510

11.28

5.34

6.1

6.86

7.62

8.25

9.14

36

16

AS8

AS9

AS10

AS11

AS12

AS13

AS14

Water Levelduring drillingSand, some Silt

Piezometric waterlevel, Jun 55.18

5.95

6.71

7.47

8.23

8.86

9.75

10.52

AS15

9.91

100

84

33

51

84

50

50

100

100

8

0

0

AS10 100

10.67

8

13

84

SAMPLE or RUN-6

PIEZ

OM

ETER

INST

ALLA

TIO

N


15 30 45

-5

CLDE

PTH

(m)

RE

C'Y

(%)

10

SPT N-VALUES

FIELD VANE

150

DESCRIPTION

DEP

TH

200 DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

SA SI

SYM

BOLDEPTH

(m)

QUICK TRIAXIALWATER CONTENT &ATTERBERG LIMITS


20

AS8

Variable Head Test

60




SAMPLING METHOD

W

PROJECT:CLIENT:

PAGE:

Constant Head Test

OF:

BOREHOLE REPORT


BH08-025Second Depot Lake Dam

1040

6

7

8

9

10

11

SHIPPING CONTAINER

H-328605

2

Lab. Permeability

HOLE:Quinte Conservation Authority

Project:

LN

LIQUIDLIMIT

WWP

PLASTICLIMIT


10.52

100

80

100

100

100

5.18

11.28

33

9.75

8.86

8.23

7.47

6.71

Sand, some Silt

BLO

W C

OU

NTS

84

84

51 16

TYPE

/N

UM

BER

RE

C'Y

(mm

)


POCKET PEN.

5.95

100

UNCONFINED

-4ELEV.

50 GR

10

36

34 50

50

(%)

LAB VANE


0

16

16.7616.86

460

38

13.72

0

2323

2343

0111

2222

1222

251411

146712

2323

78

510 28

0111

2222

1222

251411

146712

50/100

460

510

15.24

610

14.5

610

460

100

810

145.7013.6

142.5016.8

11.43

12.2

12.95

510

510

4.5e-07

50/100

AS17

AS19

AS21

AS22

AS23

D1

22

AS16

510

610

510

610

460

100

810

145.7013.6

142.5016.8 16.86

17.77

16.76

15.11

11.43

12.2

12.95

13.72

14.5

15.24

2343

Sand with Clay

22

28

AS16

AS17

AS18

AS19

AS20

AS21

AS22

16.61

D1

15.85

Bedrock

12.04

12.81

13.56

14.33

16.86AS23

84

84

100

84

100

75

16

89

34

16

780

0

90

38AS20

RE

C'Y

(%)

-6

PIEZ

OM

ETER

INST

ALLA

TIO

N


15 30 45

-5

200

SAMPLE or RUN10

SPT N-VALUES

FIELD VANE

150

DESCRIPTION

DEP

TH

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

DE

PTH

(m)

SA SI

SYM

BOLDEPTH

(m)10

4.5e-07

BLO

W C

OU

NTS REMARKS

AND GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

20

AS18




SAMPLING METHOD

W

PROJECT:CLIENT:

5

60

Variable Head Test

Constant Head Test

OF:

BOREHOLE REPORT


BH08-02Quinte Conservation Authority

40

12

13

14

15

16

17

SHIPPING CONTAINER

H-328605

3

Lab. Permeability

HOLE:Second Depot Lake Dam PAGE:

Project:

LN

LIQUIDLIMIT

WWP

PLASTICLIMIT


QUICK TRIAXIAL

75

100

84

100

84

84

15.11


Bedrock

Sand with Clay

17.77

16.86

16.61

90

CL

16

89

14.33

UNCONFINED

15.85

RE

C'Y

(mm

)


POCKET PEN.GR

-4ELEV.

50

80

100 (%)

13.56

12.81

12.04

34

TYPE

/N

UM

BER

10

LAB VANE


SISADR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

CL

80

50

ELEV. -4

UNCONFINED

100

END OF BOREHOLE


SYM

BOLDEPTH

(m)WATER CONTENT &ATTERBERG LIMITS

BLO

W C

OU

NTS

QUICK TRIAXIAL

10

POCKET PEN.GR

END OF BOREHOLE141.30

18

10

141.3018


RE

C'Y

(mm

)

TYPE

/N

UM

BER SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

LAB VANE

(%)

P




HOLE:PAGE:

Constant Head Test

Quinte Conservation Authority

PLASTICLIMIT

W W

LIQUIDLIMIT

20

L


BH08-02


BOREHOLE REPORT

SAMPLING METHOD

OF:

WVariable Head Test

5

CLIENT:PROJECT:

Project:


N

RE

C'Y

(%)

SAMPLE or RUN

DE

PTH

(m)

FIELD VANE

-5

SPT N-VALUES

453015


PIEZ

OM

ETER

INST

ALLA

TIO

N-6

200

40

Lab. Permeability

4

H-328605

SHIPPING CONTAINER

18

10

150

60

DEP

TH

DESCRIPTION

H-328605

BOREHOLE REPORT

OF:BH08-02CLIENT:

PROJECT: Second Depot Lake DamQuinte Conservation Authority

1 PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION 0 - 0.61m cement around riser 0.61 - 8.25m hydrated bentonite pellets and cement mix around riser 8.25 - 9.75m hydrated bentonite pellets around riser pipe 9.75 - 10.1m coarse sand pack around riser pipe 10.1 - 12.5m coarse sand pack around slotted PVC pipe 12.5 - 12.8m coarse sand pack around riser pipe 12.8 - 18.0m hydrated bentonite pellet bottom seal

note: pvc pipe, 50mm id, flush coupled.

.2 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 05-Feb-08 11:00am EL 149.54m (during drilling) 07-Feb-08 4:30pm EL 154.35m 05-Jun-08 11:00am EL 154.22m (in piezometer)

Project:

HOLE:PAGE: 5 5

NOTES/COMMENTS

0

0.61

ELEV.

1

2

3

4

5 Refusal at 5.18 m.

Soil material isinferred by drill actionincluding grindingnoise and vibration.

END OF BOREHOLE

19

45

27

Gravel and cobble sizedmaterial (rock fill). Maximumsize of material recovered is75 mm.

Top soil and gravel.

4.88

3.66

2.13

3.66

SAMPLE or RUNSPT N-VALUES

31 Jan 20084 Feb 2008H ZaidiH Zaidi

Mar 2008


LAB VANE

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

QUICK TRIAXIAL

D1

-


(%)RE

C'Y

(%)

TYP

E/

NU

MB

ER

168.241

CORE:

2.44

3.66

2.44

0.61


4.88

3.66

2.13

Gravel and cobble sizedmaterial (rock fill). Maximumsize of material recovered is75 mm.

Top soil and gravel.

END OF BOREHOLE

D3

D2

Refusal at 5.18 m.

229D3

D2

D1

167.630.61

N/AN/A168.241163.06

0

406

163.065.18

167.630.61

229

0

406

19

0

27

163.065.18

L

Project:

Quinte Conservation AuthorityThird Depot Lake Dam

Lab. Permeability

1

H-328605

SHIPPING CONTAINER

CONTRACTOR:DRILL TYPE:METHOD SOIL:

ROCK:CASING:

COORDINATES:

30

W

0.0

DESCRIPTION20

15

BH08-A

A - Split TubeB - Thin Wall TubeC - Piston SampleD - Core Barrel

(sonic or diamond drill)

BOREHOLE REPORT

OF:

Variable Head Test

1

N

HOLE:

10

WP

PLASTICLIMIT


CLIENT:PAGE:PROJECT:




SAMPLING METHOD

W

LIQUIDLIMIT

Constant Head Test

Walker DrillingTrack Mounted CME55Auger Drill

4-in AugerH size Casing

BLO

W C

OU

NTS

CL

SITE: 3rd Depot Lake Dam

SY

MB

OL

DIP:

SA

60

SY

MB

OL

50 SI

DIP DIRECTION:

POCKET PEN.

-410

DE

PTH

10

90

PIE

ZOM

ETE

RIN

STA

LLA

TIO

N

200150100

FIELD VANE


DATE:

UNCONFINED

DEPTH(m)

REMARKSAND

GRAIN SIZEDISTRIBUTION (%)

-6DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION

80

DE

PTH

(m)

GR



RE

C'Y

(mm

) 40-5

SPT N-VALUES

GR

REMARKSAND


-5

PIE

ZOM

ETE

RIN

STA

LLA

TIO

N

40


Mar 2008


LAB VANE

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

QUICK TRIAXIAL

N/AN/A168.229162.74

-6

50

END OF BOREHOLE

10B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

DE

PTH


POCKET PEN.


DIP DIRECTION:

SI

10DEPTH(m)

SA

SY

MB

OL -4

Gravel and cobble sizedmaterial (rock fill).


162.745.49

No samplesrecovered.

Refusal at 5.49 m.




162.745.49

SAMPLE or RUN

(%)RE

C'Y

(%)

TYP

E/

NU

MB

ER

168.229

END OF BOREHOLE

Walker DrillingFurukawa HCR900Percussion Drill

3-in Drill Steel

CORE:

45

-

ELEV.

1

2

3

4

5 Refusal at 5.49 m.

L

SHIPPING CONTAINER

PAGE:


PLASTICLIMIT

P W W


N


Project:


Lab. Permeability

DIP:

H-328605

LIQUIDLIMIT

Variable Head Test

BH08-B



BOREHOLE REPORT

OF:HOLE:

1 1

CLIENT:PROJECT:

W

SAMPLING METHODE - AugerF - WashG - Shovel GrabK - Slotted

DE

PTH

(m)

FIELD VANE


DATE:

UNCONFINED

90


150

80

100


RE

C'Y

(mm

)

CL


SY

MB

OL 60


ROCK:CASING:

15 300.0

200

20 10

COORDINATES:

DESCRIPTION

END OF BOREHOLE162.116.10

CORE:

45

-

ELEV.

1

2

3

4

5

6Refusal at 6.10 m.



SPT N-VALUES


SAMPLE or RUN


Mar 2008

L

LAB VANE

N

QUICK TRIAXIAL

N/AN/A168.208162.11


(%)RE

C'Y

(%)

TYP

E/

NU

MB

ER

168.208

HOLE:

162.116.10

1

CLIENT:PROJECT:

W

SAMPLING METHODE - AugerF - WashG - Shovel GrabK - Slotted

Variable Head TestR - Cloth BagS - Plastic BagU - Wooden BoxY - Core BoxZ - Discarded

PAGE:


PLASTICLIMIT

P W W

LIQUIDLIMITN - Insert

O - TubeP - Water Content TinQ - JarX - Plastic & PVC Sleeve

BH08-C

Refusal at 6.10 m.







BOREHOLE REPORT

OF:

END OF BOREHOLE

100

10

COORDINATES:

60

150

FIELD VANE


DATE:

UNCONFINED

90


DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

DE

PTH

(m)

200


ROCK:CASING:

Project:


Lab. Permeability

1

H-328605

20


15 300.0

DESCRIPTION

SHIPPING CONTAINER

80

DIP DIRECTION:

SI

10DEPTH(m)

SA

-440

DE

PTH


GR

REMARKSAND


-5

PIE

ZOM

ETE

RIN

STA

LLA

TIO

N

SY

MB

OL

CL


SY

MB

OL

POCKET PEN.

RE

C'Y

(mm

)

DIP:

-6


3-in Drill Steel

50

10B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

GR

10DEPTH(m)

SA

SY

MB

OL 40

DIP DIRECTION:


REMARKSAND


-5

PIE

ZOM

ETE

RIN

STA

LLA

TIO

N

3rd Depot Lake Dam


DIP:

-6

SI50


Mar 2008

10B

LOW

CO

UN

TS

DE

PTH

-4

POCKET PEN.


3-in Drill Steel


CORE:

45

-

ELEV.


168.257




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


SITE:


LAB VANE

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

QUICK TRIAXIAL

N/AN/A168.257150.58

SAMPLE or RUN

(%)RE

C'Y

(%)

TYP

E/

NU

MB

ER

SPT N-VALUES

LIQUIDLIMITR - Cloth Bag

S - Plastic BagU - Wooden BoxY - Core BoxZ - Discarded

HOLE:PAGE:


PLASTICLIMIT

P

CL

W

SAMPLING METHOD

N L

Project:


SY

MB

OL

W

BH08-D



BOREHOLE REPORT



Variable Head Test

2

CLIENT:PROJECT:

WLab. Permeability

OF:

UNCONFINED

COORDINATES:

200150100

FIELD VANE

1


DATE:

90


DE

PTH

(m)


RE

C'Y

(mm

)

H-328605

SHIPPING CONTAINER


ROCK:CASING:

15 300.0

DESCRIPTION6020 10

POCKET PEN.

ELEV.-4

UNCONFINED

100

80DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION

RE

C'Y

(mm

)

TYP

E/

NU

MB

ER

GR

END OF BOREHOLE


BLO

W C

OU

NTS

50

10DEPTH(m)

SY

MB

OL

SISADR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

CL


QUICK TRIAXIAL

Inferred bedrock at17.68 m.150.58

17.68

153.0215.24

150.5817.68

153.0215.24

Refusal at 17.68 m.

Foundation soil, likely sandyclay material.

Inferred bedrock at17.68 m.

LAB VANE

(%)

10

Refusal at 17.68 m.

END OF BOREHOLE

Foundation soil, likely sandyclay material.

REMARKSAND




HOLE:PAGE:


PLASTICLIMIT

P W

SAMPLING METHOD

N L

Project:


W

BH08-D



BOREHOLE REPORT



Variable Head Test

2

CLIENT:PROJECT:

WLab. Permeability

OF:

PIE

ZOM

ETE

RIN

STA

LLA

TIO

N

DE

PTH

(m)

200

-5

4530

SAMPLE or RUN HYDRAULICCONDUCTIVITY (m/s)

RE

C'Y

(%)

-620

15

60

H-328605

SHIPPING CONTAINER

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

40

2

DE

PTH

DESCRIPTION

150

FIELD VANE

SPT N-VALUES

10

REMARKSAND


DEPTH(m)

SA

SY

MB

OL 40



Mar 2008

DIP DIRECTION:

-5

PIE

ZOM

ETE

RIN

STA

LLA

TIO

N

GR

10

SY

MB

OL


DIP:

-6

Walker DrillingFurukawa HCR900/ CME55Percussion Drill/ Auger Drill

3-in Drill Steel4-in Auger

10

SIBLO

W C

OU

NTS

DE

PTH

-4

POCKET PEN.


50Gravel and cobble sizedmaterial (rock fill).

CORE:

45

-

ELEV.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CME 55 casingexperienced difficultyadvancing in rock fillmaterial, stopped at2.4 m.

SPT N-VALUES


CME 55 casingexperienced difficultyadvancing in rock fillmaterial, stopped at2.4 m.




(%)

LAB VANE

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

QUICK TRIAXIAL

N/AN/A168.220152.98

SAMPLE or RUNR

EC

'Y(%

)

TYP

E/

NU

MB

ER

168.220

3rd Depot Lake Dam




HOLE:PAGE:


PLASTICLIMIT

P

SITE:

W

SAMPLING METHOD

N L

Project:


W

BH08-E



BOREHOLE REPORT



Variable Head Test

2

CLIENT:PROJECT:

WLab. Permeability

OF:

UNCONFINED

COORDINATES:

200150100

FIELD VANE

1


DATE:

90


DE

PTH

(m)


RE

C'Y

(mm

)

CL

H-328605

SHIPPING CONTAINER


ROCK:CASING:

15 300.0

DESCRIPTION6020 10

50

SY

MB

OL

SISADR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (k

g/m

3)

CL100

10ELEV.

-4

UNCONFINED

80

END OF BOREHOLE

20DEPTH(m)


BLO

W C

OU

NTS

QUICK TRIAXIAL

GR

REMARKSAND


152.9815.24

END OF BOREHOLE152.9815.24

POCKET PEN.


RE

C'Y

(mm

)

TYP

E/

NU

MB

ER

10

(%)


LAB VANE

P




HOLE:PAGE:

Constant Head TestPLASTICLIMIT

W W

LIQUIDLIMIT

N

Project:


BH08-E



BOREHOLE REPORT

SAMPLING METHOD

OF:

WVariable Head Test

2

CLIENT:PROJECT:


-5

FIELD VANE

L

10

RE

C'Y

(%)

SAMPLE or RUN

Third Depot Lake Dam

200150 453015


PIE

ZOM

ETE

RIN

STA

LLA

TIO

N-6

DE

PTH

(m)

Lab. Permeability

2

H-328605

SHIPPING CONTAINER

SPT N-VALUES

11

12

13

14

15

DESCRIPTION40 60

DE

PTH


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0


Appendix C Laboratory Test Results

SAMPLE


50

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) %

45

0 10 20 30 40

10

PROJECT H-328605

5

PLASTICITY CHART

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

BH08-01

PI %LL %

NP - Non-Plastic

LEGEND

50

BOREHOLE

ML

BH08-01

BH08-01

AS5

AS8

AS12

3.05 53

5.34

DEPTH (m)

23

24

24

50

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX (P

I) %

CL

8.38

CL-ML

60

50

SAMPLE


50

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) %

45

0 10 20 30 40

10

PROJECT H-328605

5

PLASTICITY CHART

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

BH08-02

PI %LL %

NP - Non-Plastic

LEGEND

50

BOREHOLE

ML

BH08-02

BH08-02

AS12

AS13

AS20

8.25 51

9.14

DEPTH (m)

16

20

23

30

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX (P

I) %

CL

14.50

CL-ML

60

45

20

10

0

30

70

40

60

BOREHOLE

80

90

100

0

SAMPLE

50

20

64AS2

100

90

80

70

60

50

30

10

40

REMARKS:

1/2"

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

#50

BH08-01

DEPTH

Project H-328605

0.76

SAND

20

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

MEDIUM

3/8"

#60

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

3

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

2001

1005030202 5


0.00

2

FINE

(%)PI

(%)LL

16

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILT

0.3

COARSE

0.5

COARSEGRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

(%)

FINE

70

0

10

20

30

40

60

80

90

100

50

10

3.05

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

20

0

30

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

BOREHOLEREMARKS:

3/8"

BH08-01

DEPTH

Project H-328605

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

SAND

2

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

1/2"

MEDIUM

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

#50

50

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

0.00

2

200

0.2

1000.3 30202 5


12AS5

(%)

3

COARSE

SAMPLE

24(%)PI

53

(%)LL

86

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILTFINE

0.1

FINEGRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


10.5

COARSE

0

80

10

20

30

40

50

70

90

100

60

10

5.34

SAMPLE

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

20

0

30

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

REMARKS:

3/8"

BH08-01

DEPTH

Project H-328605

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

BOREHOLE SAND

0

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

1/2"

MEDIUM

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

#50

100

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

0.00

2 3

0.5 5030202 5


14AS8

200

COARSE

24(%)PI

50

(%)LL

86

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILTFINE

0.2

FINE

0.3

GRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


1(%)

COARSE

0

80

10

20

30

40

50

70

90

100

60

10

8.38

SAMPLE

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

20

0

30

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

REMARKS:

3/8"

BH08-01

DEPTH

Project H-328605

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

BOREHOLE SAND

1

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

1/2"

MEDIUM

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

#50

100

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

0.00

2 3

0.5 5030202 5


12AS12

200

COARSE

23(%)PI

50

(%)LL

87

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILTFINE

0.2

FINE

0.3

GRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


1(%)

COARSE

10

0

20

60

30

100

50

70

80

90

0

SAMPLEBOREHOLE

40

20

48

100

90

80

70

60

50

30

10

40

REMARKS:

1/2"

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

0.76

#50

BH08-02

DEPTH

Project H-328605

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

SAND

39

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

MEDIUM

3/8"

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

3

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

0.3

200

0.5

1005030202 5


(%)

0.00

2

FINE

AS2

(%)PI

(%)LL

12

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILT

0.2

COARSECOARSEGRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


1

FINE

80

30

0

10

20

40

50

70

90

100

10

1.52

SAMPLEBOREHOLE

60

30


100

90

80

70

60

40

20

0

50

REMARKS:

1/2"

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

#50

BH08-02

DEPTH

Project H-328605

AS3

SAND

8

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

MEDIUM

3/8"

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

3

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

2001

1005030202 5


(%)

0.00

2

FINE

(%)PI

(%)LL

17

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILT

0.3

COARSE

0.5

COARSEGRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


75

FINE

50

0

10

20

40

60

70

80

90

100

30

10

SAMPLE

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

20

0

30

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

1/2"

MEDIUM

BH08-02

DEPTH

Project H-328605

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

REMARKS:SAND

8

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

3/4"

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

#50

3/8"

30

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

0.00

2

2003

0.1 500.2 202 5


8AS12 8.25

(%)

100

GRAVEL

23(%)PI

51

(%)LL

84

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILTFINE COARSECOARSE

BOREHOLE

COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


10.5

0.3

FINE

0

80

10

20

30

40

50

70

90

100

60

10

9.14

SAMPLE

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

20

0

30

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

REMARKS:

3/8"

BH08-02

DEPTH

Project H-328605

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

BOREHOLE SAND

0

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

1/2"

MEDIUM

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

#50

100

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

0.00

2 3

0.5 5030202 5


13AS13

200

COARSE

20(%)PI

45

(%)LL

86

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILTFINE

0.2

FINE

0.3

GRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


1(%)

COARSE

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

90

9.91

BOREHOLE

20

AS14

SAMPLE

80

30


100

90

80

70

60

0

40

10

50

84

1/2"

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

3/8"

#50

REMARKS:

BH08-02

DEPTH

Project H-328605

SAND

0

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

MEDIUM

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

200

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

0.00

2

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION3

1005030202 5

(%)

0.00

3

COARSE


(%)PI

(%)LL

16

(%)FINES

0.5

FINE

1

FINECOARSEGRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"

CLAY & SILT

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

90

12.95

BOREHOLE

20

AS18

SAMPLE

80

30


100

90

80

70

60

0

40

10

50

78

1/2"

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

3/8"

#50

REMARKS:

BH08-02

DEPTH

Project H-328605

SAND

0

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

MEDIUM

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

200

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

0.00

2

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION3

1005030202 5

(%)

0.00

3

COARSE


(%)PI

(%)LL

22

(%)FINES

0.5

FINE

1

FINECOARSEGRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"

CLAY & SILT

0

80

10

20

30

40

50

70

90

100

60

10

14.50

SAMPLE

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

20

0

30

3/4"

#10

#20

#30

#200

10

0.00

1

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

REMARKS:

3/8"

BH08-02

DEPTH

Project H-328605

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

BOREHOLE SAND

0

(%)GRAVEL

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

PER

CEN

T SM

ALL

ER

1/2"

MEDIUM

#60


#40

#100

SAND

# 4

#8#16

#50

100

0.1

0.05

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

5

0.00

3

0.00

2 3

0.5 5030202 5


38AS20

200

COARSE

16(%)PI

30

(%)LL

62

(%)FINES

CLAY & SILTFINE

0.2

FINE

0.3

GRAVEL COBBLES

6"2" 4"3"1"


1(%)

COARSE


Final Report

H-328605.201.01, Rev. 0


Appendix D Geophysical Investigation of the

Second and Third Depot Lake Dams, Report by Geophysics GPR International Inc.

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SECOND AND THIRD DEPOT LAKE DAMS

DEPOT LAKES CONSERVATION AREA, CENTRAL FRONTENAC, ONTARIO

Presented to: Quinte Conservation Area

c/o

Hatch Energy Ltd.

4342 Queen St.,

Niagara Falls, Ontario,

L2E 6W1

Presented by:

Geophysics GPR International Inc.

6741 Columbus Road, Unit 103

Mississauga, Ontario

L5T 2G9

July 2008 T08033

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION OF

THE SECOND AND THIRD DEPOT

LAKE DAMS, DEPOT LAKES CONSERVATION

AREA, CENTRAL FRONTENAC, ONTARIO

Presented to:

Quinte Conservation Area

c/o

Hatch Energy

4342 Queen St.,

Niagara Falls, Ontario,

L2E 6W1

Presented by:

Geophysics GPR International Inc.

6741 Columbus Road. Unit 103

Mississauga, Ontario

L5T 2G9

July 2008 T08033

Table of Contents: 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 4

2. Methodology............................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Positioning, Topography and Units of Measurement ......................................... 6

2.2. Seismic Methods................................................................................................. 6

2.2.1. Seismic Resonance (TISAR) ....................................................................... 6

2.2.2. Seismic Refraction ...................................................................................... 8

2.2.3. Surface Wave Analysis (MASW/MAM) ...................................................... 9

3. Results....................................................................................................................... 11

4. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 15

Table of Figures:

Figure 1: Survey site with approximate location of Dams, Central Frontenac, ON........... 5

Figure 2: Seismic Resonance Operating Principle.............................................................. 7

Figure 3: Seismic Refraction Operating Principle .............................................................. 8

Figure 4: MASW Operating Principle .............................................................................. 10

Figure 5: Example of a typical MASW shot record, phase velocity/frequency curve and

resulting 1D shear wave velocity model. .................................................................. 10

Figure 6: MASW 1D Inversion for the crest of the Second Depot Lake Dam................. 13

Figure 7: MASW 1D Inversion for the toe of the Second Depot Lake Dam.................... 13

Figure 8: MASW 1D Inversion for the crest of the Third Depot Lake Dam.................... 14

Figure 9: MASW 1D Inversion for the toe of the Third Depot Lake Dam ...................... 14

Appendices:

Appendix A: Seismic Equipment and Methodology Fact Sheets

Appendix B: Seismic Survey Photos

Appendix C: Drawings T08033-A1 & T08033-A2

4

1. Introduction Geophysics GPR International Inc. was requested by Hatch Energy Ltd. to carry a

geophysical survey at the Second and Third Depot Lake Dams within the Depot Lakes

Conservation Area (Figure 1). The primary goal of this investigation was to determine

the shear-wave velocities of the earthen dam material. The secondary goals were to map

features within the dam structure that could give insights into the structure of the dams.

The TISAR (Testing & Imaging using Seismic Acoustic Resonance), seismic refraction

and MASW (Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves) methods were applied to collect

the data along four alignments for a total of approximately 180 m of profiles.

Data were collected February 7 and May 27-28, 2008.

This report deals with the various aspects of the survey including field techniques,

interpretation techniques, and finally an interpretation in the form of cross-sections.

5

Figure 1: Survey site with approximate location of Dams, Central Frontenac, ON

Legend

6

2. Methodology

2.1. Positioning, Topography and Units of Measurement

The locations of the seismic profiles were chosen to run parallel to the dam, along the

crest and toe (downstream water line) of each dam.

A standard surveying level was used to determine the elevation of the seismic profiles

with respect to the crest of the dam and should be accurate to within +/- 0.03m.

All geophysical measurements were collected in SI units.

2.2. Seismic Methods

Three seismic methodologies were employed at each of the dams. Shear-wave velocities

were to be measured using the MASW method and structure mapping were to be imaged

using seismic resonance and refraction.

2.2.1. Seismic Resonance (TISAR)

Basic Theory

The seismic resonance, or TISAR (Testing & Imaging using Seismic Acoustic Resonance),

method is based on the frequency analysis of seismic records. It considers the seismic

resonance within the signal. The method was developed for geological sub-surface

profiling (1 to 15m deep). The method has since expanded to be effective for smaller

ranges of 0.1m for testing of concrete/asphalt structures, as well as for deep (100m)

geological investigations.

The method uses the information from an induced seismic signal in the frequency domain

instead of the direct time domain as with classic seismic reflection. For both methods,

however, the principal physical parameter involved remains the acoustic impedance

contrast, which is the product of the seismic velocity and the volumetric mass of the

investigated materials. At the interface between two materials with different acoustic

impedance, the seismic signal is partially reflected back to the surface. Under specific

conditions, the repetition of such reflections leads to the build-up of a resonance signal,

whose frequency is related to the depth of the interface and the seismic velocity of the

upper material. The resonance frequency is inversely proportional to the reflection time.

The first advantage of the use of frequencies instead of reflection times is the amplitude

and the repetitive signal, which is less sensitive to the ambient noise and produces a

resolution that increases with shallow depths. The second advantage of using resonance

frequencies is the ability to resolve very thin layers (contrary to standard reflection).

Survey Design

A seismic spread typically consists of 24 vibration monitoring devices (geophones)

connected in line (spread) to a seismograph (ABEM Terraloc Mark 6) by two 12-

7

connector cables. Seismic pulses (shots) are then generated at various locations with

respect to the spread. Spacing between geophone at this particular site was 1.5m at the

Second Depot Dam and 3m at the Third Depot Dam. The resonance testing involved

hammering a metal plate at regular intervals along the length of the profile and at various

distances off both ends of the profiles.

A sledgehammer was used as the primary energy source. A sledgehammer is an ideal

energy source for resonance surveys.

Interpretation Method and Accuracy of Results

The seismic resonance method requires adequate geological models and seismic

velocities. These parameters were derived from the seismic refraction measurements

discussed below. The accuracy of the depths of reflectors is related to the accuracy of the

geological model, in particular, the input velocities. It may be possible that velocities

vary by approximately 10% resulting in a similar variation in depth to a given reflector.

Resonance has the advantage of a vertical resolution that cannot be obtained from

conventional seismic methods.

Interpretation involves identifying trends in the amplitude of reflectors. TISAR reflectors

could be from geologic/structural contacts, fractures or voids. As with seismic

reflection, the true nature/source of the reflection cannot be certain.

Figure 2: Seismic Resonance Operating Principle.

8

2.2.2. Seismic Refraction

Basic Theory

The seismic refraction method relies on measuring the transit time of the wave that takes

the shortest time to travel from the shot-point to each geophone. The fastest seismic

waves are the compressional (P) or acoustic waves, where displaced particles oscillate in

the direction of wave propagation. The energy that follows this first arrival (including

reflected waves, transverse (S) waves and resonance) is not considered under routine

seismic refraction interpretation. Figure 3 illustrates the basic operating principle for

refraction surveys.

Survey Design

The seismic refraction survey was carried-out with the same set-up as the seismic

resonance investigations. Six to nine shots were executed along each line to obtain the

lateral velocity variation in the overburden and signal arrivals from the bedrock.

The energy source used for this investigation was a sledgehammer and in some locations

a buffalo gun (blank shotgun shells). Ideally explosives are used as the seismic energy

source wherever possible as it produces excellent signal and recordings of high quality;

however, at this particular site explosives were not a practical option.

Interpretation Method and Accuracy of Results

Typically the accuracy of a refraction surveys is +/- 1m for depths less than 10m and +/-

10% for depths greater than 10m; however, in areas of steeply dipping bedrock (> 45

degrees) the geometry is such that accurate mapping of the bedrock is not possible.

Accordingly, as the bedrock is likely very steeply dipping at these particular sites, there is

less confidence in the interpreted depth to bedrock and the interpreted depth is likely

underestimated. The refraction records are also used to measure the overburden

velocities to develop a starting model for the resonance analysis.

Figure 3: Seismic Refraction Operating Principle

9

2.2.3. Surface Wave Analysis (MASW/MAM)

Basic Theory The Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) and the Micro-tremor

Array Measurements (MAM) are seismic methods used to evaluate the shear-

wave velocities of subsurface materials through the analysis of the dispersion

properties of Rayleigh surface waves (“ground roll”). The dispersion properties

are measured as a change in phase velocity with frequency. Surface wave energy

will decay exponentially with depth. Lower frequency surface waves will travel

deeper and thus be more influenced by deeper velocity layering than the shallow

higher frequency waves. Inversion of the Rayleigh wave dispersion curve yields a

shear-wave (Vs) velocity depth profile (sounding). Figures 4 and 5 outline the

basic operating procedure for the MASW method. A more detailed description of

the method can be found in the paper Multi-channel Analysis of Surface Waves,

Park, C.B., Miller, R.D. and Xia, J. Geophysics, Vol. 64, No. 3 (May-June 1999);

P. 800–808.

Survey Design

The MASW survey utilized the same set-up as the seismic refraction investigation

(i.e. 24 geophones in a linear array). The principle consists of intentionally

generating an acoustic wave at the surface and digitally recording the surface

waves from the moment of source impact with a linear series of geophones on the

surface. This is referred to as an “active source” method. A sledgehammer was

used as the primary energy source. Unlike the refraction and resonance methods,

which produces a data point beneath each geophone, the shear-wave depth profile

is the average of the bulk area within the geophone spread. Approximately 12

shots were recorded along each spread.

The MAM survey utilized the same geophone array as the MASW investigation.

The MAM method is considered a “passive source” method in that there is no

time break and the motions recorded are from ambient energy generated by

cultural noise such as traffic, wind, wave motion, etc. Data collection for the

passive method involves recording approximately 10 minutes of background

“noise”. The records generated by the MAM method contain lower frequency

data thus increasing the depth of investigation. Typically the MAM results can

aid in clarifying the MASW results for depths greater than 20m. Passive data

were recorded for each sounding orientation.

Interpretation Method

The MASW shot records were processed as both 1D and 2D-MASW. Two-

Dimensional MASW is a recent extension of the 1D analysis and the basic theory

behind the method is similar. The 2D method involves collecting multiple shot

records along a profile. The shot records are compared and combined based on

shot/receiver geometry (common-mid-point (CMP)). A multi-channel analysis is

then performed on the CMP gathers to generate a phase dispersion curve for

10

calculating the surface wave phase velocities. A non-linear least-squares

inversion is run to generate a 2D shear wave velocity model. A more detailed

description of the method can be found in the paper CMP Cross-Correlation

Analysis of Multi-Channel Surface-Wave Data, Hayashi, K., and Suzuki, H.

Exploration Geophysics, (2004) 35, 7-13.

Figure 4: MASW Operating Principle

Figure 5: Example of a typical MASW shot record, phase velocity/frequency curve and resulting 1D

shear wave velocity model.

11

3. Results The combined results of the seismic refraction, resonance and surface wave

interpretations are presented in the form of an interpreted cross-section in drawing

T08033-A1 and T08033-A2. The quality of the data ranged from good to excellent. Low

background seismic noise levels were low which is ideal for active source seismic

methods but limits the effectiveness of the passive MASW.

The 1D MASW soundings are presented in figures 6 through 9.

Geophysics GPR International personnel recorded the topographic data and profile

coordinates. The topography was measured using a standard survey level for Profiles 1

through 4. Elevations were referenced from crest elevations of 159.31masl and

168.28masl for the Second and Third Depot Lake dams respectively as provided by

Hatch Energy.


The results of the seismic investigation for the Second Depot Lake Dam are presented in

Drawing T08033-A1.

Shear-wave velocities measured at the crest of the dam ranged from approximately

180m/s to 260m/s for the upper 5m. Below 5m a second layer with velocities of

approximately 300 to 400m/s was observed. The 1D profile indicates a slightly lower

shear-wave velocity zone between 3 and 5m. The shear-wave velocities are further

summarised in Table 1.

Shear-wave velocities measured near the toe of the dam ranged from approximately 100

to 180m/s for the upper 4m. Below 4m the shear-wave velocities were on the order of

260 to 300m/s. The shear-wave velocities are further summarised in Table 2.

Resonance imaging along the crest and toe of the dam identified a number of strong

reflectors within the dam. The strongest of reflector is at an elevation of approximately

150masl. This reflector corresponds well with the top of a sand layer identified in

borehole BH08-02.

Due to the steeply dipping geometry of the bedrock, the refraction results were not able to

accurate produce a bedrock profile under this dam. A bedrock elevation of 145m was

resolvable at chainage 0+31m using critical distance calculations; this elevation could

also be influenced by the dip of the rock.

The general seismic compressional (P) wave velocity model consists of a three-layer

case. The uppermost layer has a velocity of approximately 800m/s at the crest of the dam

and 300m/s near the toe. This layer likely represents unsaturated sediments and soils.

The second velocity layer has a velocity range of 1100 to 1600m/s. Velocities in the

range are typical for saturated sediments and/or dense clay/tills. The bedrock velocity

was measured as 3000m/s. This velocity is typical for moderately weathered rock;

12

however, at this particular site the velocity may be underestimated, as the rock appears to

be steeply dipping. Appendix A contains a table of seismic P-wave velocities for various

soil and rock types.

Third Depot Lake Dam

The results of the seismic investigation for the Third Depot Lake Dam are presented in

Drawing T08033-A2.

Shear-wave velocities measured at the crest of the dam ranged from approximately 220 to

300m/s for the upper 8m. Below 8m a second layer with velocities of approximately 300

to 500m/s was observed. The 1D MASW inversions indicate a slight low velocity zone

between 1 and 3m. The shear-wave velocities are further summarised in Table 3.

Shear-wave velocities measured near the toe of the dam ranged from approximately 220

to 320m/s for the upper 5.4m. Below 5.4m the shear-wave velocities were on the order

of 320 to 500m/s. The 1D MASW inversions indicate a slightly lower velocity zone

between 3 and 6m. The shear-wave velocities are further summarised in Table 4.

Resonance imaging along the dam identified a number of strong reflectors within the

dam. The most interesting (strongest) reflector is at an elevation of approximately 158 to

160masl. Without borehole information the nature of this reflector is not known.

The general seismic compressional (P) wave velocity model consists of a two-layer case.

The uppermost layer has a velocity of 1100m/s at the crest of the dam and 1300m/s near

the toe. Velocities in the range are typical for saturated sediments and/or dense clay/tills.

The bedrock velocity was measured as 3800m/s to 4500m/s. This velocity is typical for

competent rock. Appendix A contains a table of seismic velocities for various soil and

rock types.

13

1D MASW Sounding:

Dam 2 Crest

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 100 200 300 400 500

Shear-wave Velocity (m/s)

Dep

th (

m)

Dam 2 Crest

Figure 6: MASW 1D Inversion for the crest of the Second Depot Lake Dam

1D MASW Sounding:

Dam 2 Toe

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 100 200 300 400 500


Dep

th (

m)

Depth(m)

Figure 7: MASW 1D Inversion for the toe of the Second Depot Lake Dam

14

1D MASW Sounding:

Dam 3 Crest

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 100 200 300 400 500


Dep

th (

m)

Dam 3 Crest

Figure 8: MASW 1D Inversion for the crest of the Third Depot Lake Dam

1D MASW Sounding:

Dam 3 Toe

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 100 200 300 400 500


Dep

th (

m)

Dam 3 Toe

Figure 9: MASW 1D Inversion for the toe of the Third Depot Lake Dam

15

4. Conclusions

A seismic survey was undertaken to aid in the dam investigation of Hatch Energy Ltd. at

the Second and Third Depot Lake Dams. Three different seismic methodologies

(resonance, refraction and MASW) were employed to image the internal dam structure.

Seismic data were collected along four alignments for a total of approximately 180m of

profiles.

The enclosed drawings, T08033-A1 and T08033-A2, present the colour-contoured

images of the shear-wave velocities combined with the interpreted seismic refraction and

resonance results for the Second and Third Depot Lake Dams respectively.

MASW/MAM tests are used for measuring the shear strength of soils for geotechnical

investigations and site classification.

Second Depot Lake Dam:

Interpreted TISAR reflectors, P-wave and S-wave velocities, critical distance depths and

borehole information are presented in drawing T08033-A1. Complete refraction profiles

were not possible likely due to the (steep) dip and depth of the bedrock. The effect of the

bedrock dip on the MASW is less certain but the results should be largely unaffected by

the steeply dipping bedrock within the upper 5m.

A strong TISAR reflector is visible at an elevation of approximately 150m. Along the

toe, this reflector corresponds to an increase in the S-wave velocity from less than 180m/s

to approximately 260m/s. Compared with the borehole logs, this reflector corresponds

with a clay and silt over sand contact. It is not obvious if the two dipping TISAR

reflectors at each end of the profile represent bedrock or another contact. The other

reflectors identified could represent other contacts or irregularities within the dam

structure.

Figures 6 and 7 present a 1-D sounding for the crest and toe profile respectively. There is

a distinct difference between the shear velocity values at the crest and the toe with the toe

having lower shear-wave velocities.

16

Table 1: Second Depot Lake Dam: Crest Profile Summary near centre of dam

Depth

(m)

Elevation

(masl)

S-wave

(m/s)

P-wave

(m/s)

Geology

(Inferred

from BH)

Layer 1 0 to 2.3 159.3 to 157 180 800 Sand with

gravel

Layer 2 2.3 to 5 157 to 154.3 260 800 Clay with silt

Layer 3 5 to 9.6 154.3 to 149.7 300 to 460 1600 Clay with silt

Layer 4 9.6 to 13.4 149.7 to 145.9 460 to 500 1600 Sand with silt

Table 2: Second Depot Lake Dam: Toe Profile Summary near centre of dam

Depth

(m)

Elevation

(masl)

S-wave (m/s) P-wave

(m/s)

Geology

(Inferred from

BH)

Layer 1 0 to 1.4 153.7 to 152.3 100 to 140 300 Loose cobbles

Layer 2 1.4 to 3.9 152.7 to 149.8 140 to 180 1100 Clay with silt

Layer 3 3.9 to 8 149.8 to 145.7 180 to 280 1100 Sand with silt

Layer 4 8 to 11.8 145.7 to 141.9 280 to 300 1100 Sand with clay

Layer 5 > 11.8 141.9 to … 3000 Bedrock

Third Depot Lake Dam:

Interpreted bedrock contacts have been indicated on the drawing along with other

geologic contacts as interpreted from the TISAR data set. The TISAR reflectors could

represent other contacts or irregularities within the dam structure.

There does not appear to be a large difference between the shear wave values on the crest

and toe of the dam. The upper 6 meters in each case averages around 220 to 260 m/s.

The suspected steeply dipping geometry of the bedrock is not ideal for any of the seismic

methods; however, within the upper 5m the shear-wave velocities, as measured using the

MASW method, should be largely unaffected.

The bedrock profiles interpreted through the refraction and resonance methods are in very

good agreement between chainages 0+37 to 0+60m. There is a larger discrepancy in the

depths towards the start of the profiles. Typically the refraction method should be more

accurate; however, the dipping bedrock along the profile and sloping geometry adjacent

to the profile will decrease the accuracy.

17

Table 3: Third Depot Lake Dam: Crest Profile Summary near centre of dam

Depth

(m)

Elevation

(masl)

S-wave

(m/s)

P-wave

(m/s)

Geology

(No BH)

Layer 1 0 to 2.5 168.3 to 165.8 260 1100 N/A

Layer 2 2.5 to 7.7 165.8 to 158.1 260 1100 N/A

Layer 3 7.7 to 14 158.1 to 154.3 320 to 460 1100 N/A

Layer 4 >14 154.3 to … 3800 Bedrock

Table 4: Third Depot Lake Dam: Toe Profile Summary near centre of dam

Depth

(m)

Elevation

(masl)

S-wave

(m/s)

P-wave

(m/s)

Geology

(No BH)

Layer 1 0 to 3 162.1 to 159.1 220 to 260 1250 N/A

Layer 2 3 to 5.4 159.1 to 156.7 260 to 320 1250 N/A

Layer 3 5.4 to 7.3 156.7 to 154.8 320 1250 N/A

Layer 4 >7.3 154,8 to … > 320 4500 Bedrock

Processing and interpretation of the seismic data was performed by Micheline Poulin and

Ben McClement. This report has been written by Ben McClement, P.Eng and reviewed

by Milan Situm, P.Geo.

___________________ __________________

Ben McClement, P.Eng. Milan Situm, P.Geo.

Geophysicist Manager

A

APPENDIX A

SEISMIC EQUIPMENT AND METHODOLOGY FACT SHEETS

A

TERRALOC MK6 FEATURES

Great features in a small seismograph

The Terraloc mark 6 is a high resolution multi-channel seismograph with an 18-bit A/D

converter and 3-bit instantaneous floating point (IFP) amplifier. Overall resolution is thus

21 bits. Its dynamic range, 126 dB, eliminates all gain setting hassles and satisfies the

most stringent shallow reflection requirements.

7,8" full colour daylight-visible backlit display with VGA resolution

Armoured glass LCD protection

Sealed, Rugged aluminium case protects against weather and rough handling

sealed 1.44 MB 3.5" floppy drive

Numeric keyboard

Command keyboard

Added Terraloc advantages:

Great for tomography thanks to high sampling rates starting at 25 µs.

Usable with various energy sources (even mini-vabrators) thanks to long record lenghts,

auxiliary source signature channel input and built-in correlation software.

provides sophisticated automation. Aversatile digital (TTL) interface (trigger

IN/OUT,arming IN/OUT signals) makes it easy to connect several Terralocs and supports

handshaking with vibrators and marine seismic energy sources.

Ideal for refraction as well as shallow reflection seismics thanks to built-in roll-along

function and a broad spectrum of analog and digital filters

In-field quality control. On-site geophone testing, cable testing and noise monitoring.

Wide choice of multi- or single-trace view modes and frequency spectrum analysis (FFT)

A

Powerful computer

Fully compatible with your office computer thanks to MS-DOS 6.0 or higher, an internal

hard disk, a built-in 1.44mb floppy disk, and compliance with the international SEG-2

format for storing of seismic traces and header information.

Interpretation software can be installed and run right in your Terraloc field unit.

Spectrum analysis helps you select the right filter ,and it can also reveal soil properties

Lightweight and easy to use

The compact, lightweight Terraloc mark6 weighs only 16kg (24-channel version) and is

less than half the size of its predecessor the popular Terraloc mark 3.

Carefully prepared, logically arranged documentation includes a copies of the operators

manual (one for the field, and one to keep in the office), a user's manual for the computer

, a complete description of the SEG-2 format and a service manual loaded with detailed

technical information and schematics. Also included are a DOS manual and practice

records to get you started.

A

Broad range of viewing provisions.

Scroll through records

Change display settings as desired

Select different time-scales

Select display mode

Select trace mode

Select AGC window length and set time and amplitude scale factors

Analyse single-trace frequency content (FFT)

Calculate refractor velocities

Analyse ground noise

Re-Scale traces individually

Create a geophone test report

Enlarge traces individually (Zoom)

Broad Printer support

The terraloc mark 6 supports a wide range of printers through dynamic link libraries

(DLLs) via either the parallel or serial port and new printers can be added easily if

required in the future.

Roll-along optimum offset

You can type in numerical values for roll-along start-trace, end-trace and step, you can

roll along part of your receiver spread a step at a time . This feature is used in reflection

surveys that include CDP stacking.

Expand your system

Two or more Mark 6's can easily be linked together to form a larger system. The print-out

below is from a 96channel survey in which four 24-channel Terraloc's were connected

A

Technical Specifications for the Terraloc

• Number of channels (smaller unit)................. 4-24 in steps of 4

• Number of channels (larger unit).................... 4-48 in steps of 4

• Additional channels....................................... Easily obtained by linking two or more units together

• Up-hole channel............................................ Yes

• Sampling rate (selectable).............................. 25, 50, 100, 200, 500,1000 & 2000 µs

• Record length (selectable).............................. 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048,4096, 8192 or 16384 samples per trace equivalent to: 3.2 ms - 32.7 s

• Pre-trig record (selectable)............................. 0-100 % of record length

• Pre stack correlation..................................... Yes, cross correlation with reference or any other channel

• Delay time .................................................... Related to sampling rate May be set (for example) from: 0-0.8 s at 25 ps ,sampling rate 0-131 s at 2 ms sampling rate

• Stacking......................................................... 32 bits, up to 999 impacts

• Unstack........................................................ Remove last shot from stack

• First-arrivals picking.................................... Automatic or manual. Times can be saved with record

• Trigger inputs.............................................. Trigger coil, make/brake, geophone, TTL

• A/D converter resolution.............................. 21 bits (18 bits plus 3-bit IFP)

• Dynamic range (theoretical/measured).......... 126 / 114 dB

• Max input signal........................................... 500 mV p-p

• Frequency range............................................ 1 - 4000 Hz (at 25 ps sampling rate)

• Total harmonic distortion............................. - 80 dB

• Crosstalk....................................................... - 86 dB

• Input impedance............................................ 3 k

• Noise monitor................................................ Amplitude or full waveform display available on-line

Analog filters

• Low cut (selectable)....................................................... 12 or 24 dB/octave 16 steps from 12 to 240 Hz

• Notch............................................................................ 50 or 60 Hz specify when ordering

• Anti-aliasing.................................................................. set automatically based on sampling rate

Digital filters

Bandpass, low-cut, high-cut, bandreject, alpha-beta and remove DC offset Spectrum analysis...... Any single

trace

B

APPENDIX B

SEISMIC SURVEY PHOTOS

B

Photo 1: Second Depot Lake Dam, Crest Set-up

Photo 2: Second Depot Lake Dam, Profile Location

B

Photo 3: Third Depot Lake Dam, Crest Profile

Photo 4: Third Depot Lake Dam, Toe Set-up

C

APPENDIX C

DRAWING T08033-A1

DRAWING T08033-A2

4342 Queen Street P.O. Box 1001 Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 6W1 Tel 905 374 5200 Fax 905 374 1157

quinteconservation.caquinteconservation.ca/site/images/stories/jobs/docs...quinte conservation -...

Documents