report highway 1 - dollarton interchange project · report highway 1 - dollarton interchange...

REPORT

Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project FINAL GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

Submitted to:

Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. 2889 E 12th Ave. #500 Vancouver, BC V5M 4T5

Submitted by:

Golder Associates Ltd. Suite 200 - 2920 Virtual Way, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5M 0C4, Canada

+1 604 296 4200

18106808-006-R-Rev1

29 August 2019

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

i

Distribution List 1 Copy: Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.

1 Copy: BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE UPGRADES ................................................................................................... 1

3.0 PROJECT SITE ............................................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 2

4.1 2018 Geotechnical Investigation for Functional Design ....................................................................... 2

4.1.1 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................................... 3

4.1.2 Sonic Core Photographs ................................................................................................................. 3

4.2 2019 Geotechnical Investigation for Detailed Design .......................................................................... 3

4.2.1 Site Reconnaissance ...................................................................................................................... 4

4.2.2 Permitting and Permissions ............................................................................................................ 5

4.2.3 Utility Locating and Hydro-vacuum Utility Clearance ...................................................................... 5

4.2.4 Mud-rotary Borehole Investigation .................................................................................................. 5

4.2.5 ODEX Air-rotary Borehole Investigation ......................................................................................... 6

4.2.6 Shallow Augerhole Investigation ..................................................................................................... 6

4.2.7 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................................... 7

4.2.7.1 Geotechnical Index Testing ......................................................................................................... 7

4.2.7.2 Specialized Soils Aggressivity Testing ........................................................................................ 7

4.2.7.2.1 Soil Corrosivity Testing ............................................................................................................. 7

4.2.7.2.2 Soil Aggressivity Testing for General Use Limestone (GUL) Concrete .................................... 8

5.0 INTERPRETED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 8

5.1 Organic Topsoil and Asphaltic Concrete .............................................................................................. 9

5.2 Fills ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

5.3 Salish Sediments ................................................................................................................................. 9

5.4 Capilano and Vashon Sediments ....................................................................................................... 10

5.5 Vashon Drift Deposits ........................................................................................................................ 10

5.6 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................... 10

6.0 KEY GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................... 11

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

ii

7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 12

7.1 Seismic Response ............................................................................................................................. 12

7.2 1-D Ground Response Analysis ......................................................................................................... 12

7.3 Liquefaction Potential and Consequences ......................................................................................... 13

7.3.1 Lateral Displacements .................................................................................................................. 14

7.3.2 Post-Liquefaction Settlement ........................................................................................................ 14

7.3.3 Impact of Liquefaction on New Overpass Structure ..................................................................... 14

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 15

8.1 Subgrade Preparation and Site Grading ............................................................................................ 15

8.1.1 Site Stripping ................................................................................................................................. 15

8.1.2 Permanent Embankment Fill Construction ................................................................................... 15

8.1.3 Material Re-Use ............................................................................................................................ 16

8.2 Retaining Walls .................................................................................................................................. 16

8.2.1 Cast-In Place Nail Wall (10214R) ................................................................................................. 17

8.2.2 Cast-In-Place Retaining Wall (10245R) ........................................................................................ 19

8.2.3 Shotcrete and Nail Wall at Dollarton On-Ramp Fly Over Structure (Removed from Project

Scope) ........................................................................................................................................... 20

8.3 Overpass Foundations ....................................................................................................................... 22

8.3.1 Soil Springs (P-Y Curves) ............................................................................................................. 23

8.3.2 P-Multipliers for Liquefied Soils ..................................................................................................... 23

8.4 Pavement Structure Design Considerations ...................................................................................... 24

8.4.1 Existing Pavement Condition Assessment ................................................................................... 24

8.4.2 Traffic Loading and Pavement Design .......................................................................................... 25

8.4.3 Pavement Structure Recommendations ....................................................................................... 26

8.4.4 Pavement Joints and Transitions .................................................................................................. 27

8.5 Geotextile Separator .......................................................................................................................... 27

9.0 CLOSURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 28

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

iii

TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Geotechnical Test Holes ........................................................................................................ 4

Table 2: Summary of Observed Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................ 10

Table 3: Estimated Stripping Depths ...................................................................................................................... 15

Table 4: Slope Stability Analysis Material Properties (Retaining Wall 10214R). ................................................... 17

Table 5: Slope Stability Analysis Material Properties (Shotcrete and Nail Wall). ................................................... 20

Table 8: P-Multipliers for Liquefied Soil at North Abutment Location Based on BPT/SH18-01 ............................. 24

Table 9: P-Multipliers for Liquefied Soil at South Abutment Location Based on BH19-01 ..................................... 24

Table 10: Existing Pavement Condition Assessment ............................................................................................. 24

Table 11: 20-Year Pavement Structure Design. ..................................................................................................... 25

Table 12: Pavement Structure Recommendations for Various Road Segments ................................................... 26

Table 13: Minimum Geotextile Specifications ........................................................................................................ 27

Table 6: p-y Curves for 610x15.9 mm Steel Pipe Pile based on Borehole BPT/SH18-01 [APPENDED]

Table 7: p-y Curves for 610x15.9 mm Steel Pipe Pile based on Borehole BH19-01 [APPENDED]

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site and Key Plan

Figure 2: Plan and Profile - Highway 1

Figure 3: Plan and Profile - Main Street and Dollarton Highway

Figure 4: Site Specific, 5% Damped, Acceleration Reponse Spectra

Figure 5: Estimated Shear Wave Velocity (Vs) Profile

Figure 6: Computed CSR And PGA Profiles For The Crustal And Inslab Ground Motions

Figure 7: Computed CSR And PGA Profiles For The Interface Subduction Ground Motions

Figure 8: CSR vs. CRR Comparison For Crustal And Inslab Motions And Interface Subduction Motions

Figure 9: Pseudo-Static Stability Analysis To Determine Yield Acceleration

Figure 10: Lateral Earth Pressures

Figure 11: Ultimate Pile Axial Resistance for 610 x 15.9 mm Pipe Pile (North and South Abutment/Pier)

Figure 12: Liquefied Ultimate Pile Axial Resistance for 610 x 15.9 mm Pipe Pile (North Abutment/Pier)

Figure 13: Liquefied Ultimate Pile Axial Resistance for 610 x 15.9 mm Pipe Pile (South Abutment/Pier)

Figure 14: p-y Curves - 610 X 15.9 mm Diameter Steel Pipe Pile North Pier/Abutment

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

iv

Figure 15: p-y Curves - 610 X 15.9 mm Diameter Steel Pipe Pile South Pier/Abutment

Figure 16: Pavement Joint Transitions and Tie-Ins

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Summary Logs

APPENDIX B Laboratory Soils Index Testing Results

APPENDIX C Sonic Core Photographs

APPENDIX D Laboratory Soils Corrosivity/Aggressivity Testing Results

APPENDIX E 2015 NBCC Seismic Hazard Calculations

APPENDIX F Embankment Slope Stability Models (Removed from Project Scope)

APPENDIX G Slope Stability Models - Retaining Wall 10214R

APPENDIX H Slope Stability Models – Third Westbound Lane Fly-Over Ramp Wall (Removed from Project Scope)

APPENDIX I Existing Pavement Condition Photographs

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. (AE) to provide geotechnical

investigation and detailed design services for the Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project (the Project) in North

Vancouver, BC (see Figure 1). This geotechnical design report documents our geotechnical input to the 90%

detailed design submission for the project being prepared by AE and includes factual results of the detailed

subsurface geotechnical investigation carried out at the site by Golder, together with our interpretation of the

investigation results and our comments and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the Project.

We have provided on-going geotechnical input to the design team, as documented in several technical

memoranda, email transmittals and meeting minutes, and this input is summarized within this geotechnical design

report.

The scope of this report is limited to the geotechnical engineering services only and does not include provision for

archaeological, bio-environmental, geo-environmental or hydrotechnical services for the Project. This report does

not include any review or assessment of the potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination at the site which

we understand is being reviewed/assessed by others.

This report should be read in conjunction with the “Important Information and Limitations of This Report”

which is appended following the text of this report. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to this information

as it is essential that it is followed for the proper use and interpretation of this report.

2.0 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE UPGRADES The proposed Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project configuration is illustrated on Figure 1, Figure 2 and

Figure 3. Based on our understanding of the Project design at the time of preparing this report (90% Detailed

Design), the main improvements will include:

A new eastbound on-ramp configuration to Highway 1 from Dollarton Highway and Phibbs Exchange;

including a new two-lane overpass adjacent to (and west of) the existing Highway 1 overpass.

An altered eastbound on-ramp to Highway 1 from Main Street; changed in geometry, addition of a merge

lane and multi-use path on the west side.

An upgraded westbound off-ramp from Highway 1; from an existing one lane to a new two-lane off-ramp,

along with reconfiguration of the off-ramp tie-in to Main Street.

Various alterations to the existing on-ramps including slight re-alignment, removal of curb and gutter, and

new paved shoulders.

Removal of curb and gutter and a widened shoulder with added pull-outs along Highway 1 both directions

between Second Narrows Bridge and Fern Interchange.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

2

3.0 PROJECT SITE The Project location is in the District of North Vancouver, approximately 0.7 km north of Burrard Inlet, as shown

on Figure 1. The specific Project site includes the segment of Highway 1 between Iron Worker’s Memorial Bridge

Crossing and Fern Road interchange, along with areas located immediately east and west of this highway

segment. Highway 1 has four travel lanes including two eastbound and two westbound lanes through this

segment with various on and off-ramps to/from both Dollarton Highway (to the east) and Main Street (to the west).

The Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project is part of the overall Lower Lynn Improvements Project to

Highway 1, including on-going construction at Mountain Highway Interchange and Keith Road, Fern Road and

Mount Seymour Parkway Interchange and connectivity improvements. Various local network roads and features

including Dollarton Highway (east), Phibbs Exchange (west) and Main Street (west) exist within the Project limits

and will be impacted by the proposed improvements.

The Project site is generally flat in topography and Highway 1 rises in elevation towards Second Narrows Bridge

to the south on an approach embankment, with an overpass crossing over Main Street/Dollarton Highway and an

underpass crossing beneath the Dollarton Highway eastbound on-ramp to Highway 1. Other on and off-ramps are

also supported on various embankment fills. Various open drainage systems (ditching and culverts) exist

throughout the site; however, there are no major watercourses within the Project area. Lynn Creek is located

nearby to the site to the west and Seymour river is located nearby to the east; both outside of the Project footprint.

The current land-use adjacent to the Project site generally consists of a variety of residential, commercial and light

industrial developments.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

4.1 2018 Geotechnical Investigation for Functional Design Golder previously conducted a three-day geotechnical investigation program between 19 and 22 March 2018 to obtain deep geotechnical subsurface information at a location considered to be of maximum benefit to the functional design and detailed design of the Project; where one of the main structural elements of the Project would likely be located (at the north abutment/pier location of the proposed new Dollarton Highway eastbound on-ramp to Highway 1 overpass structure). The specific details of the 2018 geotechnical investigation are presented in Golder’s report titled “Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project Functional Design – Preliminary Geotechnical Report”, dated 21 September 2018. A brief summary of the 2018 geotechnical investigation is presented below.

Golder put down one deep sonic cored borehole and one deep Becker Penetration Test (BPT) as part of the preliminary geotechnical investigation. The subsurface information collected at the two test holes is presented on one Summary Log sheet, designated BPT/SH18-01; however, the actual as-drilled locations were separated in the field by approximately 3 m. The test holes were conducted to 48.5 m and 49.1 m depth below existing ground surface, respectively, for the sonic borehole and BPT. The BPT was carried out in advance of the sonic borehole and included acquisition of Becker Bounce Chamber Pressure, Pile Driving Analyser (PDA) and Becker casing pull out measurements that could be used for future detailed geotechnical assessment. Due to disturbance, displacement and loss of material associated with the drilling process, samples collected in the sonic borehole were not continuous, and consequently there is some uncertainty regarding the subsurface conditions and interpreted stratigraphic boundaries shown on the Summary Log sheets in Appendix A. Summary Log sheets referring to BPT/SH18-01 are shown under Golder Project No. 1787066, the project number used during the functional design phase of the Project.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

3

The sonic borehole was conducted using a track-mounted DB320 sonic drill rig owned and operated by Mud Bay

Drilling Co. Ltd. of Surrey, BC and the Becker Penetration Test was conducted using a HAV-180 truck-mounted

Becker drill rig owned and operated by Foundex Explorations Ltd. of Surrey, BC.

The detailed subsurface information encountered in the boreholes is shown on the Summary Log sheet in

Appendix A following the text of this report.

Following completion of the investigation activities, the test holes were backfilled and sealed in accordance with

the BC Groundwater Protection Regulations using a combination of bentonite chip/pellet seals and backfill

material.

4.1.1 Laboratory Testing

Golder carried out a laboratory testing program on selected samples obtained from the sonic borehole. The

results of these tests were used to aid in the classification of the soils encountered. The specific laboratory tests

included the following:

Eight water content determination tests (ASTM D4959-07).

Eight grain size distribution analysis tests (ASTM D422-63 (2007) and ASTM D6913).

The results of the laboratory index testing are presented in Appendix B following the text of this report as well as

the Preliminary Geotechnical Report referenced in Section 4.1 above. The results of the laboratory testing are

also summarized on the Summary Log sheets included in Appendix A.

It is noted that the grain size distribution analyses were carried out on samples smaller than 100 mm diameter

obtained from the sonic borehole. Consequently, the results of the grain size analyses do not include the

contribution of the larger size particles (such as cobbles and boulders) noted during the drilling and may not

represent actual conditions in the field.

4.1.2 Sonic Core Photographs

The sonic core obtained during the drilling investigation was transported to Golder’s Burnaby warehouse for

detailed logging, sampling and photography. Photographs were taken of the sonic core under controlled

conditions, allowing for consistent lighting. The sonic core photographs are provided in Appendix C.

4.2 2019 Geotechnical Investigation for Detailed Design Golder prepared and submitted a geotechnical investigation work plan for the field investigation work in our

technical memorandum “18106808-002-TM-Rev0-Geotech Investigation Work Plan 08NOV_18”. AE provided

approval to proceed with the above referenced work plan on 28 November 2018. Due to challenges associated

with permitting and traffic management, fifteen of the proposed twenty-one augerholes were removed from the

work plan as agreed upon with AE and the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) on 15 February

2019. Further design changes resulted in the removal of the Main Street eastbound bus bay work, as requested

by AE on 25 February 2019, reducing the number of proposed drilled rotary boreholes from five to four. All rotary

boreholes were originally planned as mud-rotary boreholes; however, due to limited working hours made available

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

4

under the permit conditions, it was determined that an alternative drilling system (ODEX air-rotary) would be more

appropriate to complete the three shallower boreholes (10 – 15 m depth) within the available time window.

Permits and permission to access properties affected by the proposed geotechnical investigation were provided

by MoTI and Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC). The field work was carried out between 7 March 2019 and

21 March 2019, in accordance with the permitted dates.

The components of the geotechnical investigation generally included drilled mud-rotary boreholes and ODEX air-

rotary boreholes put down in areas where deeper sub-surface information was required for design purposes and

shallow drilled augerholes put down in areas to supplement the deeper subsurface information and where near-

surface information was required for design purposes. Detailed descriptions of each of the field investigation

components is provided in the following sections. In total, four drilled boreholes (one mud-rotary and three air-

rotary) and six augerholes were conducted. The details of the drilling investigation program and results are

generally summarized on the Summary Logs provided in Appendix A following the text of this report. A summary

of pertinent information relevant to the previous and current geotechnical investigation test holes is provided in

Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Geotechnical Test Holes

Test Hole ID Drilling Methodology

GPS Coordinates1,2 Geodetic Elevation3

Total Depth (metres below ground surface [mbgs])

Drilling Date(s)

Northing Easting

BPT/SH18-01 Becker Penetration & Sonic Coring

5461363 497974 3.7 49.07 19-22 March 2018

AH19-09 Solid Stem Auger 5461410 497949 2.8 3.66 8-9 March 2019

AH19-10 Solid Stem Auger 5461329 497959 5.6 4.88 11 March 2019

AH19-11 Solid Stem Auger 5461330 497876 4.4 6.10 11 March 2019




BH19-01 Mud-rotary 5461332 497993 4.5 53.95 11-13 March 2019

BH19-03 ODEX Air-rotary 5461277 498021 11.6 15.24 20-22 March 2019

BH19-04 ODEX Air-rotary 5461226 498043 14.0 9.75 20-21 March 2019

BH19-05 ODEX Air-rotary 5461572 497997 11.0 12.50 13-14 & 18-20 March 2019

1 All coordinates provided are referenced to UTM NAD83, Zone 10U. 2 Coordinates were obtained using a hand-held GPS typically accurate to within 5 m. 3 Elevations were provided by AE dated 9 April 2019 – rounded to one significant digit.

4.2.1 Site Reconnaissance

Golder visited the Project site several times to carry out visual reconnaissance and plan and coordinate the geotechnical investigation activities. The site visits were completed between December 2018 and March 2019. The intention of the reconnaissance was to observe/record visual indications of existing slope instability, pavement distress and to verify topographic features. The proposed test hole locations, access routing and traffic management requirements for the geotechnical investigation were assessed concurrently with the visual reconnaissance.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

5

4.2.2 Permitting and Permissions

Prior to undertaking the geotechnical field investigation program, Golder planned and coordinated permits and access permissions to conduct the field work. These permits and permissions were coordinated with MoTI and CMBC; the two authorities having jurisdiction within the Project boundary.

On 14 January 2019, MoTI issued Golder an H0020 permit allowing for the drilling investigation field work to proceed as proposed in our work plan. Due to the complexities of the traffic management required to conduct the investigation program, the acquisition of the necessary H1080 permit (allowing for lane closure works) was delayed. Golder was issued the H1080 permits from MoTI on 1 March 2019 – following removal of fifteen augerholes, and associated ramp closures which would have been required, from the investigation program.

CMBC provided approval to conduct one augerhole (AH19-09) within the area of bus operations at Phibbs Bus Exchange on 27 February 2019.

4.2.3 Utility Locating and Hydro-vacuum Utility Clearance

Prior to undertaking ground disturbance (including activities such as drilling), Golder conducted a BC One Call to obtain underground utility information within the area of the proposed testholes. With the information obtained from the BC One Call and additional utility information provided by AE on the base plans dated 31 August 2018, Golder conducted an office review of the proposed testhole locations in relation to known existing utilities. Following this review, field locates were conducted by Golder and specialist third-party utility locators GeoScan Subsurface Surveys Inc. of Burnaby, BC and Quadra Utility Locating Ltd. of Surrey, BC. Two separate field utility locates were conducted on 7 March 2019 and 14 March 2019 due to access limitations and winter road/weather limitations.

Based on the office review and field locates, three locations were identified as having potential for underground utilities near the proposed testhole locations. The three testholes, BH19-03, BH19-04 and BH19-05, were hydro-vacuumed prior to undertaking drilling to daylight the upper subsurface, ensuring the locations were clear of underground utilities. First Call Energy of Langley, BC conducted the hydro-vacuum work on 13 March 2019 and 20 March 2019.

4.2.4 Mud-rotary Borehole Investigation

Golder put down one rotary borehole, designated as BH19-01, as part of the investigation. BH19-02 was removed from the work plan due to the removal of the Main Street eastbound bus bay as described previously. The one rotary borehole comprised a 54 m deep borehole located at the proposed south pier location for the new Highway 1 overpass crossing Main Street.

The rotary borehole was put down using a truck-mounted SIMCO 5000 drill rig owned and operated by Foundex Explorations Ltd. of Abbotsford, BC. Soil sampling was carried out at regular intervals using conventional SPT techniques with a 50 mm diameter split-soon sampling tube and a 63.6 kg, 760 mm drop safety hammer.

All drilling activities were monitored by Golder personnel who positioned the borehole location in the field, logged the soil and groundwater conditions encountered and prepared the samples obtained for shipping to our Burnaby laboratory. The borehole was located approximately using hand-held GPS. The borehole was sealed (fully grouted) from the base of the open hole to installation depth in accordance with the permit conditions and current groundwater regulations. A standpipe piezometer was installed within the upper 12 m of the borehole to allow for measurement of stabilized groundwater levels (details of installation provided in Section 5.6).

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

6

4.2.5 ODEX Air-rotary Borehole Investigation

Golder put down three ODEX air-rotary boreholes, designated as BH19-03, BH19-04 and BH19-05, as part of the

investigation. The air-rotary boreholes include the following:

Two 13 m and 15 m deep air-rotary boreholes at the proposed retaining wall location for the Main Street on-

ramp to Highway 1 eastbound.

One 13 m deep air-rotary borehole at the formerly proposed retaining wall location for the third Highway 1

westbound thru-lane at the Dollarton Highway on-ramp flyover to Highway 1 eastbound (this component of

the Project has recently been cancelled).

The ODEX air-rotary boreholes were put down using a B-80 Mobile truck-mounted drill rig owned and operated by

Geotech Drilling Services Ltd. of Delta, BC. Soil sampling was carried out at regular intervals using conventional

SPT techniques with a 50 mm diameter split-soon sampling tube and a 63.6 kg, 760 mm drop safety hammer;

however, it should be noted that conducting SPTs within an ODEX air-rotary borehole does not strictly comply

with ASTM standards and engineering judgement must be employed when reviewing and interpreting the SPT

results obtained using this drilling methodology.

All drilling activities were monitored by Golder personnel who positioned the borehole locations in the field, logged

the soil and groundwater conditions encountered and prepared the samples obtained for shipping to our Burnaby

laboratory. The boreholes were located approximately using hand-held GPS. The boreholes were sealed using a

combination of bentonite chips and backfill materials in accordance with current groundwater regulations and

surface sealed by reinstating the pavement structure utilizing cold patch asphalt.

4.2.6 Shallow Augerhole Investigation

Golder put down a total of six shallow augerholes, designated as AH19-09, AH19-10, AH19-11, AH19-14,

AH19-18 and AH19-19, to depths ranging from 2.3 m to 6.1 m below existing ground surface. The augerholes

were all located in off-road areas and were conducted using a Marl M6 track-mounted drill rig owned and

operated by VanMars Drilling Ltd. of Abbotsford, BC.

The augerholes were conducted using 150 mm diameter solid stem augerholes and representative grab soil

samples were obtained at selected intervals at each of the augerhole locations. A dynamic cone penetration test

(DCPT) was conducted at each augerhole location prior to drilling to obtain a continuous relative

density/consistency profile of the subsurface soils. The DCPT was conducted using a 63.6 kg, 760 mm drop

safety hammer, with blow counts recorded per 0.3 m of advancement.

All drilling activities were monitored by Golder personnel who positioned the augerholes in the field, logged the

soil and groundwater conditions encountered and prepared the samples obtained for shipping to our Burnaby

laboratory. The augerholes were located approximately using hand-held GPS. The augerholes were sealed using

a combination of bentonite chips and backfill materials in accordance with current groundwater regulations.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

7

4.2.7 Laboratory Testing

4.2.7.1 Geotechnical Index Testing

Upon completion of the detailed field drilling investigation program, Golder carried out a laboratory testing

program on selected samples obtained during the field work. The laboratory testing program was based on the

type and condition of the samples obtained and the required geotechnical design parameters, which included the

following:

73 Water Content Determination Tests (ASTM D2216)

17 Grain Size Distribution Analysis Tests (ASTM D422-63)

The results of the laboratory index testing are presented in Appendix B following the text of this report. The results

of the geotechnical index testing are also summarized on the Summary Log sheets included in Appendix A.

It is noted that grain size distribution analyses were carried out on samples smaller than 50 mm diameter obtained

from the drilled test holes and smaller than 75 mm diameter obtained from the augerholes. Consequently, the

results of the grain size analyses do not include the contribution of the larger size particles noted during the

drilling and may not represent actual conditions in the field.

4.2.7.2 Specialized Soils Aggressivity Testing

4.2.7.2.1 Soil Corrosivity Testing

Soil corrosivity testing was carried out on samples obtained at the proposed soil nail retaining wall location to

determine the potential aggressiveness of the soils to the proposed soil nail retention systems. Soil samples were

obtained in two of the ODEX air-rotary boreholes conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation specifically

for the purpose of soil corrosion potential testing. The soil samples were brought to an external laboratory, Soil

Corrosion Services Ltd., to carry out the suite of aggressiveness testing outlined by the Federal Highways

Administration report “Hollow Bar Soil Nails: Review of Corrosion Factors and Mitigation Practice” (Publication No.

FHWA-CFL/TD-10-002). Specifically, the following suite of tests was carried out for each of the two samples.

Soil Resistivity Testing (AASHTO T288)

Soil pH Testing (AASHTO T289)

Chloride Ion Testing (AASHTO T291)

Sulphate Ion Testing (AASHTO T290)

The results of the soil corrosivity testing are presented in Appendix D.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

8

4.2.7.2.2 Soil Aggressivity Testing for General Use Limestone (GUL) Concrete

Soil aggressivity testing was carried out on selected soil samples at locations where the use of general use limestone (GUL) concrete could occur, including the proposed retaining wall locations, in addition to testing at other locations to provide spatial coverage across the Project site. Eight soil samples were obtained through various drilling methodologies described previously, and generally comprised high quantity grab samples obtained in the upper few metres (approx. 1.2 m) of subsurface soil and/or at the groundwater table (where encountered). The soil samples were brought to Golder’s Burnaby laboratory for screening and testing. Additional testing, to complete the required suite of aggressivity tests, was conducted by an external laboratory, CARO Analytical Services Ltd. (CARO). Specifically, the following suite of tests was carried out for each of the eight samples.

Sulphate Ion Content (CSA A23.2-3B) [Golder]

Chloride Ion Content (ASTM C1218/ASTM C114-18) [CARO]

The results of the soil aggressivity testing are presented in Appendix D following the text of this report.

5.0 INTERPRETED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS At the time of preparing this geotechnical design report, the following information on site and subsurface conditions was available for our use:

Geological Survey of Canada Surficial Geology Map No. 1486A-Vancouver.

“Phibbs Exchange, North Vancouver BC, 50% Geotechnical Design Report”, Thurber Engineering Ltd., 16 January 2018.

“Iron Worker’s Memorial Bridge Temporary Guide Sign Field Inspection Report”, Thurber Engineering Ltd., 28 January 2014.

“Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project Functional Design Report”, Golder Associates Ltd., 21 September 2018.

Geotechnical test hole information obtained by Golder during the geotechnical investigation field and laboratory activities described above.

Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes and augerholes are reported on the Summary Log sheets, prepared in conformance with the format specified by MoTI and are included in Appendix A.

Classification of the subsurface soil conditions is in accordance with the MoTI Modified Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A copy of the Materials Classification Legend (utilized with the referenced system) from the BC Ministry Bridge Foundation Investigation Manual (1991) has been included in Appendix A.

A brief description and summary of the inferred subsurface conditions within the Project site is presented below. The relevant Summary Log records should be referred to for more detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered. It is noted that subsurface conditions may differ and vary between the test hole locations and between sampling depths. It should also be noted that the groundwater conditions indicated on the Summary Logs and those reported below are those generally observed in the open holes at the time of investigation, except where standpipe piezometers were installed (BH19-01). As such, the groundwater levels recorded in the open holes may not represent the stabilized groundwater level at the time of the investigation work.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

9

Based on this information, the anticipated subsurface stratigraphy across the site is generalized as described in

the following sections.

5.1 Organic Topsoil and Asphaltic Concrete Organic soils consisting of silt and sand mixtures with variable organic content were observed in the undeveloped

areas of the Project site. Where encountered at the test hole locations, the thickness of the topsoil material

containing organics ranged between approximately 150 mm and 300 mm in thickness.

In the traffic areas, a layer of asphaltic concrete was observed in each of the test holes. Where encountered at the

test hole locations, the thickness of the asphaltic concrete ranged between approximately 180 mm and 230 mm in

thickness. The asphaltic concrete was typically underlain by pavement and/or embankment fill materials as

described below.

5.2 Fills Surficial fill materials of variable thickness and composition were encountered at each of the test hole locations.

The fills varied in thickness significantly, extending to depths between 2.3 m and 12.5 m below existing ground

surface where encountered. These materials generally comprised granular material including sands, gravels,

cobbles and possible boulders with trace to some silt. All of the augerholes and boreholes put down as part of the

investigation(s) with the exception of BPT/SH18-01 and BH19-01 were terminated within the fills.

Based on the observed resistance to drilling penetration and in-situ DCPT and SPT results, the fill materials are

inferred to be very loose to very dense.

It is considered likely that the origin of the fill materials is associated with historical grading and road construction

activities. The generally thicker layers (several metres thickness or more) of fill materials will likely be

concentrated in and around the abutments of existing overpass/underpass and bridge structures as well as road

embankments. Relatively thinner layers of fill materials were encountered across the Project site which are

assumed to be associated with historical site grading activities.

5.3 Salish Sediments Salish sediments, consisting of varying mixtures of sands and gravels with trace to some silt, were encountered

within the deeper boreholes beneath the surficial materials described above. The Salish Sediments were

observed to extend to a depth of 25.9 m and 29.0 m below existing ground surface in the two deep boreholes.

Occasional cobbles and/or inferred boulders were observed in both boreholes, located irregularly throughout the

deposit.

Based on the observed resistance to drilling and in-situ SPT results, the Salish Sediments are inferred to be

generally compact to very dense.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

10

5.4 Capilano and Vashon Sediments Capilano deposits were observed in BH19-01 and comprised sand trace to some silt with some gravelly inclusions. The Capilano deposits were observed to extend to a depth of 49.1 m and 54.0 m below existing ground surface in the two deep boreholes; however, the extent of the Capilano deposits was not determined as both deep boreholes were terminated within this deposit. Occasional cobbles and/or inferred boulders were observed in both boreholes, located irregularly throughout the deposit.

Based on the observed resistance to drilling penetration and in-situ SPT results, the Capilano Sediments are inferred to be generally compact to very dense.

5.5 Vashon Drift Deposits Vashon Drift (till-like) deposits were not encountered in the test holes put down as part of the investigation. Vashon Drift deposits generally consist of heterogeneous materials containing widely ranging amounts of clay, silt, sand and gravel, with sand and gravel being the predominant components. Large cobbles and boulders are often observed in these deposits. These deposits have been targeted as a dense bearing layer in other projects nearby the Project site as they exist in reasonable proximity to the ground surface at these other locations. Based on the publicly available information, the Vashon Drift deposits are likely to be encountered at depths of about 60 m or greater below existing ground surface, extending to significant depths.

5.6 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in several of the open test holes put down during the investigation and a

temporary standpipe piezometer was installed in BH19-01 to monitor the stabilized groundwater level. A summary

of the groundwater levels recorded during the field investigation program are provided below in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of Observed Groundwater Levels

Test Hole Groundwater

Depth (mbgs)

Groundwater

Elevation

(m Geodetic)

Date Type of Recording

AH19-09 1.8 1.0 9 March 2019 Open Hole

BH19-01 1.9 2.6 27 March 2019 Standpipe Piezometer

BH19-03 12.3 -0.7 22 March 2019 Open Hole

BH19-05 10.4 -0.6 19 March 2019 Open Hole

It is expected that the groundwater levels will fluctuate with varying precipitation and season, and water flow within

adjacent water courses, particularly during periods of heavy rain and snowmelt. Perched water conditions should

also be expected at transitions between relatively coarse and fine-grained subsurface soil layers. Although not

observed in the test holes put down, fine-grained layers may be encountered within the deeper Capilano and

Vashon Drift deposits. Due to the variable nature of the subsurface deposits encountered, concentrated zones of

groundwater seepage should be expected in excavations below the groundwater table.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

11

6.0 KEY GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS From our experience with the nearby Mountain Highway Interchange, Lower Lynn Connectivity Projects, other MoTI highway improvement projects of similar scope and knowledge of the subsurface conditions in the area, we see the following as the key geotechnical issues and constraints that may impact design and construction of the proposed highway improvement components:

The project site is expected to be underlain by variable surficial fill materials and organic topsoil; relatively thick, unconsolidated mineral soils, including stream deposits and at significant depth, glacially consolidated soil deposits, including dense fluvial and flood plain sediments and till-like formations. The thickness of the fills, organic topsoil and surficial mineral soils is expected to vary across the project site and the depth to competent deposits for foundation support of heavily loaded structures is expected to be greater than 20 m below existing ground surface.

The surficial organic soils and some of the fills and surficial mineral soils will not be suitable for direct support of key structural elements such as retaining walls and higher embankment fills. As such, these materials may require sub-excavation down to more competent deposits or possible densification. More heavily loaded structural foundation elements may need to extend down through these surficial deposits into competent, dense Salish deposits or glacially consolidated soils (see below). Similarly, organic topsoil and unsuitable fill materials will require removal/sub-excavation beneath new highway embankments. Since the depth to these deposits will vary, it will be important to determine the stripping and excavation requirements in advance of construction so that the design and quantity estimates can be sufficiently detailed.

Considering both static and seismic design, the near-surface unconsolidated Salish deposits may not be suitable for direct foundation support of bridge structure(s) and, as such, the bridge structure(s) will likely need to be supported by deep foundations (such as steel pipe piles) that extend down into more competent, dense Salish deposits and/or glacially consolidated deposits.

In order to accommodate the required grade changes for the new ramps, roads, bridge structure approaches and road widening within the limited available Right(s)-of-Way, retaining wall construction will likely be required. It is understood that a retaining wall up to 6 m in height may be required along the new on-ramps to Highway 1 from Main Street. In general, the natural soil deposits are considered be suitable for support of the retaining wall structures; however, the actual foundation subgrade preparation and foundation design will be dependent upon the overall performance requirements for the structures and ground conditions beneath the structures. Design/construction of retaining walls on existing fills will likely require special consideration for site preparation and foundation support, possibly requiring some form of localized ground densification.

The project site is generally underlain by looser stream channel deposits, which have been observed to extend to at least 20 m depth in the deep boreholes put down as part of the investigation. These looser channel deposits might be liquefiable when subjected to shaking during a design seismic event and should be assessed/analyzed in detail during detailed design to determine the potential impact(s) that such affects could have on the Project components. Such effects could include vertical and horizontal ground deformations. To mitigate against severe impacts in more critical areas, it is possible that ground improvement/densification may be required, such as where structures are proposed adjacent to higher embankments or there are other significant changes in ground elevation. In other areas where liquefaction impacts are less severe, or where such ground displacement impacts can be tolerated, it may be more practical/economical to repair damaged areas following a seismic event than incorporating permanent measures into the Project to prevent such impacts.

Detailed consideration of the import material requirements will be required to verify that the structural and grade fill requirements are optimized.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

12

Based on the above, the following sections present our detailed geotechnical comments and recommendations to support development of the functional design concept being prepared by AE.

7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Golder obtained site-specific 2015 seismic hazard parameters from National Resources Canada (NRC) for the

Project site located at 49.305°N and 123.028°W, and have presented the results in Appendix E.

In accordance with the CAN/CSA S6.14 the following seismic parameters apply to the Project site:

Site Classification: F – liquefiable soils present in the upper 15 m, based on detailed liquefaction assessment

of soils observed in BPT/SH18-01 and BH19-01

Seismic Performance Category: 3

Major Route Structure, Extensive Damage for 2% exceedance in 50 years (1:2475 return period event)

In accordance with CAN/CSA S6.14, a detailed liquefaction assessment and ground response analysis was

conducted at the Project site to determine the risk of liquefaction and subsequent seismic performance. The

detailed one-dimensional (1-D) ground response analysis and results are discussed in this section.

7.1 Seismic Response As identified above, the project site is identified as site class F (liquefiable) and, as such, we have assessed the

site-specific, 5% Damped, Acceleration Response Spectra for Dollarton Interchange Site. In the assessment, ten

Crustal, ten Inslab, and ten Interface ground motions were used to develop the 5% damped acceleration response

spectra at the ground surface. The effect of liquefaction was not considered in the analysis (i.e., earthquake

forces represented by the spectra are initial earthquake forces before liquefaction).

Individual Crustal and Inslab acceleration response spectra were combined and an average response spectrum

was developed, shown on Figure 4 attached, in black color. Similarly, individual interface acceleration response

spectra were combined and an average response spectrum was developed, shown in blue colour. From these two

mean spectra, an envelope of mean spectra was developed and recommended as Class F spectrum before

liquefaction, shown as a red dashed line in the figure.

For comparison purposes, the previously reference CSA S6-14 code-based Class D spectrum also presented in

the Figure 4, shown in green color.

7.2 1-D Ground Response Analysis Near continuous data collected at a 0.3 m depth interval of penetration resistance at BPT/SH18-01 was used in

developing design shear wave velocity profile for the 1-D ground response analyses. The 1-D ground response

analysis was carried out using the computer code SHAKE2000.

The SPT data collected from the mud-rotary borehole BH19-01 is considered to have gravel influence and the

data was collected at discrete depths (at 1.5 m depth interval up to 30 m depth and at 3 m depth interval below

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

13

30 m depth) and, therefore, this SPT data was not used in the development of shear wave velocity profile for the

subject site. The data from BPT/SH18-01 was used for this purpose as described below.

Data from the Becker Penetration Test associated with BPT/SH18-01 was reduced to equivalent SPT(N60) values

based on the methodology outlined by Sy and Campanella (1994) for the upper 25 m with relatively lower blow

counts, where potentially liquefiable soils are present based on the preliminary assessment. Based on site

characterization carried for a site immediately east of the subject site considering multiple methods of obtaining

penetration resistance values including iBPTs and interpretations, we consider that the Sy and Campanella

method provides consistent and appropriate equivalent SPT(N60) values in coarse-grained soils.

The methodology outlined by Harder and Seed (1986) was used in interpreting the equivalent SPT(N60) values

for the deeper soils with relatively higher blow counts, where the potential for liquefaction is considered to be low.

It is our engineering judgement, based on the adjacent sites, compared with other interpretation methods in sand,

that the Sy and Campanella method estimate is appropriate for estimation of equivalent SPT(N60) values in the

potentially liquefiable soils at this location. In the absence of measured shear wave velocity (Vs) data, the Vs

profile at BPT/SH18-01 location was established from equivalent SPT(N1)60 values based on the published

correlation described below:

The estimated design shear wave velocity profile and water table used in the 1-D ground response analysis is

presented in Figure 5.

The modulus reduction and damping curves published by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for

cohesionless soils (1993) were used in the 1D ground response analysis. Scenario-based 2475-year earthquake

acceleration time histories developed for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project were used in the

analysis after uniformly scaling the motions to the location-specific PGAs for Site Class C ground conditions. A

PGA of 0.34g was used to scale the Crustal and Inslab acceleration time-histories, and a PGA of 0.14g was used

to scale the Interface acceleration time-histories. Considering the similarities in the PGAs and the magnitude of

earthquakes, for purposes of our analyses, the CSR values obtained from the Crustal and Inslab acceleration

time-histories were combined when computing the average CSRs. The average CSR profile from the Interface

scenario acceleration time-histories was established separately for the liquefaction assessment. The computed

CSR and PGA profiles for the Crustal and Inslab scenario ground motions are presented in Figure 6 and the

computed CSR and PGA profiles for the Interface scenario ground motions are presented in Figure 7.

7.3 Liquefaction Potential and Consequences Liquefaction assessment for the subject site was carried out by comparing the average CSRs obtained from the 1D ground response analysis with the CRR values obtained from the equivalent SPT(N1)60_cs profiled established at the SH/BPT18-01 and BH19-01 locations. The SPT-based liquefaction assessment methodology outlined in Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and the modifications provided in Boulanger and Idriss (2015) were used in the assessment. A mean earthquake magnitude of M7.0 was used for the liquefaction assessment when using the empirical liquefaction resistance chart for the crustal and inslab earthquake ground motions, and a mean

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

14

earthquake magnitude of M8.7 was used for the interface subduction earthquake ground motions. The liquefaction assessment results are presented in Figure 8.

The results presented in Figure 8 indicate that potentially liquefiable soils exist about 6 m to 13.5 m depth below

ground surface at BPT/SH18-01 location (north abutment/pier) and 12.5 m to 15.5 m depth below ground surface

at BH19-01 location (south abutment/pier).

The soil liquefaction will result in permanent lateral displacements and post-seismic settlements due to

reconsolidation of liquefied soils. The magnitude of these displacements was estimated using simplified methods

of analyses and the results are presented below.

Other consequences of soil liquefaction include down-drag loads and lateral kinematic loads due to flow of soil

around the piled foundations penetrating the different soil strata. These effects will be assessed and presented

separately.

7.3.1 Lateral Displacements

The permanent lateral ground displacements, as a result of soil liquefaction, were estimated using the simplified

Newmark approach. The method involved carrying out a pseudo-static stability analysis to estimate the yield

acceleration. In this analysis, the liquefied soils were assigned a residual shear strength based on a pre-liquefied

average equivalent SPT(N1)60cs value of 15 blows/0.3 m. Considering the presence of gravel fill on top of the

potentially liquefiable ground and relatively flat surrounding ground conditions, it was assumed that potential for

void redistribution is not significant at this site. The displacements were estimated for the 2475-yr demand only.

The result of pseudo-static stability analysis is presented in Figure 9. The computed yield acceleration is 0.21g.

Material properties used in the analysis are also listed in Figure 9. A uniform surcharge load of 16 kPa was

applied within the bridge approach footprint as shown in the Figure 9.

The simplified approach indicates liquefaction-induced permanent lateral displacement ranging from 25 to 100

mm is anticipated near north abutment/pier location at site. The liquefaction-induced lateral displacement near

south abutment/pier anticipated to be in the range of zero to 50 mm.

7.3.2 Post-Liquefaction Settlement

Post-liquefaction settlement was estimated using the empirical approach outlined in Idriss and Boulanger (2008)

using the anticipated volumetric strains as a function of the CSR and the penetration resistance values. Based on

this procedure, a free-field post-liquefaction settlement of the order of 200 mm and 75 mm estimated to occur at

ground surface near north abutment pier and south abutment pier locations, respectively.

7.3.3 Impact of Liquefaction on New Overpass Structure

Based on discussions with AE’s structural designers, it is understood that the new overpass structure will be

designed to withstand the estimated ground deformations indicated above as well as withstand the estimated

downdrag forces on the piles induced by liquefaction (see discussion of downdrag forces in Section 8.3 below).

As such, measures to mitigate against liquefaction are not considered warranted for the new overpass structure.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

15

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Subgrade Preparation and Site Grading 8.1.1 Site Stripping

Topsoil, organic, deleterious and/or loose fill materials are generally considered not suitable for direct subgrade

support or re-use as embankment fill and should be stripped/sub-excavated from the entire footprint of the

proposed fill, structure foundation and pavement areas. It is recommended that stripping/sub-excavation of these

materials be carried down to underlying, undisturbed, competent mineral soil and/or mineral fill deposits and that

the prepared subgrade should be adequately sloped/shaped to prevent ponding of surface and/or groundwater.

Based on the information obtained from the test holes put down at the site as part of the current geotechnical

investigation, the stripped depths at the following test hole locations are estimated to be as follows:

Table 3: Estimated Stripping Depths

Testhole ID Stripping Depth (m)

AH19-09 0.30

AH19-10 0.15

AH19-11 0.15

AH19-14 0.15

AH19-19 0.23

AH19-20 0.23

The average stripped depth across the site is estimate at 0.20 m. It should be noted that the stripping depths

could locally exceed those indicated above, particularly in poorly drained, low-lying areas.

8.1.2 Permanent Embankment Fill Construction

Embankment construction will be required for the new/widened on/off ramps to and from Highway 1. These will

generally be fills that will be placed adjacent to existing fill slopes. The embankment subgrade preparation should

be carried out as outlined in Section 8.1.1 above. The prepared subgrade should be inspected by the

geotechnical Engineer of Record, or designated representative, prior to placing highway embankment fills.

Following the subgrade preparation, the proposed highway fills may be constructed consistent with SS201.37 of

the BC MoTI 2012 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (Standard Specifications), except where

Bridge End Fill zones are required. As per the specifications, the new embankment fills should be terraced in a

continuous series of minimum 1.5 m wide steps into the existing highway embankments. Step heights should be

no more than 1 m in height.

In general, it is recommended that fill slopes for embankments be developed no steeper than 2 Horizontal to

1 Vertical (2H:1V). Consideration may be given to developing fill slopes as steep as 1.5H:1V; however,

specialized embankment treatment, such as internal reinforcement or construction using coarse angular rock

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

16

(Type A) fill or concrete facing will likely be required to achieve the necessary embankment performance

requirements identified in MoTI’s Supplement to CSA S6-14. Performance criteria are based on the degree of

understanding and consequence factor, which we have assumed to be a high degree of understanding and typical

consequence factor. The resultant required static factor of safety is 1.43 and seismic factor of safety is 1.10.

Embankments that cannot meet the performance requirements will require special acceptance by MoTI.

In light of the above, Golder has carried out slope stability analyses for widening embankments, targeting the area

along the Highway 1 westbound off-ramp to Main Street (L60 line), assuming use of Type D fills at 2H:1V slopes.

The analysis was carried out using the commercially available slope stability software GeoStudio 2018 by

GeoSlope International Ltd. and available local test hole information. The results of the analysis are presented in

Appendix F.

Based on the results of the analyses, slopes constructed at 2H:1V using Type D fill exceeds the static

performance requirements (the calculated Factor of Safety (static) is about 1.83) but does not quite meet the

seismic performance requirements (the calculated Factor of Safety (seismic) is about 1.07); and thus, the slightly

lower Factor of Safety (seismic) will require special acceptance by MoTI. Golder recommends maintaining 2H:1V

slopes as the seismic factor of safety exceeds 1.0 (failure is not anticipated) and the critical failures surfaces

remain outside of the proposed travel lanes (i.e. within the paved shoulder area).

It is understood that newly placed embankments will generally range from 5 m to 8 m in height. It is estimated that

the potential settlement of embankment fill up to 8 m in height could range between 50 mm and 75 mm, including

approximately 10 mm to 25 mm of settlement due to consolidation/compression of the underlying subgrade soils

and approximately 25 mm to 50 mm of settlement due to consolidation/compression of the embankment fills. It is

anticipated that the majority of settlement due to compression of the underlying subgrade soils will occur during

construction; however, settlement due to compression of the embankment fills could continue for an extended

period following construction.

8.1.3 Material Re-Use

The excavated materials originating from the site are expected to be generally either organic or granular in nature.

The organic soils are considered unacceptable for material re-use and should be stripped as recommended in

Section 8.1 and generally wasted or re-used in landscaped areas. It is understood, that no other Type D

excavation will originate from the site and the Project will need to import borrow materials in order to meet

material needs. All import borrow materials should meet/exceed Type D material specifications as per SS201.37.

8.2 Retaining Walls Previously, three retaining wall structures were required to accommodate the proposed site grading within the

geometrical constraints within the Project site. At the time of preparing this report, the number of required

retaining walls has been reduced to two (the soil nail/shotcrete retaining wall required to accommodate the third

westbound travel lane has been eliminated from the design). A discussion of the geotechnical aspects of the three

proposed retaining wall structures is presented in the following sections along with Golder’s geotechnical design

recommendations for each wall.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

17

8.2.1 Cast-In Place Nail Wall (10214R)

It is understood that a cast-in-place tie back (non-tensioned anchor/soil nail) retaining wall is proposed along the

west side of the existing Highway 1 eastbound on-ramp from Main Street to accommodate widening along this

route. The cast-in-place tie back wall is anticipated to be up to 6 m vertical height, 110 m long, and will be an

anchored/soil nailed cantilever-type design on spread footings. It is understood that the spread footings will be

approximately 3 m in width and stepped to meet grading requirements. The spread footings will be buried at least

1.0 m below the existing ground surface.

Based on our understanding of the proposed nailed cast-in-place retaining wall configuration, we provide the

following geotechnical recommendations for use in the design of the retaining wall system:

Ultimate Bearing Resistance – Ru: 350 kPa.

Ultimate Geotechnical Resistance Factor – φ: 0.5 (assumes a Typical degree of understanding).

Serviceability Bearing Resistance – Rs: 250 kPa (limited to 50 mm settlement).

Serviceability Geotechnical Resistance Factor – φ: 0.8 (assumes a Typical degree of understanding).

The recommended lateral loading configurations for the cast-in-place wall (assuming yielding walls) is illustrated

in Figure 10.

Golder has carried out a slope stability analysis to assess the tie-back requirements for the cantilever wall. A limit

equilibrium analysis was carried out to assess the overall global stability in the permanent static condition and a

pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis was carried out to assess the overall seismic condition for the existing

embankment slope conditions and the various wall heights. The analysis was carried out using the commercially

available slope stability analysis software package GeoStudio 2018 R1 by GeoSlope International Ltd. The slope

profiles analyzed and the stability analysis results, which were based on the currently available subsurface

information, are presented in Appendix G. The soil stratigraphy between test hole locations was based on our

interpretation of the geological conditions of the area and consequently, the actual field conditions may vary from

that used in our model and analyses.

The material properties tabulated below were assumed in the slope stability analysis:

Table 4: Slope Stability Analysis Material Properties (Retaining Wall 10214R).

Material Soil Model Friction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight

Existing Embankment Fill Mohr-Coulomb 34 0 20 kN/m3

New Structural Fill Mohr-Coulomb 36 0 21 kN/m3

Native Salish Sediments Mohr-Coulomb 34 0 19 kN/m3

Concrete High-Strength NA NA 25 kN/m3

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

18

For the seismic assessment, the seismic input parameters include a horizontal seismic coefficient of kh = 0.67 and

a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.24 g, (975 year return period event) for an overall seismic horizontal

acceleration of 0.16 g.

In consultation with AE’s structural engineers, a single row of tie-back anchors/soil nails horizontally spaced at

3.6 m (between Stn. 1+020 and Stn. 1+070) and 7.2 m (between Stn. 1+000 and Stn. 1+020 and Stn. 1+070 and

Stn. 1+110) and a minimum grouted hole diameter of 150 mm was assumed in the analysis. The overall wall

geometry was provided by AE. The analysis was carried out using an iterative approach to determine the effective

soil nail lengths/spacing required to maintain or exceed the existing overall Factors of Safety against slope

instability under both static conditions and seismic conditions.

The stability analysis was carried out on the assumption that the existing embankment meets current MoTI

stability requirements, and the approach to the retaining wall design was not to negatively impact the existing

stability and to try to achieve current BC MoTI Supplement stability requirements. The results of the stability

analysis which were carried out verify that the current nailed retaining wall design maintains, and slightly

increases, the calculated global stability where the retaining wall is proposed and achieves the minimum

calculated Factor of Safety of 1.59 required for retaining walls/embankments assuming a typical consequence

factor and typical degree of understanding.

A summary of the calculated Factors of Safety for the selected critical cross-sections is presented graphically in

Appendix H (Figure H1). The results demonstrate that the addition of soil nails to the cast-in-place retaining wall

generally increases the calculated Factors of Safety from the existing embankment condition in all cases. Based

the analysis results, the average calculated Factor of Safety from the static analysis exceeds 1.59 as required and

the average calculated Factory of Safety from the seismic analysis exceeds 1.1 as required.

Based on the results of the global stability assessments, we provide the following geotechnical recommendations

for design of Retaining Wall 10214R:

Minimum Nail Drill Hole Diameter: 150 mm

Minimum Nail Bonded Length: 25 m

Minimum Nail Un-Bonded Length: 5 m (required for verification testing)

Maximum Nail Factored Design Load: 510 kN (the minimum factored nail strength should exceed this value);

Angle of Nail Inclination (from horizontal): 20 degrees

The results of the soil corrosion tests carried out on samples obtained from BH19-03 and BH19-05 indicate that

the samples tested are considered non-aggressive to mildly aggressive for corrosion potential. In addition, since

the proposed soil nails will likely extend below the measured groundwater level (which may be brackish due to the

close proximity to Burrard inlet), it is recommended that the soil nails be provided with minimum Class 1 Corrosion

Protection (Post Tensioning Institute, PTI DC35.1-14) to meet the FHWA corrosion protection requirements. It is

understood, based on discussions with AE’s structural designers, that non-tensioned soil nails will be utilized for

tie-back purposes to facilitate the design and construction (incorporation of tensioned anchors would prove to be

difficult and expensive to achieve). Since non-tensioned soil nails will be utilized, some minor post-construction

wall movement should be anticipated as the working loads are transferred to the nails.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

19

The subsurface conditions at the proposed Retaining Wall 10214R location generally consist of compact to very

dense sand and gravel embankment fills. Based on the investigation results and previous field inspection reports

produced by others, some cobbles and/or boulders should be anticipated while excavating/drilling. Groundwater

was encountered at the retaining wall location and should be anticipated during drilling/installation of the lower

nails. As indicated above, the groundwater could be brackish due to the close proximity to the Burrard Inlet. The

contractor should be prepared to address such conditions during construction. It is considered likely that cased

drill holes will be required to install the soil nails while maintaining stability of the drill holes.

We recommend that consideration be given to providing a sub-drain at the base of the cast-in-place wall to

prevent accumulation of water pressure behind the wall. The backfill upslope of the wall should consist of clean,

free-draining Bridge End Fill that is hydraulically connected to the sub-drain.

Consistent with FHWA-IF-03-017 requirements and testing specifications, it is recommended that soil anchor/nail

proof and performance testing be carried out on production nails to confirm the geotechnical capacity of the nails

and to confirm that the contractor’s selected installation methodology is suitable for the actual soil and

groundwater conditions encountered.

It is recommended that the base of the wall be buried at least 1.0 m below the surrounding ground elevations

measured at the front of the footings to effectively key the wall into the slope and increase available bearing

resistance. Since areas of loose embankment fills should be anticipated on the outside of the embankment, we

recommend that provision be included to sub-excavate and replace at least 0.3 m of embankment fill beneath the

retaining wall footings. The sub-excavated embankment fill materials should be replaced with compacted Bridge

End Fill. Consideration can be given to deleting this 0.3 m sub-excavation requirement if the exposed subgrade

beneath the footings consists of compact to dense clean granular materials. This determination should be made in

consultation with the geotechnical Engineer of Record.

8.2.2 Cast-In-Place Retaining Wall (10245R)

It is understood that a cast-in-place retaining wall is proposed along the west side of the existing Highway 1

eastbound on-ramp from Phibbs Exchange to accommodate widening along this route and future upgrades to

Phibbs exchange. The cast-in-place wall is anticipated to be about 2 m in vertical height, 44 m in length, and will

be cantilever-type design on spread footings. It is understood that the spread footings will be approximately 1.5 m

in width. The cantilever wall is configured to retain a 2H:1V fill slope to about 3 m vertical height above the crest of

the wall resulting in a total retained wall height of up to about 5 m that will support the new Phibbs Exchange on-

ramp to Highway 1.

Based on our understanding of the proposed cast-in-place retaining wall configuration, we provide the following

geotechnical recommendations for use in the design of the retaining wall system:

Ultimate Bearing Resistance – Ru: 800 kPa.

Ultimate Geotechnical Resistance Factor – φ: 0.5 (assumes a Typical degree of understanding).

Serviceability Bearing Resistance – Rs: 400 kPa (limited to 50 mm settlement).

Serviceability Geotechnical Resistance Factor – φ: 0.8 (assumes a Typical degree of understanding).

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

20

The recommended lateral loading configurations for the cast-in-place wall (assuming yielding walls) is illustrated

in Figure 10.

We recommend that consideration be given to providing a sub-drain at the base of the cast-in-place wall to

prevent accumulation of water pressure behind the wall. The backfill immediately adjacent to (upslope of) the wall

should consist of clean, free-draining Bridge End Fill that is hydraulically connected to the sub-drain.

It is recommended that the base of the wall be buried at least 0.6 m below the permanent surrounding ground

elevations. Since areas of loose subgrade materials are anticipated below portions of the wall, we recommend

that provision be included to sub-excavate and replace at least 1.0 m of subgrade material beneath the retaining

wall footings. The sub-excavated embankment fill materials should be replaced with compacted Bridge End Fill.

Consideration can be given to reducing or deleting this 1.0 m sub-excavation requirement if the exposed

subgrade beneath the footings consists of compact to dense clean granular materials. This determination should

be made in consultation with the geotechnical Engineer of Record.

8.2.3 Shotcrete and Nail Wall at Dollarton On-Ramp Fly Over Structure (Removed from Project Scope)

Golder has carried out a slope stability analysis for the previously proposed shotcrete and nail wall that would

accommodate a new third Highway 1 westbound thru-lane under the existing eastbound Dollarton on-ramp flyover

structure. It is understood that this third westbound lane and retaining wall are not currently included in the Project

design, but this section of the report is provided to summarize the analysis that has been carried out to date.

This analysis was based on a wall configuration provided by AE that varied in height from about 3 m (with two

rows of soil nails) to 8 m (with 4 rows of soil nails). The analysis was carried out to assess the overall global

stability in the permanent static condition (limit equilibrium) and seismic condition (pseudo-static limit equilibrium)

for the various wall heights and various stages of construction, in accordance with Federal Highways

Administration (FHWA) design guidelines (FHWA-IF-03-017). The analysis was carried out using the

commercially available slope stability analysis software package GeoStudio 2018 R1 by GeoSlope International

Ltd. and available test hole information. The slope profiles analyzed and the stability analysis results, which were

based on the currently available subsurface information, are provided in Appendix H. As with the previous slope

stability analyses, the soil stratigraphy between test hole locations is based on our interpretation of the geological

conditions of the area and consequently, the actual field conditions may vary from that used in our model and

analyses.

The material properties tabulated below were assumed in the slope stability analysis:

Table 5: Slope Stability Analysis Material Properties (Shotcrete and Nail Wall).

Material Soil Model Friction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight

Existing Grade Fill Mohr-Coulomb 34 0 20 kN/m3

Native Salish Sediments Mohr-Coulomb 34 0 19 kN/m3

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

21

A soil nail spacing of 2.0 m in both vertical and horizontal directions and a minimum grouted hole diameter of

150 mm was assumed in the analysis. The analysis was carried out using an iterative approach to determine the

effective nail lengths required to maintain an overall Factor of Safety against slope instability of at least 1.5 under

static conditions and 1.1 under seismic conditions. The seismic input parameters include a horizontal seismic

coefficient of kh = 0.67 and a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.37 g, for an overall seismic horizontal

acceleration of 0.25 g. The results of the stability assessments for wall heights including two rows of soil nails and

four rows of soil nails (the critical design cases) are presented in Appendix H. The remainder of the various cases

(analyzed including construction staging) have not been included in the presentation of this report.

The analysis assumed that no loading would be imposed on the new retaining wall due to structural loading as the

existing structure is currently pile supported. The analysis assumed that the anchored zone for the soil nails would

be located upslope of (to the east) of the existing east abutment such that the soil nails would need to extend

through the piled zone beneath the existing abutment.

Based on the results of the global stability assessments, the following geotechnical recommendations for the

retaining wall were developed:

Minimum Nail Drill Hole Diameter: 150 mm

Minimum Nail Bonded Length: 5 m (Stn. 4+000 to Stn. 4+010 and Stn. 4+022 to Stn. 4+030) and 9 m (Stn.

4+010 to Stn. 4+022)

Maximum Nail Load: 105 kN (Stn. 4+000 to Stn. 4+010 and Stn. 4+022 to Stn. 4+030) and 190 kN (Stn.

4+010 to Stn. 4+022)

Angle of Nail Inclination (from horizontal): 20 degrees

The analysis indicated that the maximum nail loading identified above could occur during construction and, as

such, the temporary shotcrete facing would need to be designed to withstand these loads. Some minor post

construction wall movement would be anticipated as the working loads are transferred to the nails.

As previously mentioned, the results of the soil aggressivity testing at this location were not available at the time

of preparing this report; as such, we recommend that the soils at this site be assumed to have strong corrosion

potential by FHWA standards (FHWA-CFL/TD-10-002, FHWA-NHI-09-087) such that soil nails at this location

would likely require minimum Class 1 Corrosion Protection (Post Tensioning Institute, PTI DC35.1-14) to meet

FHWA requirements. It is understood, based on discussions with AE’s structural designers, that non-tensioned

soil nails would be utilized for anchorage purposes.

The subsurface conditions at the proposed soil nail wall location generally consist of compact to very dense sand

and gravel fills; however, some cobbles and/or boulders may be encountered while excavating/drilling.

Groundwater was observed at depth at the retaining wall location and may be encountered during

drilling/installation of the lower/longer nails. The contractor should be prepared to address such conditions during

construction.

We recommend that consideration be given to providing a geo-composite drainage board behind the wall, with

provision to allow drainage, to prevent accumulation of pore water pressure behind the wall. The drainage board

should extend continuously from the top to the bottom of the soil nail wall and should be hydraulically connected

to a permanent drainage system. As a minimum, continuous drainage board should be provided between every

vertical row of soil nails, for a maximum 2.0 m spacing.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

22

Consistent with FHWA-IF-03-017 requirements and testing specifications, it is recommended that soil nail proof

and performance testing be carried out on production anchors to confirm the geotechnical capacity of the soil nails

and to confirm that the contractor’s selected installation methodology is suitable for the actual soil and

groundwater conditions encountered.

8.3 Overpass Foundations The new eastbound on-ramp from Dollarton Highway to Highway 1 overpass foundations are anticipated to

consist of deep piles extending into the dense Salish channel fill deposits that underlie the site. Based on the

preliminary geotechnical investigation results, the piles would not likely extend beyond the depth of the Salish

channel fill deposits (which were observed to be greater than 50 m depth) to the glacially consolidated till-like

deposits or bedrock, which has been the target stratum for other nearby projects; however, this would ultimately

depend on the required pile capacities and performance. A relatively extensive dense bearing stratum was

encountered at about 20 m to 22 m depth below the existing ground surface at boreholes BPT/SH18-01 (near

north Pier/Abutment location) and BH19-01 (near south Pier/Abutment location).

Golder has carried out a detailed assessment of axial pile resistance under static and seismic (liquefaction)

conditions using the geotechnical borehole information obtained near the north Pier/Abutment and south

Pier/Abutment locations. The assessment was carried out for 610 mm diameter steel pipe piles with a wall

thickness of 15.9 mm assuming that these piles will be driven up to 40 m depth below the existing ground surface

to allow for selection of the appropriate pile tip elevation (installation depth of the pile) based on the axial

resistance requirements. Further, we have assumed that these piles will conform to ASTM A252 Grade 3 steel

and will be driven open-ended with a flush outside driving shoe conforming to APF O-14001 or approved

equivalent. The axial pile resistance with depth was calculated using the standard geotechnical software package

APile (v.2018.8.5) from Ensoft. The calculated unfactored axial resistances under static conditions is presented in

Figure 11.

Based on the geotechnical resistance factors identified in the CHBDC S6-14 and the BC Supplement to CHBDC

S6-14, for a high degree of understanding (fully instrumented Becker Density Test at borehole BPT/SH18-01 and

Standard Penetration Test at borehole BH19-01) and a typical consequence factor, it is recommended that a

minimum geotechnical resistance factor of 0.45 be applied to the above calculated axial compressive resistance

and a minimum geotechnical resistance factor of 0.40 be applied to the above calculated axial tension resistance.

It may be possible to increase the geotechnical resistance factor if field verification of the ultimate axial resistance

achieved can be demonstrated by dynamic loading testing using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) during

construction; however, the higher geotechnical resistance factors cannot be used during design without a test

piling program as per BC Supplement to CHBDC S6-14.

It should be recognized that a reduction in pile resistance under seismic conditions will likely result due to

predicted liquefaction of the natural soil between about 6.0 m and 13.5 m depth at north Pier/Abutment and

between about 12.0 m and 16.0 m depth at south Pier/Abutment identified in the detailed liquefaction assessment

in Section 7.3 above. The available axial resistance during and following the design seismic event will be

dependent on the installation depth of the pile and will need to be determined once the pile depth is confirmed;

however, we have provided similar plots to Figure 11 illustrating the axial pile resistances assuming full

liquefaction and loss of strength of the soil between 0 and 13.5 m depth for north Pier/Abutment and between

0 and 16.0 m depth for south Pier/Abutment. There would be no resistance in compression provided by the

surficial 6.0 m thick fill layer for north Pier/Abutment and 12.0 m for south Pier/Abutment during/immediately

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

23

following a liquefaction event as these layers are expected to settle and introduce downdrag onto the pile(s),

resulting in reduced compression resistance; the capacity would be expected to increase again as the pore

pressures dissipate, but significant pile deformation would be expected in the interim. Figure 12 and Figure 13

show the calculated unfactored axial pile resistance for open-ended steel pipe piles during/following a liquefaction

event at the north Pier/Abutment and south Pier/Abutment, respectively.

Based on the geotechnical resistance factors identified in Section 4.6.3.1 of the BC Supplement to CHBDC S6-14

for Performance Based Design (Major Route Structure, Extensive Damage) it is recommended that a resistance

factor of 0.7 (0.45 static factor plus 0.25 seismic factor) be applied to the above calculated axial compressive and

tension resistance under seismic conditions.

As mentioned, it is expected that the surficial 6 m and 12 m thickness fill layers at the north Pier/Abutment and

south Pier/Abutment, respectively, will induce downdrag forces on the pile(s) during and immediately following

liquefaction occurrence. As such, the structural capacity of the pile(s) will need to take into account potential

downdrag forces, and the temporary effect on pile resistance. For 610 x 15.9 mm pile size, the downdrag forces

are estimated to average approximately 160 kN for the top 6 m of the north Pier/Abutment pile(s) and 600 kN for

the top 12 m of the south Pier/Abutment pile(s) measured from the existing ground elevation at Main Street

(approximately elev. 3.5 m).

Due to the presence of cobbles and possible boulders within the near-surface fills and Salish deposits, it should

be noted that the steel pipe piles may encounter harder driving and/or refusal prior to reaching their target depth.

As such, it is recommended that there should be provision in the contract for cleaning the soils inside the piles

and clearing any obstructions (including wood, cobbles and boulders) to facilitate advancement of the piles to the

target depth without damaging the piles. In some cases, pile driving with PDA monitoring can be considered to

confirm pile driving activities do not overstress the pile.

8.3.1 Soil Springs (P-Y Curves)

Soil response for laterally loaded piles can be modeled using non-linear “p-y” curves. The “p-y” curves are

dependent on various parameters, including pile size and depth. The “p-y” curves for the proposed 610 x 15.9 mm

steel pipe piles have been developed using API guidelines at regular 1 m depth intervals between the existing

ground surface (elevation 0 m) to 40 m below the existing ground surface and are presented in Figure 14 for north

Pier/Abutment (based on the boreholes BPT/SH18-01) and Figure 15 for south Pier/Abutment (based on and

SH19-01). The data presented on these figures is tabulated and appended (due to size) following the text of this

report in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively.

It should be noted that these “p-y” curves are dependent on the size of the piles and depth. Modifications would

be required if the pile size is different than assumed. The “p-y” curves between depths given can be linearly

interpolated.

8.3.2 P-Multipliers for Liquefied Soils

Scaling factors (p- multipliers) can be considered to simulate the influence of liquefaction on the static p-y curves.

The p-multipliers for north Pier/Abutment and south Pier/Abutment based on the boreholes BPT/SH18-01 and

SH19-01 are presented in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

24

These p-multipliers can be directly applied to the static p-y curves presented in Figure 14 and Figure 15 at the

depth of potentially liquefiable soils (about 6.0 m to 14.0 m depth at north Pier/Abutment and about 12.0 m to

16.0 m depth at south Pier/Abutment) to simulate the influence of liquefaction.

Table 8: P-Multipliers for Liquefied Soil at North Abutment Location Based on BPT/SH18-01

Depth below the existing ground level (m) p- multipliers

6.0 to 7.0 0.10

8.0 to 9.0 0.20

10.0 to 14.0 0.15

Table 9: P-Multipliers for Liquefied Soil at South Abutment Location Based on BH19-01

Depth below the existing ground level (m) p- multipliers

12.0 to 16.0 0.15

8.4 Pavement Structure Design Considerations 8.4.1 Existing Pavement Condition Assessment

A visual review of existing pavement condition for the Project site was conducted on 04 April 2019. The visual

condition of pavements is summarized as following:

Table 10: Existing Pavement Condition Assessment

Road Segment Pavement Condition Notes

Highway 1 Eastbound and Westbound

Fatigue cracking of asphalt pavement along wheel paths was visible at numerous locations. At one spot loss of significant material leading to a small pothole was visible. In addition, longitudinal and transverse cracks at random locations were visible.

Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway

The existing pavement condition was observed to be generally fair except minor localized rutting and cracking of pavement along inner wheel path.

Highway 1 WB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway

The existing pavement exhibited longitudinal and transverse cracks at numerous locations in addition to fatigue cracks along wheel paths, some of which have formed into alligator cracked shapes.

Highway 1 EB Off-Ramp to Main Street

The existing pavement exhibited longitudinal, transverse and random shape cracks at numerous locations.

Highway 1 WB Off-Ramp to Main Street

The existing pavement exhibited transverse cracking at irregular short intervals as well as longitudinal cracks at certain locations.

Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Main Street

The pavement exhibits longitudinal and transverse cracks at certain locations.

Main Street and Dollarton Highway

The pavement is in a poor condition exhibiting longitudinal and transverse cracking at numerous locations including loss of surficial material and formation of a pothole.

Selected photographs showing pavement distress are included in Appendix I.

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

25

The existing pavements were observed to be in deteriorated condition to a varying degree which is indicative of pavement structure deficiency or age-related wear of surficial asphalt. Based on the visual review, the existing pavements likely require upgrading or rehabilitation in the short-term. However, it would be preferable that the existing pavement life is also extended to 20 years in tandem with the new construction to offer consistent performance across the road cross section(s). Further investigation such as pavement deflection testing and asphalt coring would be required to prepare detailed pavement upgrading/rehabilitation strategies for the existing asphalt.

It is understood that rehabilitation of the existing pavements through the Project site is not being considered at this time. However, it should be noted that, based on our experience conducting the geotechnical field investigation, it may be extremely difficult to obtain the necessary permits and permissions to conduct the detailed testing, investigation and sampling that would be required to properly assess the required rehabilitation strategies.

8.4.2 Traffic Loading and Pavement Design

Pavement design for the new widened areas and highway lanes was carried out consistent with the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements as well as the current MoTI Pavement Structure Design Guidelines (Technical Circular T-01/15, pavement structures Type A and B). The analysis was completed for a 20-year (2021 to 2041) design period using the resilient modulus of subgrade soils, as estimated from the site investigation results and the traffic data provided by AE. The information provided by AE for use in the analysis included:

Total traffic volumes for various segments of Highway 1 and adjoining road segments

A growth rate of 0.45% for Highway 1 eastbound traffic

A growth rate of 0.65% for all other road segments (such as westbound lanes, ramps, etc.)

Truck traffic as 7% of total traffic (from the Business Case Report, as requested by AE)

For analysis purposes, a uniform truck factor of 2.5 equivalent single-axel loads (ESALs) was assumed for heavy vehicular traffic. Based on the lane configurations at various locations and traffic flow, the computed 20-year design lane for various roads is shown in Table 11.

Table 11: 20-Year Pavement Structure Design.

Road Segment Line No. of Lanes

Direction Factor

Lane Factor

2021 AADT

2021 Design Lane AADT

Annual Growth Rate (%)

20-Year Design Lane Traffic (106 ESALs)

Highway 1 Westbound 100 3 1 0.7 42,320 29,624 0.65 40.6

Highway 1 Eastbound 100 2 1 0.8 34,330 27,464 0.45 36.9

Highway 1 EB Off-Ramp to Main Street

50 1 1 1 3,330 3,330 0.45 4.5


10 1 1 1 3,900 3,900 0.65 5.3


25 1 1 1 5,710 5,710 0.65 7.8


60 2 1 0.5 8,660 4,330 0.65 5.9

Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Phibbs Exchange

0 1 1 1 150 150 0.65 2.9

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

26

Road Segment Line No. of Lanes

Direction Factor

Lane Factor

2021 AADT

2021 Design Lane AADT

Annual Growth Rate (%)

20-Year Design Lane Traffic (106 ESALs)

Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Main Street

70 2 1 0.5 15,790 7,895 0.65 10.8

Highway 1 New Eastbound Curb Lane (New Overpass Lane)

70 1 1 1 23,643 23,643 0.65 32.4

Main Street & Dollarton Highway

0 4 0.5 0.8 24,610 9,844 0.65 13.5

8.4.3 Pavement Structure Recommendations

The following pavement design criteria for flexible pavements have been utilized for the pavement structure design within the new paved areas for the Project:

20 Year Analysis Period

90% Reliability

0.45 Standard Deviation

Initial Serviceability Index (pi) = 4.2

Terminal Serviceability Index (pt) = 2.5

A subgrade resilient modulus of 60 MPa was assumed in the analysis representing well compacted granular fill subgrade conditions.

Based on the above criteria, the following sections present the recommended pavement structure for the various road segments within the Project.

Table 12: Pavement Structure Recommendations for Various Road Segments

Road Segment Structural Number Required

Pavement Thickness (mm)

Asphaltic Concrete

Granular Base

Granular Sub-Base

Highway 1 Westbound 145.82 200 300 325

Highway 1 Eastbound 143.96 200 300 325

Highway 1 EB Off-Ramp to Main Street 115.46 130 300 300




Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Phibbs Exchange

Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Main Street 121.80 145 300 300

Highway 1 New Eastbound Curb Lane (New Overpass Lane) 141.45 195 300 300

Main Street & Dollarton Highway 125.13 155 300 300

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

27

It is recommended that the granular base courses and subbase be compacted to not less than 100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) and the material conform to SS 202 of the current edition of BC MoTI Standard Specifications. The asphaltic concrete recommended is 16 mm Class 1 Medium mix or 12.5 mm NMS Superpave underlain by 19 mm NMS Superpave asphalt mix pavement in accordance with SS 502. Prior to installation of subbase course, the prepared subgrade should be reviewed and approved by a geotechnical engineer for its suitability.

8.4.4 Pavement Joints and Transitions

The recommended pavement joint configuration for areas where new pavement structure directly adjoins existing pavement structure is presented on Figure 16.

Special consideration may be required at transition areas between the existing highway and local road networks and the new lane configurations, such that some asphalt overlay and levelling course of the existing asphalt pavement may be required.

Where asphaltic overlay or levelling course is required, it is recommended that the levelling course consist of 16 mm Class 1 Medium mix or 12.5 mm NMS Superpave mix. Levelling course should be constructed in lifts with individual lift thickness in the range of 50 mm to 75 mm or otherwise approved by MoTI or the Engineer of Record.

At the transition locations where no overlay or levelling course over existing pavement is necessary, provision of a butt joint is recommended. To provide a butt joint, approximately 300 mm width of existing pavement should be milled to a depth of 50 mm and repaved along with the adjacent pavement.

8.5 Geotextile Separator It is understood that a general purpose geotextile separator will be required to separate coarser grained erosion protection (riprap) materials, drain rock and the like. The recommended geotextile specifications for use as separation layers between fine grained soils and coarse grained soils should be non-woven and needle-punched with properties that meet or exceed the following minimum average roll values:

Table 13: Minimum Geotextile Specifications

Drainrock, Riprap Less than 50kg

Grab Tensile Strength: (ASTM D4632); 0.71 kN

Grab Tensile Elongation: (ASTM D4632); 50 %

CBR Puncture Strength: (ASTM D6241); 1.82 kN

UV Resistance: (ASTM D4355); 70 % @ 500 hrs

Trapezoidal Tear: (ASTM D4533); 0.267 kN

Apparent Opening Size: (ASTM D 4751); 0.212 mm

Permittivity: 1.5 sec-1 (ASTM 4491); and 1.3 sec-1

Water Flow Rate: 4480 l/min/m2 (ASTM D4491). 4482 l/min/m2

The selected geotextile should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

e recommended overlap for the geotextile is dependent on the application, but it is typically 0.5 m.

Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Highway Interchange ProjectProject No.: 18106808Client: Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.

y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m) y(m) p (kN/m)0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.0 0.00000 0.00.00108 24.0 0.00090 40.0 0.00108 93.8 0.00124 179.7 0.00141 307.0 0.00228 308.5 0.00232 388.5 0.00237 479.3 0.00242 581.7 0.00236 665.50.00216 46.3 0.00179 77.0 0.00216 180.9 0.00249 346.4 0.00281 591.8 0.00456 594.6 0.00464 748.8 0.00473 923.9 0.00484 1121.3 0.00473 1282.80.00324 65.6 0.00269 109.1 0.00323 256.2 0.00373 490.5 0.00422 838.1 0.00684 842.0 0.00696 1060.4 0.00710 1308.4 0.00726 1588.0 0.00709 1816.70.00432 81.3 0.00359 135.1 0.00431 317.4 0.00497 607.8 0.00563 1038.6 0.00912 1043.5 0.00928 1314.1 0.00947 1621.4 0.00968 1967.9 0.00946 2251.30.00539 93.5 0.00448 155.3 0.00539 364.9 0.00622 698.7 0.00703 1193.8 0.01140 1199.4 0.01160 1510.5 0.01183 1863.8 0.01209 2262.0 0.01182 2587.80.00647 102.5 0.00538 170.4 0.00647 400.2 0.00746 766.4 0.00844 1309.4 0.01368 1315.6 0.01392 1656.9 0.01420 2044.3 0.01451 2481.2 0.01419 2838.50.00755 109.1 0.00628 181.3 0.00755 425.8 0.00870 815.4 0.00985 1393.1 0.01596 1399.7 0.01624 1762.8 0.01657 2175.0 0.01693 2639.8 0.01655 3019.90.00863 113.7 0.00717 189.0 0.00862 443.9 0.00995 850.1 0.01126 1452.5 0.01824 1459.3 0.01856 1837.8 0.01893 2267.6 0.01935 2752.2 0.01892 3148.50.00971 117.0 0.00807 194.4 0.00970 456.6 0.01119 874.3 0.01266 1493.9 0.02052 1500.9 0.02088 1890.2 0.02130 2332.2 0.02177 2830.6 0.02128 3238.20.01079 119.2 0.00897 198.1 0.01078 465.3 0.01243 891.1 0.01407 1522.5 0.02280 1529.6 0.02320 1926.4 0.02367 2376.9 0.02419 2884.8 0.02364 3300.20.01187 120.7 0.00986 200.7 0.01186 471.3 0.01367 902.6 0.01548 1542.1 0.02508 1549.4 0.02551 1951.2 0.02603 2407.5 0.02661 2922.0 0.02601 3342.70.01295 121.8 0.01076 202.4 0.01294 475.4 0.01492 910.4 0.01688 1555.5 0.02736 1562.8 0.02783 1968.1 0.02840 2428.4 0.02903 2947.3 0.02837 3371.80.01403 122.5 0.01166 203.6 0.01401 478.2 0.01616 915.7 0.01829 1564.6 0.02964 1571.9 0.03015 1979.6 0.03077 2442.6 0.03144 2964.6 0.03074 3391.50.01510 123.0 0.01255 204.4 0.01509 480.1 0.01740 919.3 0.01970 1570.7 0.03192 1578.2 0.03247 1987.5 0.03313 2452.2 0.03386 2976.3 0.03310 3404.90.01618 123.3 0.01345 204.9 0.01617 481.4 0.01865 921.8 0.02110 1574.9 0.03420 1582.4 0.03479 1992.8 0.03550 2458.8 0.03628 2984.2 0.03547 3414.00.01726 123.5 0.01435 205.3 0.01725 482.2 0.01989 923.4 0.02251 1577.8 0.03648 1585.2 0.03711 1996.3 0.03787 2463.2 0.03870 2989.6 0.03783 3420.1


11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0

Table 6: p-y Curves for 610x15.9 mm Steel Pipe Pile based on Borehole BPT/SH18-01

Depth Below Pile Head (m)1.0

Depth Below Pile Head (m)

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Golder Associates Ltd.


Table 6: p-y Curves for 610x15.9 mm Steel Pipe Pile based on Borehole BPT/SH18-01



Depth Below Pile Head (m)21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0






11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0

Table 7: p-y Curves for 610x15.9 mm Steel Pipe Pile based on Borehole BH19-01

Depth Below Pile Head (m)1.0

Depth Below Pile Head (m)

2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0



Table 7: p-y Curves for 610x15.9 mm Steel Pipe Pile based on Borehole BH19-01






SEYMO

UR

BLVD.

OXFORDSTREET

EB OFF-R

AMP

TO H

OPE

MAIN STREET

MO

UN

TAIN H

WY

WB ON-RAM

P

MAIN STREETON-RAMP

WB ON-RAMP

MAINSTREET

TRANS CANADA HIGHW

AY 1

WB ON-RAMP

EB FLYOVERON-RAMP

EB OFF-RAM

P

WB LOOP RAMP

WB LO

OP R

AMP

TRANSIT ACCESS

OR

WELL

STREET

MO

UN

TAIN H

WY

DOLLARTONHIGHWAY

LIMIT

OF

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

NP

.O.C

. 101+374.000

TIE

TO

EX

IST

ING

N 5461202.659

E 498061.916

LIMIT

OF

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

NP

.O.T

. 50+408.224

TIE

INT

O P

HIB

BS

EX

CH

AN

GE

IMP

RO

VE

ME

NT

S(B

Y O

TH

ER

S)

N 5461531.858

E 497897.484

LIMIT

OF

PA

VIN

GP

.O.S

. 70+157.185T

IE T

O E

XIS

TIN

GN

5461318.297E

497825.194

LIMIT

OF

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

P.O

.T. 90+648.113

TIE

TO

EX

IST

ING

N 5461373.778

E 498260.764

LIMIT O

F CO

NS

TRU

CTIO

N

P.O

.T. 90+050.000

TIE TO

EX

ISTIN

G

N 5461382.009

E 497672.774

BIKE PATH

MAIN STREET

RAILWAY

RAILWAY

AH19-10AH19-11

AH19-14AH19-19

AH19-20

BH19-01

BH19-03

BH19-04

BH19-05

AH19-09

N 5 461 500 N 5 461 500

E 4

98 0

00E

498

000

N 5 461 250 N 5 461 250

E 4

97 7

50E

497

750

E 4

97 5

00E

497

500

E 4

98 2

50E

498

250

BPT/SH18-01

AUGER HOLE LOCATION (GOLDER, 2019)

LEGEND

REFERENCE(S)BASE PLAN OBTAINED FROM CLIENT. FILE NAME: ACAD-GEOMLANE-12627-2019-20190322.DWGDATE RECEIVED: MARCH 25, 2019.DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: ZONE 10.

0

1:2,500

50 100

METRES

BOREHOLE LOCATION (GOLDER, 2019)

KEY PLANSCALE: NTS

PROJECT LOCATION

BPT AND SONIC HOLE LOCATION (GOLDER, 2018)

025

mm

18106808PHASE3200

FIGURE

10

2019-08-07

A. WONG

J. BRUNSWICK

P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL

HIGHWAY 1 - DOLLARTON HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, B.C.

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (BC) LTD

SITE PLAN AND KEY PLAN TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\A

ssoc

iate

d En

gine

erin

g\D

olla

rton_

Inte

rcha

nge\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

8106

808\

3200

\100

0\02

_PR

OD

UC

TIO

N\D

WG

\ |

File

Nam

e: 1

8106

808-

3200

-100

0-00

1.dw

g |

Las

t Edi

ted

By: a

nwon

g D

ate:

201

9-04

-12

Tim

e:11

:00:

53 A

M |

Prin

ted

By: A

NW

ong

Dat

e: 2

019-

08-0

1 T

ime:

9:22

:08

AM

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

NOTE(S)1. TEST HOLE ELEVATIONS OBTAINED FROM CLIENT, AND ARE IN GEODETIC DATUM.2. TEST HOLE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE BASED ON GPS.

EB OFF-RAMP

TO HOPE

WB ON-RAMP

TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 1

TRANS CANADAHIGHWAY 1

TO SQUAMISH

WB ON-RAMP

EB F

LYO

VER

ON

-RAM

P

EB OFF-RAMP

WB LO

OP RAM

P

TRANSIT ACCESS

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.2

3.3

3.6

3.3

4.2

2.3

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.0

3.4

3.6

3.2

3.5

LIM

IT O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

P.O

.T. 1

00+6

70.0

00T

IE T

O E

XIS

TIN

GN

546

1890

.703

E

4979

77.0

88

LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTIONP.O.C. 101+374.000TIE TO EXISTING

N 5461202.659E 498061.916

BIKE

PAT

H

100+600

100+700

100+800

100+900

101+000

101+100

101+200

101+300

101+400 101+500

90+4

0090

+500

AH19-09

AH19-10

AH19-19

AH19-20

BH19-01

BH19-03

BH19-04BH19-05

BPT/SH18-01

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

) - G

EOD

ETIC

DAT

UM

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

) - G

EOD

ETIC

DAT

UM

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

100+650 100+700 100+800 100+900 101+000 101+100 101+200 101+300 101+400 101+450

AH19-19o/s -24.38

SM4

SM1

AH19-20o/s -136.21

SM4SP-SM

SM1

SM2

BH19-01o/s 17.17

AS

SM1/SM2

GM2

SP-SM

SP-SM/GP-GM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

SP-SM

SM1

BH19-03o/s 14.32

AS

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

GW/SW

BH19-04o/s 11.69

AS

GP-GM

BH19-05o/s -26.65

AS

GW-GM/SW-SM

AH19-09o/s 34.41

SM4SM1SP-SM

SM2

BPT/SH18-01o/s 23.07

ML

GP-GM

SP-SM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

SP-SM

SM

Blows0 40 80 120160200

AH19-10o/s 49.56

MLSM3

SM2

N-v

alue

11

75

28

134

23

43

29

19

13

17

46

28

36

35

>50

51

29

81

40

51

31

55

47

46

44

62

25

21

N-v

alue

28

>50

31

20

>50

54

0

N-v

alue

55

22

86

>50

21

N-v

alue

37

7

66

EXISTING MAIN STREETOVERPASS

MA

TC

H E

XIS

TIN

G

LIM

IT O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

ST

A 1

01+

374.

000

ELE

V 1

5.65

2M

AT

CH

EX

IST

ING

LIM

IT O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

ST

A. 1

00+

700.

000

ELE

V 8

.456

EXISTING GROUNDFINISHED GRADE

025

mm

18106808PHASE3200

FIGURE

20

2019-08-07

A. WONG

J. BRUNSWICK

P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL



PLAN AND PROFILE - HIGHWAY 1 TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\A

ssoc

iate

d En

gine

erin

g\D

olla

rton_

Inte

rcha

nge\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

8106

808\

3200

\100

0\02

_PR

OD

UC

TIO

N\D

WG

\ |

File

Nam

e: 1

8106

808-

3200

-100

0-00

2.dw

g |

Las

t Edi

ted

By: a

nwon

g D

ate:

201

9-04

-12

Tim

e:12

:28:

23 P

M |

Prin

ted

By: A

NW

ong

Dat

e: 2

019-

08-0

1 T

ime:

9:23

:59

AM

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

PLANSCALE 1:1,250m

PROFILESCALE 1:1,250m

1:1,250

50 1000

METRES

LEGEND

REFERENCE(S)BASE PLAN AND PROFILE OBTAINED FROM CLIENT.FILE NAME: ACAD-GEOMLANE-12627-2019-20190322.DWG

R1-931-201_209_20190327.DWGDATE RECEIVED: MARCH 25, 2019.DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: ZONE 10.

WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESSILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURESCLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAYMIXTURESWELL-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,< 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLYSANDS, < 5% FINESSILTY SANDSSAND-SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY SANDSSAND-CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDSOR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDYCLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYSOF LOW PLASTICITYINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOM-ACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,PLASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS, ETC.

ROCK FRAGMENTS AND COBBLES, PARTICLESIZE 75mm TO 300mm

BEDROCK

GM1;

GM2;

GM3;

GM4;

GC1;

GC2;

GC3;

GC4;

SM1;

SM2;

SM3;

SM4;

SC1;

SC2;

SC3;

SC4;

PASSING .075mm SIEVE

*

GWGP

GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PtTSSB

BR

ORGANICSOILS

TOPSOIL

COBBLES

BEDROCK

MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE

MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION LEGEND

FIN

E G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

CO

ARSE

GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

S

SILT

S AN

DC

LAYS

w >

50SI

LTS

AND

CLA

YS w

<50

SAN

D A

ND

SAN

DY

SOIL

SG

RAV

EL A

ND

GR

AVEL

LY S

OIL

S

12 - 20%

20 - 30%

30 - 40%

40 - 50%

FOR SOILS HAVING 5 - 12% PASSING .075 SIEVE, USE DUAL SYMBOL

LB BOULDERS, PARTICLE SIZE OVER 300mmLARGEBOULDERS

LL

MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE MAJOR

DIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE







BEDROCK

GM1;

GM2;

GM3;

GM4;

GC1;

GC2;

GC3;

GC4;

SM1;

SM2;

SM3;

SM4;

SC1;

SC2;

SC3;

SC4;


*

GWGP

GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PtTSSB

BR

ORGANICSOILS

TOPSOIL

COBBLES

BEDROCK



FIN

E G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

CO

ARSE

GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

S

SILT

S AN

DC

LAYS

w >

50SI

LTS

AND

CLA

YS w

<50

SAN

D A

ND

SAN

DY

SOIL

SG

RAV

EL A

ND

GR

AVEL

LY S

OIL

S

12 - 20%

20 - 30%

30 - 40%

40 - 50%



LL



5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION




SEYMO

UR

BLVD.

OXFORDSTREET

MAIN STREET

MO

UN

TAIN H

WY

MAIN STREETON-RAMP

WB ON-RAMP

MAINSTREET

TRANS CANADA HIGHW

AY 1

WB LOOP RAMP

WB LO

OP R

AMP

TRANSIT ACCESS

3.13.53.53.0

2.5

MO

UN

TAIN H

WY

DOLLARTONHIGHWAY

LIMIT

OF

PA

VIN

GP

.O.S

. 70+157.185T

IE T

O E

XIS

TIN

GN

5461318.297E

497825.194

LIMIT

OF

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

P.O

.T. 90+648.113

TIE

TO

EX

IST

ING

N 5461373.778

E 498260.764

LIMIT O

F CO

NS

TRU

CTIO

N

P.O

.T. 90+050.000

TIE TO

EX

ISTIN

G

N 5461382.009

E 497672.774

BIKE PATH

MAIN STREET

101+

100

101+200

90+000

90+100

90+20090+300

90+400

90+500

90+60090+700

90+748

AH19-09

AH19-10AH19-11

AH19-14AH19-19

AH19-20

BH19-01

BPT/SH18-01

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

) - G

EOD

ETIC

DAT

UM

ELEV

ATIO

N (m

) - G

EOD

ETIC

DAT

UM

AL - MAIN ST AND DOLLARTON HWY

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

90+000 90+100 90+200 90+300 90+400 90+500 90+600 90+700

AH19-10o/s 14.20

MLSM3

SM2

AH19-11o/s 7.03

ML

SM2/SM3

SM1

SM2/SM3

AH19-14o/s -66.15

SM4

SM1/GM1

SM2

BH19-01o/s 13.71

AS

SM1/SM2

GM2

SP-SM

SP-SM/GP-GM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

SP-SM

SM1

BPT/SH18-01o/s -18.60

ML

GP-GM

SP-SM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

GP-GM

SP-SM

SP-SM

SM

AH19-09o/s -67.39

SM4SM1SP-SM

SM2

AH19-19o/s -91.34

SM4

SM1

AH19-20o/s -115.53

SM4SP-SM

SM1

SM2

N-v

alue

11

75

28

134

23

43

29

19

13

17

46

28

36

35

>50

51

29

81

40

51

31

55

47

46

44

62

25

21

Blows0 40 80 120160200

30 LINE (SEYMOUR BLVD.)90 LINE STA. 90+547.660 =30 LINE STA. 30+100.000ELEV. 4.087 m

60 LINE (HWY 1 WB LOOP RAMP)90 LINE STA. 90+533.356 =60 LINE STA. 60+511.675ELEV. 4.088 m

MAIN STREETDOLLARTONHIGHWAY

LIM

IT O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

ST

A 9

0+64

8.11

3E

LEV

4.4

61M

AT

CH

EX

IST

ING

LIM

IT O

F C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

ST

A 9

0+05

0.00

0E

LEV

6.1

36M

AT

CH

EX

IST

ING

EXISTING GROUND FINISHED GRADE

025

mm

18106808PHASE3200

FIGURE

30

2019-08-07

A. WONG

J. BRUNSWICK

P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL



PLAN AND PROFILE - MAIN STREET / DOLLARTON HIGHWAY TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\A

ssoc

iate

d En

gine

erin

g\D

olla

rton_

Inte

rcha

nge\

99_P

RO

JEC

TS\1

8106

808\

3200

\100

0\02

_PR

OD

UC

TIO

N\D

WG

\ |

File

Nam

e: 1

8106

808-

3200

-100

0-00

3.dw

g |

Las

t Edi

ted

By: a

nwon

g D

ate:

201

9-04

-12

Tim

e:11

:00:

42 A

M |

Prin

ted

By: A

NW

ong

Dat

e: 2

019-

08-0

1 T

ime:

9:25

:40

AM

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

D

PLANSCALE 1:1,250m

PROFILESCALE 1:1,250m

1:1,250

50 1000

METRES

LEGEND

REFERENCE(S)BASE PLAN AND PROFILE OBTAINED FROM CLIENT.FILE NAME: ACAD-GEOMLANE-12627-2019-20190322.DWG

R1-931-201_209_20190327.DWGDATE RECEIVED: MARCH 25, 2019.DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: ZONE 10.










BEDROCK

GM1;

GM2;

GM3;

GM4;

GC1;

GC2;

GC3;

GC4;

SM1;

SM2;

SM3;

SM4;

SC1;

SC2;

SC3;

SC4;


*

GWGP

GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PtTSSB

BR

ORGANICSOILS

TOPSOIL

COBBLES

BEDROCK



FIN

E G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

CO

ARSE

GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

S

SILT

S AN

DC

LAYS

w >

50SI

LTS

AND

CLA

YS w

<50

SAN

D A

ND

SAN

DY

SOIL

SG

RAV

EL A

ND

GR

AVEL

LY S

OIL

S

12 - 20%

20 - 30%

30 - 40%

40 - 50%



LL









BEDROCK

GM1;

GM2;

GM3;

GM4;

GC1;

GC2;

GC3;

GC4;

SM1;

SM2;

SM3;

SM4;

SC1;

SC2;

SC3;

SC4;


*

GWGP

GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PtTSSB

BR

ORGANICSOILS

TOPSOIL

COBBLES

BEDROCK



FIN

E G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

CO

ARSE

GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

S

SILT

S AN

DC

LAYS

w >

50SI

LTS

AND

CLA

YS w

<50

SAN

D A

ND

SAN

DY

SOIL

SG

RAV

EL A

ND

GR

AVEL

LY S

OIL

S

12 - 20%

20 - 30%

30 - 40%

40 - 50%



LL



5X VERTICAL EXAGGERATION

AutoCAD SHX Text

30 LINE (SEYMOUR BLVD.)

AutoCAD SHX Text

60 LINE (HWY 1 WB LOOP RAMP)

FIGURE

CONSULTANT TITLEYYYY-MM-DD 2019-08-07

PREPARED J.BRUNSWICK

DESIGN

REVIEW Rev0

PROJECT No18106808

Phase3200APPROVEDPa

th:

http

s://g

olde

rass

ocia

tes.

shar

epoi

nt.c

om/:p

:/r/s

ites/

3106

5g/D

eliv

erab

les/

90%

25%

20D

esig

n%20

Rep

ort/s

ourc

e/Ap

pend

ix%

20H

%20

-%20

Pave

men

t%20

Phot

os.p

ptx?

d=w

8d36

4584

18de

4fce

828d

3481

43fa

2d7d

&csf

=1&e

=Mi1

jSS

| F

ile N

ame:

Fig

4.p

ptx

CLIENT PROJECTASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (BC) LTD. HIGHWAY 1 – DOLLARTON HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECT

NORTH VANCOUVER, BC

A.THURAIRAJAH

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

SITE SPECIFIC, 5% DAMPED, ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA

4

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/31065g/Deliverables/90%25%20Design%20Report/18106808-%23%23%23-R-RevA-GeoDesignRep.docx?d=w3dc5c85adef840b6b38f156b69feb5d9&csf=1&e=BMmLeN | FileName: Fig5.pptx


DESIGN A.THURAIRAJAH

REVIEW PROJECTNo####

Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####

HIGHWAY 1 - DOLLARTON HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, BC

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (BC) LTD.

18106808Phase3200

PREPARED S.THIRU

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

ESTIMATED SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY (VS) PROFILE

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Dep

th (m

)Vs (m/s)

Estimated - Equivalent SPT(N1)60

Design Profile for SHAKE Analysis

Firm Ground

Water Table

FIGURE


PREPARED S.THIRU

DESIGN

REVIEW Rev0

PROJECT No18106808

Phase3200APPROVEDPa

th:

http

s://g

olde

rass

ocia

tes.

shar

epoi

nt.c

om/:p

:/r/s

ites/

3106

5g/D

eliv

erab

les/

90%

25%

20D

esig

n%20

Rep

ort/s

ourc

e/Ap

pend

ix%

20H

%20

-%20

Pave

men

t%20

Phot

os.p

ptx?

d=w

8d36

4584

18de

4fce

828d

3481

43fa

2d7d

&csf

=1&e

=Mi1

jSS

| F

ile N

ame:

Fig

s 6-

9.pp

tx


NORTH VANCOUVER, BC

A.THURAIRAJAH

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50D

epth

(m)

CSR

1 - Column 1-JOS090N 2 - Column 1-JOS360N 3 - Column 1-LAN000 4 - Column 1-LAN090N 5 - Column 1-LANMVP00 6 - Column 1-LANMVP90 7 - Column 1-SFEPS180 8 - Column 1-SFEPS270 9 - Column 1-SMA EW 10 - Column 1-SMA NS 11 - Column 1-ElSal180 12 - Column 1-ElSal270 13 - Column 1-ElSal90 14 - Column 1-ElSal182 15 - Column 1-MygEW 16 - Column 1-MygNS 17 - Column 1-Nisq125 18 - Column 1-Nisq125 19 - Column 1-TARLN 20 - Column 1-TARTN CSR-Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Dep

th (m

)

PGA (g)

1 - Column 1-JOS090N 2 - Column 1-JOS360N 3 - Column 1-LAN000 4 - Column 1-LAN090N 5 - Column 1-LANMVP00 6 - Column 1-LANMVP90 7 - Column 1-SFEPS180 8 - Column 1-SFEPS270 9 - Column 1-SMA EW 10 - Column 1-SMA NS 11 - Column 1-ElSal180 12 - Column 1-ElSal270 13 - Column 1-ElSal90 14 - Column 1-ElSal182 15 - Column 1-MygEW 16 - Column 1-MygNS 17 - Column 1-Nisq125 18 - Column 1-Nisq125 19 - Column 1-TARLN 20 - Column 1-TARTN PGA-Average

COMPUTED CSR AND PGA PROFILES FOR THE CRUSTAL AND INSLAB GROUND MOTIONS

6

FIGURE


PREPARED S.THIRU

DESIGN

REVIEW Rev0

PROJECT No18106808

Phase3200APPROVEDPa

th:

http

s://g

olde

rass

ocia

tes.

shar

epoi

nt.c

om/:p

:/r/s

ites/

3106

5g/D

eliv

erab

les/

90%

25%

20D

esig

n%20

Rep

ort/s

ourc

e/Ap

pend

ix%

20H

%20

-%20

Pave

men

t%20

Phot

os.p

ptx?

d=w

8d36

4584

18de

4fce

828d

3481

43fa

2d7d

&csf

=1&e

=Mi1

jSS

| F

ile N

ame:

Fig

s 6-

9.pp

tx


NORTH VANCOUVER, BC

A.THURAIRAJAH

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

COMPUTED CSR AND PGA PROFILES FOR THE INTERFACE SUBDUCTION GROUND MOTIONS

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50D

epth

(m)

CSR

1 - Column 1-MichN00W 2 - Column 1-MichN90W 3 - Column 1-Toh EW 4 - Column 1-TOH NS 5 - Column 1-Toh EW22 6 - Column 1-Toh NS22 7 - Column 1-Tok107EW 8 - Column 1-Tok107NS 9 - Column 1-Tok181EW 10 - Column 1-Tok181NS CSR-Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

Dep

th (m

)

PGA (g)

1 - Column 1-MichN00W 2 - Column 1-MichN90W 3 - Column 1-Toh EW 4 - Column 1-TOH NS 5 - Column 1-Toh EW22 6 - Column 1-Toh NS22 7 - Column 1-Tok107EW 8 - Column 1-Tok107NS 9 - Column 1-Tok181EW 10 - Column 1-Tok181NS PGA-Average

FIGURE


PREPARED S.THIRU

DESIGN

REVIEW Rev0

PROJECT No18106808

Phase3200APPROVEDPa

th:

http

s://g

olde

rass

ocia

tes.

shar

epoi

nt.c

om/:p

:/r/s

ites/

3106

5g/D

eliv

erab

les/

90%

25%

20D

esig

n%20

Rep

ort/s

ourc

e/Ap

pend

ix%

20H

%20

-%20

Pave

men

t%20

Phot

os.p

ptx?

d=w

8d36

4584

18de

4fce

828d

3481

43fa

2d7d

&csf

=1&e

=Mi1

jSS

| F

ile N

ame:

Fig

s 6-

9.pp

tx


NORTH VANCOUVER, BC

A.THURAIRAJAH

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

CSR VS. CRR COMPARISON FOR CRUSTAL AND INSLAB MOTIONS (LEFT PLOT) AND INTERFACE SUBDUCTION MOTIONS (RIGHT PLOT)

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50D

epth

bel

ow e

xist

ing

grou

nd le

vel(m

)

CSR / CRR Comparison for Crustal and Inslab Ground Motions

Average CSR - Crustal and InslabCRR - M7.0 (BPT/SH18-01)CRR - M7.0 (BH19-01)

Potentially Liquefiable Soils


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

Dep

th b

elow

exi

stin

g gr

ound

leve

l(m)

CSR / CRR Comparison for Interface Ground Motions

Average CSR - InterfaceCRR - M8.7 (BPT/SH18-01)CRR - M8.7 (BH19-01)

Potentially Liquefiable


FIGURE


PREPARED S.THIRU

DESIGN

REVIEW Rev0

PROJECT No18106808

Phase3200APPROVEDPa

th:

http

s://g

olde

rass

ocia

tes.

shar

epoi

nt.c

om/:p

:/r/s

ites/

3106

5g/D

eliv

erab

les/

90%

25%

20D

esig

n%20

Rep

ort/s

ourc

e/Ap

pend

ix%

20H

%20

-%20

Pave

men

t%20

Phot

os.p

ptx?

d=w

8d36

4584

18de

4fce

828d

3481

43fa

2d7d

&csf

=1&e

=Mi1

jSS

| F

ile N

ame:

Fig

s 6-

9.pp

tx


NORTH VANCOUVER, BC

A.THURAIRAJAH

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

PSEUDO-STATIC STABILITY ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE YIELD ACCELERATION

9

a) Pseudo-Static Stability Model near North Abutment/Pier; Yield Acceleration = 0.21 g b) Pseudo-Static Stability Model near South Abutment/Pier; Yield Acceleration = 0.33 g

Sloping BackfillSurcharge (qs)

g'

(i) STATIC (ii) SEISMIC

H

KagDw

Dw

(Kae-Ka)[gDw+(H-Dw)g']

(iii) COMPACTION

Xc

Pc

gw(H-Dw)

(iv) ACTIVE HYDROSTATIC

(v) SLOPING BACKFILL SURCHARGE

g

Ka[gDw+(H-Dw)g'] Kaqs or Kaeqs

025

mm

18106808PHASE3200

FIGURE

100

2019-08-07

A.WANG

J.BRUNSWICK

P.BAKKER

T.FITZEZLL

HIGHWAY 1 - DOLLARTON INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, B.C.


LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAMS TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\g

olde

r.gds

\gal

\bur

naby

\CAD

-GIS

\Clie

nt\a

ssoc

iate

d en

gine

erin

g\do

llarto

n_in

terc

hang

e\99

_pro

ject

s\18

1068

08\3

200\

| F

ile N

ame:

181

0680

8-32

00-0

04.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: xin

wan

g D

ate:

201

9-07

-31

Tim

e:2:

22:3

2 PM

| P

rinte

d By

: Xin

Wan

g D

ate:

201

9-07

-31

Tim

e:2:

23:1

9 PM

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

LEGENDNOTE(S)

1. FOR ACTIVE STATIC CONDITIONS: CONSIDER THE COMBINED ACTION OF (i)+(iv)+(v).2. FOR ACTIVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN: CONSIDER THE COMBINED ACTION OF (i)+(iii)+(iv)+(v).3. FOR ACTIVE SEISMIC CONDITIONS: CONSIDER THE COMBINED ACTION OF

(i)+(ii)+(iv)+(v).

g = 21 kN/m3

g' = 13 kN/m3

gw = 9.8 kN/m3

qs = SURCHARGE WEIGHT OF SOIL ABOVE WALL (VARIES WITH WALL HEIGHT)H = HEIGHT OF WALLDE = DEPTH OF TOE EMBEDMENTDw = DEPTH TO WATER TABLEKA = ACTIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT = 0.22 (10214R), 0.32 (10245R)KAE = ACTIVE SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT = 0.31 (10214R), 0.60 (10245R)PC = COMPACTION PRESSURE = 12 kPaCC = DEPTH OF COMPACTION INFLUENCE = 2.0 mCO = SEISMIC ACCELERATION COEFFICIENT = 0.16 g

REFERENCE(S)

WOODS ET. AL. (1980)MONONOBE-OKABE (1929)

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/31065g/Deliverables/90%25%20Design%20Report/18106808-%23%23%23-R-RevA-GeoDesignRep.docx?d=w3dc5c85adef840b6b38f156b69feb5d9&csf=1&e=BMmLeN | FileName: Fig 11-13.pptx


DESIGN S.THIRU


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



18106808Phase3200

PREPARED S.THIRU

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

ULTIMATE AXIAL RESISTANCE FOR 610 x 15.9 mm PIPE PILENORTH/SOUTH ABUTMENT/PIER LOCATION

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Dept

h be

low

the

exis

ting

grou

nd su

rfac

e(m

)

Ultimate Axial Resistance (kN)

Ultimate Tension Resistance

Ultimate Compression Resistance

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE



DESIGN S.THIRU


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



18106808Phase3200

PREPARED S.THIRU

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

ULTIMATE AXIAL RESISTANCE FOR 610 x 15.9 mm PIPE PILENORTH ABUTMENT/PIER LOCATION

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Dep

th b

elow

the

exis

ting

grou

nd s

urfa

ce(m

)

Ultimate Axial Resistance (kN)

Ultimate Tension Resistance for liquefied soil

Ultimate Compression Resistance for liquefied soil

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE



DESIGN S.THIRU


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



18106808Phase3200

PREPARED S.THIRU

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

ULTIMATE AXIAL RESISTANCE FOR 610 x 15.9 mm PIPE PILESOUTH ABUTMENT/PIER LOCATION

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Dep

th b

elow

the

exis

ting

grou

nd s

urfa

ce(m

)Ultimate Axial Resistance (kN)

Ultimate Tension Resistance for liquefied soil

Ultimate Compression Resistance for liquefied soil

FIGURE


PREPARED S.THIRU

DESIGN

REVIEW Rev0

PROJECT No18106808

Phase3200APPROVEDPa

th:

http

s://g

olde

rass

ocia

tes.

shar

epoi

nt.c

om/:p

:/r/s

ites/

3106

5g/D

eliv

erab

les/

90%

25%

20D

esig

n%20

Rep

ort/s

ourc

e/Ap

pend

ix%

20H

%20

-%20

Pave

men

t%20

Phot

os.p

ptx?

d=w

8d36

4584

18de

4fce

828d

3481

43fa

2d7d

&csf

=1&e

=Mi1

jSS

| F

ile N

ame:

Fig

14-

15.p

ptx


NORTH VANCOUVER, BC

S.THIRU

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

P-Y CURVES - 610 X 15.9 MM DIAMETER STEEL PIPE PILENORTH PIER/ABUTMENT

14

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

p (k

N/m

)

y (m)

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0

17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0

21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0

25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0

29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0

33.0 34.0 35.0 36.0

37.0 38.0 39.0 40.0

Depth Below Ground Surface (m)

FIGURE


PREPARED S.THIRU

DESIGN

REVIEW Rev0

PROJECT No18106808

Phase3200APPROVEDPa

th:

http

s://g

olde

rass

ocia

tes.

shar

epoi

nt.c

om/:p

:/r/s

ites/

3106

5g/D

eliv

erab

les/

90%

25%

20D

esig

n%20

Rep

ort/s

ourc

e/Ap

pend

ix%

20H

%20

-%20

Pave

men

t%20

Phot

os.p

ptx?

d=w

8d36

4584

18de

4fce

828d

3481

43fa

2d7d

&csf

=1&e

=Mi1

jSS

| F

ile N

ame:

Fig

14-

15.p

ptx


NORTH VANCOUVER, BC

S.THIRU

P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

P-Y CURVES - 610 X 15.9 MM DIAMETER STEEL PIPE PILESOUTH PIER/ABUTMENT

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

p (k

N/m

)

y (m)

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0

17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0

21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0

25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0

29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0

33.0 34.0 35.0 36.0

37.0 38.0 39.0 40.0

15

Depth Below Ground Surface (m)

BENCH WIDTH, 300 mm

THIC

KNES

SVA

RIE

S

BENCH WIDTH, 300 mm

300 mm WIDEMILL EXISTING ASPHALT

50 mm (MIN. TOP LIFTTHICKNESS)

VARIABLE BOTTOMLIFT THICKNESS

300 mm

300 mm (HIGHWAY 1 ON/OFF RAMPS, MAIN STREET, DOLLARTON HIGHWAY)325 mm (HIGHWAY 1EB/WB LANES)

SAW CUT LINE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE

BASE GRANULAR

SUBBASE GRANULAR

025

mm

18106808PHASE3200

FIGURE

160

2019-08-07

A. WONG

J. BRUNSWICK

P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL



PAVEMENT JOINT TRANSITIONS AND TIE-INS TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECTCLIENT

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path: \\golder.gds\gal\burnaby\CAD-GIS\Client\Associated Engineering\Dollarton_Interchange\99_PROJECTS\18106808\3200\1000\02_PRODUCTION\DWG\ | File Name: 18106808-3200-1000-005.dwg

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

A

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX A

Summary Logs

SYMBOL

GW

GP

GM*

GC*

SW

SP

SM*

SC*

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

TS

SB

LB

BR

FOR SOILS HAVING 5 - 12% PASSING 0.075 SIEVE, USE DUAL SYMBOL*GM1; GC1; SM1; SC1; 12 - 20%*GM2; GC2; SM2; SC2; 20 - 30%*GM3; GC3; SM3; SC3; 30 - 40%*GM4; GC4; SM4; SC4; 40 - 50%

MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION LEGEND (AGGREGATES & SOILS)

MAJOR DIVISIONS

CO

ARSE

GR

AIN

ED S

OIL

GR

AVEL

AN

D G

RAV

ELLY

SO

ILS

SAN

D A

ND

SAN

DY

SOIL

S

FIN

E G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

SILT

S AN

D C

LAYS

w

L < 5

0SI

LTS

AND

CLA

YS

wL >

50SOIL TYPE

WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, < 5% FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, < 5% FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

WELL GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, < 5% FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, < 5% FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, PLASTIC SILTS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS


ROCK FRAGMENTS AND COBBLES, PARTICLE SIZE 75 mm TO 300 mm

BOULDERS, PARTICLE SIZE OVER 300 mm

ADAPTED FROM: BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS "GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR BRIDGE FOUNDATION INVESTIGATIONS" , JANUARY 1991, SHEET REV. 90-04-26.

BEDROCK

PASSING 0.075 mm SIEVE

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSORGANIC SOILS

TOPSOIL

COBBLES

LARGE BOULDERS

BEDROCK

1/1

0.3m

0.76m

1.53m

3.66m

1

2

3

SM4

SM1

SP

SM2

[TOPSOIL] SAND and SILT with organics(rootlets), fine sand, dark brown, moist,loose.

[FILL] SAND some silt, fine to mediumsand, grey-brown, moist, loose.

[FILL] gravelly SAND trace silt, fine tocoarse sand, fine gravel, grey-brown,moist, loose.

[FILL] silty SAND trace gravel withorganics (rootlets), fine to coarse sand,fine, sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,grey-brown, moist to wet, compact to verydense.

- with cobbles and/or boulders inferred at3.66 m based on visual observation andresistance to penetration.

End of Augerhole - Refusal

Sieve (Sa#2)G:23% S:74% F:3%

Driller: T. Koett

Drill Make/Model: Marl M6 Track Rig

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Phibbs Exchange Bus Loop, North Vancouver, BC

Date(s) Drilled: March 8-9, 2019Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: AH19-09

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

Drilling Method: Solid Stem Auger

00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0

Final Depth of Hole: 3.7 mDepth to Top of Rock: N/A

COMMENTSTESTING

Drillers Estimate{G % S % F %}

SUMMARY LOG

Company: VanMars Drilling Ltd.

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon

Northing/Easting: 5461410 , 497949

Elevation: 3.7 m

Station/Offset: 101+144 +34 m

Coordinates taken with GPSLogged by: FC

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

Golder Associates Ltd.Datum: UTM NAD83, Zone 10UPrepared by:

MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L

SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm)

100 200 300 400 Pocket Penetrometer Shear Strength (kPa)

>>

1.8m

17

6

21

0.15m

2.01m

4.88m

1

2

3

4

No groundwater seepageencountered in open augerhole.

ML

SM3

SM1

[TOPSOIL] sandy SILT with organics(rootlets), non-plastic, fine to mediumsand, dark brown, moist, loose.

[FILL] silty SAND trace gravel, fine tocoarse sand, fine, sub-rounded tosub-angular gravel, light brown to greywith orange, moist, dense.

[FILL] SAND and GRAVEL some silt, fineto coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel, light brown withorange, moist.

- grading to gravelly below 3.66 m depth.

- with cobbles up to 0.15 m diameterobserved below 4.27 m depth.


Sieve (Sa#3)G:38% S:50% F:12%

Driller: T. Koett


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Main Street EB, North Vancouver, BC

Date(s) Drilled: March 11, 2019Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L90

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 5.6 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



8

13

8

10

0.15m

2.59m

3.05m

6.1m

1

2

3

4

5

6


ML

SM2/SM3

SM1

SM1

[TOPSOIL] sandy SILT with organics(rootlets), non-plastic, fine to mediumsand, dark brown, moist, loose.

[FILL] silty SAND trace to some gravel,fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel, light brown withorange, moist, compact to dense.

- with pockets of sandy SILT below 2.13m depth.

[FILL] SAND some silt, fine to mediumsand, brown-grey with orange, moist,loose to compact.

[FILL] SAND some silt trace gravel, fineto coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel, grey-brown, moist,loose to dense.- with pockets of sandy SILT below 3.35m depth.

- with organics (rootlets) below 4.57 mdepth.

- with cobbles up to 0.10 m diameterobserved below 5.03 m depth.

End of Augerhole - Target Depth

Sieve (Sa#5)G:8% S:73% F:19%

Driller: T. Koett


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION


Date(s) Drilled: March 11, 2019Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L90

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 4.4 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



12

9

29

23

26

26

0.15m

2.44m

3.05m

1

2

3


SM4

GP-GM

SM2

[TOPSOIL] SAND and SILT with organics(rootlets), fine to medium sand, darkbrown, moist, loose to compact.

[FILL] SAND and GRAVEL trace silt, fineto coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded to sub-angular gravel,grey-brown, moist, very dense.

[FILL] gravelly silty SAND with organics(rootlets), fine to coarse sand, fine tocoarse, sub-rounded to sub-angulargravel, grey, moist.

End of Augerhole - Target Depth

Sieve (Sa#2)G:52% S:42% F:6%

Driller: T. Koett


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Highway 1 WB Off-Ramp to Main Street, North Vancouver, BC


5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L90

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 6.0 m

Station/Offset: 90+541 -67 m


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



4

5

7

0.23m

2.29m

1

2

3


SM4

SP-SM

[TOPSOIL] SAND and SILT with organics(rootlets), fine to medium sand, darkbrown, moist, very dense.

[FILL] gravelly SAND trace silt withorganics (rootlets), fine to coarse sand,fine, sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,grey-brown, moist, compact to verydense.

- with cobbles and/or boulders inferred at2.29 m based on visual observation andresistance to penetration.


Sieve (Sa#3)G:28% S:64% F:8%

Driller: T. Koett


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 3.3 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



>>

11

5

7

0.23m

1.22m

3.66m

1

2

3


SM4

SP-SM

SM2

[TOPSOIL] SAND and SILT with organics(rootlets), fine to medium sand, darkbrown, moist, compact.

[FILL] SAND trace silt trace gravel, fine tocoarse sand, fine, sub-angular gravel,grey-brown, moist, loose to compact.

[FILL] silty SAND trace gravel withorganics (rootlets), fine to coarse sand,fine gravel, grey-brown, moist, loose todense.


Sieve (Sa#2)G:4% S:73% F:23%

Driller: T. Koett


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L90

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 3.7 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



4

18

8

0.08m

3.66m

7.16m

Flush Mount Cover

Bentonite Chip

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

50

67

42

50

29

21

AP

SM1/SM2

GM2

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE.

[FILL] gravelly SAND some silt to silty,fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded to sub-angular gravel, greywith orange, moist, compact to verydense.

[FILL] sandy silty GRAVEL, fine tocoarse, sub-rounded to sub-angulargravel, fine to coarse sand, grey withorange, moist to wet, compact to verydense.

SAND and GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angularto sub-rounded gravel, grey, moist to wet,compact to dense.

- gravelly below 9.14 m to 10.06 m depth.

Sieve (Sa#6)G:37% S:57% F:6%

Driller: B.Ivens/B.Wright

Drill Make/Model: Simco 5000 Truck Rig

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: BH19-01

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

Drilling Method: Mud Rotary

00

Page 1 of 6

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG

Company: Foundex Explorations Ltd.

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 4.5 m


Coordinates taken with GPSLogged by: FC/JN

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L INST

ALLA

TIO

N



Grout Cement

Slough

Bentonite

PiezometerDrillCuttings

Sand

Slotted

LegendInstallation:

11

75

28

>>134

23

43

1.9m

3

16

6

4

7

12

12

13.72m

18.29m

Solid PVC Riser

Filter Sand (10/20)Slotted PVC Screen

Bentonite Chip

8

9

10

11

12

13

29

38

29

4

17

58

SP-SM

GP-GM

SAND and GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angularto sub-rounded gravel, grey, moist to wet,compact to dense. (continued)

sandy GRAVEL trace silt, fine to coarse,sub-angular gravel, fine to coarse sand,grey, moist, compact to dense.

- with orange staining at 14.33 m depth.

gravelly SAND trace silt, fine to coarsesand, fine to coarse, sub-angular gravel,grey, moist, compact to dense.

Sieve (Sa#11)G:68% S:27% F:5%



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



-6

-7

-8

-9

-10

-11

-12

-13

-14

-15

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


1010

Page 2 of 6

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

20

10


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 4.5 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L INST

ALLA

TIO

N



Grout Cement

Slough

Bentonite


Sand

Slotted

LegendInstallation:

29

19

13

17

46

28

14

13

11

8

10

12

22.56m

25.91m

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

50

63

33

67

63

88

63

SP-SM

SP-SM

gravelly SAND trace silt, fine to coarsesand, fine to coarse, sub-angular gravel,grey, moist, compact to dense.(continued)

SAND and GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse, sub-angular gravel, fine to coarsesand, grey, moist, very dense.

- with orange staining at 24.69 m depth.

SAND some gravel trace silt, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angulargravel, grey, moist, compact to verydense.

- gravelly at 27.13 m depth.

- with orange staining below 28.96 mdepth.

Sieve (Sa#14)G:24% S:64% F:8%

Sieve (Sa#17)G:35% S:56% F:9%



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



-16

-17

-18

-19

-20

-21

-22

-23

-24

-25

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


2020

Page 3 of 6

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

30

20


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 4.5 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L INST

ALLA

TIO

N



Grout Cement

Slough

Bentonite


Sand

Slotted

LegendInstallation:

36

35

R

51

29

81

40

14

17

8

12

16

14

15

34.44m

21

22

23

24

67

46

83

83

SP-SM

SAND some gravel trace silt, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angulargravel, grey, moist, compact to verydense. (continued)

- with inferred interbedded gravelly layersapproximately 0.15 m in thickness below31.39 m depth.

- inferred cobbles/boulder from 33.83 mto 34.14 m depth.

SAND trace silt trace gravel, fine tomedium sand, grey with orange staining,moist, dense to very dense.

- with inferred gravel layer approximately0.15 m in thickness at 37.95 m depth.

- with inferred gravel layer approximately0.15 m in thickness at 39.32 m depth.

Sieve (Sa#23)G:3% S:87% F:10%



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



-26

-27

-28

-29

-30

-31

-32

-33

-34

-35

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


3030

Page 4 of 6

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

40

30


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 4.5 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L INST

ALLA

TIO

N



Grout Cement

Slough

Bentonite


Sand

Slotted

LegendInstallation:

51

31

55

47

17

18

19

20

47.85m

25

26

27

92

83

SP-SM

SAND trace silt trace gravel, fine tomedium sand, grey with orange staining,moist, dense to very dense. (continued)

- sand grading to fine grained below44.81 m depth.

SILT and SAND, non-plastic, fine sand,grey, moist, compact.



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



-36

-37

-38

-39

-40

-41

-42

-43

-44

-45

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


4040

Page 5 of 6

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

50

40


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 4.5 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L INST

ALLA

TIO

N



Grout Cement

Slough

Bentonite


Sand

Slotted

LegendInstallation:

46

44

62

19

23

22

53.95mGrout

28

29

88

100

SM4/ML

SILT and SAND, non-plastic, fine sand,grey, moist, compact. (continued)

- with organics (rootlets) at 53.64 mdepth.

End of Borehole - Target Depth

Sieve (Sa#28)G:0% S:46% F:54%



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



-46

-47

-48

-49

-50

-51

-52

-53

-54

-55

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


5050

Page 6 of 6

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

60

50


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 4.5 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L INST

ALLA

TIO

N



Grout Cement

Slough

Bentonite


Sand

Slotted

LegendInstallation:

25

21

22

26

0.18m

6.71m

1

2

3

4

5

6

29

4

54

38

AP

GW-GM

SM2

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE.

[FILL] GRAVEL some sand trace to somesilt, fine to coarse, sub-angular gravel,fine to coarse sand, brown-grey, moist,compact to very dense.- with cobbles to 1.53 m depth.

- trace silt below 2.74 m depth.

- inferred cobbles/boulders below 4.57 mdepth.

[FILL] silty SAND some gravel, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angulargravel, brown, moist, compact to dense.

Sieve (Sa#5)G:17% S:61% F:22%

Driller: T. Truphet

Drill Make/Model: Mobile B-80 Truck Rig

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Main Street


11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

Drilling Method: ODEX Air Rotary

00

Page 1 of 2

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG

Company: Geotech Drilling Ltd.

V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 11.6 m


Coordinates taken with GPSLogged by: JN

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



28

R

31

20

4

9

5

6

13

10

10.52m

12.5m

15.24m

7

8

9

33

38

0

GP-GM

GW/SW

[FILL] silty SAND some gravel, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angulargravel, brown, moist, compact to dense.(continued)

[FILL] GRAVEL some sand trace silt, fineto coarse, sub-angular gravel, fine tocoarse sand, grey, moist, very dense.

[Possible FILL] GRAVEL and SAND tracesilt, fine to coarse, sub-rounded tosub-angular gravel, fine to coarse sand,grey, moist, compact to very dense.


Sieve (Sa#8)G:54% S:42% F:4%

Driller: T. Truphet


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


1010

Page 2 of 2

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

20

10


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 11.6 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



R

54

0

12.3m

7

9

23

0.23m

9.75m

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No groundwater seepageencountered in open borehole.

25

54

33

21

21

AP

GW-GM

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE.

[FILL] sandy GRAVEL trace to some silt,fine to coarse, sub-rounded tosub-angular gravel, fine to coarse sand,brown-grey, moist, compact to verydense.- with inferred cobbles and/or bouldersintermittently throughout layer.


Sieve (Sa#3)G:59% S:34% F:7%

Sieve (Sa#7)G:55% S:33% F:12%

Driller: T. Truphet


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION



13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 14.0 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



55

22

86

>>53R

21

4

12

6

4

3

3

9

0.18m1

2

3

4

5

6

6

46

50

AP

GW-GM

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE.

[FILL] sandy GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse, sub-angular to sub-roundedgravel, fine to coarse sand, brown-grey,with cobbles, moist, loose to very dense.

- inferred cobbles and/or boulders from6.40 m to 10.36 m depth.

Sieve (Sa#6)G:60% S:33% F:7%

Driller: T. Truphet


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway

Date(s) Drilled: March 13-14 & 18-20, 2019Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


00

Page 1 of 2

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

10

0


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 11.0 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



>>37R

7

66

4

3

3

2

10

5

12.5m

[FILL] sandy GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse, sub-angular to sub-roundedgravel, fine to coarse sand, brown-grey,with cobbles, moist, loose to very dense.(continued)


Driller: T. Truphet


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway

Date(s) Drilled: March 13-14 & 18-20, 2019Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

L#-LabSample

LegendSampleType:

A-Auger B-Becker

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Alignment: L100

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION


1010

Page 2 of 2

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

18106808/5000

Reviewed by: PBB

20

10


COMMENTSTESTING


SUMMARY LOG


V-Vane

T-ShelbyTube

G-Grab

W-Wash(mud return)

O-Odex(air rotary)

C-Core

S-SplitSpoon


Elevation: 11.0 m



ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)


MO

TI-

SO

IL-R

EV

3 1

8106

808_

500

0_G

INT

.GP

J M

OT

I_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

_RE

V3.

GD

T 7

/24

/19

W%P20 40 60 80

W %W % L



10.4m

Hyd

rova

cuum

Clo

sed-

End

Beck

er /

Soni

c C

orin

g

0.08m

5.79m

1

2

sandy SILT; non-plastic, fine sand; brown,with organics (rootlets and grass), wet.[TOPSOIL]

sandy GRAVEL trace to some silt; fine tocoarse, sub-rounded to sub-angulargravel, fine to coarse sand; grey-brown,with cobbles and boulders, moist to wet.[Possible FILL]

sandy GRAVEL; fine to coarse,sub-rounded to sub-angular gravel, fine tocoarse sand; grey-brown, wet.

ML

GP/GP-GM

GW

Sieve (Sa#1)G:77% S:21% F:2%

Sieve (Sa#2)G:74% S:26% F:0%

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube

C-CoreA-Auger G-Grab V-Vane

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Driller: B.Ivens / K.Vandebossche

Drill Make/Model: HAV180 / DB320

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: North Vancouver, BC

Date(s) Drilled: March 19-20, 22, 2018

Drilling Method: Becker / SonicCoordinates taken with GPS

Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project

L#-Lab SampleW-Wash(mud return)

Elevation: 4.0 m

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

Golder Associates LtdPrepared by:

Logged by: JB Reviewed by: PBB

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: BPT/SH18-01

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

Page 1 of 5

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment: L100

10

0


Final Depth of Hole: 49.1 mDepth to Top of Rock:

Station/Offset: 101+193 + 23m

COMMENTSTESTING

Drilling Company: Foundex / Mud Bay

1787066/3000

SUMMARY LOG

Datum: Geodetic

Gradation Test{G % S % F %}

BECKER PENETRATION (BLOWS/300 mm)

MO

T_G

OLD

ER

_BP

T_S

OIL

178

706

6_D

OLL

AR

TO

N.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2C

.GD

T 8

/2/1

9

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%



Bounce Chamber Pressure (psi)

Clo

sed-

End

Beck

er /

Soni

c C

orin

g

12.19m

17.07m

17.68m

3

sandy GRAVEL; fine to coarse,sub-rounded to sub-angular gravel, fine tocoarse sand; grey-brown, wet. (continued)

gravelly SAND trace silt; fine to coarsesand, fine to coarse, sub-rounded gravel;grey, wet.

- orange-brown from 13.11 m depth.

sandy GRAVEL trace silt; fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel, fine to coarse sand;grey, wet.

SAND trace to some silt trace gravel; fineto coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel; grey, wet.

SP

GW

Sieve (Sa#3)G:22% S:77% F:1%

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






Elevation: 4.0 m

-7

-8

-9

-10

-11

-12

-13

-14

-15



SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

1010

Page 2 of 5

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment: L100

20

10




COMMENTSTESTING


1787066/3000

SUMMARY LOG

Datum: Geodetic



MO

T_G

OLD

ER

_BP

T_S

OIL

178

706

6_D

OLL

AR

TO

N.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2C

.GD

T 8

/2/1

9

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%




Clo

sed-

End

Beck

er /

Soni

c C

orin

g

22.48m

23.24m

24.99m

26.06m

27.13m

28.96m

4

SAND trace to some silt trace gravel; fineto coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel; grey, wet. (continued)

- cobble at 20.57 m depth.

- some gravel from 21.49 m depth.

GRAVEL some sand trace to some silt;fine to coarse, sub-rounded gravel, fine tocoarse sand; grey, wet.

gravelly SAND trace silt; fine to coarsesand, fine to coarse, sub-rounded tosub-angular gravel; grey, wet.

GRAVEL and SAND trace silt; fine tocoarse, sub-rounded to sub-angulargravel, fine to coarse sand; grey, wet.

SAND some gravel trace silt; fine tomedium sand, fine to coarse, sub-roundedgravel; grey, wet.

GRAVELsome sand to sandy trace silt;fine to coarse, sub-rounded gravel, fine tocoarse sand; grey, wet.


SAND some silt trace gravel; fine tomedium sand, fine, sub-rounded gravel;grey; wet.

SP-SM

GW

SP

SW/GW

SP

GW

Sieve (Sa#4)G:27% S:70% F:3%

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






Elevation: 4.0 m

-17

-18

-19

-20

-21

-22

-23

-24

-25



SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

2020

Page 3 of 5

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment: L100

30

20




COMMENTSTESTING


1787066/3000

SUMMARY LOG

Datum: Geodetic



MO

T_G

OLD

ER

_BP

T_S

OIL

178

706

6_D

OLL

AR

TO

N.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2C

.GD

T 8

/2/1

9

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%




126

144

143

Clo

sed-

End

Beck

er /

Soni

c C

orin

g

32.31m5

SAND some silt trace gravel; fine tomedium sand, fine, sub-rounded gravel;grey; wet. (continued)

SAND trace silt trace gravel; fine tomedium sand; grey-brown, wet.


- grey from 35.66 m depth.


SM1

SP

Sieve (Sa#5)G:8% S:75% F:17%

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






Elevation: 4.0 m

-27

-28

-29

-30

-31

-32

-33

-34

-35



SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

3030

Page 4 of 5

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment: L100

40

30




COMMENTSTESTING


1787066/3000

SUMMARY LOG

Datum: Geodetic



MO

T_G

OLD

ER

_BP

T_S

OIL

178

706

6_D

OLL

AR

TO

N.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2C

.GD

T 8

/2/1

9

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%




117

102

103

105

153

140

Clo

sed-

End

Beck

er /

Soni

c C

orin

g

44.5m

49.07m

6

7

8

SAND trace silt trace gravel; fine tomedium sand; grey-brown, wet.(continued)



silty SAND; fine sand; grey, wet.


SM2

Sieve (Sa#6)G:1% S:96% F:3%

Sieve (Sa#7)G:0% S:96% F:4%

Sieve (Sa#8)G:0% S:80% F:20%

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49



CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






Elevation: 4.0 m

-37

-38

-39

-40

-41

-42

-43

-44

-45



SO

IL S

YM

BO

L


RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

4040

Page 5 of 5

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment: L100

50

40




COMMENTSTESTING


1787066/3000

SUMMARY LOG

Datum: Geodetic



MO

T_G

OLD

ER

_BP

T_S

OIL

178

706

6_D

OLL

AR

TO

N.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2C

.GD

T 8

/2/1

9

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%




105

121

123

117

108

118

144

144

178

146

163

131

125

141

129

121

144

132

112

137

172

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Soils Index Testing Results

AH19-09 1 0.30 0.46 16.6

AH19-09 2 1.22 1.37 5.6

AH19-09 3 2.13 2.29 20.7

AH19-10 1 0.30 0.46 7.9

AH19-10 2 1.22 1.37 13.0

AH19-10 3 2.13 2.29 8.3

AH19-10 4 3.66 3.81 9.5

AH19-11 1 0.31 0.46 12.0

AH19-11 2 1.22 1.37 9.4

AH19-11 3 2.29 2.44 28.8

AH19-11 4 2.74 2.90 23.4

AH19-11 5 4.27 4.42 26.3

AH19-11 6 5.18 5.33 26.0

AH19-14 1 0.31 0.46 4.2

AH19-14 2 1.22 1.37 4.8

AH19-14 3 2.13 2.29 7.0

AH19-19 1 0.30 0.46 10.9

AH19-19 2 1.22 1.52 5.3

AH19-19 3 1.83 1.98 6.7

AH19-20 1 0.30 0.61 4.2

AH19-20 2 1.22 1.52 17.7

AH19-20 3 2.13 2.29 7.7

BH19-01 1 0.30 0.46 3.4

BH19-01 2 1.52 2.13 15.5

BH19-01 3 3.05 3.66 6.0

BH19-01 4 4.57 5.18 3.9

BH19-01 5 6.10 6.71 7.5

BH19-01 6 7.62 8.23 11.8

BH19-01 7 9.14 9.75 11.8

BH19-01 8 10.67 11.28 14.1

BH19-01 9 12.19 12.80 12.9

BH19-01 10 13.72 14.33 11.3

BH19-01 11 15.24 15.85 7.5

BH19-01 12 16.76 17.37 10.1

SampleLocation

WaterContent

(%)Depth

(m)Bottom

(m)

Depth IntervalSample

No.Specimen

No.

Sheet 1 of 3

ASTM D 2216

WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION

LH 4/3/2019

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

_WA

TE

R C

ON

TE

NT

(R

EP

OR

T)

2018

JB

runs

wic

k 7

/31/

19

Lab Schedule No.: 01

18106808 Phase: 5000

Project:

Location:

Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project

Client: Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.

North Vancouver, BC

Project No.:

Checked Date

Tel: Fax: www.golder.com


BH19-01 13 18.29 18.90 12.1

BH19-01 14 19.81 20.42 13.9

BH19-01 15 21.34 21.95 17.3

BH19-01 16 22.86 23.47 8.3

BH19-01 17 24.38 24.99 12.0

BH19-01 18 25.91 26.52 16.3

BH19-01 19 27.43 28.04 14.3

BH19-01 20 28.96 29.57 14.9

BH19-01 21 30.48 31.09 17.1

BH19-01 22 32.00 32.61 17.7

BH19-01 23 35.05 35.66 18.7

BH19-01 24 38.10 38.71 19.8

BH19-01 25 41.15 41.76 19.2

BH19-01 26 44.04 44.65 22.8

BH19-01 27 47.24 47.85 22.3

BH19-01 28 50.29 50.90 22.4

BH19-01 29 53.34 53.95 25.7

BH19-03 1 0.38 0.46 3.8

BH19-03 2 0.91 0.99 8.5

BH19-03 3 2.74 3.35 4.7

BH19-03 4 4.27 4.88 6.4

BH19-03 5 7.32 7.92 12.9

BH19-03 6 8.84 9.45 10.1

BH19-03 7 10.36 10.97 7.0

BH19-03 8 13.41 14.02 9.2

BH19-03 9 14.78 15.24 22.5

BH19-04 1 0.41 0.49 4.4

BH19-04 2 0.99 1.07 12.1

BH19-04 3 3.05 3.66 6.2

BH19-04 4 4.57 5.18 4.3

BH19-04 5 6.10 6.71 3.1

BH19-04 6 7.62 8.23 3.1

BH19-04 7 9.14 9.75 9.3

BH19-05 1 0.30 0.38 4.1

SampleLocation

WaterContent

(%)Depth

(m)Bottom

(m)


No.Specimen

No.

Sheet 2 of 3

ASTM D 2216


LH 4/3/2019

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

_WA

TE

R C

ON

TE

NT

(R

EP

OR

T)

2018

JB

runs

wic

k 7

/31/

19


18106808 Phase: 5000

Project:

Location:



North Vancouver, BC

Project No.:

Checked Date



BH19-05 2 1.14 1.22 2.8

BH19-05 3 2.21 2.29 2.9

BH19-05 4 2.74 3.35 2.2

BH19-05 5 4.27 4.88 9.6

BH19-05 6 5.79 6.40 5.3

SampleLocation

WaterContent

(%)Depth

(m)Bottom

(m)


No.Specimen

No.

Sheet 3 of 3

ASTM D 2216


LH 4/3/2019

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

_WA

TE

R C

ON

TE

NT

(R

EP

OR

T)

2018

JB

runs

wic

k 7

/31/

19


18106808 Phase: 5000

Project:

Location:



North Vancouver, BC

Project No.:

Checked Date



BPT/SH18-01 1 4.57 4.88 3.4

BPT/SH18-01 2 7.32 7.62 3.5

BPT/SH18-01 3 13.41 13.72 13.4

BPT/SH18-01 4 24.38 24.69 6.3

BPT/SH18-01 5 32.00 32.31 13.8

BPT/SH18-01 6 40.84 41.15 21.9

BPT/SH18-01 7 42.67 42.98 24.4

BPT/SH18-01 8 45.11 45.42 21.7

SampleLocation

WaterContent

(%)Depth

(m)Bottom

(m)


No.Specimen

No.

Sheet 1 of 1

ASTM D 2216


LH 4/6/2018

Nat

iona

l IM

Ser

ver:

GIN

T_G

AL_

NA

TIO

NA

LIM

Uni

que

Pro

ject

ID: O

utpu

t For

m:_

LAB

_WA

TE

R C

ON

TE

NT

(R

EP

OR

T)

2018

JB

runs

wic

k 8

/1/1

9

Lab Schedule No.: N/A

1787066 Phase: 3000

Project:

Location:



North Vancouver, BC

Project No.:

Checked Date



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100

40201 1/2 4HydrometerU.S. Sieve Size (meshes / inch)

Coarse

GRAVEL

200100603/81224 USCS Particle Size Scale

LH

1.22 to 1.37

FF/BJ 3/28/2019 4/3/2019

Size of Opening (inches)103/436

Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND

Fine MediumCoarseBOULDER FINES (Silt, Clay)

Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)

SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing

ParticleSizeSieve Size

Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.8

90.2

77.2

59.7

35.8

17.9

9.8

5.2

3.5

3.0

Sample Location: AH19-09

Sample No.: 2


ASTM D6913

National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:2193 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) 2018 JBrunswick 7/31/19

Tech Date Checked Date

Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.


Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

2.13 to 2.29

FF/BJ 3/28/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

84.5

80.5

72.1

68.1

62.0

55.3

46.8

35.7

25.2

18.0

14.7

12.0


Sample No.: 3


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

4.27 to 4.42

FF/BJ 3/28/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

95.3

94.2

94.2

92.0

88.8

82.3

67.5

49.3

32.4

23.9

18.9


Sample No.: 5


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

1.22 to 1.37

FF/BJ 3/28/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

91.0

74.9

69.6

61.6

56.0

47.7

38.3

26.9

17.0

11.8

8.9

7.4

6.2


Sample No.: 2


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

1.83 to 1.98

FF/BJ 3/28/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

92.0

86.3

71.5

53.3

35.7

24.1

16.4

11.1

8.5

7.8


Sample No.: 3


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

1.22 to 1.52

FF/BJ 3/28/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

98.3

97.8

95.8

91.7

85.2

75.2

60.6

43.2

31.9

22.7


Sample No.: 2


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

7.62 to 8.23

FF/BJ 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

90.1

86.0

84.1

78.1

63.3

44.6

24.8

13.9

9.2

6.9

5.8

5.7

Sample Location: BH19-01

Sample No.: 6


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

15.24 to 15.85

FF 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

59.7

59.7

43.6

41.3

32.2

24.6

16.7

11.4

8.8

7.1

6.1

5.3


Sample No.: 11


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

19.81 to 20.42

FF 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

94.9

94.9

88.1

83.6

75.7

62.5

45.6

31.7

22.6

13.7

9.8

7.7


Sample No.: 14


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

24.38 to 24.99

FF/BJ 3/28/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

93.4

85.7

79.4

64.8

50.3

34.6

24.4

17.4

12.6

10.1

9.1


Sample No.: 17


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

35.05 to 35.66

FF/BJ 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.4

97.9

96.9

94.5

87.5

71.2

40.9

20.9

13.9

10.2


Sample No.: 23


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

50.29 to 50.90

FF/BJ 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.9

99.4

97.1

91.6

81.4

68.5

53.9


Sample No.: 28


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

7.32 to 7.92

FF 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

91.7

88.7

87.6

82.9

75.7

65.9

51.8

38.1

29.1

24.9

21.9


Sample No.: 5


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

13.41 to 14.02

FF/BJ 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

74.6

65.1

62.5

56.5

46.0

37.5

28.0

15.9

9.6

6.1

4.4

3.9


Sample No.: 8


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

3.05 to 3.66

FF 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

94.5

61.6

56.0

49.8

40.7

31.4

24.2

18.5

14.1

10.7

8.7

7.0


Sample No.: 3


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

9.14 to 9.75

FF 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

69.8

57.2

52.4

50.2

44.5

37.0

30.5

24.5

19.7

16.0

14.0

12.1


Sample No.: 7


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

5.79 to 6.40

FF 3/29/2019 4/3/2019


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

88.1

73.3

61.2

53.0

39.5

28.2

21.1

16.7

13.3

10.0

8.1

6.8


Sample No.: 6


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

18106808 Phase: 5000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

4.57 to 4.88

KS/DC 4/2/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

68.4

53.3

45.3

34.1

29.9

23.0

16.1

9.8

5.8

4.0

3.0

2.5

2.2

Sample Location: BPT/SH18-01

Sample No.: 1


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

7.32 to 7.62

KS/DC 4/2/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

82.5

82.5

69.5

56.7

47.2

40.6

26.0

13.7

4.9

1.5

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.4


Sample No.: 2


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

13.41 to 13.72

KS/DC 4/2/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

90.1

90.1

86.8

84.2

82.0

78.4

69.8

49.7

20.6

5.1

1.9

1.3

1.2


Sample No.: 3


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

24.38 to 24.69

KS/DC 4/2/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

92.2

88.2

83.8

81.8

72.9

45.9

16.7

6.2

4.0

3.4

3.0

2.8


Sample No.: 4


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

32.00 to 32.31

KS/DC 4/2/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

96.7

95.8

92.1

88.5

82.5

70.8

51.7

30.9

22.0

17.0


Sample No.: 5


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

40.84 to 41.15

KS/DC 4/2/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.3

99.3

99.3

96.7

86.5

65.6

39.6

16.8

6.8

2.7


Sample No.: 6


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

42.67 to 42.98

KS/DC 4/2/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.1

95.0

82.8

41.7

13.1

6.5

3.7


Sample No.: 7


ASTM D6913





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00010.0010.010.1110100


Coarse

GRAVEL


LH

45.11 to 45.42

SJ/DC 4/3/2018 4/6/2018


Per

cen

t F

iner

by

Mas

s

SAND


Fine

Particle Size (mm)

COBBLE

(USS)


Depth Interval (m):

(mm)

PercentPassing


Legend

(mm)

6"

3.5"

3"

2"

1 1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

#4 US MESH

#10 US MESH

#20 US MESH

#40 US MESH

#60 US MESH

#100 US MESH

#140 US MESH

#200 US MESH

152.4

88.9

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.1

12.7

9.5

4.75

2

0.85

0.425

0.25

0.15

0.106

0.075

0.0506

0.0364

0.0233

0.0135

0.0096

0.0068

0.0048

0.0033

0.0014

10.0

6.6

4.3

2.6

2.1

1.1

0.5

0.4

0.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.9

98.0

89.2

64.1

38.6

20.0


Sample No.: 8


ASTM D 422





Client:

Project:

Location:

Project No.:

North Vancouver, BC

1787066 Phase: 3000



29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX C

Sonic Core Photographs

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Deliverables/90%25%20Design%20Report?csf=1&e=ljeVuf | FileName: Appendix C – Core Photos.pptx


DESIGN J.BRUNSWICK


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####

HIGHWAY 1 - DOLLARTON INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, BC


1787066Phase3000


P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL

Core Box 1: 1.52 m to 5.79 m (5 ft to 19 ft)




SONIC CORE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR BPT/SH18-01 – BOXES 1 TO 4

C1

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE



DESIGN J.BRUNSWICK


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



1787066Phase3000


P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL






C2

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE



DESIGN J.BRUNSWICK


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



1787066Phase3000


P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL





C3

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Soils Corrosivity/Aggressivity Testing

Results

Notice: The test data given herein pertain to the samples provided. This report constitutes a testing service only. Interpretation of the data

given here may be provided upon request. GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 300 - 3811 North Fraser Way, Burnaby, BC Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: 604-412-6899 Fax: 604-412-6816

DETERMINATION OF TOTAL OR WATER-SOLUBLE SULPHATE ION

CONTENT OF SOIL CSA A23.2-3B

Client: Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. Project No.: 18106808 Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project Phase No.: 5000 Date sampled: March 2019 Date tested: April 2, 2019 Sampled by: JB Tested by: RZ

Sample ID Depth (m) Total Sulphate Ion Content %

Water-Soluble Sulphate Ion Content %

AH19-09, SA1 0.305 - 0.457 0.01 Not Applicable *




BH19-01, SA1 0.305 - 0.457 0.01 Not Applicable *




Notes: 1. * Per Clause 9.1.4, the water-soluble sulphate ion content need not be tested when the total sulphate ion content

is less than 0.20% 2. Detection limit for the test is 0.005% Reported by: S. John, AScT Reviewed by: L. Hu, M. Sc. E., P.Eng.

LHu

Lily Hu

REPORTED TO Golder Associates Ltd. (Bby Lab)

Burnaby, BC V5J 5J2

Authorized By:

#110 4011 Viking Way Richmond, BC V6V 2K9 | #102 3677 Highway 97N Kelowna, BC V1X 5C3 | 17225 109 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5S 1H7

1-888-311-8846 | www.caro.ca

300-3811 North Fraser Way

Junior Account Manager

Alana Crump

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

Introduction:

CARO Analytical Services is a testing laboratory full of smart, engaged scientists driven to make the world a safer and

healthier place. Through our clients' projects we become an essential element for a better world. We employ methods

conducted in accordance with recognized professional standards using accepted testing methodologies and quality

control efforts. CARO is accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratories Accreditation (CALA) to ISO

17025:2005 for specific tests listed in the scope of accreditation approved by CALA.

Big Picture Sidekicks

You know that the sample you collected after

snowshoeing to site, digging 5 meters, and

racing to get it on a plane so you can submit it

to the lab for time sensitive results needed to

make important and expensive decisions

(whew) is VERY important. We know that too.

We've Got Chemistry

It�s simple. We figure the more you

enjoy working with our fun and

engaged team members; the more

likely you are to give us continued

opportunities to support you.

Ahead of the Curve

T h r o u g h r e s e a r c h , r e g u l a t i o n

knowledge, and instrumentation, we

are your analytical centre for the

technica l knowledge you need,

BEFORE you need it, so you can stay

up to date and in the know.

ATTENTION Siny John

PO NUMBER

PROJECT 18106808-5000

RECEIVED / TEMP 2019-03-29 13:50 / 24°C

REPORTED 2019-04-05 16:11

PROJECT INFO AE, Highway 1 (Dollarton IC)

Work Order Comments:

Samples for chloride was prepared according to ASTM C1218/C1218M - 17 ( Standard Test Method for

Water-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete) and analysis was performed according to ASTM C114-18 ( Standard

Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement).

WORK ORDER 9032479

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [email protected]

Page 1 of 5Rev 2017-11-07 Caring About Results, Obviously. Page 1 of 5


REPORTED 2019-04-05 16:11

TEST RESULTS

PROJECT 18106808-5000

WORK ORDER 9032479

Analyte Result RL Units Analyzed Qualifier

AH19-09, SA1 at 0.31-0.46m (9032479-01) | Matrix: Solid | Sampled: 2019-03-28

General Parameters

%< 0.010Chloride, Acid-Soluble 2019-04-030.010


General Parameters



General Parameters



General Parameters


BH19-01, SA1 at 0.3-0.46m (9032479-05) | Matrix: Solid | Sampled: 2019-03-28

General Parameters



General Parameters



General Parameters



General Parameters




REPORTED 2019-04-05 16:11

APPENDIX 1: SUPPORTING INFORMATION

PROJECT 18106808-5000

WORK ORDER 9032479

Technique LocationAnalysis Description Method Ref.

Chloride, Acid-Soluble in Solid ASTM C114-15 (21) HNO3 Extraction / Potentiometric Titration Richmond

Glossary of Terms:

RL Reporting Limit (default)

Percent%

Less than the specified Reporting Limit (RL) - the actual RL may be higher than the default RL due to various factors<

ASTM ASTM International Test Methods

The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the Chain of Custody document. This

analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety. CARO is not responsible for any loss or damage resulting directly or

indirectly from error or omission in the conduct of testing. Liability is limited to the cost of analysis. Samples will be

disposed of 30 days after the test report has been issued unless otherwise agreed to in writing.

Results in Bold indicate values that are above CARO's method reporting limits. Any results that are above regulatory

limits are highlighted red. Please note that results will only be highlighted red if the regulatory limits are included on the

CARO report. Any Bold and/or highlighted results do not take into account method uncertainty. If you would like method

uncertainty or regulatory limits to be included on your report, please contact your Account Manager:[email protected]

General Comments:



REPORTED 2019-04-05 16:11

APPENDIX 2: QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS

PROJECT 18106808-5000

WORK ORDER 9032479

The following section displays the quality control (QC) data that is associated with your sample data. Groups of samples are prepared

in �batches� and analyzed in conjunction with QC samples that ensure your data is of the highest quality. Common QC types include:

� Method Blank (Blk): A blank sample that undergoes sample processing identical to that carried out for the test samples. Method

blank results are used to assess contamination from the laboratory environment and reagents.

� Duplicate (Dup): An additional or second portion of a randomly selected sample in the analytical run carried through the entire

analytical process. Duplicates provide a measure of the analytical method's precision (reproducibility).

� Blank Spike (BS): A sample of known concentration which undergoes processing identical to that carried out for test samples, a l so

referred to as a laboratory control sample (LCS). Blank spikes provide a measure of the analytical method's accuracy.

� Matrix Spike (MS): A second aliquot of sample is fortified with with a known concentration of target analytes and carried through

the entire analytical process. Matrix spikes evaluate potential matrix effects that may affect the analyte recovery.

� Reference Material (SRM): A homogenous material of similar matrix to the samples, certified for the parameter(s) listed.

Reference Materials ensure that the analytical process is adequate to achieve acceptable recoveries of the parameter(s) tested.

Each QC type is analyzed at a 5-10% frequency, i.e. one blank/duplicate/spike for every 10-20 samples. For all types of QC, the

specified recovery (% Rec) and relative percent difference (RPD) limits are derived from long-term method performance averages

and/or prescribed by the reference method.

Analyte Result RL UnitsSpike

Level

Source

Result% REC

REC

Limit% RPD

RPD

LimitQualifier

General Parameters, Batch B9C2257

Blank (B9C2257-BLK1) Prepared: 2019-03-29, Analyzed: 2019-04-03

%Chloride, Acid-Soluble < 0.010 0.010

Duplicate (B9C2257-DUP1) Prepared: 2019-03-29, Analyzed: 2019-04-03Source: 9032479-03

%Chloride, Acid-Soluble < 0.010< 0.010 250.010

Reference (B9C2257-SRM1) Prepared: 2019-03-29, Analyzed: 2019-04-03

SRM80-12068%Chloride, Acid-Soluble 0.054 0.010 0.0798

QC Qualifiers:

SRM Recovery of one or more analytes on Standard Reference Material (SRM) analysis are outside of control

limits.


Corrosion Service Company Limited 1103 Cliveden Avenue East, Annacis Island, Delta, B.C. V3M 6G9 (604) 521‐1234 Fax: (604) 521‐0910 Web: www.corrosionservice.com

HALIFAX • MONTREAL • SARNIA • TORONTO • CALGARY • EDMONTON • VANCOUVER • INTERNATIONAL

April 11, 2019 Golder Associates Unit #200 – 2920 Virtual Way Vancouver, B.C. V5M 0C4 Attention: Mr. James Brunswick, P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer

Re: Soil Corrosivity Testing & Evaluation Highway No. 1 Dollarton Interchange Project North Vancouver, B.C.

Testing of the provided soil samples for the above noted project was completed by March 29th, 2019. Test procedures and survey results are outlined in the following sections. 1. Soil Testing and Evaluation Summary Please see Appendix I for the AWWA C-105 Soil Evaluation Table. Survey results are outlined in Appendix II and as can be seen, neither sample produced C-105 test scores greater than 10 points, which in the absence of other considerations, indicates corrosion preventions measures are not required. Note however that we do not recommend using the C-105 analysis when the sample testing is delayed as the severity of the results can be understated. 2. Project Scope As part of the design process, new watermain projects are usually required to include a soil corrosivity investigation. The work is intended to identify areas along proposed alignments that pose significant corrosion risk to ductile iron pipe. Depending on the assessment, standard piping provisions including un-coated ductile iron pipe and fittings may be required to have corrosion protection measures. In the subject case we were provided only samples for analysis with the samples collected from locations chosen by others. 3. Testing Procedures ANSI/AWWA C-105 Latest Version (Appendix I), commonly referred to as the “10 Point System” is widely used for determining soil corrosivity for ductile iron water mains. The model specifies various soils parameters for analysis including, resistivity, pH, moisture, sulphides and redox potential. Based on sample test results numeric assessments are given for each of the parameters. The more corrosive the condition, the higher the assessment. Overall point totals are given for each sample with values greater than 10 indicating a need for corrosion prevention

Golder Associates April 11, 2019 Highway No. 1 Dollarton Interchange Project Page 2 Soil Corrosivity Testing & Evaluation



measures. Note sample values that approach 10 may also require corrosion prevention measures (depending on other considerations) while values significantly less than 10 indicate that no measures are required. Please note that testing for pH, sulphides, redox and moisture is time sensitive and as such the accuracy of the test results may be understated. 4. Soil Samples Two soil samples from varying depths were provided from test locations along the subject alignment. The test locations were selected by others and we are uncertain as to handling procedures of the samples. The soil samples were tested for various parameters including resistivity, moisture, pH, sulfides and redox potential, all of which are considered important factors in determining soil corrosivity. Additional comments on specific procedures are as follows. Soil Resistance: Soil resistance is often considered the single most important factor in determining corrosivity and generally the more conductive the soil the greater the corrosion risk. Representative soil samples were collected at varying depths from both test locations. Sample material was subsequently placed in a Nilsson test box and compacted to approximate native conditions. Due to the relatively small size of the test apparatus some selection bias against larger stones, rock etc. is likely. Soil samples were saturated with distilled water and then tested by passing a D.C. current through the sample and measuring the voltage drop between test box electrodes. The ohmic reading from the soil box is converted to an ohm-cm reading by multiplying the value by a correction factor. Soil Moisture: Soil sample moisture content was estimated and characterized as dry, moist or wet. Samples characterized as dry were considered to be in areas having good drainage characteristics. Moist samples were considered to be in areas having fair drainage characteristics while saturated samples were considered to be in areas having poor drainage. Soil pH: Soil sample pH was measured utilizing a copper-copper sulphate half cell electrode to antimony half cell electrode. Millivolt measurements are subsequently converted to standard numeric pH values. pH values less than 4.0 are considered aggressive, values between 5 and 8 are considered less aggressive to innocuous although values between 6.5 to 7.5 indicate soil that can support sulfate-reducing bacteria if other factors are suitable. Soil Sulphides and Redox Potential: Soil samples were checked for the presence of sulphides utilizing 3% sodium azide in 0.1 normal iodine solution. In the presence of sulphide bacteria the immersed sample will produce gas. Sample results are characterized as Negative (as absence of gas bubbling), Trace (minor gas bubbling) or Positive (vigorous gas bubbling). A test of the oxidation-reduction potential was also completed which provides an indication of the degree of aeration of the soil. Low or negative values indicate an anaerobic environment, which may support sulfate-reducing bacteria.

Golder Associates April 11, 2019 Highway No. 1 Dollarton Interchange Project Page 3 Soil Corrosivity Testing & Evaluation



5. Tessting Results 4.1 Summary: All test data is tabulated and analyzed in Appendix II. The tables include the C-105 data and test scores, including summary comments. In summary, both samples produced C-105 test scores less than 10 points, which in the absence of other considerations, indicates corrosion preventions measures are not required. As Noted above, however we do not recommend using the C-105 analysis when the sample testing is delayed as the severity of the results can be understated. Further details are covered in the following sections. 4.2 Soil Sample Resistivities: As can be seen from the data, the lowest measurement was 8,600 ohm-cms. Such measurements are consistent with native soils containing sands, gravels, clays and rock. In summary, the resistivity readings are considered relatively non-conductive and consistent with lower risk to innocuous conditions. 4.3 pH & Moisture: Soil moisture and pH parameters indicate somewhat acidic conditions with moderate moisture content. Soil acidity and moisture work to increase soil corrosiveness with the presence of the water table adding further concentration effects. 4.4 Sulphides & Redox: Negative results for sulphides were noted from both test locations. The presence of sulphides work to increase corrosion risk and this is particularly true in combination with low or negative redox potentials. For both samples the redox potentials were high or positive. In summary, based on the above noted test criterion, neither sample meets the threshold for requiring corrosion prevention measures. We trust this information is as required. If you have questions, please contact us at our Annacis Island office. Yours truly, Corrosion Service Company Ltd.

Trevor Holland Technician NACE Certified No. 50810 Encl.

Corrosion Service Company | Corrosion Prevention in Soil and Water | Industrial – Marine - Infrastructure

APPENDIX I ANSI/AWWA C-105 (Latest Version) APPENDIX A Table A.1 Soil Test Evaluation Soil Characteristics Based on Samples Taken to Pipe Depth

SOIL FACTOR POINTS* 1. Resistivity – ohm-cm (based on water-saturated soil box)

< 1,500 10 1,500 – 1,800 8 > 1,800 – 2,100 5 > 2,100 – 2,500 2 > 2,500 – 3,000 1 > 3,000 0

2. pH

0 – 2 8 2 – 4 3 4 – 6.5 0 6.5 – 7.5 0 7.5 – 8.5 0 > 8.5 3

3. Redox Potential

> +100 mV 0 +50 – +100mV 3.5 0 – +50 4 < 0 (Negative) 5

4. Sulphides

Positive 3.5 Trace 2 Negative 0

5. Moisture

Continuously Wet, Poor Drainage 2 Generally Moist, Fair Drainage 1 Generally Dry, Good Drainage 0

* A cumulative total of ten points or greater indicates that soil is corrosive to ductile-

iron pipe; protection is needed. ** If sulphides are present and low or negative redox-potential results are obtained, add

three points for this range.

APPENDIX II

Golder AssociatesGolder HWY 1 - Dollarton Interchange ProjectProject Number: 18106808/5000

SOIL CORROSIVITY EVALUATIONREFERENCE: HWY 1 Dollarton Interchang Project SOIL SAMPLES: ProvidedSAMPLE COLLECTION DATE: BH19-03 on March 21/19, BH19-05 on March 14/19SAMPLE TEST DATE: March 29, 2019

REFERENCE ANSI/AWWA C-105 10 POINT SYSTEM COMMENT

Soil Samples Collected @ Approximate Pipe DepthTest C-105 Moisture Redox Resistivity

Location Sample # Depth (ft) Ref. Score Drainage pH Sulfides Mv. Ohm-Cm. General Assessment

BH19-03 5 24 - 26 1 1.0 Moist 5.2 Negative 154 8,600 No Action Required

BH19-05 3 7'3" - 7'6" 2 1.0 Moist 4.9 Negative 103 21,000 No Action Required

Corrosion Service Company Ltd. | Corrosion Prevention in Soil and Water | Industrial - Marine - Infrastructure

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX E

2015 NBCC Seismic Hazard Calculations

2015 National Building Code Seismic Hazard CalculationINFORMATION: Eastern Canada English (613) 995-5548 français (613) 995-0600 Facsimile (613) 992-8836

Western Canada English (250) 363-6500 Facsimile (250) 363-6565

Site: 49.304875N 123.027422WUser File Reference: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project 2019-03-07 16:25 UT

Probability of exceedance per annum 0.000404 0.001 0.0021 0.01

Probability of exceedance in 50 years 2 % 5 % 10 % 40 %

Sa (0.05) 0.420 0.289 0.207 0.091

Sa (0.1) 0.638 0.442 0.318 0.140

Sa (0.2) 0.791 0.554 0.402 0.178

Sa (0.3) 0.791 0.558 0.406 0.178

Sa (0.5) 0.698 0.489 0.351 0.147

Sa (1.0) 0.397 0.272 0.190 0.075

Sa (2.0) 0.243 0.162 0.110 0.041

Sa (5.0) 0.078 0.046 0.027 0.009

Sa (10.0) 0.027 0.016 0.010 0.003

PGA (g) 0.343 0.241 0.174 0.076

PGV (m/s) 0.516 0.350 0.243 0.091

Notes: Spectral (Sa(T), where T is the period in seconds) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) values aregiven in units of g (9.81 m/s2). Peak ground velocity is given in m/s. Values are for "firm ground"(NBCC2015 Site Class C, average shear wave velocity 450 m/s). NBCC2015 and CSAS6-14 values arehighlighted in yellow. Three additional periods are provided - their use is discussed in the NBCC2015Commentary. Only 2 significant figures are to be used. These values have been interpolated from a10-km-spaced grid of points. Depending on the gradient of the nearby points, values at thislocation calculated directly from the hazard program may vary. More than 95 percent ofinterpolated values are within 2 percent of the directly calculated values.

References

National Building Code of Canada 2015 NRCC no. 56190; Appendix C: Table C-3, Seismic DesignData for Selected Locations in Canada

Structural Commentaries (User's Guide - NBC 2015: Part 4 of Division B)Commentary J: Design for Seismic Effects

Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7893 Fifth Generation Seismic Hazard Model for Canada: Gridvalues of mean hazard to be used with the 2015 National Building Code of Canada

See the websites www.EarthquakesCanada.ca and www.nationalcodes.ca for more information

http://www.earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca

http://www.nationalcodes.ca

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX F

Embankment Slope Stability Models (Removed from Project

Scope)

PROJECT No. Phase Rev FIGURE

18106808 0

ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (BC) LTD. HIGHWAY 1 – DOLLARTON HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, BC

CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Technical%20Work/10214R%20-%20Main%20St%20Anchor%20CIP%20Wall%20-%20Stability%20Analysis/FINAL?csf=1&e=CV2Qxb | FileName: Appendix F – Embankment Slope.pptx

3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL

EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSIS STN. 60+180STATIC ASSESSMENT

F1


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Technical%20Work/10214R%20-%20Main%20St%20Anchor%20CIP%20Wall%20-%20Stability%20Analysis/FINAL?csf=1&e=CV2Qxb | FileName: Appendix F – Embankment Slope.pptx

3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL F2

EMBANKMENT STABILITY ANALYSIS STN. 60+180SEISMIC ASSESSMENT (0.16 g)

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX G

Slope Stability Models - Retaining Wall 10214R


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Technical%20Work/10214R%20-%20Main%20St%20Anchor%20CIP%20Wall%20-%20Stability%20Analysis/FINAL?csf=1&e=CV2Qxb | FileName: Appendix G – 10214R – Slope Models.pptx

3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL

SUMMARY FACTOR OF SAFETY GRAPH10214R – ANCHORED CIP WALL

G1

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

340 360 380 400 420 440 460

Fact

or o

f Saf

ety

Station (L70)

Summary Factor of Safety Graph (10214R - Anchored CIP Wall)

CIP Anchored Wall Static

CIP Anchored Wall Seismic (0.16g)

Existing Seismic (0.16g)

Existing Static


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL

STABILITY ANALYSIS – STN 70+350 STATIC10214R – ANCHORED CIP WALL

G2


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL

STABILITY ANALYSIS – STN 70+350 SEISMIC (0.16g)10214R – ANCHORED CIP WALL

G3


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G4


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G5


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G6


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G7


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G8


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G9


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G10


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J. BRUNSWICK

J. BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


G11

29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX H

Slope Stability Models – Third Westbound Lane Fly-Over Ramp

Wall (Removed from Project Scope)


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/sites/31065g/Technical%20Work/10XXXR%20-%20Dollarton%20Underpass%20Anchor%20Wall%20-%20Stability%20Analysis/10XXXR%20-%20Slope%20Models.pptx?d=wca8a2be258da4d25b161e996633eb3b5&csf=1&e=EN6ryq | FileName: Appendix H – Slope Models.pptx

3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H1

SHOTCRETE AND NAIL RETAINING WALL – STABILITY ANALYSISSTN. 4+005 – STATIC ASSESSMENT


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H2

SHOTCRETE AND NAIL RETAINING WALL – STABILITY ANALYSISSTN. 4+005 – PSUEDO-SEISMIC ASSESSMENT


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H3



18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H4

SHOTCRETE AND NAIL RETAINING WALL – STABILITY ANALYSISSTN. 4+015 – PSEUDO-SEISMIC ASSESSMENT


18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H5



18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H6



18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H7



18106808 0


CLIENT

CONSULTANT

PROJECT

TITLEYYYY-MM-DD

PREPARED

DESIGN

REVIEW

APPROVED

J.BRUNSWICK

J.BRUNSWICK

2019-08-07


3200P.BAKKER

T.FITZELL H8


29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1

APPENDIX I

Existing Pavement Condition Photographs

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE

Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Deliverables/90%25%20Design%20Report/source?csf=1&e=HbOfby | FileName: Appendix I – Pavement Photographs.pptx


DESIGN J. BRUNSWICK


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



18106808Phase3200

PREPARED J. BRUNSWICK

P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL

PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING PAVEMENT CONDITIONS

I1

Photograph 1: Rutting and cracking of pavement along inner wheel path on Highway 1 eastbound on-ramp from Dollarton Highway

Photograph 2: Rutting and cracking of on Highway 1 eastbound on-ramp from Dollarton Highway

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE



DESIGN J. BRUNSWICK


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



18106808Phase3200


P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


I2

Photograph 3: Cracking on Highway 1 westbound on-ramp from Dollarton Highway

Photograph 4: Cracking on Highway 1 westbound on-ramp from Dollarton Highway

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE



DESIGN J. BRUNSWICK


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



18106808Phase3200


P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


I3

Photograph 5: Transverse and longitudinal cracking and potholes on Highway 1 westbound lane (north of Main Street overpass).

Photograph 6: Transverse and longitudinal cracking and loss of surficial material on Highway 1 westbound lane (north of Main Street overpass).

CLIENT PROJECT

FIGURE



DESIGN J. BRUNSWICK


Rev

0####

####APPROVED ####



18106808Phase3200


P. BAKKER

T. FITZELL


I4

Photograph 7: Cracking of pavement and localized repairs on Highway 1 westbound lane (south of Main Street overpass).

Photograph 8: Transverse cracking at short intervals on Highway 1 westbound off-ramp to Dollarton Highway.

golder.com

report highway 1 - dollarton interchange project · report highway 1 - dollarton interchange...

Documents