geotechnical investigation south of highway 55...

SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc.www.solidearth.ca

Edmonton : Tel.: 780.577.1115Fax: 780.669.7094#230, 4808 87 St.Edmonton, AB, T6E 5W3

Cold Lake : Tel.: 780.545.3545Fax: 780.669.7094#105 - 4604 50 St.Cold Lake, AB T9M 1S6

Lloydminster : Tel.: 780.875.2112Fax: 780.669.70945406-52 AvenueLloydminster, AB T9V 2T5

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Proposed Range Road 485A ReconstructionSouth of Highway 55

M.D. of Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta

Prepared for:

SE Design and Consulting Inc.Cold Lake, Alberta

Date:

17 December 2014

Project File #: PG14-1171

PG14-1171 - Range Road 485A Reconstruction - Final Report Page i

Geotechnical InvestigationProposed Range Road 485A Reconstruction

South of Highway 55Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta

Table of ContentsPage

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................12.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INVESTIGATION SCOPE ............................................13.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................14.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ................................................................1

4.1 GROUND DISTURBANCE AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE...............................14.2 FIELD DRILLING AND TESTING ........................................................................2

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................26.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................4

6.1 FOREWORD .......................................................................................................46.2 CONDITION OF THE SUBGRADE......................................................................46.3 ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ..........................................4

6.3.1 Surface Water Management Considerations ............................................46.3.2 Initial Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation..........................................56.3.3 Placement of Engineered Fill....................................................................66.3.4 Frost Susceptibility of Subgrade Soils ......................................................7

6.4 ROADWAY PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ...............................................................87.0 TESTING AND INSPECTION..........................................................................................88.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................9

Tables:Table 1: Recommended Minimum Pavement Structure Thickness

Figures:Figure 1: Borehole Location PlanFigures 2 to 11: Borehole Logs

Appendix A:Site Photographs Taken During the Field Investigation

Appendix B:Explanation of Terms and Symbols

PG14-1171 - Range Road 485A Reconstruction - Final Report Page 1



1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the proposedreconstruction of Range Road 485A, south of Highway 55, within the Municipal District ofBonnyville No. 87 (MD of Bonnyville), Alberta. The geotechnical investigation was carried outby SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc. (SolidEarth) at the request of Mr. Mario Gagnon, P.Eng. ofSE Design and Consulting Inc. (SE Design).

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to assess the subsurface conditions alongthe existing road alignment, provide recommendations and geotechnical considerationsassociated with the roadway reconstruction and required asphaltic concrete pavement structure.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND INVESTIGATION SCOPE

Based on information provided to SolidEarth, it was understood that the project consists of thereconstruction of approximately 3 km of Range Road 485A, between Township Road 632 andHighway 55. It was further understood that the reconstruction will involve the upgrading of theexisting road from a gravel road surface to a paved road.

The scope of work completed by SolidEarth included drilling ten (10) boreholes along theexisting road alignment (approximately spaced every 300 m), conducting laboratory review andtesting on recovered soil samples, undertaking geotechnical engineering analysis, andpreparation of this report.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The section of Range Road 485A included in this project spans from Highway 55 (the north end)to Township Road 632 (the south end), with a total length of approximately 3 km. The existingroadway was generally gravel surfaced with a small area surfaced with cold mix asphalt. Theroad was generally elevated above the surrounding grades and side ditches were present alongthe majority of the alignment.

Photographs showing site conditions that existed at the time of the field investigation arepresented in Appendix A.

4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

4.1 GROUND DISTURBANCE AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE

Prior to field drilling, a SolidEarth representative completed internal ground disturbanceprocedures, which included placing an Alberta One Call. Before starting onsite work, a fieldhazard assessment was conducted by the SolidEarth representative, and was communicatedwith all workers involved during the tailgate meeting. The field program was successfullycompleted without any near misses or incidents.




4.2 FIELD DRILLING AND TESTING

The borehole locations were selected and marked in the field by Solidearth. The boreholelocation plan is presented as Figure 1.

SolidEarth subcontracted Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd., of Edmonton, Alberta, to drill theboreholes. Drilling was completed using a truck-mounted auger drill rig utilizing 150 mm solid-stem continuous flight augers.

The field investigation was undertaken on 30 September 2014 and consisted of drilling a total often (10) boreholes (BH13-01 through -10) along the project alignment. The boreholes weredrilled to an approximate depth ranging between 3.0 to 4.6 m below the existing ground surface.

During drilling, soil samples were collected at approximately 0.75 m intervals along the depth ofthe boreholes. Pocket penetrometer testing was conducted on selected cohesive and unfrozensoil samples to obtain an indication of the unconfined compressive strength of disturbed soilsamples from the auger. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted at selected depths(typically every 1.5 m) to assess the in-situ strength of the soils encountered. The soil samplingand testing sequences are shown on the borehole logs, Figures 2 to 8.

A SolidEarth geotechnical technologist monitored the drilling operations and logged therecovered soil samples from the auger cuttings. The soils were logged according to theModified Unified Soil Classification System, which is described in the Explanation of Terms andSymbols in Appendix B. Due to the method by which the soil cuttings were returned to surface,the depths noted on the borehole logs may vary by ± 0.3 m from those recorded.

Groundwater seepage conditions were monitored during and immediately following completionof drilling. All boreholes were backfilled with drill cuttings at completion of drilling.

Following completion of drilling, the coordinates (northing, easting, and elevation) of the groundsurface at the borehole locations were surveyed by SE Design and provided to SolidEarth.These coordinates are shown on the borehole logs.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

A brief summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations ispresented below. A detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at eachborehole location is provided on the borehole logs.

Gravel Surfacing and Fill

Gravel surfacing was encountered at the road surface of all boreholes except BH14-07 (whereapproximately 75 mm of cold mix asphalt was encountered at the ground surface) and BH14-08




(that was drilled on the shoulder of the road). Due to the drilling method used in theinvestigation (auger drilling), the exact thickness of the gravel surfacing could not be accuratelydetermined as soils were ground and mixed by the auger during drilling. Additionally, the qualityof the gravel base material was variable, making it hard to identify the interface between thismaterial and the clayey soil below it. It was estimated that the gravel surfacing thickness wasgenerally less than 100 mm.

Fill was encountered below the gravel surfacing/cold mix asphalt at all nine borehole locationsdrilled on the existing road alignment, and extended to depths ranging between 0.3 to 0.8 mbelow the existing road surface. The fill was generally classified as “silty sand, some clay, tracegravel” and was predominantly non-plastic. The fill was generally moist to very moist andcontained organics and wood debris.

Topsoil

Buried topsoil was encountered in BH14-02 and -03 below the fill and ranged in thickness from0.3 to 1.0 m. Also in BH14-09 and -10, topsoil was encountered below the fill and was generallyless than 0.2 m thick.

Clay Till

Clay till was encountered below the fill or buried topsoil in BH14-01, -03, -07, -09, and -10; atthe ground surface in BH14-08; and below the sand in BH14-02 and -04. In BH14-01through -04 the clay till extended beyond the exploration depth. In BH14-07 through -10 theclay till extended to approximate depths ranging between 1.5 to 2.5 m below the existing groundsurface.

The clay till was generally classified as “clay, and sand, silty to and silt, trace gravel”, and waslow to medium plastic. The consistency of the clay till was assessed based on the SPT “N”values as generally firm to stiff. Liquid and plastic limits of samples of the medium plastic claytill were in the order of 27 to 37 percent and 13 to 14 percent, respectively.

Sand

Sand was encountered within the clay till at BH14-01 and -02, below the fill in BH14-04, -05,and -06, and below the clay till in BH14-07 through -10. The sand was generally classified as“fine grained, trace to some silt, trace clay, poorly graded”.

Groundwater Levels

No standpipe piezometers were installed in the boreholes at completion of drilling, as theboreholes were drilled within the roadway alignment and stickup pipes could not be installed asthey would have created a traffic safety hazard. Flush-mount protective steel casings wouldhave been buried and/or destroyed.




All boreholes were dry at completion of drilling. No seepage or sloughing was observed in anyborehole during drilling.

The groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate seasonally depending upon several factorsthat include the local geology, hydrogeology, and surface infiltration.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 FOREWORD

It was the understanding of SolidEarth that the final vertical grades will be close to the existingroad grades with some minor grade adjustment required. Accordingly, it was expected thatsome excavation may be required to accommodate the new pavement structure and to maintainthe current vertical grades.

During a heavy rain events at the time of field investigation the existing road subgrade showedrutting and disturbance by heavy wheeled vehicles. A complete rebuild of the road is proposedto upgrade the rural road section to a rural paved road section to comply with the M.D. ofBonnyville standards.

6.2 CONDITION OF THE SUBGRADE

The existing near surface subgrade soils encountered at the borehole locations generallyconsisted of silty sand fill. The fill extended to depths ranging between 0.3 to 0.8 m below theexisting road surface, and was underlain by buried topsoil, sand, or clay till. The sand fill wasgenerally fine grained, silty, and was assessed to be moist to very moist.

The existing subgrade is expected to be frost susceptible and sensitive to disturbance by heavywheeled vehicles, particularly following heavy precipitation and/or snow melt events.Additionally, buried topsoil was present below the fill at relatively shallow depths at the locationsof BH14-02 and -03. Structural damage to the pavement structure may result from deflection ofthe topsoil under traffic load, if topsoil is present within the shallow subgrade material.

Subgrade improvement along the majority of the existing roadway will be required.

6.3 ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

6.3.1 Surface Water Management Considerations

The performance of the pavement structure will be enhanced to a greater degree with propermanagement of surface water. A minimum grade of two percent is recommended at thesubgrade level (cross slope or crowning the center of the road) to accommodate surface waterrunoff away from the subgrade. This will reduce the risk of water ponding above the subgrade




and potential of softening and/or volume change associated with the presence of excess water.The final pavement surface should also be properly sloped to promote surface water runoffaway from the paved surface.

Positive drainage away from the road surface is particularly important during the spring thawand snow melt season. If water from melting snow is allowed to remain on the road surface andsubsequently freezes, significant damage to the road surface (and formation of potholes) maybe encountered.

It is recommended that the roadway surface be elevated above the natural ground, and/or sideditches be provided along the length of the road alignment to provide positive gravity surfacewater management features. It is further recommended that the underside of the road granularbase material be elevated at least 0.6 m above the bottom of the side ditches, and/orsurrounding grades.

The separation between the underside of the granular road surface and surrounding gradesshould be increased if water storage is proposed within the side ditches. In general, if water willbe stored for extended periods of time in the side ditches, then a minimum of 1 m separationshould be maintained between the top of the stored water and the top of the subgrade.

Positive surface drainage should be provided in the early stages of construction to preventponding of water and softening of the subgrade.

6.3.2 Initial Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation

It is recommended that the existing cold mix asphalt be removed from the existing roadalignment. The existing gravel material may be salvaged for re-use (if the quality of the materialwas proven to be adequate), or may be mixed with the subgrade soils and incorporated into theprepared subgrade.

Subgrade improvement will be required to establish a stable road sub-base. The extent ofsubgrade improvement is best determined in the field based on final design grade (cut and fillamounts) visual observation, and proof-roll testing. For budgeting purposes, it may be assumedthat approximately 0.3 m of prepared subgrade will be required below the pavement basestructure along the majority of the alignment.

The prepared subgrade may be achieved by:

placement of dry clay soil as engineered fill in areas requiring fill

scarifying and air drying the existing subgrade, and re-compacting the subgrade asengineered fill, if good weather conditions prevail during construction

replacement of the overly wet material (if encountered) with imported dry, low tomedium plastic clay soils placed as engineered fill




cement stabilizing the subgrade

Requirements for engineered fill are discussed below.

Where buried topsoil is present within the subgrade, the topsoil may be left in place providedthat at a minimum, 0.6 m of engineered fill is maintained between the topsoil and the undersideof the roadway granular base structure. If this separation cannot be maintained, then theremoval of the topsoil and replacement with engineered fill will be required. Structural damageto the pavement structure may result (from the compression and deflection of the topsoil undertraffic loading) if topsoil was present within 0.6 m of the roadway base material.

It is recommended that following achievement of rough grades in areas under cut, and prior toplacement of grade raising fill, in areas under fill, the subgrade be inspected by the geotechnicalengineer to determine the actual extent of required subgrade improvement. The decision will bemade based on actual conditions of the exposed subgrade and amount of grade raising fillrequired.

Regardless of the above, it is recommended that, at a minimum, the upper 0.3 m of the finalsubgrade soil (below the underside of the granular base / sub-base) be scarified and compacted(or placed in the case of engineered fill) to a minimum of 98 present of SPMDD. This wouldhelp create a more competent subgrade for the pavement structure.

6.3.3 Placement of Engineered Fill

All fill placed on site (from scarifying and re-compacting or imported material) should be placedas engineered fill. Engineered fill should consist of low to medium plastic clay or a well-gradedgranular material. Silt or sand which is uniformly graded, or which contains more than10 percent passing the 0.080 mm sieve are not recommended as these materials are generallyfrost susceptible and are difficult to compact (require strict control of moisture content). All fillsoils should be free from any organic materials, contamination, deleterious construction debris,and stones greater than 150 mm in diameter.

The mineral soils encountered at the borehole locations generally consisted of silty sand.These soils are considered challenging as they are frost susceptible and are difficult to compact(require strict control of moisture content). These soils may be used as engineered fill (ifrequired for economic reasons), recognizing that:

loss of compaction and disturbance/rutting of the subgrade may be encountered duringconstruction following rain events

adequate separation between the roadway granular base structure and bottom of theside ditches/surrounding grades is provided in the design (as outlined in Section 6.3.1“Surface Water Management Considerations”)




Engineered fill should be thawed when placed, and placed during non-frozen conditions. Ifwinter construction is proposed, SolidEarth can provide additional recommendations at the time,and once the overall development plan has been finalized.

All engineered fill should be thawed when placed, and should be compacted to a minimum of98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD).

All engineered fill should be compacted in maximum lift thicknesses of 300 mm (loose), andwithin two percent of the soils’ optimum moisture content. Fill placement procedures and qualityof the fill soils should be monitored by geotechnical personnel on a full time basis. Fieldmonitoring should include compaction testing at regular frequencies.

The exposed subgrade, prior to the placement of granular sub-base/base structure should beinspected by the geotechnical engineer. The inspection may include a proof-roll test to confirmthat deflections from construction traffic are minimal. Soft and weak areas identified duringinspection, should be strengthened and improved.

6.3.4 Frost Susceptibility of Subgrade Soils

Frost heave of the subgrade soils is generally related to the particle size distribution of the soils,moisture content, and the presence of a relatively shallow groundwater table. The near surfacesoils encountered along the road alignment generally consisted of fine grained sand and siltysand. The grain size distribution of these soils generally consisted of approximately 80 percentby weight of silt and sand size particles (majority being fine grained) with the remaining portionsas gravel and clay size particles. These soils were generally considered to be highlysusceptible to frost heaving and formation of ice lenses in the presence of water.

Given the above, and with proper grading, drainage and surface water management, the risk offrost heaving and formation of ice lenses was considered to be moderate. It is to be noted thatpoor surface drainage leading to water inundating the subgrade soils or having the water tablewithin less than 1 m from the top of the subgrade will significantly increase the risk levels.

Due to the general variability in the soil makeup, it is not possible to predict with certainty themagnitude of frost heaving at specific locations. It is generally recommended that anobservational approach be adopted over the first two winter seasons to identify problematicareas.

Frequently, areas exhibiting the formation of ice lenses and frost heaving during one winterseason will exhibit the same during subsequent winter seasons. If areas with problematic frostconditions are observed, then remedial measures may be implemented.

The most suitable remedial measure will have to be assessed on a case by case basis as itdepends on the severity of the problem, service/use interruption of the affected area, and the




sensitivity of the pavement structure to frost heaving. Remedial measures may include soilreplacement, ground insulation, or periodic maintenance (in the case of low use areas).

6.4 ROADWAY PAVEMENT STRUCTURE

It was understood that flexible asphaltic concrete pavement is being considered for the road. Itwas further understood that only highway-legal traffic will be allowed on the asphalt pavementstructure.

Recommendations presented in Section 6.3 “Roadway Reconstruction Requirements” regardingsubgrade design, preparation and inspection should be followed. Recommendations presentedin this section are based on the assumption that a stable and competent subgrade is achievedprior to the placement of the pavement structure.

The minimum recommended flexible asphalt pavement structure is provided in Table 1. Lightduty refers to design traffic of 5x104 Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) and heavy duty refersto design traffic of 1x106 ESAL. The recommended pavement section was based on anexpected subgrade Resilient Modulus during spring thaw conditions of 30 to 35 MPa.

Table 1: Flexible Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Design Structure

Material

Recommended Minimum Thickness (mm)

Light Duty(5x104 ESAL)

Heavy Duty(1x106 ESAL)

Hot Mix Asphalt 100 120

20 mm Crushed Granular Base Course(AT Designation 2 Class 20) 250 300

Minimum subgrade preparation 300 300

The granular base course (20 mm material) should be placed in maximum 150 mm thick liftsand uniformly compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of SPMDD at moisture content withintwo percent of the soils’ optimum moisture content. A reduced lift thickness may be requireddepending on the capability of the compaction equipment available to achieve the requireddensities.

7.0 TESTING AND INSPECTION

Recommendations presented in this report may not be valid if adequate engineering inspectionand testing programs during construction are not implemented. Testing and inspectionprograms would consist of:




full time monitoring and compaction testing during site grading and fill placement

testing of the asphaltic concrete as per the Alberta Transportation guidelines

8.0 CLOSURE

The recommendations presented in this report were based on the results of soil sampling andtesting at ten (10) borehole locations along the existing road alignment as well as informationprovided to SolidEarth. Soil conditions by nature can vary across any given site. If different soilconditions are encountered at subsequent phases of this project, SolidEarth should be notifiedimmediately and given the opportunity to evaluate the situation and provide additionalrecommendations as necessary.

The recommendations presented in this report should not be used for another site or for adifferent application at the same site. If the intended application of the site is changed or if theassumptions outlined in this report became invalid, SolidEarth should be notified and given theopportunity to assess if the recommendations presented should be modified.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SE Design and Consulting Inc. andMunicipal Distract of Bonnyville No. 87 and their authorized users for the specific applicationoutlined in this report. No other warranties expressed or implied are provided. This report hasbeen prepared within generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices.

Respectfully submitted,SolidEarth Geotechnical Inc.

Thomas Feeley, P.Eng. Jay Jaber, M.Sc., P.Eng.Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Managing Partner

APEGA Permit to Practice # 11884



Figures

Figure 1: Borehole Location PlanFigures 2 to 11: Borehole Logs

SBE

OCTOBER 15, 2014

MK

1011 1

1:20000

713 LAKESHORE DRIVE PHONE:780-594-5380

COLD LAKE, ALBERTA FAX: 780-594-4486

T9M 1N1 WWW.SEDESIGN.CA

RE-CONSTRUCTION

TEST HOLE PLAN

MD OF BONNYVILLE

RANGE ROAD 485 A

Rge

Rd 4

85A

MD-0010

GRAVEL SURFACINGFILL (SILTY SAND), some clay, trace gravel, non-plastic,brown, moist

CLAY (TILL), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, firm, lowplastic, brown, trace organics, moist

- silt seams

SAND, fine grained, some silt, some clay, trace gravel,poorly graded, brown, very moist

CLAY (TILL), sandy, silty, trace gravel, medium plastic,brown, sand lenses, moist

COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m below ground surface

At CompletionNo accumulation of water or slough material.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings.

Liquid Limit: 24 %Plastic Limit: non-plasticGrain Size DistributionGravel: 5 %Sand: 53 %Silt: 27 %Clay: 15 %

7

1A

1B

2

3

4

FILL

CL

SP

CI

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)

Additional Data &Notes

M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)

SandPea Gravel GroutSlough Drill CuttingsBentonite

Borehole #: BH14-01

Project #: PG14-1171

No Recovery Grab SampleSPT Test (N) CoreSplit-PenShelby Tube

Logged By: PJ / Reviewed By: TF

Completion Date: 30/9/14Driller: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd.

Drill Method: 150 mm Solid Stem Auger Page 1 of 1

Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol

Project Name: Proposed Range Road 485A Reconstruction

Client Name: SE Design and Consulting Inc.

Site: From Township Road 632 to Highway 55

Northing: 6032825 Easting: 486493

Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

GRAVEL SURFACINGFILL (SILTY SAND), some clay, trace gravel, non-plastic,brown, trace organics, trace wood debris, moist to verymoist

TOPSOIL, black, wet, wood debris

SAND, fine grained, trace silt, trace clay, poorly graded,brown, clay lumps, damp

CLAY (TILL), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, low plastic,grey, sand lenses, trace oxides, moist


At CompletionNo accumulation of water or slough material.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings and a bentonite plug.

Liquid Limit: 27 %Plastic Limit: non-plastic

7

3

1

2

3

4

FILL

SP

CL

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-02






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

GRAVEL SURFACINGFILL (SILTY SAND), some clay, trace gravel, non-plastic,brown, trace wood debris, moistTOPSOIL, black, wet, wood debris

CLAY (TILL), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, firm, lowplastic, brown, sand lenses, moist

- becoming very moist to wet

- silt seams



Liquid Limit: 25 %Plastic Limit: 12 %

61

2

3

4

FILL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-03






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

GRAVEL SURFACINGFILL (SILTY SAND), some clay, trace gravel, non-plastic,brown, moist- trace organics

SAND, fine grained, some silt, trace clay, poorly graded,brown, moist

- becoming trace silt

CLAY (TILL), sandy, silty, trace gravel, firm, low tomedium plastic, brown, sand lenses, moist



Grain Size DistributionSand & Gravel: 76 %Clay & Silt: 24 %

6

1A

1B

3

4

FILL

SP

CI

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-04






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

GRAVEL SURFACINGFILL (SAND), some silt, some clay, trace gravel, brown,moistSAND, fine grained, trace silt, trace clay, loose, poorlygraded, brown, moist





81

2

3

4

FILL

SP

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-05






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

GRAVEL SURFACINGFILL (SILTY SAND), some clay, trace gravel, non-plastic,brown, sand lenses, wood debris, moist

SAND, fine grained, some silt, some clay, loose, poorlygraded, brown, clay lumps, very moist

- becoming trace silt, trace clay, moist

- becoming wet



Liquid Limit: 27 %Plastic Limit: 13 %Grain Size DistributionSand: 40 %Silt: 35 %Clay: 25 %

13

6

1

2

3

4

FILL

SP

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-06






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

ASPHALT (75 mm)FILL (CLAY), and sand, silty, trace gravel, brown, moist

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, stiff, low plastic,grey-brown, sand lenses, moist

- becoming medium plastic

SAND, fine grained, trace silt, trace clay, poorly graded,brown, clay lumps, damp



Liquid Limit: 27 %Plastic Limit: 13 %Grain Size DistributionGravel: 2 %Sand: 42 %Silt: 35 %Clay: 21 %


1

2

3

4

5

FILL

CL

CI

SP

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-07






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS

CLAY (TILL), sandy, silty, trace gravel, stiff to very stiff,medium plastic, brown, trace roots, moist

SAND, fine grained, trace silt, trace clay, poorly graded,brown, damp

- becoming trace gravel, moist


At CompletionNo accumulation of water or slough material.Slotted standpipe installed to 4.6 m below ground surface.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings and a bentonite plug.


Water Level:X m below existing groundsurface on XX October 2014.

17

13

1

2

3

4

5

CI

SP

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-08






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS


TOPSOIL, black, wet, wood debrisCLAY (TILL), and sand, and silt, trace gravel, stiff, low tomedium plastic, brown, sand lenses, moist

SAND, fine grained, trace silt, trace clay, poorly graded,brown, very moist


At CompletionNo accumulation of water or slough material.Borehole backfilled with drill cuttings, sand, and a bentoniteplug.

Liquid Limit: 20 %Plastic Limit: non-plasticGrain Size DistributionGravel: 2 %Sand: 42 %Silt: 42 %Clay: 14 %

121

2

3

4

FILL

CL

SP

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-09






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS


TOPSOIL, black, wet, wood debris

CLAY (TILL), and sand, silty, trace gravel, stiff, low tomedium plastic, brown, sand lenses, moist

SAND, fine grained, trace silt, trace clay, poorly graded,brown, moist



Grain Size DistributionSand & Gravel: 68 %Clay & Silt: 32 %21

8

1

2

3

4

FILL

CL

SP

1

2

3

4

5

0

6

MaterialDescription

20 40 60 80

SPT N Value

Soil

Sym

bol

Dep

th (m

)

1

2

3

4

5

Dep

th (m

)


M.C. Liquid

20 40 60 80

Plastic

C:\U

SE

RS

\TH

OM

AS

FE

ELE

Y\D

ES

KT

OP

\PG

14-1

171

RR

485A

RE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N\P

G14

-117

1 R

R48

5A R

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

.GP

J 1

4/12

/17

12:

18

PM

(S

EG

-FIN

AL)

100 200 300 400

Pocket Pen (kPa)


Borehole #: BH14-10






Backfill Symbol

Sample Symbol





Elevation:

Sam

ple

Sym

bol

Sam

ple

#

SPT

(N-V

alue

)

USC

S

BAC

KFIL

LD

ETAI

LS



Appendix A

Site Photographs Taken During the Field Investigation



Photograph 1: North end (near Hwy 55) looking south

Photograph 2: Near BH14-06 looking north



Photograph 3 South of BH14-06 looking south




Photograph 5: Near BH14-04 looking south




Photograph 7: South end (near TWP 632) looking north



Appendix B

Explanation of Terms and Symbols


EXPLANATION OF TERMS & SYMBOLS

The terms and symbols used on the borehole logs to summarize the results of the field investigation and laboratorytesting are described on the following two pages.

1. VISUAL TEXTURAL CLASSIFICATION ON MINERAL SOILS

CLASSIFICATION APPARENT PARTICLE SIZE VISUAL IDENTIFICATIONBoulders > 200 mm > 200 mmCobbles 75 mm to 200 mm 75 mm to 200 mmGravel 4.75 mm to 75 mm 5 mm to 75 mmSand 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm Visible particles to 5 mmSilt 0.002 mm to 0.075 mm Non-plastic particles, not visible to naked eye

Clay < 0.002 mm Plastic particles, not visible to naked eye

2. TERMS FOR CONSISTENCY & DENSITY OF SOILS

Cohesionless Soils

DESCRIPTIVE TERM APPROXIMATE SPT “N” VALUEVery Dense > 50

Dense 30 to 50Compact 10 to 30

Loose 4 to 10Very Loose < 4

Cohesive Soils

DESCRIPTIVE TERM UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH APPROXIMATE SPT “N” VALUEHard >200 kPa > 30

Very Stiff 100 to 200 kPa 15 to 30Stiff 50 to 100 kPa 8 to 15Firm 25 to 50 kPa 4 to 8Soft 10 to 25 kPa 2 to 4

Very Soft < 10 kPa < 2* SPT “N” Values – Refers to the number of blows by a 63.5 kg hammer dropped 760 mm to drive a 50 mm diameter split spoonsampler for a distance of 300 mm after an initial penetration of 150 mm.

3. SYMBOLS USED ON BOREHOLE LOGS

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONN(■) Standard Penetration Test (CSA A119 1-60) SO4 Concentration of Water-Soluble SulphateNd Dynamic Cone Penetration Test Cu Undrained Shear Strength

pp (♦) Pocket Penetrometer Strength ɣ Unit Weight of Soil or Rockqu Unconfined Compressive Strength ɣd Dry Unit Weight of Soil or Rock

w (●) Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) ρ Density of Soil or RockwL Liquid Limit (ASTM D 4318) ρd Dry Density of Soil or RockwP Plastic Limit (ASTM D 4318) Short-Term Water LevelIP Plastic Index Long-Term Water Level


MODIFIED UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS

MAJOR DIVISION GROUPSYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY

CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

CO

AR

SE G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

(MO

RE

THAN

HAL

F BY

WEI

GH

T LA

RG

ER T

HAN

75m

)

GRAVELS

(MORE THAN HALFCOARSE GRAINS

LARGERTHAN 4.75mm)

CLEAN GRAVELS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

Cu = D60/D10 > 4Cc = (D30)2/(D10 x D60) = 1 to 3

GPPOORLY GRADED GRAVELS AND

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE ORNO FINES

NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS

GRAVELS

(WITH SOME FINES)

GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURES CONTENT

OF FINESEXCEEDS

12%

ATTERBERG LIMITSBELOW ‘A’ LINEIp LESS THAN 4

GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

ATTERBERG LIMITSABOVE ‘A’ LINEIp MORE THAN 7

SANDS

(MORE THAN HALFCOARSE GRAINS

SMALLERTHAN 4.75mm)

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SW WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

Cu = D60/D10 > 6Cc = (D30)2/(D10 x D60) = 1 to 3

SP POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

NOT MEETING ALL GRADATIONREQUIREMENTS FOR SW

SANDS

(WITH SOME FINES)

SM SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES CONTENTOF FINESEXCEEDS

12%

ATTERBERG LIMITSBELOW ‘A’ LINEIp LESS THAN 4

SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURESATTERBERG LIMITS

ABOVE ‘A’ LINEIp MORE THAN 7

FIN

E G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

(MO

RE

THAN

HAL

F BY

WEI

GH

TSM

ALLE

RTH

AN 7

5m

) SILTS

(BELOW ‘A’ LINENEGLIGIBLE ORGANIC

CONTENT)

WL < 50 % MLINORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OFSLIGHT PLASTICITY

CLASSIFICATION IS BASEDUPON PLASTICITY CHART

(SEE BELOW)

WL > 50 % MHINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTYSOILS

CLAYS

(ABOVE ‘A’ LINENEGLIGIBLE ORGANIC

CONTENT)

WL < 30 % CLINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY, ORSILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

30 % < WL < 50 % CI INORGANIC CLAYS OR MEDIUMPLASTICITY, SILTY CLAYS

WL > 50 % CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS &CLAYS

(BELOW ‘A’ LINE)

WL < 50 % OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTYCLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

WL > 50 % OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANICSOILS

STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, ANDOFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE

BEDROCK BR SEE REPORT DESCRIPTION

Soil Components

Range Of MinorComponents Fraction Sieve Size (mm)

%by Weight Descriptor Gravel Passing Retained

50 - 35% andCoarse 76 19

Fine 19 4.75

35 - 20% -y, -eySand

Coarse 4.75 2.0

20 - 10% someMedium 2.0 0.425

Fine 0.425 0.075

10 - 1% trace Fines(Silt and Clay) 0.075

geotechnical investigation south of highway 55...

Documents