germania road culvert replacement

Germania Road Culvert ReplacementR.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood ON L9Y 4J6 CANADA telephone (705) 446-0515 fax (705) 446-2399 web www.rjburnside.com
Preliminary Design Memorandum Germania Road Culvert Replacement
Date: May 8, 2020 Project No.: 300050993.0000
Project Name: Germania Road Culvert Replacement
Client Name: Town of Bracebridge
Submitted By: Andrew Dawson, P.Eng.
Reviewed By: Matthew Brooks, P.Eng.
1.0 Introduction
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) has been engaged by the Town of Bracebridge (Town) to investigate replacement options for the Germania Road Culvert, located on Germania Road, approximately 480 m east of the intersection of Waters Road, Flynn Road and Germania Road in Bracebridge. This culvert is being considered for replacement to address flooding concerns that currently exist at this location. The following Memorandum provides information to the Town pertinent to the comparison of the culvert replacement options that are considered viable at the site for the Town’s consideration. The Memorandum provides information regarding:
• Existing Conditions • Hydraulic Capacity • Design Options • Analysis and Comparison • Recommendation
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1 Existing Culverts Geometry & Physical Condition
The existing crossing consists of a total of five (5) Corrugated Steel Pipe (CSP) culverts. Three of the five culverts are CSP arch culverts with a span of approximately 1.7 m and a rise of approximately 1.2 m. The other two pipes are 0.6 m diameter CSP culverts, with inverts perched above the inverts of the larger CSP arch culverts. The structures cross Germania Road at a skew of approximately 23 degrees from perpendicular to the road. The depth of cover varies amongst pipes; however, the CSP arch culverts have approximately 1.0 m (+/-) of cover.
Technical Memorandum Page 2 of 11 Project No.: 300050993.0000 May 8, 2020
During all of Burnside’s site visits from November through to April, four of the five culverts were fully submerged below the water level, with the water levels at the spring line of the fifth, perched, 0.6 m diameter culvert, or higher. As such, the overall physical conditions of the culverts were unable to be inspected, other than the top portion of the perched pipe, which was noted to be in generally good condition.
2.2 Existing Roadway
The existing roadway has a granular surface course with a driving platform approximately 7.0 - 7.5 m (+/-) wide. The roadside embankments at the culverts is generally steeper than 2H:1V but is relatively stable due to the roots from the vegetation on the embankments. There is a localized high point over the culverts, with the two low points of the road on each side of the culverts. During winter and spring site visits, the water levels of the Kahshe River were noted to flood over the two low points of the road (Photo 1), resulting in localized road closure. It is Burnside’s understanding that these flood events occur seasonally.
Photo 1: Road Closure from Flooding (March 31, 2020)
Based on review of the District Municipality of Muskoka’s Web Map information, the Town’s right-of-way in the area of culvert is approximately 20 m.
2.3 Existing Hydraulics
Prior to outlining and evaluating proposed repair / reconstruction options, Burnside completed a hydrologic and hydraulic assessment of the existing crossing. The hydrologic and hydraulic
design criteria incorporates the policies and criteria of the MTO. Based on these requirements, the hydraulic criteria for the Germania Road culvert crossing is summarized below:
• Based on the existing structure having a Total Span of greater than 6.0 m and being located on a Rural Local Roadway, the return period for the Design Flood Event is the 25-year Storm, as per the MTO Highway Drainage Design Standards, WC-1 Design Flows (Bridges and Culverts).
• The minimum clearance/freeboard for a culvert crossing, as noted in WC-7 Culvert Crossings on a Watercourse, shall be 0.3 m for a Local Roadway. The minimum freeboard is measured vertically from the High-Water Level for the Design Flow to the edge of travelled lane. Culverts with open footings are also required to provide a minimum of 0.3 m of clearance from the High-Water Level for the Design Flow to the soffit/obvert.
Burnside’s site visits throughout the spring identified that the hydraulic performance of the site appears to be tailwater dependent. Although the Town has identified that there have been no flooding concerns at the next downstream crossing at Waters Road, review of topographical data and the extents of the floodplain in the downstream region between the Germania Road and Waters Road crossings identifies a constriction in the floodplain, with the floodplain width being reduced to a narrower, more-defined channel. Figure 1 shows the contours overlying an aerial image of the area to help illustrate the floodplain restrictions.
Figure 1: Aerial Imagery of Downstream Floodplain with Contours
These topographical changes are believed to cause a natural “bottleneck” of the river, resulting in increased tailwater conditions at the Germania Road crossing. It is believed that during the spring freshet, an increase in volume due to snowmelt is experienced that is not directly accounted for in the IDF rainfall curves, and as a result, there is an increase in the tailwater conditions during the spring freshet.
To consider the increased tailwater conditions caused by the downstream floodplain constrictions, two analyses were performed with different assumed tailwater conditions. The first analysis evaluated the hydraulic performance using a tailwater condition with the elevation at 267.44 m as measured during the survey works completed in April 2020, after the effects of the spring freshet had subsided. The second analysis used a tailwater elevation of 267.94 m, aimed to mimic the tailwater conditions during the spring freshet in March, at which time tailwater elevations approximately equal to the edge of travelled lane were observed, as shown in Photo 2 below.
Photo 2: Tailwater Conditions during Spring Freshet (March 31, 2020)
Burnside used the HY-8 version 7.50 computer model developed by the Federal Highway Administration, in cooperation with Aquaveo LLC and Environmental Modelling Research Laboratory to analyze flows and complete the hydraulic analysis. A summary of the hydraulic performance of the existing culvert under the two tailwater scenarios are provided in Table 1 below. Table 1: Existing Culverts – Hydraulics Performance
Design Event
Ex. Headwater Elev. (m)
2-year 3.92 267.48 0.46 268.01 -0.07
5-year 4.98 267.51 0.43 268.05 -0.11
10-year 5.98 267.56 0.38 268.08 -0.14
25-year 7.18 267.62 0.32 268.11 -0.17
Design Event
Ex. Headwater Elev. (m)
50-year 8.77 267.73 0.21 268.14 -0.20
100-year 10.16 267.83 0.11 268.16 -0.22
Regional 67.61 268.46 -0.52 268.48 -0.54
Under Tailwater Scenario No. 1, which attempts to model conditions outside of the spring freshet, the results of the hydraulic analysis indicate that the existing culvert appears to be adequately sized to convey the design storm event (25-year) while meeting the 0.3 m of freeboard requirements at the existing low point of the road (Elev=267.94). The results also indicate that the roadway would only begin flooding with a design storm event return period of greater than 100 years. However, under Tailwater Scenario No. 2, which is modeled to mimic the conditions during the spring freshet, the results indicate that the water elevations encroach on the roadway even at a design event with return period of 2-years or less. Although these results appear to be slightly conservative, these results give a better analysis of the typical conditions observed in the spring each year, when overtopping of the low point of the road is generally recurring.
2.4 Geotechnical Subsurface Investigation
Burnside retained Peto MacCallum Limited (Peto) to complete a subsurface investigation to determine the site-specific soil conditions and provide recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed structure design. The boreholes encountered underlying peat and silty clay / clayey silt layers that were noted to be very soft, with the penetration testing hammer progressing through these layers under only the self weight of the hammer. As a result of the very weak soils, Peto has identified that there will be a high susceptibility to settlement if the roadway grades are to be increased or if there is an increase to the net bearing pressure on the proposed replacement structures. Replacement of the existing culverts at a similar invert elevation is considered feasible with minor potential for settlement. It has also been recommended that consideration be given to ‘over-sizing’ the proposed culverts to account for the potential of reduced flow capacity caused by potential future settlement of the culverts. The geotechnical investigation also notes the presence of groundwater at a depth of 1 m to 1.5 m below the road grade. Based on this, it is anticipated that there will be significant groundwater seepage volumes, and it is recommended that a full sheet piling enclosure be utilized to limit/aid with groundwater control during excavation procedures. A copy of the Draft Geotechnical Report is provided in Appendix A.
2.5 Existing Utilities
Overhead hydro lines are present on the north side of the structure. These lines are likely to be in conflict for construction given the requirement of a sheet pile enclosure for waterway and groundwater control during excavations. The feasibility of temporary de-energization (isolation) of the overhead lines will be evaluated with Hydro One as the design works progress. Buried utility locates requested for the site through Ontario One Call identified that no buried utilities were present within the proposed work area.
3.0 Proposed Design
3.1 Future Road Profile Adjustments
Based on the hydraulic results of the existing crossing, the existing road is susceptible to frequent overtopping at the low point elevations during freshet events as a result of increased tailwater conditions. Although increasing the crossing structure size will aid in reducing the flooding frequency, an increase to the road profile elevations throughout the site will have a more significant benefit. Based on discussions with the Town, it is Burnside’s understanding that the Town would consider increasing the road profile throughout the site, however the road works are scheduled to proceed as a separate project in 2021 after the culvert replacement project is completed. Burnside has modelled the effects of raising the low points within the crossing region to aid in reducing roadway overtopping events while also ensuring that the resulting increase in headwater elevations are within acceptable limits and do not have adverse effects on surrounding properties. Future road profile increases have been included in the analysis of the proposed culvert replacement alternatives below, such that offsetting effects of increased profiles and increased opening sizes can be analyzed together. In general, it has been determined that the low point of the road can be raised by approximately 300 mm (+/-) under future conditions without significant headwater elevation increases (for structure-specific results, see Proposed Culvert Replacement Options in Section 3.2 below). Such profile increases will help to provide the minimum 300 mm freeboard requirements during a 25-year return period design event under freshet conditions. In the interim condition, between when the culvert crossing is replaced and when future road profile increases occur, the road profiles will be locally adjusted at the culvert locations only to provide minimum cover for the proposed structures.
3.2 Proposed Culvert Replacement Options
For the purposes of this Preliminary Design Memorandum, three preliminary replacement options were considered. The sizing of the proposed options was based on matching or exceeding the opening area of the downstream crossing at Waters Road, which consists of a
4.8 m by 2.8 m CSP Arch culvert with an opening area of approximately 11.4 m2. The three options considered are as follows: Option 1: Four 2.2 m dia. CSP Culverts Option 2: Two 3.96 m x 1.83 m Precast Concrete Box Culverts Option 3: Three 2.8 m x 1.95 m CSP Arch Culverts A brief outline of each option has been provided below, along with a summary of construction impacts for each alternative.
3.2.1 Option 1 – Four 2.2 m Diameter CSP Culverts
This option considers the use of four parallel 19.5 m long, 2.2 m diameter culvert cells with a clear spacing of 1.0 m between culverts. The use of CSP culverts is considered as the simplest approach regarding construction and, as a result of its simplicity, is also considered as the least costly of the alternatives. The use of multiple cells is also beneficial as it reduces the overall footprint width (measured perpendicular to the centerline of the road) that would typically be greater with larger-span structures on the skewed alignment. Based on the culvert diameter, a minimum of 450 mm of cover is recommended between the roadway and the top of culvert. In order to match the existing channel invert elevations and maintain the minimum culvert cover requirements, the road profile would have to be raised by approximately 200 mm locally at the culvert location. This localized increase is considered the maximum localized profile increase that would be feasible while not adversely affecting headwater elevations. Burnside modelled the hydraulic impact of the proposed design using the proposed future raised road profile to consider the hydraulic impacts of reduced relief flow from overtopping of the road. It was found that this replacement option improves the hydraulic conveyance of the crossing for all storm events except for the Regional design event, in which the proposed headwater elevations would increase by approximately 0.09 to 0.11 m for the lower and higher tailwater elevation scenarios respectively. This increase is generally considered to be within modelling tolerances and would not cause significant impact to the nearest residence, whose finished floor elevation is at an elevation of 270.39 m (1.82 m above the proposed Regional headwater elevation). The hydraulic performance of this option is presented in Table 2 below. Table 2: Proposed Crossing Option 1 - Hydraulic Performance
Design Event
Prop. Headwater Elev. (m)**
2-year 3.92 267.46 -0.02 0.79 267.95 -0.06 0.30
5-year 4.98 267.47 -0.04 0.78 267.96 -0.09 0.29
10-year 5.98 267.48 -0.08 0.77 267.97 -0.11 0.28
25-year 7.18 267.5 -0.12 0.75 267.98 -0.13 0.27
Design Event
50-year 8.77 267.52 -0.21 0.73 267.99 -0.15 0.26
100-year 10.16 267.55 -0.28 0.7 268.00 -0.16 0.25
Regional 67.61 268.57 0.11 -0.32 268.57 0.09 -0.32 * Freeboard is measured to the edge of travelled lane at the low point of the roadway under final conditions, using future raised
road profile (edge of travelled lane at future low point – Elev. 268.25) ** Proposed headwater elevation is conservatively analyzed under final conditions using future road profile adjustments (see
Section 3.1 of this memo); interim conditions will generally have lower headwater conditions.
Although the freeboard at the 25-year return period design event does not meet the minimum requirements under the freshet tailwater conditions (Scenario 2), the ability to provide the minimum freeboard is limited by road profile increase restrictions related to restrictions of headwater increases under the Regional storm event. The freeboard achieved in this alternative is considered a significant improvement and near the maximum achievable value given the constraints of this site and project. The service life of CSP structures depends on the selected coating options. In general, galvanized coatings provide a 35-year design life, aluminized coatings provide a 50-year design life, and polymer coatings provide a 75-year design life. It is recommended that the 50-year design life be considered at a minimum, but that the Town consider the additional upfront capital cost of a polymer coating, which would result in the least cost per year of service life. The estimated costs for this crossing replacement alternative, using aluminized culverts is approximately $390,000, as further outlined in Appendix B. The additional costs associated with upgrading to the polymer-coated culverts is estimated to be approximately $40,000. The timeline for construction is estimated to be approximately 4 to 6 weeks.
3.2.2 Option 2 – Two 3.96 m x 1.83 m Precast Concrete Box Culverts
This alternative considers the use of two parallel, 19.5 m long, 3.96 m span by 1.83 m rise precast concrete box culverts. The culvert was analyzed with 600 mm of granular cover, the minimum allowable cover, which eliminates the need for a cast-in-place concrete distribution slab, in order to simplify construction and help reduce construction costs. It is noted that an alternative box culvert with a larger rise and distribution slab was analyzed hydraulically as well, but the minimal difference in headwater reductions (0.02 m) was not considered to offset the additional costs and labour required with a cast-in-place concrete distribution slab. In order to maintain the headwater elevations within acceptable increase limits under the Regional storm event, the road profile can only be increased by approximately 200 mm (+/-) locally at the culvert crossing. In order to maintain this profile increase limit and provide 300 mm of bury within the culvert, the bearing elevation for this culvert option would be at approximately 265.35 m, which is 0.7 m (+/-) below the existing inverts. Based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report, this results in a design is that is more susceptible to settlement. Additionally, this option would result in more supported soil cover, and have relatively greater bearing pressure on the underlying, settlement susceptible soils.
A hydraulic analysis was completed for this alternative, which considers the road profile increases at the low point, as well as localized increases at the culvert. The hydraulic performance of this option is presented in Table 3 below. Table 3: Proposed Crossing Option 2 - Hydraulic Performance
Design Event
2-year 3.92 267.45 -0.03 0.80 267.95 -0.06 0.30
5-year 4.98 267.46 -0.05 0.79 267.96 -0.09 0.29
10-year 5.98 267.47 -0.09 0.78 267.97 -0.11 0.28
25-year 7.18 267.49 -0.13 0.76 267.98 -0.13 0.27
50-year 8.77 267.51 -0.22 0.74 268.00 -0.14 0.25
100-year 10.16 267.54 -0.29 0.71 268.03 -0.13 0.22
As per the above results, it was found that this replacement option also improves the hydraulic conveyance of the crossing for all storm events, except for the Regional design event, in which the proposed headwater elevations would increase by approximately 0.1 m to 0.12 m for the lower and higher tailwater elevation scenarios respectively. This increase is generally considered to be within modelling tolerances and would not cause significant impact to the nearest residence, whose finished floor elevation is at an elevation of 270.39 m (1.8 m +/- above the proposed Regional headwater elevation). Similar to Option 1, although the minimum freeboard is not met under the 25-year return period, the value obtained in this alternative is considered a significant improvement and near the maximum achievable value given the constraints of this site and project. This solution provides a design service life of 75 years and it is estimated that construction would take approximately 5 to 7 weeks to complete. Construction costs for this crossing replacement alternative are estimated as $550,000. A breakdown of costs is available in Appendix B.
3.2.3 Option 3 – Three 2.8 m x 1.95 m CSP Arch Culverts
An additional alternative using CSP Arch culverts was also considered during preliminary design. Due to the limitations on the road profile increases at the culvert location (due to hydraulics), a span of greater than 3 m for each cell was not attainable due to the increased cover requirements for such spans. Therefore, the maximum size of arch pipe to be utilized was a 2.8 m span by 1.95 m rise culvert. With the required 300 mm bury, a total of three, 19.5 m long pipes of this size would be required to nearly match the opening area of the downstream Waters Road crossing and be comparable to the other alternatives. Three culverts
are the maximum number of cells that can fit within the overall width of the existing channel on the upstream end, given the greater required clear spacing between arch culverts of 1.4 m. A hydraulic analysis considering the future road increase was evaluated for this alternative, with the results shown in Table 4 below. Table 4: Proposed Crossing Option 3 - Hydraulic Performance
Design Event
2-year 3.92 267.46 -0.02 0.79 267.96 -0.05 0.29
5-year 4.98 267.47 -0.04 0.78 267.97 -0.08 0.28
10-year 5.98 267.49 -0.07 0.76 267.98 -0.1 0.27
25-year 7.18 267.51 -0.11 0.74 268.00 -0.11 0.25
50-year 8.77 267.54 -0.19 0.71 268.03 -0.11 0.22
100-year 10.16 267.57 -0.26 0.68 268.07 -0.09 0.18
The hydraulic results outlined above show that there is an overall improvement to the hydraulics, except during the Regional design event; however, the improvements are slightly less than the other alternatives above due to the smaller cumulative opening area. As with the other options, the minimum freeboard requirements at the 25-year design storm are not met under the freshet tailwater conditions, but there are still significant improvements over the existing, given the constraints of the project. CSP arch pipes are more prone to increased stresses within the tighter radius bottom “corners”, which would result in increased pressures on the poor bearing soils and may lead to a higher potential for settlement. Additionally, the cost of these pipe arch culverts would exceed the cost of the round pipes, due to the additional labour associated with deforming the pipes. Similar to Option 1, the design life of this structure is dependent on the coating. An aluminized coating and 50-year design life has been utilized for the sake of comparison, and the estimated construction cost of this alternative is $395,000, as outlined in Appendix B. The additional cost for the polymer coating and increased 75-year design life is approximately $35,000. Construction of this alternative is estimated to take approximately 4 to 6 weeks.
4.0 Recommendation
On the basis of our review of the background information, available design and geometric options and their associated impacts, Burnside recommends that the Town proceed with Option 1, replacement of the crossing with four 2.2 m diameter round CSP culverts. This option provides a similar hydraulic performance compared to the other options considered, as well as,
lower estimated construction costs, simple construction, shallower excavation requirements, and lower bearing pressures on underlying weak soils. Although the aluminized coating is recommended at minimum, Burnside recommends that the Town consider the use of the polymer-coated option for the additional $40,000 upfront cost, which would provide an extension of service life to 75 years. This would provide a service life equal to that of the box culvert but at a cheaper cost, comparatively. However, if future master plans identify that roadway improvements in this area are scheduled to occur before the 75-year design life, the increased service life and additional capital of the polymer coating may not be required. If you have any questions or concerns about our recommendation, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
Andrew Dawson, P.Eng. Project Engineer AD:jm
Appendix A Appendix B
Geotechnical Report (Draft) Preliminary Cost Estimates
Other than by the addressee, copying or distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is not permitted without the express written consent of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited.
050993_Germania Culvert Design Memo 5/8/2020 11:43 AM
A p
p en
for
R.J. BURNSIDE & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PETO MacCALLUM LTD. 19 CHURCHILL DRIVE BARRIE, ONTARIO L4N 8Z5 PHONE: (705) 734-3900 FAX: (705) 734-9911 EMAIL: [email protected]
Distribution: PML Ref.: 20BF003 1 cc: R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (+ email) Report: 1 1 cc: PML Barrie April 2020
April 4, 2020 PML Ref.: 20BF003 Report: 1 Mr. Matthew Brooks, P.Eng. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Georgian Bay Office 3 Ronell Crescent Collingwood, Ontario L9Y 4J6 Dear Mr. Brooks Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Replacement of Germania Road Culverts Town of Bracebridge, Ontario
Peto MacCallum Ltd. (PML) is pleased to present the results of the geotechnical investigation
recently completed at the above noted project site. Authorization for this work was provided by
Mr. M. Brooks in an email dated January 22, 2020, and provision of a Sub-Consultant Agreement.
The Town of Bracebridge is proposing to replace the Germania Road culverts, located about
480 m west of the intersection of Germania Road, Waters Road, and Flynn Road in Bracebridge.
The existing three 1.7 m diameter culverts and the single 0.6 m diameter culvert will be replaced
with a multi-cell culvert system, comprising CSP’s or closed bottom concrete box culverts with
similar inverts. It is understood the three existing culvert inverts are about 2.5 to 3.0 m below the
existing road grade.
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to assess the subsurface conditions at the site,
and based on this information, provide comments and geotechnical engineering recommendations
for the culvert foundations and installation.
A limited chemical testing program was carried out to check the geoenvironmental quality of the
site soils in order to provide comments regarding on-site reuse or off-site disposal options for
excess excavated soil.
The comments and recommendations provided in this report are based on the site conditions at
the time of the investigation, and are applicable only to the proposed works as addressed in the
report. Any changes in the proposed plans will require review by PML to re-assess the validity of
the report, and may require modified recommendations, additional investigation and/or analysis.
This report is subject to the Statement of Limitations that is included in Appendix A and must be
read in conjunction with the report.
19 Churchill Drive, Barrie, Ontario L4N 8Z5 Tel: (705) 734-3900 Fax: (705) 734-9911
E-mail: [email protected]
adawson
Line
adawson
east
Proposed Replacement of Germania Road Culverts, Town of Bracebridge, Ontario PML Ref.: 20BF003, Report: 1 April 4, 2020, Page 2
INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
The field work for the investigation was carried out on March 9, 2020 and consisted of
Boreholes 1 and 2, drilled to 10.0 m depth below the road platform. Borehole locations are shown
on Drawing 1, appended.
PML laid out the boreholes based on a plan provided by the Client. The ground surface elevation
at the borehole locations was obtained with a Sokkia SHC5000 GPS System equipped with a
GCX3 (network RTK rover) Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Receiver. Vertical and
horizontal accuracy of this unit are 0.1 m and 0.5 m, respectively. All elevations in this report are
geodetic and expressed in metres.
Co-ordination of clearances of underground utilities was provided by PML. The boreholes were
drilled cognizant of the underground utilities.
Traffic control was provided by PML in accordance with the Ontario Traffic Manual, Book 7,
(2014).
The boreholes were advanced using continuous flight solid stem augers, powered by a truck
mounted CME-55 drill rig, equipped with an automatic hammer, supplied and operated by a
specialist drilling contractor working under the full-time supervision of a member of our
engineering staff.
The road granular thicknesses encountered at the borehole locations were measured and
samples of the material were collected.
Representative samples of the overburden were recovered at frequent depth intervals for
identification purposes using a conventional 51 mm OD split spoon sampler. The split spoon
sampler excludes particles less than 38 mm. Standard penetration tests were carried out
simultaneously with the sampling operations to assess the strength characteristics of the subsoil.
The ground water conditions in the boreholes were assessed during drilling by visual examination
of the soil samples, the sampler, and drill rods as the samples were retrieved, and measurement
of the water level in the open boreholes, if any.
Boreholes were backfilled in accordance with O.Reg. 903 upon completion.
All recovered soil samples were returned to our laboratory for moisture content determinations
and detailed examination to confirm field classification. Grain size analyses were carried out on
two samples of the subgrade soil units and two samples of the road granular materials.
The results are provided on Figures 1 to 3, appended.
Geoenvironmental procedures, protocols and chemical testing results are provided later in the
report.
SUMMARIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Reference is made to the appended Log of Borehole sheets for details of the subsurface
conditions, including road granular thicknesses, soil classifications, inferred stratigraphy, Standard
Penetration Test N Values (N Values, blows per 300 mm penetration of the split spoon sampler),
ground water observations and the results of laboratory moisture content determinations.
Due to the sampling procedures and the limited size of samples, the depth/elevation demarcation
on the borehole logs must be viewed as “transitional” zones between soil layers and cannot be
construed as exact geologic boundaries between layers. PML should be retained to assist in
determining geologic boundaries in the field during construction, if required.
Soil
The existing granular component thicknesses encountered are summarized in the following table:
BOREHOLE GRANULAR BASE
(mm) GRANULAR SUBBASE
(mm) TOTAL THICKNESS
1 300 -- 300
2 270 -- 270
A sample of the granular base from Boreholes 1 and 2 were submitted for grain size analysis and
the results are presented on Figure 1, appended. The grain size analysis results showed both
samples to be finer on multiple sieves as compared to the OPSS Granular A gradation
requirements. The samples were also too silty (18% and 28%, versus the 8% standard) to meet
the OPSS Granular B Type I specifications.
Fill was contacted below the road granular extending to 4.0 and 2.1 m depth (elevation 264.3 and
266.1), in Boreholes 1 and 2, respectively. The fill comprised gravelly sand, trace silt to sand,
trace to some silt and gravel, with trace organics noted throughout. Grain size analyses were
conducted on two samples of the material (one from each borehole), and the results are
presented on Figures 2 and 3, appended. The N Values in the fill were greater than 50 for the
most part with values of 1 or 2 at the base of the unit. The fill was moist, becoming wet below
about 1.0 m depth, with moisture contents ranging from 10 to 20%.
A peat layer was below the fill in both boreholes, extending to 7.0 and 6.0 m depth
(elevation 261.3 and 262.2), in Boreholes 1 and 2, respectively. The pet was amorphic with trace
sand. N Values were the weight of the drilling hammer. The peat was wet with moisture contents
of 58% to 409%.
A native silty clay to clayey silt unit was revealed below the peat to the 10.0 m depth of
exploration. The material contained trace sand and organics. The split spoons were advanced
with the weight of the drilling hammer (very soft). The moisture contents ranged from about 30 to
40% and the material was judged to be wetter than plastic limit.
Ground Water
The table below summarizes the ground water encountered in Boreholes 1 and 2, during drilling
and the water depth upon completion of drilling:
BOREHOLE FIRST GROUND WATER STRIKE
DEPTH (m)/ ELEVATION
DEPTH (m)/ ELEVATION
1 1.2 / 267.1 0.9 / 267.4
2 1.4 / 266.8 1.2 / 267.0
The ground was snow covered at the time of our investigation, however, it is estimated that the
watercourse water level was about 1.0 to 1.5 m below the road grade.
Ground water levels are subject to seasonal fluctuations, and in response to variations in
precipitation.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS
The Town of Bracebridge is proposing to replace the Germania Road culverts, located about
480 m west of the intersection of Germania Road, Waters Road, and Flynn Road in Bracebridge.
The existing three 1.7 m diameter culverts and the single 0.6 m diameter culvert will be replaced
with a multi-cell culvert system, comprising CSP’s or closed bottom concrete box culverts with
similar inverts. It is understood the three existing culvert inverts are about 2.5 to 3.0 m below the
existing road grade.
Culvert Replacement
Reference is made to OPSS 400 Series and OPSD 800 Series for general culvert installation
requirements, including granular bedding, cover material requirements and frost tapers.
The following sections provide further details.
Foundations
The boreholes encountered sand or gravelly sand fill to 2.1 and 4.0 m depth (elevation 264.3 and
266.1) over peat to 6.0 to 7.0 m depth (elevation 261.3 to 262.2) overlying native very soft clayey
silt to silty clay to the 10.0 m depth of exploration.
The soils at the site are very weak and susceptible to settlement. A grade raise is not
recommended. The performance of the existing culverts is not known. It is speculated that the
road has been in place for some time such that potential for settlement due to the existing
conditions has reached some degree of equilibrium (further large settlements are not anticipated).
Based on this, replacement of the existing culverts at the same invert with no grade raise is
considered feasible with only minor potential for settlement. Increasing the size of the culverts
should be considered to aid with potential reduced flow capacity caused by settlement.
A minimum bedding thickness of 300 mm is recommended, comprising OPSS Granular A
compacted to 98% Standard Proctor maximum dry density. Cognizant of the discussion above, it
is anticipated that the culverts will be placed on the sand to gravelly sand fill. Where loose fill,
pockets of organic material or other deleterious soil are present at the invert level, these materials
should be removed and replaced with a thickened bedding layer, subject to geotechnical review.
OPSS Granular B Type II 500 mm thick and/or geogrid may be required if the subgrade soil is the
underlying peat.
If a deep foundation is being considered deeper boreholes are required.
Lateral Earth Pressure
The culvert walls must resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by the backfill adjacent to the
culvert. The lateral earth and water pressure, P (kPa), may be computed using the equivalent
fluid pressure method presented in Section 6.12 of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
(CHBDC), CSA-S6-14, December 2014, or employing the following equation:
P = K (γh + q) + Cp
Where P = lateral pressure at depth h (m) below ground surface (kPa)
K = lateral earth pressure coefficient of compacted granular backfill
h = depth below grade (m) at which lateral pressure is calculated
γ = unit weight of compacted granular backfill
q = vertical stress at depth h, due to surcharge loads (kPa)
Cp = compaction pressure (refer to clause 6.12.3 of CHBDC)
In addition, there should be allowance for seismic events and appropriate factors of safety should
be used in the design.
Free draining granular material should be used as backfill around the culvert, comprising
OPSS Granular A or Granular B, placed in 200 mm thick lifts compacted to a minimum 95%
Standard Proctor maximum dry density. The site soils are not suitable for use as free draining
backfill. Over compaction close to the culvert should be avoided as this could generate excessive
pressure on the culvert or retaining wall. The following parameters are recommended for design:
Granular A Granular B
Unit Weight (kN/m3) 22.8 21.2
Active Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ka) 0.27 0.31
At Rest Earth Pressure Coefficient (Ko) 0.43 0.47
Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (Kp) 3.70 3.23
A weeping tile system and/or weep holes should be installed to minimize the build-up of
hydrostatic pressure behind culvert. The weeping tiles should be surrounded by a properly
designed granular filter or geotextile to prevent migration of fines into the system.
The drainage pipe should be placed on a positive grade and lead to a frost-free outlet.
Excavation and Ground Water Control
Excavation for the culverts is expected to extend about 3.0 m below the road grade and will
encounter road granular, fill, and possible the underlying peat. The creek water level and ground
water is about 1.0 to 1.5 m below the road grade.
Subject to provision of effective ground water control and creek diversion, as discussed below,
site soils are considered as Type 3 Soil, requiring excavation sidewalls to be constructed at no
steeper than one horizontal to one vertical (1H:1V) from the base of the excavation in accordance
with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Excavation will be required to about 1.5 to 2.0 m below the creek/ground water levels.
For open cut creek diversion/cofferdams and aggressive sump pumping will be required.
Large seepage volumes are anticipated from the sand and gravelly sand fill and peat and some
other form of cut off / barrier may be required to reduce seepage volumes.
Considering the depth of the excavation and creek/ground water levels, sheet piling can be
considered to limit excavation size and aid with ground water control.
For design of temporary sheet piling, in addition to hydrostatic pressure, the following parameters
may be assumed (wall friction ignored):
PARAMETER FILL PEAT CLAY/SILT
Shear Strength, c, (kPa) -- -- 5
Bulk Unit Weight (kN/m³) 19 10 19
It is anticipated that sheet piling will have to be driven well into the clayey silt/silty clay to provide
adequate ground water cut-off and basal stability.
If peat is encountered at the base of the excavation, a working mat comprising 500 mm of
Granular B Type II is recommended at the base of the excavation.
It is recommended the work be scheduled following periods of prolonged dry weather, and when
the ground water table and creek flow are usually at their lowest, in order to minimize the quantity
of water to be handled.
Water taking in Ontario is governed by the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) and the
Water Taking and Transfer Regulation O.Reg. 387/040, Section 34 of the OWRA requires any
one taking more than 50,000 L/d to notify the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and
Parks (MECP). This requirement applies to all withdrawals, whether for consumption, temporary
construction dewatering or permanent drainage improvements. Projects assessed to be taking
more than 50,000 L/d but less than 400,000 L/d of ground water can obtain a permit/permission
online via the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) system. If it is assessed that
more than 400,000 L/d is required then a Category 3 PTTW will be required.
A PTTW will be required for open cuts. Registry on the EASR is anticipated for sheet piling.
When design/construction details are finalized the project, should be reviewed (a Hydrogeological
Site Assessment may be required) to assess the MECP requirements for a PTTW or EASR.
It is recommended that a test dig be undertaken to allow prospective contractors an opportunity to
observe and evaluate the conditions likely to be encountered to assess the preferred means of
construction based on their own experience.
Geotechnical Review and Construction Inspection and Testing
It is recommended that the project design drawings be submitted to PML for geotechnical review
for compatibility with site subsurface conditions and recommendations of this report.
Earthworks operations should be carried out under the supervision of PML to approve subgrade
preparation, backfill materials, placement and compaction procedures and check the specified
degree of compaction is achieved throughout.
The comments and recommendations provided in the report are based on information revealed in
the boreholes. Conditions away from and between boreholes may vary, particularly where
foundation and/or service trenches exist. Geotechnical review during construction should be
ongoing to confirm the subsurface conditions are substantially similar to those encountered in the
boreholes, which may otherwise require modification to the original recommendations.
GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A limited chemical testing program was carried out to check the geoenvironmental quality of the
site soils in order to provide comments regarding on-site reuse or off-site disposal options for
excess excavated soil.
A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was not within the scope of work for this
assignment. Accordingly, soil impairment that has not been identified by the limited chemical
testing program may exist at the site. The limited chemical testing program does not constitute an
Environmental Site Assessment as defined under the Environmental Protection Act and
O. Reg. 153/04, as amended.
Chemical Testing Protocols
As part of the geoenvironmental procedural protocol, all recovered soil samples were field
examined for visual and olfactory evidence of potential contamination. It is noted that none of the
samples contained evidence of contamination.
After field examination, the recovered soil samples were placed in laboratory air tight glass
containers and stored in an insulated cooler for transportation to our laboratory for detailed visual
examination.
The samples were submitted for chemical analysis to a Canadian Association for Laboratory
Accreditation Inc. (CALA) accredited laboratory. The chemical analyses conducted were in
accordance with the O. Reg. 153/04, as amended Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the
Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act dated
March 9, 2004, amended as of July 1, 2011.
For general environmental quality characterization, soil samples were tested for the following
analyte groups:
• Petroleum Hydrocarbons (F1 to F4 fractions).
The following soil samples from the investigation were submitted for chemical testing:
Borehole 1 SS 2, (fill – 0.8 to 1.4 m) Borehole 2 SS 2, (fill – 0.8 to 1.4 m)
Borehole 1 SS 3, (fill – 1.5 to 2.1 m) Borehole 2 SS 4, (peat – 2.3 to 2.9 m)
Site Condition Standards
The Ontario MECP has developed a set of Soil, Ground water and Sediment Standards for Use
Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011) and O. Reg. 153/04, as
amended. The standards consist of nine tables (Table 1 through Table 9) that provide criteria for
maximum concentrations of various contaminants. In general, the applicable O. Reg. 153/04, as
amended, SCSs depend on the site location, land use, soil texture, bedrock depth and the
applicable potable or non-potable ground water condition at the investigation site.
In order to determine the Site Sensitivity, Sections 41 and 43.1 of O. Reg. 153/04, as amended,
were evaluated by PML as shown in the following table:
CRITERIA RESULT
Proximity of Areas of Natural Significance > 30 m
Proximity to a Water Body < 30 m ii
Shallow Soil Condition No
Land Use Residential/Parkland/Institutional/ Industrial/Commercial/Community (RPI/ICC)
Applicable Site Condition Standard Table 9: Generic Site Condition Standards For Use Within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition (Table 9 RPI/ICC)
Notes: i) MECP interactive Water Well Record (WWR) mapping indicates no private water supply wells are within 100 m of the site. ii) Creek crosses site.
Analytical Findings and Conclusions
The Certificates of Analyses for Chemical Testing are included in Appendix B.
On-Site Reuse
In summary, the concentration of the tested parameters in the submitted soil samples from the
boreholes were either not detected (below the method detection limit) or were within
Table 9 RPI/ICC SCSs. As such, the site soils can remain on site for reuse subject to
geotechnical review and requirements.
It should be noted that the soil conditions between and beyond the sampled locations may differ
from those encountered during this assignment. PML should be contacted if impacted soil
conditions become apparent during future development to further assess and appropriately handle
the materials, if any, and evaluate whether modifications to the conclusions documented in this
report are necessary.
This assessment is subject to the Statement of Limitations that is included with this report in
Appendix A, which must be read in conjunction with the report.
Off-Site Reuse/Disposal
O.Reg. 153/04, as amended, has nine tables outlining SCSs (Tables 1 to 9) for evaluating
Environmental Soil Characteristics. These tables are further divided based on land use. The
chemical testing results from this project were compared to the various SCSs to evaluate where
the excess excavated soil can be transported. Our assessment was limited to Tables 1 to 3, the
most common SCSs. If a potential receiving site has SCSs other than Tables 1 to 3, then PML
should be consulted to ensure that the results meet the applicable SCSs of the proposed
receiving site.
Based on the limited chemical testing results, excess excavated soil may be disposed of off-site at
a receiving site where the SCSs comply with any one of the following O.Reg. 153/04, as
amended, criteria;
• Table 1 (RPI/ICC land use);
• Table 2 (RPI/ICC land use);
• Table 3 (RPI/ICC land use).
Excess excavated soil can also be transported to a landfill site, however, additional testing for
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) will be required, in accordance with
Ontario Regulation 347, Schedule 4, as amended to Ontario Regulation 558/00, dated
March 2001.
When transporting excavated site soil to another site the following are recommended:
• The work must be completed in accordance with local by-laws governing soil
movement and/or placement at other sites;
• All analytical results and environmental assessment reports must be fully disclosed to
the receiving site owners/authorities and they have agreed to receive the material;
• The applicable SCSs for the receiving site have been determined, as confirmed by
the environmental consultant and the SCSs are consistent with the chemical quality of
the soil originating at the source site;
• Transportation and placement of the surplus soil is monitored by the environmental
consultant to check the material is appropriately placed at the pre-approved site;
The receiving site must be arranged and/or approved in advance of excavation in
order to avoid delays during construction. As well, it is noted the chemical testing
requirements for various receiving sites is site-specific and additional testing may be
required, beyond that provided in this limited sampling and testing report;
The excavation work should be conducted in accordance with a written
Soil Management Plan prepared by a qualified professional to ensure that all surplus
excavated material is tested and managed appropriately, and that imported fill
material is of suitable quality and meets the SCSs applicable to the site. Reuse of
surplus excavated soil on site is also subject to acceptance for reuse by the
geotechnical consultant at the time of construction based on geotechnical
considerations;
Additional sampling and chemical testing should be carried out during construction to
verify the chemical quality of the excess soil to assess the appropriate
management/disposal options for the actual soil leaving the site;
It is recommended that transportation of fill material from the Source Site (s) to the
Receiving Site (s) be carried out in accordance with the MECP document
Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices dated
January 2014.
This assessment is subject to the Statement of Limitations that is included with this report (Appendix A) which must be read in conjunction with the report.
C U
M U
L A
Granular "A"
Granular "B"
C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S
1
GRANULAR BASE LEGEND
FILL: Gravelly Sand, Trace Silt
LEGEND
LEGEND
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
Standard Penetration Resistance N: - The number of blows required to advance a standard split spoon sampler 0.3 m into the subsoil. Driven by means of a 63.5 kg hammer falling freely a distance of 0.76 m. Dynamic Penetration Resistance: - The number of blows required to advance a 51 mm, 60 degree cone, fitted to the end of drill rods, 0.3 m into the subsoil. The driving energy being 475 J per blow.
DESCRIPTION OF SOIL
The consistency of cohesive soils and the relative density or denseness of cohesionless soils are described in the following terms:
CONSISTENCY N (blows/0.3 m) c (kPa) DENSENESS N (blows/0.3 m)
Very Soft 0 - 2 0 - 12 Very Loose 0 - 4 Soft 2 - 4 12 - 25 Loose 4 - 10 Firm 4 - 8 25 - 50 Compact 10 - 30 Stiff 8 - 15 50 - 100 Dense 30 - 50 Very Stiff 15 - 30 100 - 200 Very Dense > 50 Hard > 30 > 200 WTLL Wetter Than Liquid Limit WTPL Wetter Than Plastic Limit APL About Plastic Limit DTPL Drier Than Plastic Limit
TYPE OF SAMPLE
SS Split Spoon ST Slotted Tube Sample WS Washed Sample TW Thinwall Open SB Scraper Bucket Sample TP Thinwall Piston AS Auger Sample OS Oesterberg Sample CS Chunk Sample FS Foil Sample GS Grab Sample RC Rock Core
PH Sample Advanced Hydraulically PM Sample Advanced Manually
SOIL TESTS
Qu Unconfined Compression LV Laboratory Vane Q Undrained Triaxial FV Field Vane Qcu Consolidated Undrained Triaxial C Consolidation Qd Drained Triaxial
PML-GEO-508A Rev. 2018-05
C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S
AutoCAD SHX Text
AutoCAD SHX Text
AutoCAD SHX Text
AutoCAD SHX Text
AutoCAD SHX Text
GW
Proposed Replacement of Germania Road Culverts, Town of Bracebridge, Ontario PML Ref.: 20BF003, Report: 1 April 4, 2020
APPENDIX A
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
This report is prepared for and made available for the sole use of the client named.
Peto MacCallum Ltd. (PML) hereby disclaims any liability or responsibility to any person or entity,
other than those for whom this report is specifically issued, for any loss, damage, expenses, or
penalties that may arise or result from the use of any information or recommendations contained
in this report. The contents of this report may not be used or relied upon by any other person
without the express written consent and authorization of PML.
This report shall not be relied upon for any purpose other than as agreed with the client named
without the written consent of PML. It shall not be used to express or imply warranty as to the
fitness of the property for a particular purpose. A portion of this report may not be used as a
separate entity: that is to say the report is to be read in its entirety at all times.
The report is based solely on the scope of services which are specifically referred to in this report.
No physical or intrusive testing has been performed, except as specifically referenced in this
report. This report is not a certification of compliance with past or present regulations, codes,
guidelines and policies.
The scope of services carried out by PML is based on details of the proposed development and
land use to address certain issues, purposes and objectives with respect to the specific site as
identified by the client. Services not expressly set forth in writing are expressly excluded from the
services provided by PML. In other words, PML has not performed any observations,
investigations, study analysis, engineering evaluation or testing that is not specifically listed in the
scope of services in this report. PML assumes no responsibility or duty to the client for any such
services and shall not be liable for failing to discover any condition, whose discovery would
require the performance of services not specifically referred to in this report.
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS (continued)
The findings and comments made by PML in this report are based on the conditions observed at
the time of PML’s site reconnaissance. No assurances can be made and no assurances are
given with respect to any potential changes in site conditions following the time of completion of
PML’s field work. Furthermore, regulations, codes and guidelines may change at any time
subsequent to the date of this report and these changes may affect the validity of the findings and
recommendations given in this report.
The results and conclusions with respect to site conditions are therefore in no way intended to be
taken as a guarantee or representation, expressed or implied, that the site is free from any
contaminants from past or current land use activities or that the conditions in all areas of the site
and beneath or within structures are the same as those areas specifically sampled.
Any investigation, examination, measurements or sampling explorations at a particular location
may not be representative of conditions between sampled locations. Soil, ground water, surface
water, or building material conditions between and beyond the sampled locations may differ from
those encountered at the sampling locations and conditions may become apparent during
construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the intrusive sampling
investigation.
Budget estimates contained in this report are to be viewed as an engineering estimate of probable
costs and provided solely for the purposes of assisting the client in its budgeting process. It is
understood and agreed that PML will not in any way be held liable as a result of any budget
figures provided by it.
The Client expressly waives its right to withhold PML’s fees, either in whole or in part, or to make
any claim or commence an action or bring any other proceedings, whether in contract, tort, or
otherwise against PML in anyway connected with advice or information given by PML relating to
the cost estimate or Environmental Remediation/Cleanup and Restoration or Soil and Ground
Water Management Plan Cost Estimate.
Proposed Replacement of Germania Road Culverts, Town of Bracebridge, Ontario PML Ref.: 20BF003, Report: 1 April 4, 2020
APPENDIX B
Parameter Qty
pH 4 Richmond Hill A-pH-02 (rh) MOEE3530HAZ 11-Mar-20
Chromium (VI) 4 Holly Lane D-CRVI-02 (o) EPA7196ALMG 13-Mar-20
Mercury 4 Holly Lane D-HG-01 (o) EPA 7471APBK 13-Mar-20
Sodium Adsorption Ratio 4 Holly Lane D-ICP-01 SAR (o) SM 3120AHM 13-Mar-20
Metals - ICP-OES 4 Holly Lane D-ICP-02 (o) EPA 6010AHM 13-Mar-20
Metals - ICP-MS 4 Holly Lane D-ICPMS-01 (o) EPA 6020TPR 13-Mar-20
µg/g = micrograms per gram (parts per million) and is equal to mg/Kg F1 C6-C10 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F1-btex if requested) F2 C10-C16 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F2-napth if requested) F3 C16-C34 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F3-pah if requested) F4 C34-C50 hydrocarbons in µg/g This method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory. Any deviations from the method are noted and reported for any particular sample. nC6 and nC10 response factor is within 30% of response factor for toluene: nC10,nC16 and nC34 response factors within 10% of each other: C50 response factors within 70% of nC10+nC16+nC34 average: Linearity is within 15%: All results expressed on a dry weight basis. Unless otherwise noted all chromatograms returned to baseline by the retention time of nC50.
Unless otherwise noted all extraction, analysis, QC requirements and limits for holding time were met. If analyzed for F4 and F4G they are not to be summed but the greater of the two numbers are to be used in application to the CWS PHC QC will be made available upon request.
Page 1 of 3.
R.L. = Reporting Limit
The analytical results reported herein refer to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior consent from Caduceon Environmental Laboratories.
O. Reg. 153 - Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards Tbl. 1 - All - Table 1 - Res/Park/Institutional/Indus/Com/Commun
Site Analyzed=K-Kingston,W-Windsor,O-Ottawa,R-Richmond Hill,B-Barrie
Test methods may be modified from specified reference method unless indicated by an *
16-Mar-20DATE REPORTED:
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Parameter Units R.L.
BH 1 SS 2 BH 1 SS 3Client I.D. BH 2 SS 2 BH 2 SS 4
B20-06621-1 B20-06621-2Sample I.D. B20-06621-3 B20-06621-4
09-Mar-20 09-Mar-20Date Collected 09-Mar-20 09-Mar-20
O. Reg. 153
Tbl. 1 - All
7.46 5.20 pH @25°CpH @25°C 7.54 7.66pH Units
0.144 0.206 Conductivity @25°CConductivity @25°C 0.186 0.105 0.57mS/cm 0.001
< 0.05 < 0.05 Cyanide (Free)Cyanide (Free) < 0.05 < 0.05 0.051µg/g 0.05
1.11 0.662 Sodium Adsorption RatioSodium Adsorption Ratio 0.780 0.225 2.4units
< 0.5 < 0.5 AntimonyAntimony < 0.5 < 0.5 1.3µg/g 0.5
< 0.5 < 0.5 ArsenicArsenic < 0.5 < 0.5 18µg/g 0.5
40 24 BariumBarium 39 21 220µg/g 1
< 0.2 < 0.2 BerylliumBeryllium < 0.2 < 0.2 2.5µg/g 0.2
2.3 4.5 BoronBoron 2.6 2.4 36µg/g 0.5
< 0.5 < 0.5 CadmiumCadmium < 0.5 < 0.5 1.2µg/g 0.5
12 11 ChromiumChromium 12 9 70µg/g 1
< 0.2 < 0.2 Chromium (VI)Chromium (VI) < 0.2 < 0.2 0.66µg/g 0.2
4 2 CobaltCobalt 4 3 21µg/g 1
8 7 CopperCopper 9 7 92µg/g 1
< 5 < 5 LeadLead < 5 < 5 120µg/g 5
< 0.005 0.016 MercuryMercury < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27µg/g 0.005
< 1 < 1 MolybdenumMolybdenum < 1 < 1 2µg/g 1
6 5 NickelNickel 6 5 82µg/g 1
< 0.5 < 0.5 SeleniumSelenium < 0.5 < 0.5 1.5µg/g 0.5
< 0.2 < 0.2 SilverSilver < 0.2 < 0.2 0.5µg/g 0.2
< 0.1 < 0.1 ThalliumThallium < 0.1 < 0.1 1µg/g 0.1
0.3 0.4 UraniumUranium 0.3 0.3 2.5µg/g 0.1
30 26 VanadiumVanadium 30 26 86µg/g 1
17 15 ZincZinc 17 11 290µg/g 3
Page 2 of 3.
Parameter Qty
PHC(F2-F4) 4 Kingston C-PHC-S-001 (k) CWS Tier 1KPR 11-Mar-20
PHC(F2-F4) 2 Kingston C-PHC-S-001 (k) CWS Tier 1SmT 16-Mar-20
PHC(F1) 4 Richmond Hill C-VPHS-01 (rh) CWS Tier 1FAL 11-Mar-20
µg/g = micrograms per gram (parts per million) and is equal to mg/Kg F1 C6-C10 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F1-btex if requested) F2 C10-C16 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F2-napth if requested) F3 C16-C34 hydrocarbons in µg/g, (F3-pah if requested) F4 C34-C50 hydrocarbons in µg/g This method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory. Any deviations from the method are noted and reported for any particular sample. nC6 and nC10 response factor is within 30% of response factor for toluene: nC10,nC16 and nC34 response factors within 10% of each other: C50 response factors within 70% of nC10+nC16+nC34 average: Linearity is within 15%: All results expressed on a dry weight basis. Unless otherwise noted all chromatograms returned to baseline by the retention time of nC50.
Unless otherwise noted all extraction, analysis, QC requirements and limits for holding time were met. If analyzed for F4 and F4G they are not to be summed but the greater of the two numbers are to be used in application to the CWS PHC QC will be made available upon request.
Page 1 of 3.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Parameter Units R.L.
BH 1 SS 2 BH 1 SS 3Client I.D. BH 2 SS 2 BH 2 SS 4
B20-06621-1 B20-06621-2Sample I.D. B20-06621-3 B20-06621-4
09-Mar-20 09-Mar-20Date Collected 09-Mar-20 09-Mar-20
O. Reg. 153
Tbl. 1 - All
< 10 < 10 PHC F1 (C6-C10)PHC F1 (C6-C10) < 10 < 10 25µg/g 10
< 5 < 9 PHC F2 (>C10-C16)PHC F2 (>C10-C16) < 5 < 5 10µg/g 5
21 54 PHC F3 (>C16-C34)PHC F3 (>C16-C34) 18 12 240µg/g 10
49 < 101 PHC F4 (>C34-C50)PHC F4 (>C34-C50) 24 < 10 120µg/g 10 1
90 PHC F4 (Gravimetric)PHC F4 (Gravimetric) 70 120µg/g 50
12.5 54.2 % moisture% moisture 12.4 12.5%
1 . F4 Gravimetric analysis required as chromats did not return to baseline.
Page 2 of 3.
Appendix B
d ix B
Client Town of Bracebridge Project Germania Road Culvert Replacement Project No. 300050993 Date May 6, 2020
Item Description Contract Unit UNIT ESTIMATED No. Quantity PRICE PRICE
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1.0 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 Contract Bonds and Insurance 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 Construction Layout 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4 Traffic Control and Signing (Road Closed) 1.0 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 5 Waterway Control 1.0 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 6 Earth Excavation (Grading) 1.0 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 7 Granular 'A' 500.0 t $22.00 $11,000.00 8 Granular 'B' Roadway 150.0 t $20.00 $3,000.00 9 Steel Beam Guide Rail 129.5 m $165.00 $21,374.10 10 End Treatments 4.0 ea $2,750.00 $11,000.00 11 Remove and Dispose Existing Structures 1.0 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 12 Earth Excavation for Structure 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 13 Supply and Install CSP Culverts 78.00 m $1,200.00 $93,600.00 14 Granular B - Backfill to Structure 750.0 t $30.00 $22,500.00 15 Rip-Rap 95.0 t $60.00 $5,700.00 16 Dewatering Structure Excavation 1.0 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 17 Topsoil, Imported 40.0 m3 $75.00 $3,000.00 18 Seed and Erosion Control Blankets 400.0 m2 $5.00 $2,000.00 19 Heavy Duty Silt Fence Barriers 200.0 m $25.00 $5,000.00 20 Smooth Run River Stone 130.0 t $75.00 $9,750.00
Contingency (10%) $35,542.41
13% H.S.T. $50,825.65
https://rjburnside.sharepoint.com/sites/300050993-BracebridgeGermaniaRoadCulvertReplacement/Shared Documents/Design/Tec
Engineering Estimate
1
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1.0 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 Contract Bonds and Insurance 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 Construction Layout 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4 Traffic Control and Signing (Road Closed) 1.0 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 5 Waterway Control 1.0 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 6 Earth Excavation (Grading) 1.0 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 7 Granular 'A' 460.0 t $22.00 $10,120.00 8 Granular 'B' Roadway 150.0 t $20.00 $3,000.00 9 Steel Beam Guide Rail 129.5 m $165.00 $21,374.10 10 End Treatments 4.0 ea $2,750.00 $11,000.00 11 Remove and Dispose Existing Structures 1.0 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 12 Earth Excavation for Structure 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 13 Supply and Install 3.96 m x 1.8 m Pre-cast
Concrete Box Culvert 39.00 m $6,350.00 $247,650.00
14 Granular B - Backfill to Structure 435.0 t $30.00 $13,050.00 15 Rip-Rap 50.0 t $60.00 $3,000.00 16 Dewatering Structure Excavation 1.0 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 17 Topsoil, Imported 40.0 m3 $75.00 $3,000.00 18 Seed and Erosion Control Blankets 400.0 m2 $5.00 $2,000.00 19 Heavy Duty Silt Fence Barriers 200.0 m $25.00 $5,000.00 20 Smooth Run River Stone 180.0 t $75.00 $13,500.00
Contingency (10%) $50,019.41
13% H.S.T. $71,527.76
Preliminary Design Option 2 - Twin 3.96 m x 1.83 m Precast Concrete Box Culverts
2
1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1.0 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 Contract Bonds and Insurance 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 Construction Layout 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4 Traffic Control and Signing (Road Closed) 1.0 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 5 Waterway Control 1.0 LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 6 Earth Excavation (Grading) 1.0 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 7 Granular 'A' 500.0 t $22.00 $11,000.00 8 Granular 'B' Roadway 150.0 t $20.00 $3,000.00 9 Steel Beam Guide Rail 129.5 m $165.00 $21,374.10 10 End Treatments 4.0 ea $2,750.00 $11,000.00 11 Remove and Dispose Existing Structures 1.0 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 12 Earth Excavation for Structure 1.0 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 13 Supply and Install CSP Arch Culverts 58.50 m $1,625.00 $95,062.50 14 Granular B - Backfill to Structure 830.0 t $30.00 $24,900.00 15 Rip-Rap 85.0 t $60.00 $5,100.00 16 Dewatering Structure Excavation 1.0 LS $25,000.00 $25,000.00 17 Topsoil, Imported 40.0 m3 $75.00 $3,000.00 18 Seed and Erosion Control Blankets 400.0 m2 $5.00 $2,000.00 19 Heavy Duty Silt Fence Barriers 200.0 m $25.00 $5,000.00 20 Smooth Run River Stone 145.0 t $75.00 $10,875.00
Contingency (10%) $35,981.16
13% H.S.T. $51,453.06
Preliminary Design Option 3 - Three 2.8 m x 1.95 m CSP Arch Culverts
2.2 Existing Roadway
2.3 Existing Hydraulics
3.2.1 Option 1 – Four 2.2 m Diameter CSP Culverts
3.2.2 Option 2 – Two 3.96 m x 1.83 m Precast Concrete Box Culverts
3.2.3 Option 3 – Three 2.8 m x 1.95 m CSP Arch Culverts
4.0 Recommendation