appendix d - parkland county€¦ · investigation to support the design and construction of the...

Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion – Geotechnical Investigation

Parkland County Acheson, AB

Project number: 60586018 (433)

November 21, 2018

APPENDIX D

Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion Geotechnical Investigation

Parkland County

RPT-2018-11-21-Acheson Water Reservoir Expansion-60586018 AECOM

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in

accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).

The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained

in the Report (the “Limitations”);

represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of

similar reports;

may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified;

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued;

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context;

was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and

in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time..

AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to

update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date

on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for

any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time.

AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been

prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations,

or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part

thereof.

Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or

construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge

and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices

for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to,

nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such

estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or

damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk.

Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing

agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by

Client.

AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the

Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or

decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties

have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages

arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use.

This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to

the terms hereof.

AECOM: 2015-04-13

© 2009-2015 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.


Parkland County


Prepared for:

Parkland County

Prepared by:

Brian Nguyen, P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer

T: 780-486-7616

E: [email protected]

Alex Tam, E.I.T

Geotechnical Engineer-in-Training

T: 780-486-7616

E: [email protected]

AECOM Canada Ltd.

101-18817 Stony Plain Road NW

Edmonton, AB T5S 0C2

Canada

T: 780.486.7000

F: 780.486.7070

aecom.com

© 2018 AECOM Canada Ltd.. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in

accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed

between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been

checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this

document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.


Parkland County


Table of Contents

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

1.1 General .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of work .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Planning and Coordination ...................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Geotechnical Desktop Study ................................................................................................................... 2

2.2.1 Quaternary Geology ................................................................................................................................ 2

2.2.2 Surficial Geological .................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2.3 Bedrock Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Field investigation .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.4 Laboratory testing program ...................................................................................................................... 3

3. Subsurface Condition .......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 General Profiles ....................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Topsoil ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.2 Silt............................................................................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Soil Chemistry ......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Groundwater Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Frost Susceptibility................................................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Frost Penetration ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3.6 Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 6

4. General Site Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 7

4.1 General Site Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 7

4.2 Site Preparation ....................................................................................................................................... 7

4.3 Excavations and Backfill .......................................................................................................................... 7

4.4 General Engineered Fill ........................................................................................................................... 8

4.5 Structural Fill ............................................................................................................................................ 8

4.6 Bedding ................................................................................................................................................... 8

5. Reservoir and Pumphouse Building Recommendations ................................................................................... 10

5.1 General .................................................................................................................................................. 10

5.2 Shallow Foundations ............................................................................................................................. 10

5.3 Deep Foundations ................................................................................................................................. 11

5.3.1 Driven Steel Piles .................................................................................................................................. 11

5.3.2 Lateral Load Capacity for Piles .............................................................................................................. 12

5.4 Subsurface Drainage ............................................................................................................................. 13

5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures ......................................................................................................................... 13

5.6 Buoyant Uplift ........................................................................................................................................ 14

5.7 Grading and Drainage ........................................................................................................................... 15

5.8 Geochemistry Attack on Foundations .................................................................................................... 15

6. References ....................................................................................................................................................... 16


Parkland County


Tables

Table 2-1: Summary of Field Investigation ..................................................................................................................... 3 Table 2-2: Summary of Field Investigation ..................................................................................................................... 3 Table 3-1: Atterberg Limits of Silt.................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 3-2: Grain Size Analysis of Silt .............................................................................................................................. 4 Table 3-3: Soil Chemistry Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3-4: Summary of Groundwater Measurements ..................................................................................................... 5 Table 3-5: Frost Susceptibility ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 3-6: Frost Penetration Depth ................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 4-1: Recommended Gradation for Crushed Gravel (Parkland County Engineering Design Standards, Section

7.4.3) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 4-2: Recommended Gradation for Bedding (Parkland County Engineering Design Standards, Section 4.5.7) .... 9 Table 5-1: Design Parameters for Driven Steel Piles ................................................................................................... 11 Table 5-2: Values of nh for Cohesionless Soils

1 ............................................................................................................ 12

Appendices

Appendix A. Testhole Location Plan, Surficial Geology of Alberta, Bedrock Geology of Alberta

Appendix B. Modified Unified Soil Classification Chart, Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data, General

Statement; Normal Variability of Subsurface Conditions, Testhole Logs

Appendix C. Laboratory Test Results


Parkland County


1

1. Introduction

1.1 General

AECOM Canada Ltd. (AECOM) was contracted by Parkland County to conduct a geotechnical

investigation to support the design and construction of the Zone 4 reservoir expansion in Acheson, AB.

The capacity of the reservoir expansion is expected to between 4,000 and 5,000 cubic metres (m3). The

purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to assess the suitability of the ground conditions of the site

for the proposed reservoir expansion, and to provide soil parameters for the design and construction of

the foundations of the proposed water reservoir and pump house. The recommendations provided in this

report are preliminary, and will need to be reviewed and revised, if warranted. A testhole location plan

showing the proposed testholes in relation to the proposed reservoir site is included on Figure 1 in

Appendix A. Testholes logs are included in Appendix B.

1.2 Scope of work

The scope of work for this intrusive geotechnical investigation includes the following:

Planning and co-ordination of the field drilling program, which included site reconnaissance, safety

planning, utility co-ordination and clearances, logistics planning, and coordination with AECOM

subcontractors

Performing a geotechnical desktop study which included a review of available geological maps and

review of previous geotechnical reports and literature

Executing the geotechnical field investigation, which included drilling testholes within the footprint of

the proposed water reservoir expansion area

Installation of standpipe piezometers in select testholes to monitor groundwater conditions

Measuring groundwater levels in the standpipes after completion of the field drilling program

Performing laboratory testing on soil samples for soil classification and to determine engineering

properties of select soil samples collected during the field investigation

Completing a geotechnical investigation report, which includes a discussion of the regional geology,

subsurface conditions, design and construction recommendations, geotechnical risks associated with

the site, and general site suitability for the proposed reservoir expansion


Parkland County


2

2. Methodology

2.1 Planning and Coordination

Drilling operations were executed in accordance with AECOM’s drilling standard operating procedures

(SOP) to ensure that all work was being completed safely. A job safety analysis (JSA) and task hazard

analysis (THA) was prepared to identify all hazards during drilling operations.

Alberta One Call, DigShaw, third party private locators, and Parkland Country were contacted to

determine the locations of nearby utilities at the proposed site. Additionally, a site reconnaissance was

completed prior to completing drilling activities to access site access to the proposed reservoir site.

2.2 Geotechnical Desktop Study

Prior to the execution of the intrusive geotechnical investigation, a geological desktop study was

conducted to determine the expected ground conditions at the proposed site. The study area is located in

Acheson, AB. The following documents were reviewed to determine subsurface geology:

Quaternary Geology, Central Alberta Map (Shetsen, 1990)

Surficial Geology of Alberta. (Alberta Geological Survey. Fenton M.M., et. al. 2013.)

Bedrock Geology of Alberta. Alberta, Geological Survey (Prior G.J., et. al. 2013)

2.2.1 Quaternary Geology

Near-surface geology of the project area was compiled from the Quaternary Geology, Central Alberta map

(Shetsen, 1990). The Acheson area consists of fine sediments lacustrine deposits of silt and clay, up to

80 m thick; deposited mainly in proglacial lakes. Deposits also include undifferentiated recent clay

sediments. Quaternary geology of the project area as mapped by Shetsen (1990) is shown on Figure 2

in Appendix A.

2.2.2 Surficial Geological

The surficial geology in the study area is expected to include primarily glaciolacustrine deposits.

Glaciolacustrine deposits include either deposited sediments consisting of rhythmically fine sand, silt,

clay, and till, or littoral sediments consisting of well-sorted silty sand, pebbly sand, and minor gravel.

2.2.3 Bedrock Geology

Bedrock geology of the project area was compiled from the “Bedrock Geology Map of Alberta” (Prior G.J.,

et al. (2013)). The bedrock in the project area generally belongs to the non-marine to locally marginal

marine Horseshoe Canyon Formation, consisting of grey feldspathic clayey sandstone, grey bentonitic

mudstone and carbonaceous mudstone, concretionary sideritic layers and laterally continuous coal

seams. This includes white, pedogenically altered sandstone and mudstone. Bedrock geology of the

project area as mapped by Prior G.J., et al. (2013) is shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A.

2.3 Field investigation

The intrusive geotechnical investigation was started on September 14, 2018 and completed on

September 15, 2018. The investigation included drilling four testholes to depths of 10.3 m below ground

surface (mBGS) and one testhole drilled to a depth of 29.8 mBGS. Five 50 millimetre (mm) diameter PVC

standpipe piezometers were installed in all of the testholes. Testhole details are summarized in Table 2-1

below.

The soil types were assessed visually in the field and were classified according to the modified unified

classification system (MUCS) for soils. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in all testholes

and split spoon and grab samples were retrieved from the testholes at select intervals.


Parkland County


3

Table 2-1: Summary of Field Investigation

Testhole Number

Coordinates

(Northing, Easting)

Elevation (m)

Depth

(mBGS)

Well Installed

(Y/N)

TH18-01 5936736 N, 317738 E 717.5 10.3 Y

TH18-02 5936729 N, 317711 E 716.9 10.3 Y

TH18-03 5936711 N, 317740 E 717.2 10.3 Y

TH18-04 5936704 N, 317717 E 717.0 29.8 Y

TH18-05 5936690 N, 317692 E 716.6 10.3 Y

2.4 Laboratory testing program

Soil samples collected during the site investigation were tested in AECOM’s materials testing laboratory in

Calgary, Alberta. The laboratory testing included the determination of moisture contents, Atterberg Limits,

grain size distributions, and soil chemical properties. Soil chemical analysis included tests for pH, soluble

sulphates, resistivity, and chloride content. The test results are shown on the testhole logs, and are

presented separately in Appendix C. Laboratory testing consists of the following:

Table 2-2: Summary of Field Investigation

Laboratory Test Number of Tests

Data Location

Moisture content determination 96 Testhole Locations, Appendix C

Atterberg limits determination on selected soil samples 5 Testhole Locations, Appendix C

Grain Size Analysis on selected samples 5 Testhole Locations, Appendix C

Soil Chemical Testing 3 Testhole Locations, Appendix C


Parkland County


4

3. Subsurface Condition

3.1 General Profiles

3.1.1 Topsoil

Topsoil was encountered at the ground surface in all testholes. The thickness of the topsoil layer was

50 mm. The topsoil contained some silt and some rootlets. The topsoil was organic, fibrous, moist, and

was black in color.

3.1.2 Silt

Silt was encountered below the topsoil layer in all testholes at this site. The silt was encountered at

depths ranging from 0.05 to 29.8 mBGS. The thickness of the silt layer ranged from 10.3 to greater than

29.8 metres (m). The silt layer extended to the termination depths of all testholes during this investigation.

The silt contained trace to some fine grained sand, and trace to some clay. The silt was occasionally

oxidized, and brown to light brown in colour.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values for the silt ranged from 4 to 37 blows per 300 mm of

penetration, indicating that the silt was very loose to dense. The average SPT N-value for the silt was 15.

Moisture content of all silt samples tested varied from 6.9% to 30.9%. Five Atterberg Limits and five grain

size analyses were completed on the silt. The test results are summarized in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2.

Table 3-1: Atterberg Limits of Silt

Testhole Sample

Number

Depth

(mBGS) MUSC

Liquid

Limit (%)

Plastic

Limit (%)

Plasticity

Index (%)

TH18-01 12 8.35 ML 21.8 19.8 2.0

TH18-02 10 6.85 ML 24.9 21.8 3.0

TH18-03 10 6.85 ML 23.8 21.7 2.1

TH18-04 18 12.85 ML 20.7 19.2 1.6

TH18-05 6 3.85 ML 31.3 24.0 7.3

Table 3-2: Grain Size Analysis of Silt

Testhole Sample

Number

Depth

(mBGS)

Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

TH18-01 12 8.35 0.0 32.0 54.6 13.4

TH18-02 10 6.85 0.0 17.8 67.8 14.4

TH18-03 10 6.85 0.0 26.4 61.7 11.9

TH18-04 18 12.85 0.0 45.0 44.1 10.9

TH18-05 6 3.85 0.0 2.2 76.0 21.8


Parkland County


5

3.2 Soil Chemistry

Chemical testing was conducted on select samples to determine pH, resistivity, chlorides content, and

water soluble sulphate content. The degree of corrosiveness and corrosion potential for sulphate attack

are provided in Table 3-3 below in accordance to the Handbook of Corrosion Engineering and the

Canadian Standards Association Guidelines.

Table 3-3: Soil Chemistry Summary

Testhole Depth

(mBGS)

Soil

Layer

Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

Chlorides

Content

(mg/L)

Water Soluble

Sulphate

Content (%)

pH Corrosion Potential Sulphate

Attack

TH18-01 6.85 Silt 5100


Parkland County


6

Table 3-5: Frost Susceptibility

Soil Unit USC Finer than 0.02

mm (%)

Plasticity Index (%) Frost Group

Silt ML - - F4

Generally, the surficial soils at this site were classified in the F4 frost group, which indicates the surficial

soils are highly susceptible to frost.

3.5 Frost Penetration

The surficial soil deposits in the Acheson, AB area are highly susceptible to frost action. The depth of

frost penetration for soils can be determined using the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

guidelines. The depth of frost penetration for the surficial silt is summarized in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Frost Penetration Depth

Soil Unit Frost Penetration Depth

(m)

Silt 2.8

The frost penetration depths provided above are based on a uniform soil type with no insulation cover. In

areas covered with turf or snow cover, the depth of frost penetration will be less. Conversely, if well

graded granular backfill is used, the depth of frost penetration will be greater. The depth of frost

penetration is dependent on the in situ moisture content, relative density, grain and pore sizes, and

permeability of the soil. As a result, frost penetration is expected to vary across the site as the subsurface

materials and temperatures vary.

3.6 Seismic Considerations

The Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM 2006) requires that loading due to earthquake

shaking should be considered as an external load in the design of civil engineering structures. The

earthquake loading at any given site is related to factors such as subsoil conditions and behaviour,

magnitude, duration, and frequency content of strong ground motion and the probable intensity and

likelihood of occurrence of an earthquake (i.e. seismic loads).

The site soil classification was determined from the energy-corrected average standard penetration test

value N60 of 16.2 in testhole TH18-04 drilled to a depth of 29.8 mBGS. The site is classified as Class D

based on the SPT results and according to Table 6.1A in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual

(CFEM, 2006).

The typical soil profile for a Class D site consists of generally stiff soils with an average standard

penetration resistance (N60) between 4 and 34 blows.


Parkland County


7

4. General Site Recommendations

4.1 General Site Assessment

The proposed reservoir structure will be a reinforced concrete underground structure with the base at an

approximate depth of 7 m to 8 m below the existing ground surface (EL.710 mASL to 709 mASL). Based

on the findings of the testholes, the base of the reservoir is expected to be situated within the slightly

plastic to non-plastic silt.

Groundwater levels recorded in standpipe piezometers installed at the site ranged from Dry to 16.2

mBGS after completion of drilling, and ranged from Dry to 17.6 mBGS and Dry to 17.9 mBGS on October

17, 2018 and November 14, 2018, respectively. However, it is recommended a groundwater depth of

between 3.0 mBGS (EL.714 mASL) and 6.4 mBGS (EL.710.6 mASL) be used for preliminary design

purposes as the measured groundwater levels are short term readings only. Additionally, it is

recommended further groundwater monitoring events be carried out in the upcoming spring season and

prior to the start of construction.

The proposed reservoir and pumphouse development is considered feasible at the site, based on

conditions encountered within the testholes. Geotechnical recommendations for preliminary design of the

proposed development are included in the sections below.

4.2 Site Preparation

The site should be stripped of all topsoil and other deleterious materials from beneath the footprint of the

proposed reservoir and pumphouse structure. Fill required in establishing design grade elevations should

consist of imported general engineered fill as discussed in Section 4.4. The soils encountered at this site

were generally considered not suitable for use as backfill, site grading, or subgrade preparation, as the

silty soils are unstable when wet, difficult to compact, and highly susceptible to frost heaving.

4.3 Excavations and Backfill

Excavations are expected to be required for reservoir and pumphouse foundations and underground

utility trenches. All excavations should be carried out in accordance with applicable Occupational Health

and Safety regulations.

Temporary cut slopes, less than 3.0 m high in silt should have side slopes cut no steeper than 2H:1V.

Temporary cut slopes exceeding 3.0 m in silt should have side slopes cut no steeper than 3H:1V. Flatter

short-term cut slopes may be required in localized zones where groundwater seepage is encountered.

Permanent cut slopes in silt should be set at an inclination no steeper than 4H:1V. If cut slopes were to

extend below the groundwater table flowing silts and unstable conditions would likely be encountered. In

such cases, relatively flat excavations of 5H:1V in combination with free-draining gravel buttresses placed

over a geotextile separator would be required in the seepage zones. The thickness of the free-draining

material should be at least 500 mm. Based on the subsurface conditions in the testholes, appreciable

groundwater seepage flow from the sides and the base of the excavation may not be expected. If

seepage is encountered in the excavation extending through the silt, a new work perimeter drainage ditch

or another dewatering method will be required. The contractor will be responsible for designing and

implementing a dewatering system that maintains a dry subgrade.

Grading should be undertaken so that surface water is not allowed to pond adjacent to the excavation.

Temporary surcharge loads, such as construction materials and equipment, should not be allowed within

1.5 m (or the depth of the excavation, whichever is greater) of an unsupported excavated face. Vehicles

delivering materials should be kept back from the edge of the excavation by at least one-half of the depth

of excavation. All excavations should be checked regularly for signs of sloughing, especially after periods

of rain. Small earth or rock falls from the side slopes are a potential source of danger to workers and

must be guarded against. The base of the excavation should be protected from frost during construction

of the foundation.


Parkland County


8

4.4 General Engineered Fill

Unless recommended otherwise, backfill should consist of general engineered fill consisting of low to

medium plastic clay or clay till. The native silt encountered at site is primarily low plastic, and therefore

considered not suitable for use as backfill at this site. The general engineered fill should be compacted to

95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD), and within ± 2% of the Optimum Moisture

Content (OMC), with the exception of below foundations or floor slabs. All fill placed below foundations,

floor slabs or other settlement sensitive structures should be compacted to 100% of the SPMDD, and

within ± 2% of the OMC. Placement of backfill material should not exceed 150 mm in compacted

thickness. Organic material and frozen soil should not be used as backfill.

4.5 Structural Fill

Structural fill should be used under foundations, floor slabs, or any other settlement sensitive structures.

Structural fill should consist of well graded, crushed gravel with less than 10% fines (silt and clay), and a

maximum particle size of 20 mm.

The structural fill should be compacted to 100% of the SPMDD, and within ± 2% of the OMC and placed

in lifts not exceeding 150 mm in compacted thickness. The structural fill should extend on each side of

the foundation or floor slab a minimum distance of 500 mm.

Recommended gradation for crushed gravel is provided in Table 4-1. The supplied material should

comply with Parkland County Engineering Design Standards.

Table 4-1: Recommended Gradation for Crushed Gravel (Parkland County Engineering Design Standards,

Section 7.4.3)

Metric Sieve (mm)

Percentage Passing by Mass

20 100

16 84 to 95

12.5 60 to 90

10 50 to 84

5 37 to 62

2 26 to 50

1.25 19 to 43

0.630 10 to 25

0.160 6 to 18

0.080 2 to 10

4.6 Bedding

Bedding should be used under buried pipes, utility services, and insulation. The minimum thickness of the

bedding material should be 100 mm below and around the pipe, and 300 mm above the pipe. A non-

woven geotextile fabric should be placed between the foundation soils and the bedding material. The

bedding layer should be placed as uniformly as possible to the required density, except that loose,

uncompacted material should be placed under the middle third of the pipe, prior to placement of the pipe.

Bedding should be compacted to 95% of the SPMDD, and within ± 2% of the OMC, and placed in lifts not

exceeding 150 mm in compacted thickness, unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer.

Typical gradation for bedding is provided in Table 4-2.


Parkland County


9

Table 4-2: Recommended Gradation for Bedding (Parkland County Engineering Design Standards, Section

4.5.7)

Metric Sieve (mm)

Percentage Passing by Mass

10 100

5 95 to 100

2.5 80 to 100

1.25 50 to 85

0.63 30 to 65

0.315 10 to 30

0.160 2 to 10


Parkland County


10

5. Reservoir and Pumphouse Building Recommendations

5.1 General

It is understood that the development will consist of a reservoir structure and a pumphouse. The

reservoir will be founded at a depth of approximately 7 m to 8 m below grade (EL. 710 mASL to 709

mASL). Several foundation alternatives are suitable for these structures, including both shallow and deep

foundations. The foundation type selected depends on foundation depths, expected loads, allowable soil

bearing capacity, and the groundwater table level.

5.2 Shallow Foundations

Shallow foundations are considered feasible for this development, provided these foundation types are

founded below the frost zone. Raft foundations may be considered suitable for the reservoir structure. It

is recommended that raft foundations be founded within one soil type to minimize the potential for

differential settlements.

Raft foundations may be designed using an allowable net bearing capacity value of 125 KPa and a

modulus of subgrade reaction, ks, of 13,500 kN/m3 at depths below ground surface of approximately 7 to 8

mBGS (EL. 710 mASL to 709 mASL).

Friction between the subgrade and foundation of reservoir structure can be calculated as follows:

F = σv tan (0.66 φ')

where:

F = Friction between base of reservoir and subgrade

σv = Vertical effective stress on the subgrade

φ' = Internal friction angle (use 27° for silt)

The reservoir will be constructed at a depth below the existing grade such that the weight of the

excavated soil will approach or even be greater than the weight of the structure. Hence a major portion of

the settlement of the reservoir would be due to the recompression of the base heave which would occur

during the excavation. For preliminary design purposes, assuming a reservoir depth of about 7 to 8 m

below grade (EL. 710 mASL to 709 mASL), the total settlement is not expected to exceed 30 mm. This

settlement will mostly occur through loading during construction rather than long term settlement.

Differential settlements are typically half to three quarters of the total settlement noted above if rafts are

supported with relatively uniform subgrade soil. Differential settlements could be highly variable if the

reservoir structure is supported on different subgrade soils.

The base of raft excavations should be thoroughly cleaned of all loosened or disturbed soil prior to

pouring concrete. A lean concrete pad about 75 mm to 100 mm thick may be used to protect the bearing

surface from disturbance during the period between completion of excavation and casting of the raft

foundation.

If a satisfactory bearing surface cannot be attained, a 150 mm thick layer of well graded 20 mm minus

crushed gravel should be placed and compacted to a minimum of 100% of SPMDD, as discussed in

Section 4.5.

Rafts should be adequately reinforced to allow the structure to settle uniformly and maintain structural

integrity. Flexible connections should be provided from the structure to all connected piping to

accommodate differential settlements.

It is anticipated that where pipe connections enter the reservoir or the pumphouse building, additional

settlement will occur due to the greater thickness of overlying backfill. It is recommended that lean mix


Parkland County


11

concrete be placed beneath the piping within the trench zone at the entrance into the reservoir

excavation.

5.3 Deep Foundations

Based on the subsurface conditions at this location, driven steel “H” piles or closed – end steel pipe piles

are considered suitable pile types to support the reservoir and pumphouse building foundation loads.

Drilled cast-in-place concrete piles are not considered at this time due to the presence of slightly plastic to

non-plastic soils at this site (silt). A temporary casing will be required for the installation of such piles.

Should drilled cast-in-place concrete piles be considered, recommendations for this foundation type can

be provided upon request.

5.3.1 Driven Steel Piles

If closed – end pipe piles are used, some densification of the silt may be achieved due to displacement

during driving, resulting in more favourable skin friction values. Driven steel piles may be designed to

carry compressive loading on the basis of the allowable skin friction and end bearing resistance given in

Table 5-1 below.

Table 5-1: Design Parameters for Driven Steel Piles

Depth

(m) Soil

End Bearing Pressure (kPa) Skin Friction (kPa)

Ultimate Factored Ultimate Factored

0 to 1.5 Topsoil / Silt - - - -

1.5 to 16.0 Silt - - 37.5 15

Below 16.0 Silt 1,000 400 50 20

The following is recommended for driven steel pile installation:

For pipe piles, only the exterior surface area of the pile in contact with the soil should be used in the

calculation of the frictional resistance. For steel H-piles, the surface area should include the exterior

sides of the two flanges plus twice the depth of the web.

In calculating frictional resistance for a steel H section, the gross area at the tip may be taken as the

cross-section of a rectangle bounded by the flanges. For a pipe pile, the gross area may be taken as

that enclosed by the outer diameter of the pile section.

The vertical load capacity of steel piles, determined using the recommended shaft friction and end

bearing parameters, should be limited to no more than cross-sectional area of steel multiplied by

0.35 fy, where fy is the yield strength of the steel.

Steel piles should be driven with a piling hammer of appropriate size and rated energy, depending on

the pile design load requirements. As a guideline, a minimum energy of 300 J per blow per square

centimetre of steel pile cross sectional area is recommended for lightly loaded piles and 500 J per

blow per square centimetre of steel pile cross sectional area for heavily loaded piles. The maximum

driving energy should not exceed 630 J per blow per square centimetre of steel cross-sectional area

to avoid damage of the pile section.

To limit structural damage to the pile, piles should not be driven beyond practical refusal, which may

be taken as 10 to 12 blows per 25 mm penetration for the last 250 mm of penetration for the

recommended hammer energies. This criterion is a preliminary guide to estimate the size of pile

driving hammer that may be required for construction.

The ability of a pile driving hammer to drive the proposed piles to the required capacity should be

confirmed using wave equation analysis (GRLWEAP software) once the details regarding the

proposed hammer configuration and the pile size is known. The required termination criteria should

also be determined using wave equation analysis once the hammer energies, hammer type and pile

details are known.

A minimum centre-to-centre pile spacing should be three pile diameters or three pile flange widths.


Parkland County


12

Heave of adjacent piles is a concern where groups of piles are installed at about 3D spacing or less

and should be monitored throughout the driving. All piles indicating heave should be re-driven.

When piles are re-driven, they should achieve additional penetration approximately equal to the

amount of heave originally recorded.

Prior to the pile installation, the piles should be inspected to confirm that the material specifications

are satisfied. The piles should be free from protrusions, including protruding welds which could

create voids in the soil around the pile during driving. If a driving shoe is used, it must not protrude

beyond the outside diameter of the pile.

Monitoring of the pile installation by qualified personnel is recommended to verify that the piles are

installed in accordance with design assumptions. For each pile, a complete pile driving record in

terms of the number of blows per 250 mm of penetration and the final set of the pile should be

recorded by inspector and reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.

The minimum, embedment depth of the piles into the silt to resist frost jacking forces should be

determined based on the adfreeze stresses and the pile diameter. The ultimate average adfreeze

stresses acting along the pile shafts and on the sides of the pile caps and grade beams may be taken

as 65 kPa for the frost penetration depth, which for design purposes may be taken as 2.8 m from

finished grade. Frost adfreeze stresses exert upward forces on the pile shaft, which are counteracted

by the dead weight of the structure plus the skin friction below the frost penetration depth.

5.3.2 Lateral Load Capacity for Piles

Lateral load capacity will depend on pile stiffness and the geotechnical engineering properties of the

native or backfill soil within the upper few metres of the pile. Detailed lateral pile capacities can be

provided once the design grades, pile types, pile layout and nature of the backfill have been determined.

Lateral pile capacity can be calculated using spring constants called the coefficient of horizontal subgrade

reaction (ks).

The following methods of estimating ks have been used successfully where full-scale pile load test data is

not available. If lateral deflections are the limiting factor in the overall pile design, it is recommended to

conduct full-scale lateral pile load tests to verify the coefficient of subgrade reaction values for this site.

For cohesionless soils (sand, silt, and sand and gravel), ks can be estimated using the following equation:

ks = nh z/d (MN/m3)

where:

z = Pile embedment depth (m)

d = Pile diameter (m)

The values for the factor nh for cohesionless soils are summarized in the table below.

Table 5-2: Values of nh for Cohesionless Soils1

Soil Condition nh (MN/M

1)

Above Groundwater Table Below Groundwater Table

Loose 2.5 1.5

Compact 7.0 4.5

Dense 18.0 11.0

1Values excerpted from Evaluation of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction (Terzaghi, 1955).

The soil stratigraphy was generally consistent across the site. Calculations for the coefficient of

horizontal subgrade reaction along the length of the pile, used in determining lateral pile deformations will

likely only include the cohesionless soil parameters described above.


Parkland County


13

5.4 Subsurface Drainage

If foundations or sumps are founded below the groundwater table, placement of a sub-drain (weeping tile

system) below the base of foundation will be required to provide drainage and reduce potential adfreeze

forces. The drainage system must maintain the groundwater level at or below the base of the foundation.

Permanent structures founded below the groundwater table should either be designed to resist the

potential hydraulic uplift pressures, or alternatively should have a subsurface drainage system below the

foundation or around the perimeter walls to drain water away from the foundations.

A higher groundwater table would be expected during spring and upon melting of snow. A subsurface

drainage system may be provided to prevent buildup of hydrostatic uplift pressures on the base of the

foundation during periods of high groundwater. The recommended approach for permanent subsurface

drainage where required is to provide a gravel drainage layer around the perimeter walls and below the

base of foundation to collect water. The subgrade should be sloped to drain subsurface water towards

permanent drains and sumps. The collected water should be directed to the site drainage system or to a

sump for collection and discharge. A minimum thickness of between 300 mm and 1000 mm of free

draining gravel with less than 5% passing sieve No. 200 should be used under the base of foundations

and behind the walls. It is recommended that a non-woven geotextile be placed directly over the

prepared subgrade and at the interface around perimeter wall drainage layer to provide separation

between the subgrade and drainage gravel layer and to prevent clogging of the gravel. It is

recommended that further monitoring of groundwater levels to be carried out after completion of the site

grading works to measure the depth of groundwater below the finished grade.

5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures

The reservoir walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures in an "at-rest" condition. This

condition assumes a triangular pressure distribution with no hydrostatic pressure and may be calculated

using the following equation:

Backfill around concrete reservoir walls should not commence before the concrete has reached adequate

strength and/or the walls are laterally braced. Only hand operated compaction equipment should be used

within 600 mm of the concrete walls. When backfill is compacted, caution should be used to avoid high

lateral loads caused by excessive compaction. To avoid differential wall pressures, the backfill should be

brought up evenly around the reservoir walls. The upper 0.4 m of backfill should consist of compacted

cohesive soil to prevent infiltration of surficial water into foundation soils and backfilled material.

Final grades should be established to accommodate settlements in the order of 2% to 5% of the height of

backfill around the reservoir walls. Positive drainage away from the structure should be maintained.

A geotechnical engineer should be present during excavation and backfilling to confirm soil conditions,

and to confirm that the backfill is placed according to the specification.

Po = ko (𝛾H + q)

Po = Lateral earth pressure "at-rest" condition

(no wall movement occurs at a given depth)

ko = Coefficient of earth pressure "at-rest" condition

(use 0.55 for silt and 0.5 for sand and gravel backfill)

𝛾o = Bulk unit weight of backfill soil (use 19 kN/m

3 for cohesive fill and 20 kN/m

3 for granular fill above the groundwater

table, and use unit weights of 9 and 10 kN/m3 for cohesive and granular fill,

respectively, below the groundwater table)

H = Depth below final grade (m)

q = Surcharge pressure at ground level (kPa)


Parkland County


14

5.6 Buoyant Uplift

Based on groundwater observations completed on October 17, 2018 and November 14, 2018, the depth

of the groundwater table ranged from dry to 16.2 to 17.9 mBGS. However, it is possible that higher short-

term water levels will be encountered after periods of increased precipitation.

The magnitude of hydrostatic uplift forces applied to below grade structures should be calculated,

assuming that the groundwater table is at an elevation of 3.0 mBGS (EL.714 mASL) to 6.4 mBGS (EL.

710.6 mASL).

The hydrostatic pressure may be calculated using the following equation:

Given that the reservoir will be relatively large and constructed of concrete, buoyancy forces will likely not

have much of an effect on the structure when it is full. However, when empty, the magnitude of the

buoyancy forces will impact the structure. Buoyancy forces should be determined using the following

equation:

Buoyant uplift forces may be resisted by the mass of the structure, or by extending the base of the slab

beyond the walls of the structure, such that the mass of the soils above the projection are used to resist

uplift forces.

If an extended base is considered, uplift resistance due to the weight of the soil above the projected slab

may be determined as follows:

Pw = wHw

where:

Pw = Hydrostatic pressure (kPa)

𝛾w = Unit weight of water (9.8 kN/m3)

Hw = Depth below top of water table (m)

U = wVs

where:

U = Hydrostatic uplift force (kN)

w = Unit weight of water (9.8 kN/m3)

Vs = Volume of structure below the groundwater table (m³)

Rss = AWH'

where:

Rss = Total allowable resistance due to weight of soil (kN)

A = Perimeter of reservoir walls (m)

W = Width of projected base slab beyond reservoir walls (m)

H = Height between top-of-slab and ground surface (m)

' = Submerged unit weight of soil (kN/m3)


Parkland County


15

Uplift resistance due to shearing through the soil may be assumed to have a triangular distribution as

determined by the following equation:

5.7 Grading and Drainage

Excess water should be drained from the site as quickly as possible both during and after construction.

The finished grade should be laid out so that surface waters are drained away from buildings and other

structures.

Landscaping should be designed such that surface water is prevented from ponding beside buildings. In

the development area, the landscaping should maintain a minimum grade of 2%, while around the

building area the minimum grade should be 5%. Within 2 m of the building and of other structure

perimeters, the hard surfacing should be graded to slope away from the building at a gradient of at least

2%.

Asphalt pavement areas should be provided with a minimum grade of 1% and gravel pavements should

be provided with a minimum grade of 2% to promote runoff and minimize ponding.

5.8 Geochemistry Attack on Foundations

Selected samples of the near-surface soils encountered at the site were subjected to chemical analysis

for the purpose of corrosion assessment. The samples were tested for pH, resistivity, soluble sulphates,

and soluble chlorides. The water soluble sulphate contents were determined in the laboratory to be less

than 0.05%. Based on CSA A23.1-04, the potential for sulphate exposure is classified as negligible.

Since sulphate content may vary across the site, it is recommended to use Type HS sulphate resistant

Portland cement for foundation concrete and concrete exposed to soil and groundwater. All concrete

work should be performed in accordance with applicable specifications. Higher strength and lower water

to cement ratios may be required due to structural considerations or for exposure to de-icing chemicals.

A water soluble chloride content of less than 20 ppm is generally considered non-corrosive to reinforced

concrete.

The pH and conductivity were determined on the same soil samples submitted for sulphate content

determination.

Analytical pH results indicate that the soils are of neutral to moderate corrosivity to buried ferrous metals.

Resistivity results also show that the on-site soils have the potential to be moderately corrosive to

corrosive towards ferrous metals. This should be considered in the design.

Rs = (ko'dtanφ')/FS

where:

Rs = Allowable shearing resistance (kPa)

ko = Coefficient of earth pressure at rest (0.5)

' = Submerged unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

d = Depth below final ground level (m)

φ' = Friction angle of backfill (assume 20° for cohesive fill and 30° for granular fill)

FS = Factor of Safety (minimum of 2.0)


Parkland County


16

6. References

Airforce Manual (1987) Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade Subjected to Heavy Loads. U.S. Departments of

the Army and the Air Force.

Andriashek, L.D., Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Edmonton Map Area, NTS 83H, Alberta Research

Council, 1988.

Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, Third Edition, 1982.

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), 4th Edition, 2006.

Casagrande, A. (1932). A new Theory on Frost Heaving, Highway Research Board, (HRB). Proceedings,

No.11, pp.168-172.

Ceroici, W., Hydrogeology of the Southwest Segment, Edmonton Area, Alberta, Earth Sciences Report

78-5, 1979.

Prior G.J., et. al. (2013). Bedrock Geology of Alberta. Alberta. Geological Survey.

Roberge, P. R. (2000). Handbook of Corrosion Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Terzaghi, K., Evaluation of Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction, Geotechnique Vol. 5, No. 4, 1955.

aecom.com

Appendix ATesthole Location Plan

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

TOWNSHIP RD. 530

TH18-01

TH18-02

TH18-03

TH18-04

TH18-05

X X X X X

XX

XX

X

X

XX

XX

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

P P P

P

P P

FO

FO

FOFO

FO

UG

UG

UG

UG

UG

UG

UG

UG

UG

UG

UGUGUGUG

PPPP

N

RANGE RD. 262

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

HIGHWAY 16A

HIG

HW

AY 6

0

SITE LOCATIONACHESONN

0m

1:15000

375 750

LOCATION PLAN

0 25 50

1:1000m

SITE PLAN

LEGEND:TESTHOLE LOCATION

Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir ExpansionGeotechnical InvestigationParkland CountyProject No.: 60586018

ANSI

B 2

79.4

mm

x 4

31.8

mm

Last

sav

ed b

y: E

RO

SC(2

018-

11-1

5)

Last

Plo

tted:

201

8-11

-15

Proj

ect M

anag

emen

t Ini

tials

:D

esig

ner:

Che

cked

:Ap

prov

ed:

File

nam

e: P

:\605

8601

8\90

0-C

AD_G

IS\9

10-C

AD\3

0-FI

GU

RES

\B\0

0\60

5860

18-F

IG-0

0-00

00-B

-000

1.D

WG

TESTHOLE LOCATION PLAN

Figure 1Date: 2018-11-15

____

___

___

____

_

N

SITE LOCATION

0m

1:250000

6250 12500

ANSI

A 2

15.9

mm

x 2

79.4

mm

Last

sav

ed b

y: E

RO

SC(2

018-

11-1

5)

Las

t Plo

tted:

201

8-11

-15

Proj

ect M

anag

emen

t Ini

tials

:D

esig

ner:

Che

cked

:Ap

prov

ed:

File

nam

e: P

:\605

8601

8\90

0-C

AD_G

IS\9

10-C

AD\3

0-FI

GU

RES

\B\0

0\60

5860

18-F

IG-0

0-00

00-B

-000

2.D

WG

QUATERNARY GEOLOGY(Central Alberta Map)


____

___

___

____

_

Fine sediment: silt and clay; flat to gently undulating surface.

ICE-CONTACT LACUSTRINE AND FLUVIAL DEPOSITS, UNDIVIDED: gravel, sand, silt and clay, local till; upto 25 m thick; deposited in intermittent supraglacial lakes and streams, or at margins of ice-floored proglaciallakes; undulating to hummocky topography.


Coarse sediment: sand and silt; undulating surface in places modified by wind.

LACUSTRINE DEPOSIT: sand, silt and clay, with local ice-rafted stones; up to 80 m thick; deposited mainly inproglacial lakes, but includes also undifferentiated recent lake sediment; flat to gently undulating topography.

GLACIAL DEPOSIT (Units 9 through 12a): till consisting of unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel, withlocal water-sorted material and bedrock; the thickness is generally less than 25 m on uplands, but may reachas much as 100 m in buried valleys; flat, undulating, hummocky or ridged topography.

N

SITE LOCATION

0m

1:750000

18750 37500

ANSI

A 2

15.9

mm

x 2

79.4

mm

Last

sav

ed b

y: E

RO

SC(2

018-

11-1

5)

Las

t Plo

tted:

201

8-11

-15

Proj

ect M

anag

emen

t Ini

tials

:D

esig

ner:

Che

cked

:Ap

prov

ed:

File

nam

e: P

:\605

8601

8\90

0-C

AD_G

IS\9

10-C

AD\3

0-FI

GU

RES

\B\0

0\60

5860

18-F

IG-0

0-00

00-B

-000

3.D

WG

BEDROCK GEOLOGY(Bedrock Geology of Alberta,Alberta Geological Survey)


____

___

___

____

_

UPPER CRETACEOUS and PALEOGENE

Edmonton Group

SCOLLARD FORMATION: generally fine-grained, commonly cross-stratified, light grey to buff sandstoneand pale to dark grey, sandy to silty mudstone; thick coal seams and carbonaceous mudstone intervals inupper part; nonmarine

UPPER CRETACEOUS

BATTLE FORMATION: dark grey to purplish-black silty mudstone with thin, pale grey, siliceous beds inupper part; discontinuous due to erosion; nonmarine

HORSESHOE CANYON FORMATION: pale grey, fine- to very fine grained, feldspathic sandstoneinterbedded with siltstone, bentonitic mudstone, carbonaceous mudstone, concretionary sideritic layers,and laterally continuous coal seams; includes white, pedogenically altered sandstone and mudstoneinterval at top (formerly assigned to the Whitemud Formation); nonmarine to locally marginal marine

BEARPAW FORMATION: dominantly dark grey to brown-grey mudstone with concretionary sideritic andbentonite concretionary layers; concretions locally yield ammonities; marine to marginal marine

Belly River Group

BELLY RIVER GROUP (undivided): fine- to coarse-grained sandstone; grey to brown carbonaceoussiltstone; coal; marginal marine to nonmarine


Appendix BTesthole Logs

efltd-aecom 1

Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data

January 2009

1. Explanation of Field and Laboratory Test Data

The field and laboratory test results, as shown on the logs, are briefly described below.

1.1 Natural Moisture Content and Atterberg Limits

The relationship between the natural moisture content and depth is significant in determining the subsurface

moisture conditions. The Atterberg Limits for a sample should be compared to the natural moisture content

and should be on the Plasticity Chart in order to determine their classification.

1.2 Soil Profile and Description

Each soil stratum is classified and described noting any special conditions. The Modified Unified Soils

Classification System (MUSCS) is used. The soil profile refers to the existing ground level. When available,

the existing ground elevation is shown. The soil symbols used are shown in detail on the soil classification

chart.

1.3 Tests on Soil Samples

Laboratory and field tests on the logs are identified by the following:

N (Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blow Count) - The SPT is conducted in the field to assess the in situ

consistency of cohesive soils and the relative density of non-cohesive soils. The N value recorded is

the number of blows from a 63.5 kg hammer dropped 760 mm which is required to drive a 51 mm split

spoon sampler 300 mm into the soil.

SO4 (Water Soluble Sulphate Content) - Conducted primarily to determine requirements for the use of

sulphate resistant cement. Further details on the water soluble sulphate content are given in

Section 1.6.

D (Dry Unit Weight) kN/m3 and T (Total Unit Weight) kN/m

3.

QU (Unconfined Compressive Strength) kPa - May be used in determining allowable bearing capacity of

the soil.

CU (Undrained Shear Strength) kPa - This value is determined by an unconfined compression test and

may also be used in determining the allowable bearing capacity of the soil.

CPEN (Pocket Penetrometer Reading) kPa - Estimate of the undrained shear strength as determined by a

pocket penetrometer.

The following tests may also be performed on selected soil samples and the results are given on the borehole

logs: Grain Size Analysis; Standard or Modified Proctor Compaction Test; California Bearing Ratio; Unconfined

Compression Test; Permeability Test; Consolidation Test; Triaxial Test

efltd-aecom 2


January 2009

1.4 Soil Density and Consistency

The SPT test described above may be used to estimate the consistency of cohesive soils and the density of

cohesionless soils. These approximate relationships are summarized in the following tables:

Table 1.1

Cohesive Soils

N Consistency CU (kPa) (approx.)

0 - 1 Very Soft 60 Very Hard >300

Table 1.2

Cohesionless Soils

N Density

0 - 5 Very Loose

5 - 10 Loose

10 - 30 Compact

30 - 50 Dense

>50 Very Dense

1.5 Sample Condition and Type

The depth, type, and condition of samples are indicated on the borehole logs by the following symbols:

Grab Sample A-Casing

Shelby Tube No Recovery

SPT Sample Core Sample

efltd-aecom 3


January 2009

1.6 Water Soluble Sulphate Concentration

The following table from CSA Standard A23.1-94 indicates the requirements for concrete subjected to sulphate

attack based upon the percentage of water soluble sulphate as presented on the borehole logs. CSA

Standard A23.1-94 should be read in conjunction with the table.

Table 1.3

Requirements for Concrete Subjected to Sulphate Attack

Class of

Exposure

Degree of

Exposure

Water-Soluble

Sulphate (SO4)

in Soil Sample

%

Sulphate (SO4)

in Groundwater

Samples

mg/L

Minimum

Specified 28 d

Compressive

Strength

MPa†

Maximum

Water/

Cementing

Materials

Ratio†

Portland

Cement

to be

Used‡

S-1 Very severe over 2.0 over 10,000 35 0.40 50

S-2 Severe 0.20 - 2.0 1,500 - 10,000 32 0.45 50

S-3 Moderate 0.10 - 0.20 150 - 1,500 30 0.50 20§,40, or 50

* For sea water exposure see Clause 15.4

† See Clause 15.1.4

‡ See Clause 15.1.5

§ Type 20 cement with moderate sulphate resistance (see Clause 3.1.2)

1.7 Groundwater Table

The groundwater table is indicated by the equilibrium level of standing water in a standpipe installed in a

borehole. This level is generally taken at least 24 hours after installation of the standpipe. The groundwater

level is subject to seasonal variations and its highest level usually occurs in spring. The symbol on the

borehole logs indicating the groundwater level is an inverted solid triangle ().

AECOM Canada Ltd. General Statement; Normal Variability Of Subsurface Conditions

The scope of the investigation presented herein is limited to an investigation of the subsurface conditions as to suitability of the site for the proposed project. This report has been prepared to aid in the general evaluation of the site and to assist the design engineer in the conceptual design for the area. The description of the project presented in this report represents the understanding by the geotechnical engineer of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of the subdivision, infrastructure and similar. In the event of any changes in the basic design or location of the structures, as outlined in this report or plan, AECOM should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The analysis and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the test holes drilled at the locations indicated on the site plans and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere on the site are not significantly different from those encountered at the test locations. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the test holes and, also, general groundwater levels and condition may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions, different from those encountered in the test holes are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present beneath or beyond the excavation, AECOM should be advised at once so that the conditions can be observed and reviewed and the recommendations reconsidered where necessary. Since it is possible for conditions to vary from those identified at the test locations and from those assumed in the analysis and preparation of recommendations, a contingency fund should be included in the construction budget to allow for the possibility of variations which may result in modifications of the design and construction procedures.

Sample 10:Chlorides -

25

END OF TESTHOLE AT 10.3 mBGS- no groundwater or sloughing encountered upon drilling completion- 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 9.8 mBGS- no groundwater encontered on October 17, 2018- no groundwater encontered on November 14, 2018

ML 14

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

COMMENTS

20

Page 2 of 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

707

706

705

704

703

702

701

700

699

698

COMPLETION DEPTH: 10.30 mCOMPLETION DATE: 9/14/2018

DEP

TH (m

)

10

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)

LOGGED BY: Pat EckelREVIEWED BY: Brian NguyenPROJECT MANAGER: Jason CasaultLO

G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5

SPT (Standard Pen Test) (Blows/300mm)

25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC

TESTHOLE NO.: TH18-01

PROJECT NO.: 60586018

ELEVATION (m): 717.5GRAB BULK NO RECOVERYSAMPLE TYPE SHELBY TUBE CORESPLIT SPOON

PROJECT: Acheson Zone 4 Reservoir Expansion

LOCATION: Township Road 530 A / Range Road 262A

CONTRACTOR: Canadian Geological Drilling Ltd.

CLIENT: Parkland County

COORDINATES: UTM N 5936736 E 317738

METHOD: Solid Stem Augers

GROUT SANDGRAVEL SLOUGHBENTONITE CUTTINGSBACKFILL TYPE

SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE

9.6

Sample 10:Liquid Limit - 24.9%Plastic Limit - 21.8%Plasticity Index - 3.0%

Gravel - 0.0%Sand - 17.8%Silt - 67.8%Clay - 14.4%

4

6

7

7

13

17

TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, blackSILT - some clay, trace to some fine-grained sand, very loose, oxidized, damp,brown

- some clay, low plasticity, moist

- loose

- some sand, some clay, compact

OR

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS

10

Page 1 of 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

716

715

714

713

712

711

710

709

708

707


DEP

TH (m

)

0

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC











SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE

16.5

12.7

26.3

13.5

21

16.2

18.5

18.1

9.1

12

12.8

10.7

9.7

16

END OF TESTHOLE AT 10.3 mBGS- no groundwater or sloughing encountered upon drilling completion- 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 9.8 mBGS- trace groundwater encontered at the bottom of well on October 17, 2018- trace groundwater encontered at the bottom of well on November 14, 2018

ML 14

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

COMMENTS

20

Page 2 of 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

706

705

704

703

702

701

700

699

698

697


DEP

TH (m

)

10

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC











SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE

9.8



4

8

7

6

8

15

TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, blackSILT - trace to some fine sand, trace clay, very loose, damp, some oxidizedlaminations, light brown

- loose

- sandy, some clay, loose

- trace clay layering, increasing clay content

- compact

- some sand laminations, increasing sand content

OR

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS

10

Page 1 of 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

717

716

715

714

713

712

711

710

709

708


DEP

TH (m

)

0

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC











SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE

10

20.5

15

25.9

18.8

20.3

24.5

29.2

23

11.1

24.1

16.1

12.6

34

END OF TESTHOLE AT 10.3 mBGS- no groundwater or sloughing upon drilling completion- 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 9.8 mBGS- no groundwater encontered on October 17, 2018- no groundwater encontered on November 14, 2018

ML 14

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

COMMENTS

20

Page 2 of 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

707

706

705

704

703

702

701

700

699

698


DEP

TH (m

)

10

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC











SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE

11.8

Sample 14:

4

7

8

9

10

10

TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, blackSILT - trace to some fine-grained sand, trace clay, very loose, damp, someoxidized laminations, light brown

- loose

- moist

- increasing sand content

- compact

OR

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS

10

Page 1 of 4

SOIL DESCRIPTION

716

715

714

713

712

711

710

709

708


DEP

TH (m

)

0

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC



ELEVATION (m): 717GRAB BULK NO RECOVERYSAMPLE TYPE SHELBY TUBE CORESPLIT SPOON








SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE

13

24.5

17.2

17

12

17.1

24.4

17.9

22.5

21

14

14.5

12.7

Chlorides -

14

19

21

21

21

26

23

- some fine-grained sand, saturated, some groundwater

- grey

END OF TESTHOLE AT 29.8 mBGS

ML

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

COMMENTS

30

Page 3 of 4

SOIL DESCRIPTION

696

695

694

693

692

691

690

689

688


DEP

TH (m

)

20

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC











SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE

23.4

22.2

27

25.6

23.5

29.9

30.9

29.9

23.8

26.3

22.6

21.2

24.5

- groundwater and sloughing at 16.2 mBGS upon drilling completion- 50 mm diameter monitoring well installed to 22.9 mBGS- groundwater encountered at 17.6 mBGS on October 17, 2018- groundwater encountered at 17.9 mBGS on November 14, 2018

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

COMMENTS

40

Page 4 of 4

SOIL DESCRIPTION

686

685

684

683

682

681

680

679

678


DEP

TH (m

)

30

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


25 50 75

SPT

(N)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

USC











SAM

PLE

#

SAM

PLE

TYPE



14

11

11

14

19

15

TOPSOIL (50 mm) - some silt, organic, fibrous, some rootlets, moist, blackSILT - trace fine-grained sand, trace clay, non-plastic, compact, oxidized, humid,brown

- some clay - increasing fine-grained sand

- some clay layers to 6.9 mBGS

- compact

OR

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS

10

Page 1 of 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION

716

715

714

713

712

711

710

709

708

707


DEP

TH (m

)

0

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

)


G O

F T

ES

TH

OLE

605

8601

8 -

AC

HE

SO

N R

ES

IVO

IR.G

PJ

UM

A_C

OC

.GD

T P

RIN

T: 1

1/20

/18

By:

LIQUIDPLASTIC M.C.

12.5 25.0 37.5


appendix d - parkland county€¦ · investigation to support the design and construction of the...

Documents