geotechnical assessment and design · geotechnical assessment and design halfway river segment...
TRANSCRIPT
Prepared for:
R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd.
678 Vancouver Street Prince George, BC V2L 2P3 June 18, 2019
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND
DESIGN
Halfway River Segment
Highway 29, British Columbia
Project # KX052806
FINAL
DRAFT
‘Wood’ is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN
Halfway River Segment
Highway 29, British Columbia
Project # KX052806
Prepared for: R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd.
678 Vancouver Street Prince George, BC V2L 2P3
Prepared by: Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions,
a Division of Wood Canada Limited
3456 Opie Crescent Prince George, BC V2N 2P9
18 June, 2019
Copyright and non-disclosure notice
The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment and Infrastructure Limited)
save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent
that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other
than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and
must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may
constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains
access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.
Third-party disclaimer
Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and
for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to
access it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage
howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or
death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................ 4
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
SITE CONDITIONS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 6
5.1 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS – HIGHWAY 29 REALIGNMENT ................................ 6
5.2 PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED AREAS ................................................................................................................. 7
5.3 SHALE BEDROCK ................................................................................................................................................. 7
5.4 ACID ROCK DRAINAGE AND METAL LEACHING POTENTIAL ........................................................... 9
5.5 EXISTING HIGHWAY 29 ASPHALT THICKNESS ........................................................................................ 9
5.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 9
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................10
6.1 STRIPPING ............................................................................................................................................................10
6.2 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ............................................................................................................................10
6.3 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS .........................................................................................................................11
6.4 EMBANKMENT FILL CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................................11
6.4.1 WESTERN APPROACH STA. 3000+580 TO 3000+950 (RIGHT) ......................................12
6.4.2 WESTERN APPROACH STA. 3000+580 TO 3000+900 (LEFT) ..........................................15
6.4.3 STA. 3002+300 TO 3002+800 .....................................................................................................16
6.5 CUT SLOPES .........................................................................................................................................................17
6.6 GEOTEXTILE AND BIAXIAL GEOGRID SPECIFICATIONS .....................................................................17
6.7 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................18
6.8 WASTE DISPOSAL .............................................................................................................................................19
6.9 DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY STATION SECTION ................................19
CLOSURE ...............................................................................................................................................................................22
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................................................23
List of Appendices
APPENDIX A FIGURES
APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (SLOPE/W)
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page ii
List of Tables
Table 5-1: Encountered Bedrock .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 5-2: Measured Asphalt Core Thickness ........................................................................................................................... 9
Table 5-3: Summary of Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 10
Table 6-1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions (Sta. 3000+580 to 3000+950) ........................................................ 12
Table 6-2: Geotechnical Material Properties for Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3000+580
to Sta. 3000+950) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Table 6-3: Summary of Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3000+580 to Sta. 3000+950) .......... 13
Table 6-4: Summary of Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Riprap Slope) ................................................. 14
Table 6-5: Geotechnical Material Properties for Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3002+300
to 3002+800) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 6-6: Summary of Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3002+300 to 3002+800) .................. 17
Table 6-7: Non-Woven Geotextile Specifications ................................................................................................................. 18
Table 6-8: Biaxial Polypropylene Geogrid Specifications .................................................................................................. 18
Table 6-9: Recommended Minimum Pavement Structure Thickness ........................................................................... 18
Table 6-10: Detailed Geotechnical Recommendations by Station Section ................................................................ 20
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 3
INTRODUCTION As part of BC Hydro’s proposed Site C Clean Energy Project, portions of the existing Highway 29
alignment between Hudson’s Hope and Charlie Lake, BC, will be flooded during normal reservoir
operation. Before filling of the reservoir, the affected portions of the highway will be relocated away from
the reservoir area. In support of the project, Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions a Division of
Wood Canada Limited (Wood), formerly Amec Foster Wheeler, was retained by R.F. Binnie & Associates
Ltd. (Binnie) to provide geotechnical engineering services in support of proposed realignment for an
approximately 3.7 km long segment of Highway 29 in the vicinity of the confluence of the Halfway River
with the Peace River. The general location is shown in Figure 1, and a plan of the proposed realignment is
provided on three map sheets in Figure 2.
Background terrain and geotechnical information for the project segment is described in a previous report
(Amec Foster Wheeler, 2012) prepared for the definition design phase. A summary of the geotechnical
subsurface investigations and the resulting data for the Halfway River realignment segment is presented
in a separate report (Wood, December 2019). Functional design phase geotechnical recommendations in
support of the proposed new Halfway River bridge crossing portion of the realignment segment are
described in a separate report (Wood, August 2018). Investigations specific to six adjacent granular
borrow prospect areas (Areas A through F) are also reported separately.
This report includes a description of the scope of services, methodology, a discussion of geotechnical
engineering analysis and geotechnical recommendations developed to support the detailed design for
the proposed highway alignment. The detailed design (analysis and reporting) of the bridge abutments
areas and piers is being reported separately.
SCOPE The scope of Wood’s geotechnical assessment was as described by tasks G-100 through G106, G-112 and
G114 in Section 1.4 of Site C Clean Energy Project, Engineering Design Services for Hwy 29 Road and
Bridge Infrastructure, Work Order Release 6 (Version 3 - July 4, 2016), pursuant to the Sub-Consultant
Agreement between R.F. Binnie Associates Ltd. and Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited, dated
October 6, 2016, and as subsequently amended on March 1, 2018 (Amendment No. 1 between Binnie and
Wood).
The geotechnical assessment included the following activities:
Attendance at project team meetings;
Review of relevant project background data;
Preparation of a site-specific health and safety plan for the field work;
Field reconnaissance to identify locations and access routes for the geotechnical investigation;
Development of multiple geotechnical site investigation plans and budgets for various phases of field
investigation;
Preparation of various site access plans and permit support information;
Procurement and coordination of subcontractor equipment and support services for the geotechnical
investigation work including utility location, tree fallers, Level 3 medical support with emergency
transport vehicle, an excavator contractor, traffic control, multiple drill rigs, as well as cone
penetration testing and downhole geophysical testing subcontractors;
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 4
Coordination of the access preparation and geotechnical investigation work with concurrent activities
by others, including property considerations, surveyors, archaeology and environmental studies;
Supervision of several phases of geotechnical field investigation, including logging of ground
conditions, retention of soil samples from test pits, and retention of soil and rock core samples from
boreholes;
Supervision of the installation of groundwater instrumentation (vibrating wire piezometers) at select
locations, and follow-up monitoring;
Coordination and review of in-situ seismic piezo-cone (sCPTu) and downhole geophysics data
procurement;
Laboratory testing on selected soil and rock samples;
Geotechnical analysis to develop appropriate design recommendations, including the following
analyses:
Limit equilibrium slope stability analyses (using Slope/W) for current conditions, at maximum
normal reservoir level (MNRL), and after emergency drawdown,
Pore pressure response to emergency drawdown modelling using Seep/W;
Provision of interim geotechnical data reports and draft recommendations as required; and
Compilation of this report.
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed 3.7 km long Halfway River realignment segment is referenced as the L3000A20-Line (Binnie
draft geometric design drawings dated 31 March 2019) which runs north of and approximately parallel to
the existing Highway 29 alignment. The beginning or western end of the new alignment is at Sta.
2999+700, near the entrance to the BC Ministry of Transportation & Highways’ (BC MoTI) Tompkins Pit.
The eastern end of the new alignment is at Sta. 3003+400, along an existing tangent of Highway 29. The
new alignment would be above and generally to the north of the main Peace River reservoir shoreline. A
bridge on the order of 1 km long (approx. Sta. 3001+018 to Sta. 3002+060) is planned to span the
Halfway River valley, and its associated floodplain which will be fully inundated after reservoir filling. The
highway is to comprise two paved lanes.
On either side of the Halfway River valley, the new highway alignment would generally cross flat-lying
east-west oriented fluvial terrace terrain. However, there are steep terrace face slopes adjacent to the
proposed new alignment; the most significant of which are the eroded and exposed shale bedrock faces
along the current banks of the Halfway River. Reservoir inundation would result in the western approach
to the bridge being along the top of a relatively narrow remnant spit of land extending out into the
reservoir, with relatively steep slopes down into the reservoir on either side of the approach alignment
and below the bridge’s west abutment site. The east bridge abutment is adjacent to a relatively steep
existing eroded slope down into the Halfway River.
For more detailed descriptions of the background topography, geology and terrain conditions along the
project segment, refer to our definition design report (Amec Foster Wheeler, 5 March 2012).
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 5
BACKGROUND
4.1 GEOLOGY
Within the study region, the bedrock geology consists of Cretaceous marine sedimentary rock sequences
overlain by a series of glacial and fluvial Quaternary sediments (Hartman and Clague, 2008). The bedrock
units present include flakey and fissile shales and siltstone ascribed to the Shaftesbury Formation (part of
the Fort St. John Group), overlain by Dunvegan Formation sandstones and conglomerates (Hartman and
Clague, 2008 and Bidwell, 1999). The bedding in the bedrock has been reported as near horizontal (Klohn
Crippen Berger and SNC-Lavalin, 2003) in the vicinity of the project segment, but may exhibit local
undulation and variations.
The Shaftesbury shale typically is well bedded with thin, weak layers, some of which include bentonitic clays
from ash fall deposits that exhibit high plasticity and have low shear strength (Bidwell, 1999). Stability issues
in the shale have developed from weak cementation; valley rebound due to stress relief and movement
along pre-sheared or weak layers parallel to bedding.
Within the Halfway River segment, bedrock is exposed along the banks of the Halfway River upstream from
Highway 29 between elevation 464 m to 472 m ASL and is believed to underlie the terrace areas on both
sides of the river at similar elevations (Graeme and Murray, 1982). This bedrock is interpreted to be
interbedded shales and siltstones of the Shaftesbury Formation. Bedrock outcrops of interbedded shales
and siltstones were also noted adjacent to the current highway alignment as it crosses the slope between
terrace levels towards the east side of the project site.
The Quaternary-age sediments of the Peace River region are well exposed in the study area. The oldest
sediments present are pre-glacial fluvial deposits likely to occur on bedrock at the base of pre-glacial valley
bottoms. Listed by decreasing age, the younger sediments include advance phase fine-grained
glaciolacustrine soils (Glacial Lake Mathews), glacial tills of the last glaciations, late-glacial fine-grained
glaciolacustrine deposits (Glacial Lake Peace) and post-glacial deposits including fluvial sand, gravel and silt
deposits and landslide deposits (Hartman and Clague, 2008).
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 6
SITE CONDITIONS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS – HIGHWAY 29
REALIGNMENT
The following sections present brief descriptions of the geotechnical ground conditions anticipated along
various design sections of the new highway alignment (L3000-Line), preceding in increasing survey
chainage order from west to east. These sections should be read in conjunction with the Geotechnical
Data Report (Wood, May 2019). Investigation locations are shown in Figure 2, and profile views with
simplified stick log representations are shown in Figure 3 (Sheets 1 to 12).
Sta. 2999+700 to 2999+840: This section is a transition off the existing Highway 29 alignment and will
comprise a series of low fills (<2 m) and cuts (<3 m) along the surface of a fluvial terrace. Below a thin
organic topsoil layer, compact to dense, fluvial, granular soils with variable distribution of sand and gravel
with cobbles are anticipated. The granular deposit was dry to moist and generally consisted of less than
5 % fines content (silt and clay particles less than 0.075 mm). Shale bedrock is not anticipated to be
encountered by the cuts, as the bedrock elevation is expected to be below 477.7 m.
Sta. 2999+840 to 3000+200: Comprises low (<2 m) fills and shallow ditch cuts (up to 2.5 m) across the
relatively flat fluvial terrace. Below a thin organic topsoil layer, compact to dense, fluvial, granular soils
with variable distribution of sand and gravel with cobbles are anticipated. The granular deposit was dry to
moist and generally had a 5% to 10% fines content (silt and clay particles less than 0.075 mm). Shale
bedrock was encountered in three test pits (TP17-A-005, TP17-A-006, and TP17-A-007) at elevation 477.3
m to 476.3 m. Generally, the underlying bedrock profile appears to dip towards the east.
Sta. 3000+200 to 3000+580: This section consists of minor fills (<3 m) to be constructed on the relatively
flat surface on the fluvial terrace. Soils underlying the embankment are anticipated to be thin organic
topsoil layer, over compact to dense deposit of fluvial, granular soils containing a variable distribution of
sand and gravel with cobbles. The granular deposit was dry to moist and contained 5% to 31% fines (silt
and clay particles less than 0.075 mm). Shale bedrock is anticipated to occur below elevations 476.3 m to
469 m. Generally, the underlying bedrock profile appears to dip towards the east.
Sta. 3000+580 to 3001+018: This section consists of a proposed embankment fill up to 15 m high. The
embankment is to be constructed partially on the relatively flat surface of a fluvial terrace and partially on
the south side slope of the terrace. This fill section ends at the west abutment of the proposed new
Halfway River bridge. Soils underlying the embankment area are anticipated to consist of a thin organic
topsoil layer over a compact to dense fluvial granular soils with variable distribution of silt. The granular
deposit was dry to moist and contained 5% to 35% fines content (silt and clay particles less than
0.075 mm). The exception was at test hole TH17-A, 003, TH17-A-022, TH17-A-023, and TH17-A-024,
encountered silt below the topsoil. The encountered granular fluvial deposits were in the order of 0.3 m
to 3.2 m thick, and silts are between 0.3 m and 1.7 m thick. The surficial soils are underlain by weathered
shale and shale bedrock at variable elevations ranging between approximately 466.9 m and 472.6 m.
Sta. 3001+018 to 3002+060: Represents the proposed new bridge crossing site for the Halfway River and
its flood plain.
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 7
Sta. 3002+060 to 3002+500: This section consists of up to a 7 m high proposed embankment, with ditch
cuts up to 1.5 m to be constructed on the relatively flat fluvial terrace, which serves as the approach to the
eastern abutment for the new bridge across the Halfway River valley. The subsurface conditions are
anticipated to consist of a thin organic topsoil layer, over compact to dense fluvial granular soils with
variable distribution of sand, gravel with cobbles. The granular deposit was dry to moist and contained 5%
to 35% fines content (silt and clay particles less than 0.075 mm). The encountered fluvial deposits were in
the order of 4.1 m to 16.6 m deep, and are underlain by weathered shale and shale bedrock at variable
elevations ranging between approximately 458.4 m and 461.9 m.
Sta. 3002+500 to 3003+100: This section consists of up to a 4 m high embankment to be constructed on
a relatively flat fluvial terrace. The subsurface conditions are anticipated to consist of a thin organic topsoil
layer, over a cap of silt, silty sand, and high plasticity clay (up to 0.6 m thick). This fine-grained soil cap was
underlain by compact to dense fluvial granular soils with variable distribution of sand, gravel with cobbles.
The granular deposit was dry to moist and contained 5% to 15% fines content (silt and clay particles less
than 0.075 mm). The encountered granular deposits were greater than 4.5 m deep. Shale bedrock was not
encountered in the test pits.
Sta. 3003+100 to 3003+400: This section is a transition to the existing Highway 29 alignment and will
comprise a series of low fills (<3.3 m) and cuts (<1.2 m) along the surface of the fluvial terrace. The
subsurface conditions are anticipated to consist of a thin organic topsoil layer, over high plasticity clay (up
to 0.5 m thick). The high plasticity clay is underlain by compact to dense fluvial granular soils with variable
distribution of sand, gravel with cobbles. The granular deposit was dry to moist and contained 5% to 18%
fines content (silt and clay particles less than 0.075 mm). The encountered fluvial deposits were greater
than 3.9 m deep. Shale bedrock was not encountered in the test pits.
5.2 PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED AREAS
The proposed alignment traverses areas of previous development that have shaped and influenced the
native surficial soil deposits. These areas consist of agricultural fields, residential and farm buildings,
related utility infrastructure, septic disposal fields, localized dump areas, and previously established
gravel/paved access roads.
Existing structures and their related infrastructure were noted along the alignment between
Sta. 3002+230 and 3002+370.
5.3 SHALE BEDROCK
Where bedrock was encountered during the investigation, it consisted of shale attributed to the
Shaftesbury Formation (part of the Fort. St. John Group). The Shaftesbury shale typically is well bedded
with thin, weak layers, some of which may include bentonitic clays from ash fall deposits that exhibit high
plasticity and have low shear strength. Stability issues in the shale have developed from weak
cementation, valley rebound due to stress relief and movement along pre-sheared or weak layers parallel
to bedding (Amec Foster Wheeler, 5 March 2012). Encountered shale bedrock locations and elevations
relative to the L3000-Line are summarized in Table 5-1.
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 8
Table 5-1: Encountered Bedrock
ID Station
Bedrock Depth
(m)
Bedrock Elevation
(m)
TP17-A-005 3000+045.1 2.1 477.2
TP17-A-006 3000+115.3 1.2 477.3
TP17-A-007 3000+157.2 0.6 476.3
TP17-A-009 3000+300.3 1.8 474.0
TP17-A-010 3000+407.3 1.2 474.1
TH17-A-001 3000+499 2.4 473.0
TP17-A-011 3000+606.7 1.8 471.1
TP18-A-036 3000+606.8 0.4 469.0
TH17-A-002 3000+690.8 0.5 472.6
TH17-A-003 3000+728.3 0.5 468.5
TP17-A-012 3000+728.3 0.8 459.8
TH18-A-023 3000+813.6 1.1 454.3
TH18-A-022 3000+818 0.6 466.9
TH17-A-004 3000+877 3.3 470.7
TH18-A-024 3000+890.7 1.8 453.4
TP17-A-013 3000+899 0.9 472.6
TH18-A-025 3000+907.5 0.2 444.1
TH18-A-026 3001+021.1 2.4 470.2
TH17-A-005 3001+039 3.2 469.9
TH17-A-009 3002+010.5 4.1 461.9
TH18-A-021 3002+058.1 16.6 458.4
TH17-A-010 3002+103.2 14.4 460.0
TH17-A-011 3002+301.5 11.9 462.5
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 9
5.4 ACID ROCK DRAINAGE AND METAL LEACHING POTENTIAL
In general, bedrock is anticipated to be below the limits of the planned excavations for the design
roadway alignment. However, sub-excavation of some weathered shale is likely for fill foundation
preparation right of the centerline between approximately Sta. 3000+700 and 3000+800. There may also
be some shale excavation/exposure related to the removal of surficial sands and gravels along slope
crests and in the vicinity of bridge end construction. To assess the Shale’s potential for acid rock drainage
(ARD) and metal leaching (ML), eight core samples from four drill holes (TH17-A-005, TH17-A-009, TH18-
A-021, and TH18-A-026) were selected for testing. The samples were sent to SGS Canada Inc. (SGS) in
Burnaby, BC for acid-base accounting (ABA) analysis and multi-element analyses, and quantitative X-ray
diffraction. The laboratory results can be found in the Geotechnical Data Report. The results indicate that
bedrock sequence had the potential for acid generation. It is recommended that all shale excavation for
the project be considered as potentially acid generating and be disposed of in an environmentally
appropriate manner. Should significant surface exposures of shale remain after excavation, it is likely that
they could be appropriately treated by backfill cover if required.
5.5 EXISTING HIGHWAY 29 ASPHALT THICKNESS
The results of the pavement drilling program along the existing pavement surface of Highway 29 are
provided inTable 5-2. Figure 4 depicts the coring locations.
Table 5-2: Measured Asphalt Core Thickness
5.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Vibrating wire piezometers were installed to provide information on the long-term groundwater conditions
at the site. The details of the vibrating wire piezometers, along with maximum and minimum piezometric
levels in 2017 and 2018 are provided in Table 5-3. Further details on the instrumentation installation can
be found in the geotechnical data report (Wood, May 2019).
Hole ID Location Thickness
(mm) Hole ID Location
Thickness
(mm)
PV17-001 Eastbound/Centre 150 PV17-015 Eastbound/Centre 120
PV17-002 Westbound/Centre 180 PV17-016 Westbound/Centre 150
PV17-003 Eastbound/Centre 150 PV17-017 Eastbound/Centre 195
PV17-004 Westbound/Centre 135 PV17-018 Westbound/Centre 95
PV17-005 Eastbound/Centre 150 PV17-019 Eastbound/Centre 185
PV17-006 Westbound/Centre 150 PV17-020 Westbound/Centre 115
PV17-007 Eastbound/Centre 140 PV17-021 Eastbound/Centre 120
PV17-008 Westbound/Centre 140 PV17-022 Westbound/Centre 150
PV17-009 Eastbound/Centre 165 PV17-023 Eastbound/Centre 165
PV17-010 Westbound/Centre 160 PV17-024 Westbound/Centre 190
PV17-011 Eastbound/Centre 115 PV17-025 Eastbound/Centre 135
PV17-012 Westbound/Centre 125 PV17-026 Westbound/Centre 125
PV17-013 Eastbound/Centre 105 PV17-027 Eastbound/Centre 130
PV17-014 Westbound/Centre 180
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 10
Table 5-3: Summary of Groundwater Monitoring
1. Possible installation or instrument irregularity. The piezometric level is not consistent with other piezometers installed in the shale or on nearby
project sites.
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS &
RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the office and field investigations to date, there does not appear to be any significant
geohazards or geotechnical conditions that would preclude the construction of L3000A20 alignment as
proposed. Section 6.1 through Section 6.8 provide geotechnical recommendations that are generally
applicable for the design and construction of the new highway alignment. A summary of
recommendations specific to various station ranges is provided in Section 6.9. Recommendations are
based on specific base mapping data provided to Wood on 9 January 2018 and design alignment
L3000A20 provided on 31 March 2019 by Binnie. The following recommendations also reference the
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s 2016 version of the Standard Specifications for Highway
Construction (SS2016), which will be used for the project construction.
6.1 STRIPPING
For the purpose of design, unless indicated otherwise, a minimum average stripping depth of 300 mm
should be assumed at the base of the proposed fills. Additional areas (e.g. existing ditches and wet areas)
will require deeper stripping and/or sub-excavation of soft, wet, weakened and organic soils that are
unsuitable for fill foundations. All stripped foundation subgrades should be reviewed prior to fill
placement by a geotechnical engineer or their representative to confirm that underlying soft, wet,
weakened and organic soils have been appropriately removed, and that conditions are as anticipated in
this report. Some additional details regarding stripping and/or sub-excavation specific to various project
station ranges are provided in Section 6.9, below.
6.2 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
For the purposes of fill construction, the following subgrade preparation procedure is recommended:
Remove all unsuitable materials such as loose fill, organic materials, stripping, and softened soils
from the subgrade surface. Location-specific guidance for additional sub-excavation (in excess of
stripping) of subgrade soils is provided in Section 6.9 below. A geotechnical engineer should review
all prepared subgrade prior to placement of fill (and/or geotextile separators, where applicable) to
confirm that unsuitable soils have been adequately removed.
Crown the subgrade to promote drainage by providing a minimum cross fall of 2% as soon as
possible following exposure of the subgrade soils. This will help minimize softening of the fine-
Piezometer
No.
Elevation
Ground/Tip
(m)
Maximum
Measured
Piezometric
Level in 2017
Minimum
Measured
Piezometric
Level in 2017
Maximum
Measured
Piezometric
Level in 2018
Minimum
Measured
Piezometric
Level in 2018
TH17-A-001A 475.4/473.1 476.6 <473.1 (dry) <473.1 (dry) <473.1 (dry)
TH17-A-001B 475.4/431.5 489.11 447.91 447.11 446.61
TH17-A-004A 474.0/470.9 471.6 <470.9 (dry) 471.4 471.1
TH17-A-004B 474.0/435.0 435.1 435.0 435.0 435.0
TH17-A-006A 438.3/429.9 434.1 434.0 434.3 433.8
TH17-A-010A 474.4/460.4 462.1 461.7 462.7 461.7
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 11
grained subgrade materials due to infiltration of surface water from precipitation events that occur
following exposure of the subgrade.
Minimize disturbance of the subgrade by limiting vehicle and construction traffic over the prepared
subgrade surface. If the subgrade surface is disturbed and becomes softened, removal of softened
soils and replacement with suitable fill will be required.
Deposits of unsuitable subgrade soils that are too deep to be practically removed will require
additional subgrade improvements as directed by a geotechnical engineer at the time of
construction. Subgrade improvements may consist of (but are not limited to) use of geotextile
separator(s), biaxial geogrid layer(s), granular backfills and/or other methods.
6.3 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
Temporary excavations greater than 1.2 m in depth, where worker entry is required should be constructed
in accordance with the current Part 20.78 through 20.95 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
as per WorkSafeBC. The construction contractor, however, is ultimately responsible for the safety of
temporary excavation slopes. Should excavations encounter groundwater, flatter slopes than those
recommended by WorkSafeBC could be required. Excavations greater than 1.2 m in depth with steeper
slopes and those subject to seepage or sloughing should not be entered unless they are shored, braced
or sloped as approved by the contractor’s geotechnical engineer.
6.4 EMBANKMENT FILL CONSTRUCTION
The following general recommendations are provided for fill construction.
All fill foundation preparation, fill placement and fill compaction operations should be observed by
qualified geotechnical engineering field personnel to confirm that the construction is in accordance
with the recommendations in this report and SS2016.
Existing organic materials and loose fill should be removed from the outside face of the existing fill
slopes and from under the footprint of any new fills prior to placing new fill.
Unless otherwise noted in Section 6.9, fill should consist of inorganic soils such as low plastic clay
and silt, glacial till, rock borrow or granular soils with moisture contents near the optimum moisture
content (as determined by laboratory moisture-density testing) such that they are conducive to
good compaction.
Maximum fill slope angles are dictated by both the type of fill material used and the type of
subgrade on which the fill is to be placed. Unless otherwise noted in Section 6.9, use a maximum
fill slope of 2H:1V for fill constructed of soil or rock having less than 20% fines (particles passing
0.075 mm sieve). It is anticipated that some sources of suitable, well graded granular borrow
material occurs within or near the project limits. Use of materials with greater than 20% fines for
fills on this project is not recommended, and such situations would need to be reviewed by a
geotechnical engineer on a case by case basis.
Positive surface drainage away from the existing highway pavement structure is to be maintained.
Fill placed on the outside of an existing granular pavement structure (e.g. SGSB) should be free-
draining granular material (having less than 5% passing 0.075 mm sieve) and extend a minimum
100 mm in elevation below the bottom of adjacent SGSB so as to not block internal drainage.
Drainage from under an embankment area should be directed to an exposed face of a ditch or a
subdrain system but should not be directed over the face of potentially unstable or erodible slopes
without additional armouring and/or riprap.
Fills that overlie seepage zones from existing fill or natural slopes will require field review by a
geotechnical engineer. These areas should be treated on a case by case basis.
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 12
Fills that will overlie soft clayey subgrades or sensitive wet silty subgrades will require specific field
review by a geotechnical engineer. The encountered condition should be assessed on a case by
case basis with section-specific recommendations provided by a geotechnical engineer as needed.
Fill construction recommendation details are provided on a station by station basis in Section 6.9. However,
two significant areas of note are discussed below:
6.4.1 WESTERN APPROACH STA. 3000+580 TO 3000+950 (RIGHT)
The approach to the western abutment is to be constructed on top of a relatively narrow remnant spit of
land which will extend out into the reservoir. An embankment fill up to 15 m (right of centerline) with a
2H:1V fill slope is proposed for this section. The fill to the right of centerline would spill down the existing
colluvial slope towards the existing Highway 29 alignment and the Peace River. The existing slope has an
approximate slope angle between 4.3H:1V and 5H:1V, with a height of 26 m to 37 m (crest of existing
slope to existing highway level).
Based on completed sub-surface investigations in this area, the fill foundation materials are anticipated to
consist of a thin organic topsoil layer (0.1 m to 0.4 m), below the topsoil is a mixture of silt and/or silty
sand with the exception of TP18-A-036 where residual soil and highly weathered shale is encountered
directly below topsoil. The thickness of highly weathered to residual shale varies throughout this section.
See Table 6-1 for a summary of subsurface conditions.
Table 6-1: Summary of Subsurface Conditions (Sta. 3000+580 to 3000+950)
Hole ID Test Hole Topsoil Silt Granular Soils Residual
Soil/Highly
Weathered
Shale
Moderately
Weathered to
Fresh Shale
3000+606.8 TP18-A-036 0.4 - - 0.4->1.2 -
3000+728.3 TP17-A-012 0.2 - 0.2-0.8 (SM3) 0.8->2.7 -
3000+728.3 TH17-A-003 0.1 0.1-0.4 (ML) - 0.5-4.6 4.6->15.2
3000+818 TH18-A-022 0.2 0.2-0.6 (ML) - 0.6-4.4 4.4->9.0
3000+813.6 TH18-A-023 0.1 0.1-0.6 (ML) 0.6-1.1 (SM3) 1.1-3.4 3.4->10.6
3000+890.7 TH18-A-024 0.1 0.1-1.8 (ML) - 1.8-3.8 3.8->25.8
Note: Soil classifications based on the MOTI Soil Classification System.
To assess the suitability of the proposed alignment and possibly required stability improvement measures,
limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were undertaken at four locations along the proposed
embankment section. The geometry of the slope and the stratigraphy was based on available survey and
embankment geometry provided by Binnie and subsurface information obtained during the geotechnical
field investigation. Potentially weak horizontal shale layers were included in the stability models for the
sections analyzed. The elevations of the weak shale layers were determined using information from the
detailed rock core logs and downhole geophysics. To confirm the geotechnical properties used in the
limit equilibrium analysis for the weak layer were appropriate (i.e. not too low), a back analysis was
undertaken for a section of the steep but unfailed slope. The result of the back analysis confirmed that the
angle of internal friction for the weak layer was a reasonable assumption, yielding a factor of safety
greater than 1. A summary of the parameters used in the stability analysis is provided in Table 6-2.
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 13
Table 6-2: Geotechnical Material Properties for Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3000+580 to Sta.
3000+950)
Where the failure of a slope would affect highway operation (i.e. a potential failure envelope encroaches
the paved surface, a failure causes lane closures, or failure might necessitate excessive maintenance),
minimum factors of safety under static loading conditions in accordance with Table 6.2b of the BC
MoTI (British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure) Supplement to CHBDC (Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code) S6-14 were applied. The minimum required factor of safety for global slope
stability for a typical consequence slope with a typical degree of understanding is 1.54, assuming a
reservoir at maximum normal reservoir level (elev. 461. 8 m). The minimum required factor of safety for
the emergency drawdown scenario for the reservoir is 1.24. The geotechnical design criteria for the rapid
drawdown scenario used in the stability analyses was as follows; elevation 461.8 m to 452.5 m at
approximately 4.5 m per day, then to 444 m at 2.5 m per day.
The results of the limit equilibrium analyses are summarized in Table 6-3 below, with the graphical output
of the results provided in Appendix B.
Table 6-3: Summary of Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3000+580 to Sta. 3000+950)
Design Case Required
FOS 3000+750 3000+830 3000+899 3000+940
Maximum
Normal
Reservoir
Level
As per L3000A20 design
1.54
1.36 1.20 1.35 1.38
- Upper Slope 2.1H:1V to
2.5H:1V
- 4 m to 5 m Bench at
463 m with 1.75H:1V
slope
- sub-ex 2 m to 4 m
1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54
Emergency
Drawdown
- Upper Slope 2.1H:1V to
2.5H:1V
- 4 m to 5 m Bench at
463 m with 1.75H:1V
slope
- sub-ex 2 m to 4 m
1.24 1.46 1.43 1.44 1.40
The resulting factors of safety for potential failures towards the reservoir were less than the target factor
of safety in the case of long-term (full reservoir) analysis for Stations 3000+750, 3000+830, 3000+899 and
3000+940 for the original design alignment embankment configuration. The factors of safety at these four
stations can be improved by excavating all silt, clay and/or a portion of highly weathered shale (residual
soil) that will underlie the embankment footprint and replacing it with free draining granular fill, as well as
some modifications to the fill slope geometry. The revised configuration includes an upper slope with a
Soil Type
Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
Limit Equilibrium Shear
Strength Model
Cohesion
(kPa)
Angle of Internal
Friction (°)
Embankment Sand and
Gravel Fill 21 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30-36
Sand and Gravel 21 Mohr-Coulomb 0 37
Weak Shale Layers 24 Mohr-Coulomb 0 16
Slightly Weathered to
Fresh Shale 24 Anisotropic Strength 75
45 (vertical)
35 (horizontal)
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 14
fill slope angle of 2.1H:1V to 2.5H:1V, and a toe berm at 463 m, as per image extracted from slope stability
analysis, below. The toe berm is typically 5 m wide and has a fill slope of 1.5H:1V to 1.75H:1V. All organics,
colluvium (silts) and up to 2 m to 3 m of the underlying weathered shale should be sub-excavated.
Landslide generated wave modelling undertaken by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) indicates that
the embankment below elevation 464 m requires riprap protection. Slope stability analysis was
undertaken to ensure that the addition of riprap protection does not negatively impact the global stability
of the embankment. The geometry of the riprap protection was based on information provided by NHC.
The results of the limit equilibrium analyses are summarized in Table 6-4- below, with the graphical
output of the results provided in Appendix B.
Table 6-4: Summary of Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Riprap Slope)
Riprap
Slope
Riprap Crest
Elevation (m)
Sub-excavation Depth (m) FOS of Riprap Slope
(Maximum Normal Reservoir
Level)
2H:1V 464.9 1.5 m 1.55
1.75H:1V 464.3 2.0 m (riprap to be embedded
1 m below original ground level)
1.54
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 15
Based on the investigation and analyses performed to date, the following specific recommendations are
provided for embankment construction at this location:
The embankment footprint should be stripped of organic topsoil and any other unsuitable (soft or
wet) foundation soils and shaped to promote drainage.
All silt and clay, or highly weathered shale (residual soil) will need to be sub-excavated during
construction. A sub-excavation of up to 3 m is anticipated but is subject to field review by a geotechnical
engineer.
The stripped and prepared subgrade should be reviewed and approved by a geotechnical engineer
prior to further construction. The geotechnical engineer will give direction as to required further
improvements if any.
All final exposed/prepared shale subgrades should be protected from water and disturbance by
construction equipment, and be backfilled with a minimum 0.3 m cover of granular fill within 24 hours
to reduce the potential for the exposed shale to become weakened by disturbance and/or slaking.
The upper embankment fill slope (above elevation 463 m) should be placed no steeper than 2.5H:1V.
The lower embankment fill slope (below elevation 463 m) should be placed no steeper than 1.75H:1V.
Embankment fill below elevation 466 m should consist of clean granular fill with less than 5% fines.
Above elevation, 466 m fill can consist of Type D borrow with less than 20% fines,
The fill and natural slope below elevation 466 m should be provided with riprap protection.
The riprap should be placed no steeper than 1.75H:1V. The riprap should be keyed into the original
ground by a minimum of 1 m. Sub-excavation under the riprap slope is expected to be similar to that
for the adjacent fill area, in the order of 2 m, and subject to field review by a geotechnical engineer.
6.4.2 WESTERN APPROACH STA. 3000+580 TO 3000+900 (LEFT)
The terrain to the left of this proposed alignment section is comprised of relatively flat-lying ground
adjacent to the approximately 38 m high, over-steepened (50 to 60 degree) eroded shale slope down to
Halfway River. Embankment fills up to 6.7 m (left of centerline), are proposed for this section, the toes of
which would be on the order of 35 m to 46 m south of the crest of the slope. Based on completed sub-
surface investigations in this area, the fill foundation materials are anticipated to consist of a thin organic
topsoil layer, over a compact to dense layer (0.6 m to 2.7 m thick) of fluvial, granular soils containing a
variable amount of silt, sand and gravel with cobbles. There is a variable thickness of underlying
weathered shale throughout this section. Borehole geophysics and detailed core logging indicated the
presence of a potentially weak clay layer at elevation 433 m to 435 m, near the toe of the existing slope.
Stability and required setback or stability mitigation measures were assessed for a previous L3000A08-
geometric alignment, which was closer to the crest of the slope. To determine the required setback or
mitigation measures required, limit equilibrium slope stability analyses was undertaken. The results of the
stability analysis indicated the factors of safety for failures towards Halfway River were less than the target
factor of safety in the case of long-term (full reservoir) analysis for Station 3000+600 and in the
emergency drawdown case for Stations 3000+600, 3000+700 and 3000+800. The factors of safety at
these three stations could be improved by shifting the alignment to the south away from the crest of the
slope, unloading the crest, or constructing a berm at the toe of the slope. Graphical outputs of the
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 16
stability analyses undertaken for this previous alignment are provided in Appendix B. To achieve the
required stability criteria in this area, the decision was made to shift the alignment to the south. The
current L3000A20-line alignment is located at an offset from the crest of the Halfway River slope at least
equal to or greater than the lateral shifts needed for the previous L3000A08 alignment to achieve the
required minimum factors of safety.
Based on the investigation and analyses performed to date, the following specific recommendations are
provided for embankment construction on the left side of the alignment:
The embankment footprint should be stripped of organic topsoil and any other unsuitable (soft or
wet) foundation soils and shaped to promote drainage.
The stripped and prepared subgrade should be reviewed and approved by a geotechnical engineer
prior to further construction. The geotechnical engineer will give direction as to further required
improvements if any.
The approved subgrade should be protected from disturbance by construction equipment.
Embankment fill should be placed no steeper than 2H:1V.
6.4.3 STA. 3002+300 TO 3002+800
A relatively minor embankment (up to 4 m in height) is proposed for this section, however, this segment
will run adjacent to a natural terrace slope which will be subject to inundation by the reservoir.
Accordingly, an assessment of the stability of this slope under MNRL and emergency drawdown
conditions was carried out to determine if any alignment adjustments or mitigation measures were
required. Wood conducted limit equilibrium slope stability analyses at two slope locations along the
proposed realignment segment, using Slope/W. The geometry of the slope and the stratigraphy was
based on available survey and embankment geometry provided by Binnie and subsurface information
obtained during the field investigation. Potentially weak shale layers were included in the stability model.
The elevations of the weak shale layers were determined using information from the detailed rock core
logs and downhole geophysics based on one borehole (TH17-A-021). A summary of the parameters used
in the stability analysis is provided in Table 6-5, and the results are attached in Appendix B.
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 17
Table 6-5: Geotechnical Material Properties for Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3002+300 to 3002+800)
The same design criteria was used, as stated in Section 6.4.1. The stability analysis for the rapid drawdown
assumed that the stabilizing effect of the water on the slope face is lost, but the pore pressures within the
slope remain high with no pore-water behaviour dissipation occurring (i.e. fully undrained behaviour as a
preliminary worst-case assessment). The results from the analysis are provided in Table 6-6 .
Table 6-6: Summary of Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability Analyses (Sta. 3002+300 to 3002+800)
The calculated factor of safety was above the target factor of safety for all cases analyzed.
6.5 CUT SLOPES
Only relative minor ditch cuts of up to 3 m will be required for the currently proposed alignment. With the
exception of topsoil and some relatively thin fine-grained soil caps, the required cuts are expected to
encounter mainly granular glaciofluvial and alluvial soils (BCMoTI Type D excavation) that are generally
anticipated to be suitable for use in the construction of new highway embankments. For detailed design,
the following recommendations are provided:
Unless otherwise specified in Section 6.9, use a maximum cut slope angle of 2H:1V.
Cuts that encounter seepage require field review by a geotechnical engineer and may need to be
protected from piping erosion by placement of a granular drainage blanket on the face of the slope
from the base of the ditch to a minimum of 2 m above the seepage zone.
Fine-grained cut materials within the project alignment are unsuitable for re-use and should be
considered waste.
Cut areas should be hydro-seeded with an appropriate vegetation seed mix as soon as possible
after soil disturbance is complete.
6.6 GEOTEXTILE AND BIAXIAL GEOGRID SPECIFICATIONS Where non-woven geotextiles are required, the recommended specifications listed in Table 6-7, below
should be used.
Soil Type
Unit
Weight
(kN/m3)
Limit Equilibrium Shear
Strength Model
Cohesion
(kPa)
Angle of Internal
Friction (°)
Embankment Sand and
Gravel Fill 21 Mohr-Coulomb 0 36-38
Clay/Silt Effective Stress 19 Mohr-Coulomb 0 22
Sand and Gravel 20.5 Mohr-Coulomb 0 35-36
Weak Shale Layers 24.5 Mohr-Coulomb 0 16
Weathered Bedrock 24.5 Mohr-Coulomb 0 30
Slightly Weathered to
Fresh Shale 24.5 Anisotropic Strength 50
45 (vertical)
35 (horizontal)
Station Scenario Target FS Calculated FS
Failure towards Peace River
3002+300 Maximum Normal Reservoir Level 1.54 2.33
Drawdown 1.24 2.18
3002+800 Maximum Normal Reservoir Level 1.54 2.48
Drawdown 1.24 2.31
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 18
Table 6-7: Non-Woven Geotextile Specifications
2. Elongation > 50%, as per ASTM D4632
3. Based on minimum average roll values (as per ASTM C 4759) in the weaker principal direction
4. Based on maximum average roll values
Where geogrid is required for local subgrade improvement during construction, the recommended
specifications for a biaxial polypropylene geogrid are provided in Table 6-8, below.
Table 6-8: Biaxial Polypropylene Geogrid Specifications
Property Test Method Value
Tensile Strength @ 5% Strain, Machine Direction1 ASTM D 6637 ≥ 11.8 kN/m
Tensile Strength @ 5% Strain, Cross Machine Direction1 ASTM D 6637 ≥ 18.8 kN/m
Maximum Aperture Size 50 mm
Minimum Aperture Size 15 mm
Flexural Stiffness1 ASTM D 7748 ≥ 700 g-cm
Roll Width 4.0 +/- 0.1 m 1. Based on minimum average roll values (as per ASTM C4759).
6.7 PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
The recommended pavement structure is dependent on the nature of the soil subgrade that will be
encountered (in cuts) or constructed (fills). Table 6-9 provides a recommended pavement structure for the
new highway alignment, for two different subgrade conditions (Type A for well-drained granular
subgrades, Type B for poorly drained and/or fine-grained subgrades).
Table 6-9: Recommended Minimum Pavement Structure Thickness
It is currently anticipated that the recommended Type B structure would be used for the entire alignment
segment. However, in cases where subgrade fill soils meet the gradation for SGSB, the thinner Type A
structure can be substituted. Additionally, where new pavement structures will abut existing pavement
Property Test Method Class 1 Class 2
Material Type Non-Woven1 Non-Woven1
Grab Tensile Strength2 ASTM D 4632 ≥ 900 N ≥ 700 N
Sewn Seam Strength2 ASTM D 4632 ≥ 810 ≥ 630 N
Tear Strength2 ASTM D 4533 ≥ 350 ≥ 250 N
Puncture Strength2 ASTM D 6241 ≥ 1925 ≥ 1375 N
Permittivity ASTM D4491 ≥ 0.2 sec-1 ≥ 0.1 sec-1
Apparent Opening Size3 ASTM D 4751 < 0.43 mm < 0.22 mm
Recommended Application + 50 kg class riprap
drainage layers
subgrade separation
- 50 kg class riprap
Subgrade Type Pavement
Structure Asphalt (AP)
Crushed Base
Course SGSB
Well Drained Granular Soils (sand
and gravel <10% fines) A 125 mm 300 mm 300 mm
Poorly Drained or Fine Grained
Soils (>10% fines) B 125 mm 300 mm 600 mm
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 19
structures, the new SGSB thickness should match or exceed that of the existing structure to not hinder
drainage.
6.8 WASTE DISPOSAL The following procedures are recommended for siting and placing waste from unsuitable or surplus soil
materials generated by the project:
Waste materials should only be placed on slopes with a gradient of 10° (approx. 5.7H:1V) or less
and should not be placed in the vicinity of the crests of other slopes where they could have a de-
stabilizing influence.
Do not site waste areas within or near environmentally sensitive locations such as riparian zones,
seepage zones, or where the waste will cause ponding of water or redirection of drainage patterns
(including ditches).
Up to a maximum height of 3 m waste materials should be placed with a maximum slope of 3H:1V.
Place the waste in maximum 1 m thick lifts and level with tracked equipment, as required.
Do not site waste piles adjacent to existing and proposed road fills, where practicable. Waste piles
placed adjacent to road fills are often encountered during future road widening and upgrading
projects, frequently leading to costly removal (and schedule delays) during construction.
Waste piles placed adjacent to road fills should not block drainage from existing fills and should be
kept at least 1 m below existing or proposed road pavement structure subgrade and/or any other
granular fills that are likely to transmit drainage.
Contour the waste material to promote surface drainage. To maintain positive drainage from the
fill surface while allowing for long-term settlement of the loosely placed fill, use a minimum 10%
cross fall slopes to crown the waste material.
Use appropriate short-term measures to control off-site transport of fines in runoff (such as silt
fencing). Maintain the short-term controls until effective long-term measures (such as vegetation
cover) are established.
Subject to relevant environmental and land use requirements, disposal of surplus excavation material
(waste) is not anticipated to be a geotechnical concern, especially if deposited on fluvial terrace areas and/or
below the reservoir inundation level. Surplus material should not be disposed along the main Peace River
Valley sidewall slope located above and to the north of the proposed alignment options and/or along the
crests of the slopes down to the Halfway River, as these areas already show signs of instability. Also, waste
material should not be disposed of between the toes of the embankments and the future reservoir shoreline.
6.9 DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS BY STATION SECTION
A summary of geotechnical conditions encountered, and station specific recommendations are provided
in Table 6-10 on the following pages.
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 20
Table 6-10: Detailed Geotechnical Recommendations by Station Section
Station Range Reference Geometric Design
Configuration
Representative Geotechnical
Investigation Anticipated Subsurface Conditions Geotechnical Recommendations Left (North) Side Right (South) side
From To From To
2999+700 2999+840 2999+700 2999+840
Scratch Grade
Transition off existing Highway 29
Shallow fills (<2 m)
4H:1V Fill Slopes
TP17-A-001,
TP17-A-002,
Upper 0.2 m: topsoil
Below topsoil: silty gravel which extends to at least
3.7 m.
Shale bedrock not encountered.
Groundwater not encountered.
Stripping: Existing road ditch 0.5 m, side slopes
0.2 m
Max Fill Slope: 2H:1V
2999+840 3000+200 2999+840 3000+200
Scratch Grade
Transition off existing Highway 29
Shallow fills (<2 m) and ditch cuts
up to 2.5 m.
3H:1V Cut Slopes and,
4H1:1V Fill Slopes
TP17-A-003,
TP17-A-004,
TP17-A-005,
TP17-A-006,
TP17-A-007
Top of the fluvial terrace.
Upper 0.1 to 0.2 m: topsoil
Below topsoil: typically gravel, and gravel and sand
with varying silt contents extending to at least 2.1 m).
Test Pit TP17-A-007 encountered sand and silt below
topsoil extending to 0.6 m.
Shale bedrock encountered was encountered in three
test pits; TP17-A-005 (2.1 m),
TP17-A-006 (1.2 m), and TP17-A-007 (0.6 m).
Groundwater encountered in two test pits: TP17-A-
003 (3.7 m), TP17-A-004 (3.5 m).
Stripping: Typically 0.2 m, but locally deeper
(0.6 m) where sand and silt is encountered
between approx Sta. 3000+100 and 3000+200.
Max Fill Slope: 2H:1V, use granular fill.
Max Cut Slope 2H:1V (approximate 75% waste)
3000+200 3000+580 3000+200 3000+650 Fills (7 m)
2H:1V to 4H:1V Fill Slopes
TP17-A-008,
TP17-A-009,
TP17-A-010,
TP17-A-011,
TP18-A-035,
TP18-A-036,
TH17-A-001
Top of fluvial terrace.
Upper 0.1 to 0.6 m: topsoil
Below topsoil: generally, gravel and/or sand with
varying amounts of silt.
Shale bedrock encountered at varying depths from
0.4 m and 2.4 m. Bedrock was not encountered in
TP17-A-008 and TP17-A-035.
Groundwater was not encountered.
Stripping: Typically 0.2 m.
Max Fill Slope: 2H:1V, use granular fill.
3000+580 3001+018 3000+650 3001+018
Fill up to 6.7 m (left of centerline)
and up to 15 m (right of
centerline). Fill increasing to the
east.
2H:1V Fill Slopes
TP17-A-013,
TH17-A-002,
TH17-A-003,
TH17-A-004,
TH17-A-005,
TH18-A-022,
TH18-A-023,
TH18-A-024,
TH18-A-025,
TH18-A-026
CPT17-A-001
Upper 0.1 to 0.6 m: topsoil
Below topsoil: generally, silts, sands and/or gravel
with varying amounts of silt to top of bedrock.
Shale bedrock encountered at varying depths from
0.5 m and 3.3 m.
Groundwater not encountered.
Stripping: Typically 0.6 m.
Potential requirement for sub-excavation of
overburden and weathered shale (up to 3.0 m)
under footprint of embankment on slope to right
of centerline between Sta. 3000+700 to
3000+800.
Geotechnical Engineer to review subgrade at the
time of construction.
Max Fill Slope: See Section 6.4.1 and Section 6.4.2
for detailed discussions.
3001+018 3002+060 3001+018 3002+060 Bridge Refer to Bridge Report (Wood, Dec. 2018)
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 21
Station Range Reference Geometric Design
Configuration
Representative Geotechnical
Investigation Anticipated Subsurface Conditions Geotechnical Recommendations Left (North) Side Right (South) side
From To From To
3002+060 3002+500 3002+060 3002+500
Fills up to about 7 m high on the
fluvial terrace near east bridge
approach, getting smaller to the
east. Ditch cuts up to 1.5m
2H:1V to 4H:1V Fill Slopes
3H:1V to 4H:1V Cut Slopes
TP17-A-016,
TP17-A-017,
TP17-A-019,
TP17-A-020,
TH17-A-009
TH17-A-010,
TH17-A-011,
TH18-A-021,
CPT17-A-005
Sand and gravel terrace. Over existing farming fields
and/or access road. Possible local surficial pockets of
old topsoil, old fill.
Upper 0.2 m to 0.6 m: topsoil
Below topsoil: generally, sand and gravel to the top
of bedrock. TP17-A-017 and TP17-A-019
encountered a thin 0.1 m to 0.2 m silt layer beneath
the topsoil.
Shale bedrock encountered at varying depths from
4.1m to 14.4 m.
Groundwater encountered at 11.9 m in TH17-A-010.
Stripping: typically 0.2 to 0.4 m, the potential for
some locally deeper pockets of organics, silt cap
and/or old fills that may need sub excavation.
Will require removal of building foundations,
local fills, buried infrastructure, septic field(s) etc.,
including possible well decommissioning.
Max Fill Slope 2H:1V, use granular fill.
Max Cut Slope 2H:1V (approximate 75% waste)
3002+500 3003+100 3002+500 3003+100
Alignment generally parallel to and
north of terrace slope face then
merges to join the existing
Highway 29 alignment. Cut and fill
construction near the existing
ground level. Minor fills up to 3.4
m, and ditch cuts up to 1.3 m.
2H:1V to 4H:1V Fill Slopes
3H:1V to 4H:1V Cut Slopes
TP17-A-023,
TP17-A-025,
TP17-A-027,
TP17-A-030
Sand and gravel terrace with a silt cap. Over existing
farm access road and fields
Upper 0.2 m to 0.3 m: topsoil.
Below topsoil: 0.1 to 0.6 m high plasticity silt and clay,
then sand and gravel to the extent of the depth of
test pits (3.5 m to 4.5 m).
Shale bedrock not encountered.
Groundwater not encountered.
Strip typically 0.4, with locally deeper locations to
0.8m where silt and clay encountered.
Max Fill Slope 2H:1V, use granular fill.
Max Cut Slope 2H:1V (approximate 75% waste).
3003+100 3003+400 3003+100 3003+400
Transition onto existing Highway
29 alignment.
Minor fills up to 3.3 m, and ditch
cuts up to 1.2 m.
2H:1V to 4H:1V Fill Slopes
3H:1V to 4H:1V Cut Slopes
TP17-A-033,
TP17-A-034
Existing ditch and Highway 29
Upper 0.3 m: topsoil.
Below topsoil: 0.5 m high plasticity clay, then gravel
to end of the test pit (3.4 m to 3.9 m).
Shale bedrock not encountered.
Groundwater not encountered.
Strip 0.1 m of topsoil, potentially deeper to 0.5 m
in the ditch bottom.
Max Fill Slope 2H:1V, use granular fill.
Max Cut Slope 2H:1V (approximate 75% waste).
FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 22
CLOSURE The realignment segment referenced is the L3000A20-Line in R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd.’s (Binnie) draft
geometric design drawings dated 8 March 2018.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd., BC Hydro and the BC
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for specific application to the project area described herein.
Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the
responsibility of such third parties. Wood accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any
third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. It has been prepared in
accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty,
express or implied, is made.
Respectfully Submitted,
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited
Reviewed by:
Kim Sinclair, P.Eng. Nick Polysou, P.Eng.
Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer FINAL
DRAFT
Geotechnical Assessment and Design
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | 6/18/2019 Page 23
REFERENCES Amec Foster Wheeler. (5 March 2012). Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment, Proposed Halfway River
Segment, Highway 29, Definition Design.
BGC Engineering Inc. (2012). BC Hydro, Site C Clean Energy Project, Preliminary Reservoir Impact Lines.
Bidwell, A.K., May 1999, “The Engineering Geology of the Fort St. John Area”, Master of Engineering
Report, University of Alberta.
British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. (2016), Bridge Standards and Procedures
Manual, Supplement to CHBDC S6-14.
Graeme & Murray Consultants Ltd., January 1982, “Highway 29 Relocation, Hudson Hope to Charlie Lake
Section 1”, Technical Report.
Hartman, G.M.D. and Clague, J.J., 25 June 2008, “Quaternary Stratigraphy and Glacial History of the Peace
River Valley, Northeast British Columbia”, Canadian Journal of Earth Science, Volume 45, pages 549-564.
Klohn Crippen Berger and SNC-Lavalin Inc., January 2003, “Peace Cascade Development, Prefeasibility for
a Cascade of Low Consequence Structures as an Alternative to Site C”, Technical Report.
MoTI. (Adopted July 1, 2016). 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions. (22 May 2019). Draft Geotechnical Data Report, Halfway
River Segment, Highway 29, British Columbia.
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions. (21 December 2018). Highway 29, Halfway River
Crossing, Halfway River Bridge Functional Design.
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions. (3 January 2019). Highway 29, Halfway River Segment,
Alignment Geotechnical Functional Design.
FINAL
DRAFT
Appendix A
Figures
FINAL
DRAFT
DesignAlignment
Hwy 29
'A''B'
'C''D'
'E'
'F'Attachie
P e a c e R i v e r
Ha
l f wa
y
R i v e r
Farrell Creek
Notes:1. L3000A20 centreline alignment provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg', received 31 March 2019.2. Image provided by Bing Maps Road - © 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 HERE.
LegendL3000A20 Centreline Alignment
Borrow Investigation Area'A'
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
_̂
VancouverKamloops
ChetwyndFort St John
PrinceGeorge
ProjectLocation
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
CLIENT:
S:\Internal\KX052806-HalfwayRiver-GIS\HR-AlignGeotechInv-Det-Fig1-SiteLocPlan.mxd
SCALE:
PROJECTION:
DATUM:
CHK'D BY:
DWN BY: TITLE:
PROJECT:REV NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
HIGHWAY NO. 29HALFWAY RIVERUTM Zone 10
NAD 83
KS
BB SITE LOCATION PLANGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
-
FIGURE 1
KX052806
JUNE 2019
$
1:75,000
0 1 2 3 40.5km
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
WoodEnvironment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE &ASSOCIATES LTD.
FINAL
DRAFT
FIGURE 21 of 3SHEET NO.
2999+600 2999+8003000+000
3000+200
3000+400
3000+6003000+800
CONSTRUCTIONSTA. 2999+661.748LIMIT OF
!A
!A
!A
!A
") ")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
!A
!A
")
")
To Hudson'sHope H a l f w a y R i v e r
P e a c e R i v e r
Highway 29
TP18-A-035
TP18-A-036TH18-A-022
TH18-A-023
TH17-A-001
TP17-A-001
TP17-A-002TP17-A-003
TP17-A-004TP17-A-005
TP17-A-006
TP17-A-007
TP17-A-008
TP17-A-009
TP17-A-010
TP17-A-011
TH17-A-002
TH17-A-003
TH17-A-004
TP17-A-012
TP17-A-013
West AbutmentSta. 3001+018
1 2 3
SCALE:
PROJECTION:
DATUM:
CHK'D BY:
DWN BY:
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
CLIENT: DATE:JUNE 2019
-
PROJECT NO.:
REV NO.:
SITE PLANGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
HIGHWAY NO. 29HALFWAY RIVER
TITLE:
PROJECT:
UTM Zone 10
NAD 83
KS
BB
S:\Internal\KX052806-HalfwayRiver-GIS\HR-AlignGeotechInv-Det-Fig2-SitePlan.mxd
KX052806
1:4,000
0 50 100 150 20025m
$
Notes:1. L3000A20 centreline alignment provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg', received 31 March 2019.2. Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m) downloaded from BC Hydro SharePoint 11 April 2018.3. Main view (foreground) and inset (foreground) orthophoto imagery provided by BC Hydro 9 January 2018.4. Main view (background) and inset (background) orthophoto imagery provided by Bing Maps Aerial - © 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS.
Legend!A Alignment Test Hole Location") Alignment Test Pit Location
#* Alignment CPT Location
L3000A20 Centreline Alignment
Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m)
1:45,000
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
FINAL
DRAFT
FIGURE 22 of 3SHEET NO.
3000+6003000+800 3001+000 3001+200 3001+400 3001+600 3001+800 3002+000 3002+200
3002+4003002+600
#* #*#*
#*#*
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A!A !A !A
!A
")
")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
!A !A !A!A !A
!A !A !A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
")
")")
H a l f w a y R i v e r
Highway 29
TP18-A-035
TP18-A-036TH18-A-012
TH18-A-013 TH18-A-014 TH18-A-015 TH18-A-016 TH18-A-017 TH18-A-018 TH18-A-019 TH18-A-020
TH18-A-021
TH18-A-022
TH18-A-023TH18-A-024
TH18-A-025
TH18-A-026
TH18-A-027
TP18-A-037
TH17-A-001
TP17-A-010
TP17-A-011
TH17-A-002
TH17-A-003
TH17-A-004
TH17-A-005 TH17-A-006TH17-A-007
TH17-A-008 TH17-A-009 TH17-A-010TP17-A-012
TP17-A-013
TP17-A-016 TP17-A-017CPT17-A-001 CPT17-A-002 CPT17-A-003 CPT17-A-004
CPT17-A-005
TH17-A-011
TP17-A-019TP17-A-020
TP17-A-023
West AbutmentSta. 3001+018
East AbutmentSta. 3002+060
CLCL
1 2 3
SCALE:
PROJECTION:
DATUM:
CHK'D BY:
DWN BY:
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
CLIENT: DATE:JUNE 2019
-
PROJECT NO.:
REV NO.:
SITE PLANGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
HIGHWAY NO. 29HALFWAY RIVER
TITLE:
PROJECT:
UTM Zone 10
NAD 83
KS
BB
S:\Internal\KX052806-HalfwayRiver-GIS\HR-AlignGeotechInv-Det-Fig2-SitePlan.mxd
KX052806
1:4,000
0 50 100 150 20025m
$
Notes:1. L3000A20 centreline alignment provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg', received 31 March 2019.2. Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m) downloaded from BC Hydro SharePoint 11 April 2018.3. Main view (foreground) and inset (foreground) orthophoto imagery provided by BC Hydro 9 January 2018.4. Main view (background) and inset (background) orthophoto imagery provided by Bing Maps Aerial - © 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS.
Legend!A Alignment Test Hole Location") Alignment Test Pit Location
#* Alignment CPT Location
L3000A20 Centreline Alignment
Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m)
1:45,000
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
FINAL
DRAFT
FIGURE 23 of 3SHEET NO.
3002+000 3002+2003002+400
3002+6003002+800
3003+000
3003+2
00
3003+4
00
LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION
STA. 3003+320.000
#*!A !A
!A
")") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!A!A
To Fo
rtSt.
John
Highw
ay29
TH18-A-019 TH18-A-020
TH18-A-021
TH17-A-009 TH17-A-010
TP17-A-016 TP17-A-017
CPT17-A-005
TH17-A-011
TP17-A-019TP17-A-020
TP17-A-023TP17-A-025
TP17-A-027
TP17-A-030
TP17-A-033
TP17-A-034
East AbutmentSta. 3002+060CL
1 2 3
SCALE:
PROJECTION:
DATUM:
CHK'D BY:
DWN BY:
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
CLIENT: DATE:JUNE 2019
-
PROJECT NO.:
REV NO.:
SITE PLANGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
HIGHWAY NO. 29HALFWAY RIVER
TITLE:
PROJECT:
UTM Zone 10
NAD 83
KS
BB
S:\Internal\KX052806-HalfwayRiver-GIS\HR-AlignGeotechInv-Det-Fig2-SitePlan.mxd
KX052806
1:4,000
0 50 100 150 20025m
$
Notes:1. L3000A20 centreline alignment provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg', received 31 March 2019.2. Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m) downloaded from BC Hydro SharePoint 11 April 2018.3. Main view (foreground) and inset (foreground) orthophoto imagery provided by BC Hydro 9 January 2018.4. Main view (background) and inset (background) orthophoto imagery provided by Bing Maps Aerial - © 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS.
Legend!A Alignment Test Hole Location") Alignment Test Pit Location
#* Alignment CPT Location
L3000A20 Centreline Alignment
Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (461.8 m)
1:45,000
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
FINAL
DRAFT
") ")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
H a l f w a y R i v e r
P e a c e R i v e r
Highway29
PV17-001 PV17-002PV17-003
PV17-004PV17-005
PV17-006PV17-007
PV17-008PV17-009
PV17-010 PV17-011PV17-012
PV17-013PV17-014
PV17-015PV17-016 PV17-017
PV17-018PV17-019 PV17-020 PV17-021
PV17-022
PV17-023
PV17-024
PV17-025
PV17-026
PV17-027
SCALE:
PROJECTION:
DATUM:
CHK'D BY:
DWN BY:
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
CLIENT: DATE:
-
PROJECT NO.:
REV NO.:
SITE PLANASPHALT PAVEMENT CORING
HIGHWAY NO. 29HALFWAY RIVER
TITLE:
PROJECT:
UTM Zone 10
NAD 83
KS
BB
S:\Internal\KX052806-HalfwayRiver-GIS\HR-AlignGeotechInv-Det-Fig3-SitePlan-AsphaltPaveCor.mxd
KX052806
1:10,000
0 200 400 600 800100m
$
Legend") Pavement Core Location
FIGURE 3Note: Image provided by Bing Maps Aerial - © 2017 DigitalGlobe Image courtesy of USGS © 2017 GeoEye © Province of British Columbia Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017 Microsoft Corporation.
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
JUNE 2019BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
FINAL
DRAFT
2999+700 2999+800
Elevation (m
)
470
480
490
500
2999+600
Station (m)
Elevation (m
)
470
480
490
500
END
0.2
3.7
TS
GP145
4
TP17-A-001W
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 2999+600 TO 2999+860
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
Legend
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 1 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
2999+900 3000+000 3000+100
470
480
490
500
460
Elevation (m
)
Station (m)
470
480
490
500
460
Elevation (m
)
END
0.2
3.7
TS18
5
TP17-A-002W
END
0.1
4.14/25/2017
TS
GP4
344
TP17-A-003W
END
0.1
3.74/25/2017
TS
GP4
77
TP17-A-004W
END
0.12.12.2
TSGP-GM
BR67
TP17-A-005W
END0.20.61.21.3
TS
SPBR
2610
TP17-A-006W
END
0.20.6
3
TSML
BR17 1731
16
14
TP17-A-007LLPLWSM3
GM2
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 2999+860 TO 3000+200
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
Legend
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 2 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3000+200 3000+300 3000+400 3000+500
470
480
460
Elevation (m
)
450
440
430
Station (m)
470
480
460
450
440
430
Elevation (m
)
END
0.11.52.4
45.7
TS
GP-GM
BR
1550
10099RRR
41239628
161212
TH17-A-001N W0.1
3.4
TS
GP8677
TP17-A-008W
END
0.21.82.4
TSGP-GM 14
TP17-A-009W
END
0.21.2
2
TSGP
BR5
TP17-A-010W
SM2END
END
0.21.21.72.8
TSGM3
SP BR
TP18-A-035
N/A / N/AN/A / N/AN/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.02 / 0.39
0.35 / 0.36
0.04 / 0.08
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.58 / 0.48
0.42 / 0.30
0.56 / 0.59
0.41 / 0.47
N/A / N/A
0.48 / 0.41
0.65 / 0.53
0.12 / 0.35
0.36 / 0.43
0.59 / 0.73
0.47 / 0.26
0.66 / N/A
0.58 / 0.60
0.44 / 0.50
0.51 / 0.53
N/A / 0.27
0.52 / 0.49
0.58 / 0.66
N/A / N/A
Dia./ Axial
Is50
BR
(MPa)
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3000+200 TO 3000+540
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
Legend
Corrected Point Load Index (MPa)
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 3 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
Is50BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3000+600 3000+700 3000+800
470
480
460
Elevation (m
)
450
440
430
Station (m)
470
480
460
Elevation (m
)
450
440
430
END
0.20.6
9
TSML
BR
46 17
TH18-A-022N W
END
0.10.5
45.7
TS
BR
359
210R175R
2147
1312
TH17-A-002N W
END
0.10.5
15.2
TSML
BR
541
121
271512
18 32
TH17-A-003N W PL LLEND
0.21.82.1
TS
BR
1218
TP17-A-011W
SM2- SM2GM2
TP17-A-012
END0.41.2
TSBR
TS
GP-GM
BR
END
0.6
3.3
45.7
1414373764R
TH17-A-004N
TSML
SM3
BR
END
0.10.61.1
10.6
262541
N
TH18-A-023
TP18-A-036
END
0.20.82.7
TS
BR23131111
WSM3
N/A / N/AN/A / N/A
0.30 / 1.65
0.35 / 1.66
N/A / N/A
0.24 / 1.13
0.12 / 1.16
0.07 / 1.22
0.09 / 0.63
0.13 / 0.99
0.16 / 0.93
0.05 / 0.91
0.10 / 1.12
0.25 / 1.22
0.16 / 0.64
0.14 / 0.48
0.25 / 1.31
0.04 / 0.58
0.31 / 1.57
0.25 / 1.02
0.09 / 1.18
0.28 / 0.50
0.21 / 0.61
0.12 / 0.94
0.17 / 0.60
0.14 / 1.55
0.23 / 1.68
0.31 / 0.87
0.45 / 1.96
Dia./ Axial
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.40 / 1.54
0.10 / 0.88
0.06 / 0.95
0.39 / 1.74
0.39 / 0.94
0.28 / 0.81
Dia./ Axial N/A / N/A
0.17 / 0.67
0.12 / 0.58
0.55 / 0.65
0.69 / 0.61
0.49 / 0.38
1.32 / 0.53
0.66 / 0.51
0.56 / 0.56
0.57 / 0.52
0.85 / 0.78
0.58 / 0.44
0.56 / 0.59
0.71 / 0.54
0.56 / 0.48
0.56 / 0.53
0.71 / 0.55
1.11 / 0.82
0.90 / 0.97
0.69 / 0.70
0.88 / 0.82
0.70 / 0.79
0.69 / 0.46
0.81 / 0.57
0.63 / 0.67
0.66 / 0.69
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/AN/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.36 / 0.38
0.66 / 0.60
Dia./ Axial
N/A / N/A
0.32 / 0.27
0.08 / 0.24
0.11 / 0.39
0.03 / N/A
0.33 / 0.40
Dia./ Axial
Is50
Is50
Is50
Is50
W
W(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
2013
8167
14
Dia./ Axial
Is50 (MPa)
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3000+540 TO 3000+880
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 4 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
Legend
Corrected Point Load Index (MPa)
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
Is50BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
420
430
440
460
470
480
3000+900 3001+000 3001+100 3001+200
Elevation (m
)
Station (m)
490
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
Elevation (m
)
490
H A L F W A Y R I V E R
BRIDGE
450
END0.30.91.5
TS
BR49
TP17-A-013W
GM1
TS
BR
END
2/13/2018
0.11.8
25.8
TH18-A-024
BR
END
0.2
16.3
RR
TH18-A-025N
TSML
GP-GM
BR
END
2/17/2018
0.1
2.7
6.4
8.5
21.1
164729149348134
77R
TH18-A-027N
GP-GM
ML
END
2/8/2018
0.1
3.4
6.9
18
TS
GP-GM
BR
223582647111925
TH18-A-012N
END
2/22/2018
0.11
2.1
9.5
21.2
TSSP-SM
GP-GM
BR
2231010202121152843161926R
TH18-A-013N
SM3
END
0.1
3.2
50.3
TS
BR
1621277225RR
TH17-A-005N 50000
25000 800
2
400
qt(kPa) fs
(kPa)
CPT17-A-001
Refusal
END
0.10.32.4
45.7
TSGP-GM
BR
32R
TH18-A-026N
SM1 GM1
N/A / N/AN/A / N/A
0.41 / 0.27
0.27 / 0.20
0.32 / 0.39
0.33 / 0.36
0.44 / 0.31
0.26 / 0.17
0.31 / 0.25
0.24 / 0.37
0.35 / 0.24
Dia./ Axial
N/A / 0.24
0.03 / 0.40
0.07 / 0.63
0.31 / 0.37
0.27 / 0.43
0.28 / 0.47
0.37 / 0.45
0.07 / 0.33
0.45 / 0.49
0.24 / 0.39
0.30 / 0.36
0.50 / 0.31
0.12 / 0.55
0.03 / 0.31
0.27 / 0.48
0.21 / 0.54
0.62 / 0.48
0.52 / 0.43
0.45 / 0.56
0.05 / 0.40
0.31 / 0.14
0.01 / 0.49
0.06 / 0.43
0.05 / 0.29
0.29 / 0.45
0.16 / 0.37
0.08 / 0.63
0.25 / 0.28
Dia./ Axial
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.89 / 1.18
N/A / N/A
0.48 / 0.41
0.49 / 0.46
0.31 / 0.48
0.68 / 0.50
1.04 / 0.56
0.66 / 0.43
0.44 / 0.36
0.73 / 0.44
0.64 / 0.65
N/A / N/A
0.64 / 0.53
0.46 / 0.53
0.58 / 0.41
0.52 / 0.40
0.64 / 0.54
1.00 / 0.66
0.91 / 0.96
0.83 / 0.68
N/A / N/A
0.80 / 0.82
0.69 / 0.65
0.75 / 0.82
0.82 / 0.61N/A / N/AN/A / N/AN/A / N/A
0.94 / 1.11
1.07 / 0.94
Dia./ Axial
N/A / N/A0.05 / N/AN/A / N/A0.18 / 0.460.04 / N/A0.09 / 0.330.43 / 0.430.15 / 0.36
0.20 / 0.81
0.25 / 0.42
0.02 / 0.77
0.06 / 0.52
(MPa)
N/A / 0.340.22 / 0.32
0.03 / 0.37
0.02 / 0.34
0.07 / 0.43
0.02 / 0.35
0.02 / 0.41
0.28 / 0.67
Dia./ Axial
0.38 / 0.430.35 / 0.25
0.20 / 0.58
0.07 / 0.43
0.12 / 0.49
0.16 / 0.39
0.49 / 0.52
0.47 / 0.51
Dia./ Axial
21 2137 22
447
16N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.21 / 0.28
0.17 / 0.28
0.56 / 0.35
0.28 / 0.40
0.30 / 0.89
0.37 / 0.53
0.13 / 0.42
0.15 / 0.47
0.22 / 0.47
0.06 / 0.29
0.34 / 0.57
0.34 / 0.55
0.44 / 0.52
0.03 / 0.43
Is50
Is50 Is50
Is50 Is50 Is50
W W
SM4
W W WSM4
(MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)(MPa)
11
2298
6415826791416
58112425
14127231289
1533334
PLLLDia./ Axial
4419
30 16 20
NIs50 WPLLL(MPa)
Dia./ Axial
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3000+880 TO 3001+220
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 5 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
Legend
Corrected Point Load Index (MPa)
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
Is50BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3001+300 3001+400 3001+500
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
410
Elevation (m
)
Station (m)
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
410
Elevation (m
)
H A L F W A Y R I V E R
BRIDGE
END
0.2
2.3
8.5
30.5
TS
GP-GM
BR
35489
253923RRRR
TH17-A-006N
END
5/1/20170.61.41.8
7
30.5
SP
GP-GM
BR
7461435755110
48RRR
TH17-A-007N
END
1/25/2018
0.10.9
7.5
21.4
TS ML
GP-GM
BR
24254465532026482026
TH18-A-014N
END
2/25/2018
0.10.3
7.9
19.7
TS
GP-GM
BR
136234143
51R113725R49
70R
TH18-A-015N
END
1/31/2018
0.10.8
6.6
16.9
TS
GP-GM
BR
8373719343846R57
TH18-A-016N
SM3
SM1SM2
SM2GM2
5000025000 800
2
4
6
400
qt(kPa) fs
(kPa)
CPT17-A-002
Refusal8
5000025000 800
2
4
6
400
qt(kPa) fs
(kPa)
CPT17-A-003
RefusalN/A / N/A
0.47 / 0.470.40 / 0.55
0.41 / 0.46
0.81 / 0.52
0.54 / 0.49
0.58 / 0.38
N/A / N/A
0.62 / 0.71
0.54 / 0.46
N/A / N/A
0.58 / 0.45
0.49 / 0.51
0.42 / 0.56
0.48 / 0.66
Dia./ Axial
0.06 / 0.43
0.41 / 0.30
0.18 / 0.44
0.12 / 0.45
0.26 / 0.25
N/A / N/A
0.46 / 0.49
0.11 / 0.59
0.07 / 0.37
Dia./ Axial
N/A / N/AN/A / N/AN/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.67 / 0.49
0.58 / 0.52
0.58 / 0.44
0.66 / 0.65
N/A / N/A
0.52 / 0.73
0.07 / 0.69
0.51 / 0.71
0.39 / 0.66
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.57 / 0.27
Dia./ Axial
0.42 / 0.230.48 / 0.47
0.23 / 0.33
0.10 / 0.46
0.03 / 0.49
0.03 / 0.35
0.34 / 0.52
Dia./ Axial
Dia./ Axial
0.22 / 0.250.32 / 0.39
0.58 / 0.34
0.30 / 0.43
0.22 / 0.31
0.17 / 0.30
0.25 / 0.41
0.35 / 0.41
Is50Is50 Is50
Is50 Is50
5/24/2017 5/25/2017
WW
WW
(MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
W
276101751559816
27545
15797877
39
12118
2213
PL LL
13 29 17
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3001+220 TO 3001+560
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 6 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
Legend
Corrected Point Load Index (MPa)
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
Is50BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3001+600 3001+700 3001+800 3001+900
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
410
Elevation (m
)
Station (m)
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
410
Elevation (m
)
H A L F W A Y R I V E R
BRIDGE
END
5/4/2017
0.6
7.7
30.6
TS
GP-GM
BR
4134225286029
67
38
RR
TH17-A-008N
END
1/24/2018
0.9
9.9
21.3
SP
GP-GM
BR
11242527R332924363219191314
TH18-A-017N
1/20/2018
0.10.6
8.9
19.6
TSML
GP-GM
BR
12163142206611465739413722R
TH18-A-018N
END
1/29/2018
0.21.5
5.55.9
16.8
TS
GP-GM
BR
17202334242522109R
TH18-A-019N
END
1/27/2018
3.5
14.9
GP
BR
68129R
TH18-A-020N
END
SM4
5000025000 800
2
4
6
400
qt(kPa) fs
(kPa)
CPT17-A-004
Refusal
8
0.17 / 0.400.28 / 0.33
0.15 / 0.73
0.18 / 0.31
0.31 / 0.26
0.10 / 0.33
0.58 / 0.66
0.30 / 0.72
Dia./ Axial
0.41 / 0.59N/A / N/A
0.30 / 0.63
N/A / N/A
0.20 / 0.48
0.09 / 0.52
0.25 / 0.42
Dia./ Axial
0.42 / 0.18
0.73 / 0.81
0.72 / 0.63
N/A / N/A
0.51 / 0.47
0.79 / 0.60
0.71 / 0.77
0.55 / 0.75
0.64 / 0.71
0.59 / 0.75
0.66 / 0.71
0.98 / 0.66
0.54 / 0.74
0.67 / 1.01
0.73 / 0.86
Dia./ Axial
0.27 / 0.34
0.30 / 0.38
0.05 / 0.50
0.41 / 0.62
0.40 / 0.45
0.60 / 0.45
0.74 / 0.36
Dia./ Axial
0.11 / 0.150.42 / 0.31
0.37 / 0.72
0.47 / 0.58
0.35 / 0.64
0.29 / 0.87
0.48 / 0.57
0.25 / 0.69
Dia./ Axial
17 33
Is50 Is50 Is50Is50
Is505/26/2017
W W WW
W
SP
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)(MPa)
(MPa)
PL LL
21
243236
2521222
522877
7
89109
3647
7
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3001+560 TO 3001+900
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 7 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
Legend
Corrected Point Load Index (MPa)
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
Is50BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3001+900 3002+000 3002+100 3002+200
430
440
450
460
470
480
Elevation (m
)
Station (m)
430
440
450
460
470
480
Elevation (m
)
H A L F W A Y R I V E R
BRIDGE
420 420
410 410
END
6/23/2017
0.2
14.415.1
TS
GP-GM
BR
562527974050364433R
157R88R373934
129RR2724RR
161111416002120230541010
2020
3232
TH17-A-010N W PL LL
END
0.20.4
4.4
TSML-
GP-GM
21 29272510552
TP17-A-017LLPLW
SM4
END
0.2
4.4
TS
GP75232
W
4.1
50.2
GP
BR
194133344734RR
TH17-A-009N
END
1/14/2018
0.10.4
16.6
62.3
TSGM3
GP-GM
BR
37
51
32
67
28
73
26
N
END
5000025000 800
2
4
400
qt(kPa) fs
(kPa)
CPT17-A-005
Refusal
TH18-A-021
TP17-A-016
0.24 / 0.48N/A / 0.45N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / 0.48
0.60 / 0.60
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.64 / 0.12
0.46 / 0.50
0.54 / 0.11
0.62 / 0.49
N/A / N/A
N/A / N/A
0.69 / 0.84
0.69 / 0.83
N/A / N/A
Dia./ Axial
0.62 / 0.780.44 / 0.62
0.24 / 0.63
0.43 / 0.92
0.81 / 0.69
0.32 / 0.70
0.25 / 0.47
0.44 / 0.70
0.45 / 0.45
0.28 / 0.74
0.52 / 0.73
0.42 / 0.85
0.46 / 0.14
0.31 / 0.34
0.59 / 0.55
0.52 / 0.84
0.52 / 0.84
0.43 / 0.68
0.43 / 0.50
0.17 / 0.40
0.53 / 0.46
0.41 / 0.37
0.31 / 0.39
0.27 / 0.50
0.48 / 0.45
0.42 / 0.80
0.37 / 0.49
0.19 / 0.54
0.24 / 0.43
N/A / N/A
Dia./ Axial
Is50
Is50
W
W
(MPa)
(MPa)
465365
101
2
2
2
3
7
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3001+900 TO 3002+240
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 8 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
Legend
Corrected Point Load Index (MPa)
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
Is50BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3002+300 3002+400 3002+500
450
460
470
480
Elevation (m
)
490
Station (m)
450
460
470
480
Elevation (m
)
490
TH17-A-011N W PL LL
END
0.6
11.913.6
TS
GP-GM
BR
143124546612726
57
49
22
R
R
8110220
0
0
0
0
10
10
18
18
35
35
END
0.30.4
3.5
TS
GP264231
TP17-A-020W
ML-SM4
TP17-A-019
END
0.20.3
3
TSML-
SM4 GP35932
W
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3002+240 TO 3002+580
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
Legend
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 9 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3002+700 3002+8003002+600
Elevation (m
)
460
470
480
490
Station (m)
Elevation (m
)
460
470
480
490
3002+900
END
0.20.3
4.5
TS
GP
11
6422
TP17-A-023W
END
0.20.31.3
4.5
TSCL-CH
GP
26 5034271542322
TP17-A-025LLPLW
END
0.20.81.3
4.5
TSCH
GP-GM
23 542572522
TP17-A-027LLPLW
SM2
SM1-GM1ML-SM4
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3002+580 TO 3002+920
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
Legend
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 10 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3003+000 3003+100 3003+200
Elevation (m
)
460
470
480
490
Station (m)
Elevation (m
)
460
470
480
490
END
0.30.4
3.5
TSCH
GP-GM246
35
TP17-A-030W
END
0.30.8
3.4
TSCH
25 58261233
TP17-A-033LLPLW
GM1
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3002+920 TO 3003+260
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
Legend
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 11 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
3003+300 3003+400
Elevation (m
)
460
470
480
490
500
Station (m)
3003+500 3003+600
Elevation (m
)
460
470
480
490
500
END
0.1
3.9
GP62
22
TP17-A-034W
TS
N/A
PROJECTION:
N/A
DATUM:
PROFILES
STATION 3003+260 TO 3003+434.37
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROJECT:
TITLE:
REV. NO.:
PROJECT NO.:
KX052806
-
CLIENT:
DWN BY:
CHK'D BY:
JUNE 2019
DATE:
SCALE:
KS
AS NOTED
BB
HIGHWAY NO. 29
HALFWAY RIVER
This drawing was originally produced in colour.
Legend
L3000A20 Centerline Alignment Profile
Existing Ground Profile at Centreline
FIGURE 4
SHEET NO. 12 of 12
H 1 : 1000
V 1 : 500
0m 10 20 30 40
0m 5 10 15 20
Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions
a Division of Wood Canada Limited (Wood)
3456 Opie CrescentPrince George, BC, CANADA V2N 2P9Tel. (250) 564-3243 Fax (250) 562-7045
BC HYDRO c/o R.F. BINNIE & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Note: L3000A20 centreline alignment profile and existing ground profile at centreline
provided by R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. CAD file 'ALIGEOMPROF-16-0091.dwg',
received 31 March 2019.
FINAL
DRAFT
Appendix B
Slope Stability Outputs
FINAL
DRAFT
4/23/2019
Section 3000+750
Name: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level_Do Nothing
1:750
1.36
-15 5 25 45 65 85450
460
470
480
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/23/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+750.gszName: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level_Do Nothing
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/23/2019
Section 3000+750
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level_Dig&Replace
1:750
1.54
-15 5 25 45 65 85450
460
470
480
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/23/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+750.gszName: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level_Dig&Replace
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/23/2019
Section 3000+750
Name: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown_Dig&Replace/Shear Key
1:750
1.46
-15 5 25 45 65 85450
460
470
480
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/23/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+750.gszName: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown_Dig&Replace/Shear Key
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/22/2019
Section 3000+830
Name: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_MNRL__Do nothing
1:750
1.20
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ele
vation
445
455
465
475
445
455
465
475
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/22/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+830.gszName: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_MNRL__Do nothing
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 30 1
4. Shale
Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/22/2019
Section 3000+830
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_MNRL__Dig Replace/Shear Key)
1:750
1.54
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ele
vation
445
455
465
475
445
455
465
475
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/22/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+830.gszName: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_MNRL__Dig Replace/Shear Key)
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 30 1
4. Shale
Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/22/2019
Section 3000+830
Name: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown__Dig Replace/Shear Key)
1:750
1.43
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ele
vation
445
455
465
475
445
455
465
475
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/22/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+830.gszName: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown__Dig Replace/Shear Key)
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 30 1
4. Shale
Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/23/2019
Section 3000+899
Name: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Entry Exit)_Do Nothing
1:1,050
1.35
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/23/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+899.gszName: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Entry Exit)_Do Nothing
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/23/2019
Section 3000+899
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)
1:1,050
1.54
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/23/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+899.gszName: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
4/23/2019
Section 3000+899
Name: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown (Entry Exit)_Bench&Shear Key
1:1,050
1.44
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 4/23/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+899.gszName: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown (Entry Exit)_Bench&Shear Key
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
5/22/2019
Section 3000+940
Name: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Entry Exit)_Do Nothing
1:1,050
1.38
-20 0 20 40 60 80445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 5/22/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+940.gszName: Case 1_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Entry Exit)_Do Nothing
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
5/22/2019
Section 3000+940
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)
1:1,050
1.54
-20 0 20 40 60 80445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 5/22/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+940.gszName: Case 1A_Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
5/22/2019
Section 3000+940
Name: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown (Entry Exit)_Bench&Shear Key
1:1,050
1.40
-20 0 20 40 60 80445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 5/22/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+940.gszName: Case 2A_Failure towards Peace River_Rapid Drawdown (Entry Exit)_Bench&Shear Key
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
FINAL
DRAFT
6/14/2019
Section 3000+940
Name: Failure towards Peace River_MNRL (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)_RipRap_Stability (1.75)
1:850
1.54
-20 0 20 40 60 80
Ele
va
tio
n
445
455
465
475
485
445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 6/14/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: Section 3000+940riprap.gsz
Name: Failure towards Peace River_MNRL (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)_RipRap_Stability (1.75)
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
7. Rip Rap Mohr-Coulomb 26.6 0 45 1
FINAL
DRAFT
6/14/2019
Section 3000+940
Name: Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)_RipRap (2H:1V)
1:1,050
1.55
-20 0 20 40 60 80445
455
465
475
485
KX052806Highway 29. HalfwayDate: 6/14/2019Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimFile Name: 3000+940riprap2H1V.gszName: Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level (Dig Replace) (Entry Exit)_RipRap (2H:1V)
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 39 1
2. Sand & Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
3. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
4. Shale Bedrock
Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale
Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
6. Silt Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 26 1
7. Rip Rap Mohr-Coulomb 26.6 0 45 1
FINAL
DRAFT
6/17/2019
Section 3000+900
Name: Case 6_Failure towards Halfway River_Existing Conditions_Sensitivity analysis
1:1,650
1.267
-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Section 3000.897
Date: 6/17/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+900.gsz
Name: Case 6_Failure towards Halfway River_Existing Conditions_Sensitivity analysis
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
13/03/2019
Section 3000+500
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
1:1,400
1.70
-150 -130 -110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+500.gsz
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
13/03/2019
Section 3000+500
Name: Case 1B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown_fully undrained
1:1,400
1.24
-150 -130 -110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+500.gsz
Name: Case 1B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown_fully undrained
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
1:1,382
1.53
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
Highway 29. Halfway
Section 3000.897
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+600.gsz
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
Section 3000+600
13/03/2019
FINAL
DRAFT
Name: Case 1D_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown_1 m partial drainage
1:1,382
1.15
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
Highway 29. Halfway
Section 3000.897
Date: 14/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+600.gsz
Name: Case 1D_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown_1 m partial drainage
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
Section 3000+600
14/03/2019
400-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
FINAL
DRAFT
Name: Case 3A_Failure towards Halfway River_MNRL (shift highway south 4.5 m)
1:1,382
1.62
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
Highway 29. Halfway
Section 3000.897
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+600.gsz
Name: Case 3A_Failure towards Halfway River_MNRL (shift highway south 4.5 m)
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
Section 3000+600
13/03/2019
FINAL
DRAFT
Name: Case 3B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (shift highway south 4.5 m) (1 m partial drawd
1:1,382
1.25
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
Highway 29. Halfway
Section 3000.897
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+600.gsz
Name: Case 3B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (shift highway south 4.5 m) (1 m partial drawdown)
Color Name Model Unit Weight(kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
Section 3000+600
13/03/2019
FINAL
DRAFT
13/03/2019
Section 3000+700
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
1:1,400
1.55
-175 -155 -135 -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145395
405
415
425
435
445
455
465
475
485
495
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+700.gsz
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
13/03/2019
Section 3000+700
Name: Case 1D_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown_1 m partial drainage
1:1,400
1.17
-175 -155 -135 -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145395
405
415
425
435
445
455
465
475
485
495
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+700.gsz
Name: Case 1D_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown_1 m partial drainage
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
13/03/2019
Section 3000+700
Name: Case 3B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (Shift Highway to south 3 m)
1:1,400
1.24
-175 -155 -135 -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145395
405
415
425
435
445
455
465
475
485
495
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 13/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+700.gsz
Name: Case 3B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (Shift Highway to south 3 m)
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
14/03/2019
Section 3000+800
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
1:1,600
1.58
-175 -155 -135 -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165
Ele
vation
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 14/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+800.gsz
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 30 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
14/03/2019
Section 3000+800
Name: Case 1D_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (1m drawdown)
1:1,600
1.18
-175 -155 -135 -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165
Ele
vation
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 14/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+800.gsz
Name: Case 1D_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (1m drawdown)
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 30 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
14/03/2019
Section 3000+800
Name: Case 3B_Rapid Drawdown _Shift alignment south_3m_1 m partial drainage
1:1,600
1.26
-175 -155 -135 -115 -95 -75 -55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165
Ele
vation
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Date: 14/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+800.gsz
Name: Case 3B_Rapid Drawdown _Shift alignment south_3m_1 m partial drainage
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 30 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
FINAL
DRAFT
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
1:1,650
1.63
-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Section 3000.897
Date: 14/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+900.gsz
Name: Case 1A_Failure towards Halfway River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
Section 3000+900
14/03/2019
FINAL
DRAFT
Name: Case 1B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (Fully Undrained Case)
1:1,650
1.25
-200 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
KX052806
Highway 29. Halfway
Section 3000.897
Date: 14/03/2019
Last Edited By: Sinclair, Kim
File Name: Section 3000+900.gsz
Name: Case 1B_Failure towards Halfway River_Rapid Drawdown (Fully Undrained Case)
Color Name Model Unit Weight (kN/m³)
Cohesion'(kPa)
Phi' (°)
PiezometricLine
C-Horizontal(kPa)
C-Vertical(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal(°)
Phi-Vertical(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand & Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 37 1
4. Shale Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24 1 75 75 35 45
5. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24 0 16 1
Section 3000+900
14/03/2019
FINAL
DRAFT
2.183
-55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185 205 225 245 265421
426
431
436
441
446
451
456
461
466
471
476
481
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Embankment Fill (Sand and Gravel)
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 38 1
2. Sand and Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 20.5 0 35 1
3. Clay/Silt Effective Stress
Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 22 1
4. Residual Soil/ Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
5. Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24.5 1 50 50 35 45
6. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 16 1
KX052806Highway No. 29 Halfway Section 3002+300Date: 03/08/2018Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimName: Failure towards Peace River_ Rapid Drawdown
03/08/2018
Section 3002+300
Name: Failure towards Peace River_ Rapid Drawdown
1:1,382
FINAL
DRAFT
2.333
-55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185 205 225 245 265421
426
431
436
441
446
451
456
461
466
471
476
481
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Embankment Fill (Sand and Gravel)
Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 38 1
2. Sand and Gravel Mohr-Coulomb 20.5 0 35 1
3. Clay/Silt Effective Stress
Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 22 1
4. Residual Soil/ Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
5. Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24.5 1 50 50 35 45
6. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 16 1
KX052806Highway No. 29 Halfway Section 3002+300Date: 03/08/2018Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimName: Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
03/08/2018
Section 3002+300
Name: Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
1:1,382
FINAL
DRAFT
03/08/2018
Section 3002+800
Failure towards Peace River_ Rapid Drawdown
1:1,382
2.306
-55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185 205 225 245 265421
426
431
436
441
446
451
456
461
466
471
476
481
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand and Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 20.5 0 35 1
3. Clay/Silt Effective Stress
Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 22 1
4. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
5. Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24.5 1 50 50 35 45
6. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 16 1
KX052806Highway No. 29 Halfway Section 3002+300Date: 03/08/2018Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimName: Failure towards Peace River_ Rapid Drawdown
FINAL
DRAFT
03/08/2018
Section 3002+800
Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
1:1,382
2.481
-55 -35 -15 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185 205 225 245 265421
426
431
436
441
446
451
456
461
466
471
476
481
Color Name Model Unit
Weight
(kN/m³)
Cohesion'
(kPa)
Phi'
(°)
Piezometric
Line
C-Horizontal
(kPa)
C-Vertical
(kPa)
Phi-Horizontal
(°)
Phi-Vertical
(°)
1. Fill Mohr-Coulomb 21 0 36 1
2. Sand and Gravel
Mohr-Coulomb 20.5 0 35 1
3. Clay/Silt Effective Stress
Mohr-Coulomb 19 0 22 1
4. Weathered Bedrock
Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 30 1
5. Bedrock Anisotropic Strength 24.5 1 50 50 35 45
6. Weak Shale Mohr-Coulomb 24.5 0 16 1
KX052806Highway No. 29 Halfway Section 3002+300Date: 03/08/2018Last Edited By: Sinclair, KimName: Failure towards Peace River_Maximum Normal Reservoir Level
FINAL
DRAFT
Limitations
FINAL
DRAFT
GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN
Halfway River Segment
Project # KX052806 | June 18, 2019
‘Wood’ is a trading name for John Wood Group PLC and its subsidiaries
Limitations (optional)
1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented are subject
to the following:
a. The Standard Terms and Conditions which form a part of our Professional Services
Contract;
b. The Scope of Services;
c. Time and Budgetary limitations as described in our Contract; and
d. The Limitations stated herein.
2. No other warranties or representations, either expressed or implied, are made as to the
professional services provided under the terms of our Contract, or the conclusions presented.
3. The conclusions presented in this report were based, in part, on visual observations of the Site
and attendant structures. Our conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions
of the Site or structures, which are not reasonably available, in Wood’s opinion, for direct
observation.
4. Where testing was performed, it was carried out in accordance with the terms of our contract
providing for testing. Other substances, or different quantities of substances testing for, may be
present on-site and may be revealed by different or other testing not provided for in our contract.
5. The utilization of Wood’s services during the implementation of any remedial measures will allow
Wood to observe compliance with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.
Wood’s involvement will also allow for changes to be made as necessary to suit field conditions as
they are encountered.
6. This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated
otherwise in the report or contract. Any use which any third party makes of the report, in whole or
the part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any information or conclusions in
the report is the sole responsibility of such third party. Wood accepts no responsibility whatsoever
for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions
taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on the report or anything set out therein.
7. This report is not to be given over to any third party for any purpose whatsoever without the
written permission of Wood.
8. Provided that the report is still reliable, and less than 12 months old, Wood will issue a third-party
reliance letter to parties that the client identifies in writing, upon payment of the then current fee
for such letters. All third parties relying on Wood’s report, by such reliance agree to be bound by
our proposal and Wood’s standard reliance letter. Wood’s standard reliance letter indicates that in
no event shall Wood be liable for any damages, howsoever arising, relating to third-party reliance
on Wood’s report. No reliance by any party is permitted without such agreement.
FINAL
DRAFT