Final Geotechnical Report - Jackson Creek Flood Diversion ... · Between January 5th and January 13th 2016, twenty two (22) boreholes (BH1 to BH22) were advanced to depths ranging

City of Peterborough

Final Geotechnical Report - Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Upgrade and Townsend Street/Bethune Street Reconstruction

Prepared by: AECOM 5080 Commerce Boulevard 905 238 0007 tel Mississauga, ON, Canada L4W 4P2 905 238 0038 fax www.aecom.com

April 26, 2017 Project Number: 60476375


Final Geotechnical Report Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Upgrade and Townsend Street/Bethune Street Reconstruction

RPT Jackson Creek Diversion Final Geotechnical Report_04262017.Docx

Distribution List

# Hard Copies

PDF Required Association / Company Name

Revision History

Revision # Date Revised By: Revision Description

1 04-25-16 2 04-07-17 A. Rauf Incorporating reviewer comments and BH 24 information 3 04-26-17 A. Rauf Incorporating second set of comments


Final Geotechnical Report Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Upgrade and Townsend Street/Bethune Street Reconstruction

AECOM: 2015-04-13 © 2009-2015 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved. RPT Jackson Creek Diversion Final Geotechnical Report_04262017.Docx

Statement of Qualifications and Limitations

The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): § is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications

contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); § represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of

similar reports; § may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; § has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and

circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; § must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; § was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and § in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the

assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof.

AECOM 5080 Commerce Boulevard 905 238 0007 tel Mississauga, ON, Canada L4W 4P2 905 238 0038 fax www.aecom.com


April 26, 2017

Peter Middaugh, P.Eng. Manager, Community Infrastructure, Whitby D: 905.668.4021 AECOM 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario Canada L1N 9J2

Dear Mr. Middaugh: Project No: 60476375 Regarding: Final Geotechnical Report - Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer, Sanitary

Sewer Upgrade and Townsend Street/Bethune Street Reconstruction Please find the attached final geotechnical report for the above captioned project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. Douglas McLachlin, P.Eng., Geotechnical Practice Lead [email protected]

ET:gr Encl. cc:




Quality Information

Report Prepared By:

Eric Tiedje, Ph.D., E.I.T.

Geotechnical Engineer-in-Training

Awais Rauf, M.A.Sc., E.I.T.

Geotechnical Consultant

Report Reviewed By:

Douglas McLachlin, P.Eng., M.A.Sc.

Geotechnical Practice Area Lead




Table of Contents

page

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

2. Field and Laboratory Investigation ................................................................................ 1

3. Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Soil Conditions ................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.1 Pavement Structure ................................................................................................ 3 3.1.2 Topsoil ................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.3 Fill .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.1.4 Native Soils ............................................................................................................ 5

3.1.4.1 Silt ................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.4.2 Organic Silt ...................................................................................................... 5 3.1.4.3 Sand to Silty Sand ........................................................................................... 5 3.1.4.4 Sand and Gravel .............................................................................................. 5 3.1.4.5 Gravel .............................................................................................................. 6 3.1.4.6 Clayey Silt ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1.4.7 Glacial Till ........................................................................................................ 6 3.1.4.8 Bedrock ........................................................................................................... 7

3.1.5 Groundwater Conditions ......................................................................................... 7

4. Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 8

4.1 Subgrade and Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................. 9 4.2 Sanitary Sewer and Diversion Sewer Construction .......................................................... 11

4.2.1 Trenching and Dewatering ................................................................................... 11 4.2.2 Monitoring of Temporary Support System and Temporary Construction

Slope .................................................................................................................... 12 4.2.3 Sewer Pipe and Culvert Support and Bedding ...................................................... 12 4.2.4 Trench Backfilling ................................................................................................. 14 4.2.5 Foundations for Diversion Sewer Head Walls and Outlet Structures .................... 15 4.2.6 Lateral Earth Pressure.......................................................................................... 15 4.2.7 Buoyancy ............................................................................................................. 16

4.3 Tunnels / Trenchless Crossing(s) ..................................................................................... 17 4.3.1 Trenchless crossing of 900 mm diameter sanitary sewer at Jackson Creek ......... 17 4.3.2 Canadian Pacific Railway Crossing on Townsend Street ...................................... 17 4.3.3 Tunnel Shafts and Jacking Pits ............................................................................ 18 4.3.4 Subsidence/Settlement......................................................................................... 18 4.3.5 Existing Utility Protection ...................................................................................... 18 4.3.6 Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 18

4.4 Roadway Reconstruction and Pavement ......................................................................... 18 4.5 Frost Depth ...................................................................................................................... 20

5. Closure............................................................................................................................ 20




Appendices

Appendix A. Site Key Plan and Borehole Logs Appendix B. Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results Appendix C. 30% Design Drawings Appendix D. Tunnelman’s Ground Classification Appendix E. Standard Drawings (CPDs and OPSDs)



RPT Jackson Creek Diversion Final Geotechnical Report_04262017.Docx 1

1. Introduction

AECOM was retained by the City of Peterborough to carry out a geotechnical investigation in support of the Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Upgrade, and the Townsend Street, Bethune Street and Charlotte Street Reconstruction Projects.

The purpose of the investigation was to obtain information about the subsurface conditions by means of boreholes along the proposed sewer alignment and, based on the findings, make recommendations for the geotechnical design and construction of the proposed sewer. A preliminary plan of the proposed Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer is presented in Appendix C (30% design drawings) of this report.

This report presents the findings of the subsurface investigation and our recommendations and comments. The anticipated construction conditions are discussed, but only to the extent that they may affect the geotechnical design of the sewer. The construction methods discussed express our opinion only and are not intended to direct contractors how to carry out construction. Contractors should be aware that information and associated interpretation presented in this report may not be sufficient to assess all factors that may have a material effect upon the construction.

This report has been prepared for the City of Peterborough. Third party use of this report with the consent of AECOM is prohibited. The statement of qualifications and limitations forms an integral part of the report, and they must be considered in conjunction with this report.

2. Field and Laboratory Investigation

Borehole locations for the investigation were established by AECOM staff in accordance with the client’s requirements. Prior to drilling operations, underground services and utilities were cleared at the borehole locations by the owners of public services and by a private locator that was directly employed by AECOM and supervised by AECOM field staff.

Between January 5th and January 13th 2016, twenty two (22) boreholes (BH1 to BH22) were advanced to depths ranging from 4.6 m to 12.2 m below the existing grade (m beg). On November 7, 2016 an additional borehole (BH24) was advanced near BH1 (Outlet Headwall) into bedrock to aid in the determining subsurface properties at potential foundation depths. Figures 2 to 6 present the borehole location plans. Generally, boreholes were aligned along either Townsend Street, Bethune Street, or Charlotte Street. Table 2.1 summarizes the elevation and depth of all boreholes in this investigation.




Table 2.1. Summary of boreholes drilled in this investigation

Location BH # Ground Surface

Elevation (m ASL) Borehole Depth

(m beg) Monitoring Well (2’’)

Installed

Townsend Street

01 191.2 6.7 Yes

02 191.7 5.5 Yes

03 193.8 9.8 Yes

04 194.3 9.8 Yes

24+ 191.3 17.3 No

Bethune Street

05 195.1 6.7 Yes

06 197.4 7.5 Yes

07 197.0 5.2 Yes

08 197.5 7.0 Yes

09 197.5 5.2 Yes

10 197.5 7.2 Yes

11 197.7 5.2 Yes

12 198.1 8.2 Yes

13 198.5 5.2 Yes

14 198.7 7.9 Yes

15 199.3 6.4 Yes

16* 200.0 5.2 Yes

17 200.0** 12.8 No

18 199.8 12.8 Yes

19 201.1 8.2 No

20 207.5 8.2 Yes

Charlotte Street 21 198.6 5.2 No

22 199.9 5.0 Yes * BH16 is located approximately 60 m west of Bethune Street. ** BH17 was not surveyed, reported elevations are assumed values. + BH 24 included bedrock coring.

Boreholes less than 10 m deep were advanced using solid stem continuous flight auger equipment, and boreholes deeper than 10 m were advanced using hollow stem continuous flight auger equipment. A truck-mounted drill rig (CME 55) owned and operated by Davis Drilling Ltd of Milton, Ontario was used to drill all of the boreholes. At select locations, where encountered, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete was cored. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were carried out with a 51 mm O.D. split spoon sampler and a 140 lbs hammer at frequent intervals of depth in the boreholes in order to collect representative soil samples, and to measure the penetration index (N-value) of the in situ soils.

The geotechnical aspects of the investigation were supervised by an AECOM field staff. Soil samples were inspected visually and tactilely at the time of sampling, and pocket penetrometer testing was performed where cohesive soils were encountered. Soil samples were submitted to Thurber Engineering Ltd. of Oakville, Ontario for geotechnical laboratory analysis. All soil samples collected were analyzed for moisture content and select samples were analyzed for grain size distribution (including both sieve and hydrometer analysis) and Atterberg limits. A




Photo Ionization Detector (PID), as well as visual and olfactory observations, was used to screen samples, and samples that were suspected of being contaminated were selected for chemical analyses. The results of the chemical analyses are reported separately in AECOMs Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment report.

Observations of groundwater conditions were made at the time of drilling in the open boreholes during the course of their advancement. Monitoring wells were installed in all boreholes, with the exception of BH17, BH19, BH21 and BH24 to allow for long-term groundwater level monitoring and to facilitate in-situ hydrogeological testing and environmental sampling. A detailed hydrogeological and environmental assessment of the project site was not within the scope of this report.

The ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were surveyed after the geotechnical investigation. All surveyed elevations were measured relative to metres above sea level (m ASL).

3. Subsurface Conditions

The site key plan and borehole locations are shown in Figure 1 and Figures 2 to 6, respectively. Detailed subsurface conditions are presented in the borehole logs in Appendix A. The soil and groundwater conditions are briefly summarized in the following sections.

It should be noted that the borehole data indicates the subsurface conditions at the borehole locations only. The material boundaries indicated on the borehole logs are approximate and are based on visual observations. These boundaries typically represent a transition from one material type to another and should not be regarded as an exact plane of geological change. It should also be noted that the subsurface conditions will vary across the site.

3.1 Soil Conditions

The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site are described in the attached Borehole Logs (Appendix A). The following discussion has been simplified in terms of major soil strata for the purposes of providing geotechnical design and construction recommendations.

The soil boundaries have been inferred from non-continuous sampling and observations of the drilling process; they may indicate a transition between soil types and should not be interpreted to represent exact geological planes. Subsurface conditions may vary significantly between and beyond borehole locations.

3.1.1 Pavement Structure

Bethune Street

Along Bethune Street, between Dublin Street and Townsend Street, asphalt concrete was encountered at the pavement surface (BH7, BH8, BH9, BH10, BH15, BH19, and BH20). The asphalt thickness ranged from 125 to 200 mm with an average of 170 mm. Underlying the asphalt was a layer of granular base material with thicknesses ranging from 100 to 480 mm with an average of 310 mm. The granular base materials had a water content ranging from 2 to 18% with an average of 9%. Grain size distribution curves from select samples of encountered granular base materials are presented in Figure B-1.




Townsend Street

On Townsend Street, between Aylmer Street and George Street, asphalt concrete was encountered at the pavement surface (BH1, BH2 and BH24). The asphalt thickness ranged from 50 to 180 mm with an average of 95 mm. Underlying the asphalt was a layer of granular base material with thicknesses between 250 to 480 mm with an average of 365 mm. The granular base materials had a measured water content ranging between 5 to 10% with an average of 7%. Grain size distribution curves for selected five (5) granular base samples are presented in Figure B-1.

Charlotte Street

On Charlotte Street, between Downie Street and Stewart Street, asphalt concrete was encountered at the pavement surface (BH21 and BH22). The asphalt thickness was 25 mm at both borehole locations. Underlying the asphalt was a layer of granular material with a thickness between nil to 50 mm. Underlying the granular materials was Portland cement concrete with a thickness ranging from 330 to 350 mm with an average of 340 mm. Underlying the concrete was an additional layer of granular base material with a thickness ranging from 50 to 100 mm with an average of 75 mm.

3.1.2 Topsoil

Topsoil ranging from 0.9 m to 2.3 m in thickness was encountered at the ground surface in BH3, BH4 and BH16. It is noted that topsoil thicknesses are subject to change within short distances, and as such topsoil quantities will vary significantly between and beyond borehole locations.

3.1.3 Fill

Layers of fill materials consisting of silty sand were encountered at the ground surface and beneath the pavement structure in a number of boreholes (BH1, BH2, BH4, BH6, BH8, BH12, BH13, BH14, BH15, BH17, BH19, BH20, and BH24). These fill materials were found to extend to depths ranging from 0.2 to 5.3 m below the existing subgrade. The top portion of fill in the boreholes located on the existing roadway may be a component of the granular sub-base in the pavement structure. Typically the fill was found to be moist, and occasional organic inclusions were noted within the fill.

The grain-size distributions from five (5) samples of fill material are presented in Figure B-2 and the following grain size distributions are indicated:

Gravel: 0 - 52% Sand: 37 - 62% Silt and Clay: 11 - 46% (clay size fraction 3-8%)

The recorded N values of 1 to 33 blows/0.3 m indicate these fill materials are very loose to dense. Higher blow counts may be due to the presence of larger size particles within the fill and may not reflect the in situ density.




3.1.4 Native Soils

3.1.4.1 Silt

A silt deposit consisting of ‘silt, some sand, some clay’, was encountered in BH3, BH5, BH6, BH7, and BH8. The grain size distributions from two (2) samples (BH6-SS6 and BH8-SS6) within this layer are presented in Figure B-3 with the following grain size distributions indicated:

Gravel: 0% Sand: 15 - 19% Silt and Clay: 81 - 85% (clay fraction 14%)

Atterberg limits were determined for one (1) sample within this silt deposit (BH8-SS6) and the results are presented in Figure B-10. The results showing the soil belongs to CL-ML Class with a liquid limit of 16% and plastic limit of 10%. The natural moisture content for this deposit was observed to vary from 7 to 22%.

This silt deposit was typically loose (N-values from 3 to 21 blows/0.3 m, very loose to compact) and varied from moist to wet.

3.1.4.2 Organic Silt

A sand and silt/sand and gravel deposit, consisting of ‘sand and silt, trace clay, trace gravel, trace peat and wood’, ‘construction debris’, and ‘topsoil’, was encountered in BH1, BH2 and BH24. The grain size distributions from one (1) sample (BH1-SS5) within this layer is presented in Figure B-4 with the following grain size distributions indicated:

Gravel: 7% Sand: 47% Silt and Clay: 46% (clay fraction 7%)

This silt deposit was typically very loose (N-values from 0 to 9 blows/0.3 m, very loose to loose) and varied from moist to wet. This deposit was noted to contain a significant portion of organic matter.

3.1.4.3 Sand to Silty Sand

A non-cohesive soil deposit ranging from ‘silty sand, trace clay, trace gravel’ to ‘sand, some gravel, trace silt’ was encountered in boreholes 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, and 13. The grain size distributions from seven (7) select samples (BH8-SS3, BH9-SS4, BH10-SS2, BH10-SS5, BH11-SS5, BH13-SS4, BH24-SS8) within this layer are presented in Figure B-5 with the following grain size distributions indicated:

Gravel: 1 - 19% Sand: 49 - 92% Silt and Clay: 7 - 34% (clay size fraction 3 - 7%)

This sand deposit was typically compact (N-values from 4 to 51 blows/0.3 m, very loose to very dense) and varied from moist to wet.

3.1.4.4 Sand and Gravel

A non-cohesive deposit ranging from ‘gravely sand, trace silt’ to ‘gravel and sand, trace silt’ was encountered in BH4, BH5, and BH6. The grain size distributions from three (3) select samples (BH4-SS5, BH5-SS3, and BH6-SS9) within this layer are presented in Figure B-6 with the following grain size distributions indicated:

Gravel: 29 - 52% Sand: 46 - 60% Silt and Clay: 3 - 15%




This sand and gravel deposit was typically compact (N-values from 7 to 21 blows/0.3 m, loose to compact) and was moist to wet.

3.1.4.5 Gravel

A non-cohesive deposit ranging from ‘sandy gravel, trace silt’ to ‘gravel, some sand, trace silt’ was encountered in BH12, BH13, BH15, BH17, BH18, BH21, and BH22. The grain size distributions from four (4) select samples (BH12-SS9, BH15-SS5, BH18-SS6, and BH21-SS5) within this layer are presented in Figure B-7 with the following grain size distributions indicated:

Gravel: 61 - 79% Sand: 15 - 33% Silt and Clay: 3 - 10%

This gravel deposit was typically compact (N-values from 11 to 57 blows/0.3 m, compact to very dense) and was dry to wet.

3.1.4.6 Clayey Silt

A clayey silt layer with trace gravel and sand was encountered in BH24. A grain size distribution from one (1) sample (BH24-SS11) within this deposit is presented in Figure B-8. The following grain size distribution indicated:

Gravel: 1% Sand: 7% Silt: 58% Clay: 34% This layer was noted to become sandier with depth and contain shale fragments near the bottom of it. Two (2) Atterberg limit analysis from the sample is presented in Figure B-10. The analysis indicated the soil is a clayey silt with low plasticity (CL-ML), with a liquid limit of 21 – 23% and plastic limit of 14%. The natural moisture content of this deposit was observed to vary from 13 – 23%. This clayey silt deposit ranged from very soft to stiff (N-values from 1 to 16 blows/0.3m) and was noted to be wet.

3.1.4.7 Glacial Till

A sandy silt to clayey silt glacial till deposit ranging from ‘clayey silt, some sand, trace gravel’ to ‘silty gravel, some sand, trace clay.’ was encountered in BH2 to, BH5, BH14, to BH20, and BH22. The grain size distributions from eight (8) samples (BH3-SS6, BH3-SS9, BH4-SS8, BH5-SS6, BH14-SS8, BH17-SS10, BH20-SS7, and BH22-SS4) within this layer are presented in Figure B-9 with the following grain size distributions indicated:

Gravel: 4 - 37% Sand: 9 - 41% Silty and Clay: 26 - 61% (clay size fraction 8 - 37%)

Atterberg limits were determined for three (3) samples within this till deposit (BH3-SS9, BH4-SS8, and BH20-SS7) and are presented in Figure B-11. The analysis indicates the till varies from low-plasticity clay to low-plasticity clay-silt (CL to CL-ML), with a liquid limit of 15 - 25% and plastic limit of 10 - 15%. The natural moisture content of this deposit was observed to vary from 2 - 16%.

This till deposit was typically dense (N-values from 8 to 100 blows/0.3 m, loose to very dense) and varied from moist to wet.




3.1.4.8 Bedrock

One Borehole (BH24) was advanced into bedrock. The top of bedrock was encountered at depth of 11.9 m from existing ground level (i.e. elevation 179.4 m ASL) adjacent to the proposed Outlet Structure and NQ-cored to elevation 174.0 m ASL. The bedrock comprised limestone interbedded with shale and siltstone.

The core recovery ranged from 47% to 100% and the measured rock quality designation (RQD) ranged from 7% to 95%. It is noted that the upper 0.8 m thick bedrock had a low RQD and was noted to be weathered.

3.1.5 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater conditions were observed in the open boreholes during and upon completion of each borehole. The short-term (un-stabilized) water levels at the completion of drilling are presented in Table 2. Groundwater levels were measured in monitoring wells (where installed) on Feb 10, 2016, Sept 16, 2016, Nov 18, 2016, and March 28, 2017

It should be noted that groundwater levels can vary, and are subject to seasonal fluctuations in response to major weather events. In addition, perched water tables can occur due to the accumulation of surface water in more pervious fill overlying less pervious native soil deposits, particularly during periods of high precipitation.

Table 3.1.5.1. Summary of groundwater observations in open boreholes and monitoring wells

Location BH Top of Screen

Depth (m)/ El. (m ASL)

Date Completed

Water Level upon

Completion (m ASL)

Water Level on Feb 10,

2016 (m ASL)

Water Level on Sept 16,

2016 (m ASL)

Water Level on Nov 18,

2016 (m ASL)

Water Level on Mar 28,

2017 (m ASL)

Townsend Street

24 N/A 11/7/2016 189.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

01 2.1/189.1 1/8/2016 187.7 189.0 189.2 189.0 189.0

02 1.5/190.2 1/12/2016 188.8 189.2 189.2 189.3 189.3

03 3.3/190.5 1/8/2016 187.8 191.7 190.7 191.0 191.6

04 3.5/190.8 1/8/2016 190.9 191.3 191.2 191.2 191.4

Bethune Street

05 4.1/190.9 1/5/2016 192.1 192.1 192.0 192.0 192.1

06 2.6/194.8 1/5/2016 194.0 193.4 193.1 193.1 193.5

07 3.0/194.0 1/5/2016 193.3 193.9 193.5 193.5 193.9

08 3.4/194.0 1/5/2016 193.5 193.7 193.6 193.5 193.8

09 1.7/195.8 1/6/2016 193.5 193.8 193.7 193.6 193.8

10 3.2/194.3 1/6/2016 194.0 194.4 194.2 193.8 194.1

11 3.1/194.6 1/6/2016 194.1 194.3 N/A N/A N/A

12 4.1/194.0 1/6/2016 196.0 194.6 194.4 194.4 194.7

13 1.3/197.2 1/6/2016 194.9 194.8 194.6 194.6 195.9

14 4.6/194.1 1/7/2016 195.6 195.0 194.7 194.7 195.1

15 3.2/196.1 1/6/2016 197.1 197.1 196.9 197.0 197.1

16* 3.0/197.0 1/12/2016 196.8 197.9 197.5 197.6 197.9

17** N/A 1/7/2016 198.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A

18 3.4/196.4 1/11/2016 197.0 197.4 N/A 197.2 197.3




Location BH Top of Screen

Depth (m)/ El. (m ASL)

Date Completed

Water Level upon

Completion (m ASL)

Water Level on Feb 10,

2016 (m ASL)

Water Level on Sept 16,

2016 (m ASL)

Water Level on Nov 18,

2016 (m ASL)

Water Level on Mar 28,

2017 (m ASL)

19 N/A 1/7/2016 198.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

20 4.5/203.0 1/13/2016 204.8 200.0 198.9 N/A 199.6

Charlotte Street

21 N/A 1/11/2016 195.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A

22 2.5/197.4 1/8/2016 195.8 Dry N/A N/A N/ A * BH16 is located approximately 60 m west of Bethune Street. ** BH17 was not surveyed, reported elevations are assumed values.

4. Discussion and Recommendations

Based on the provided project plan drawing and description, the following structures and road rehabilitations/reconstruction are included in the project (see figure 4.1 below):

• Jackson Creek diversion sewer inlet and outlet structures

• Jackson Creek diversion sewer along Bethune Street and Townsend Street, length = 1665m (yellow, north to south direction)

• Townsend street reconstruction, length = 405m (red, east to west direction) including CPR crossing

• Bethune Street 900mm trunk sanitary sewer replacement, length = 1400m (orange, north to south direction) including Jackson Creek crossing at Murray Street Bridge

• Bethune street reconstruction, length = 1675m (red, north to south direction)

• Charlotte Street 1350mm trunk sewer installation, length = 390m (green, east to west direction)

• Charlotte Street reconstruction, length = 390m (green, east to west direction)

• Bethune street reconstruction, length = 1675m (red, north to south direction)

From the provided plan and profile drawings (C201 to C211 and C218B to C220B), it is understood that the depth of the proposed 900 mm diameter sanitary sewer along Bethune Street (from Murray Street to Townsend Street) will generally range from 5 m to 6 m beg at the borehole locations. The proposed diversion sewer invert will be slightly higher than the proposed obvert level of the sanitary sewer. Approximately 1.5 to 2 m of earth cover will be provided on top of the box culvert (diversion sewer) both on Townsend Street and Bethune Street. The depth of the proposed 1350 mm diameter trunk sewer along Charlotte Street (from Park Street to Bethune Street) will generally range from 2.9 m to 3.1 m beg at the borehole locations. Approximately 1.5 m of cover will be provided above the storm sewer pipe at Charlotte Street. No plan and profile drawings were available of the proposed sanitary sewer north of Murray Street to the northern project limit at the time of preparing this report. Similarly, a typical cross section showing the layout of the utilities was also not available.




Figure 4.1. Project plan drawing The proposed sanitary sewer and diversion sewer should be installed as per the City of Peterborough engineering design standards, utility services department (March, 2016) and relevant Ontario Provincial Standards (OPSS) and Drawings (OPSD).

4.1 Subgrade and Groundwater Conditions

Boreholes BH5 to BH20 were advanced along Bethune Street for the proposed diversion sewer (1.8 x 4.5 m box culvert) and 900 mm diameter sanitary sewer. Variable soil conditions (predominantly compact to dense granular soils) with shallow groundwater (typical between 2 to 4 m below the existing grade) are observed along the sewer alignment.

Boreholes BH1 to BH4 were drilled on Townsend Street for the proposed diversion sewer (1.8 x 4.5 m standard box culvert with 1.2 x 3.0 m twin boxes) and open channel. Organic rich loose granular soils (typically very loose to loose) were encountered at the proposed culvert and channel base level. Shallow groundwater conditions (typically 2 m below the existing grade) are also encountered.

The expected subgrade soil types at the proposed sewer invert level, and groundwater conditions at each borehole location, are summarized in the following tables.

Table 4.1.1 900 mm Sanitary Sewer

Location BH Proposed invert

elevation, (m ASL)*

Subgrade conditions at the proposed invert or founding level

Groundwater elevation (m ASL)**

Remarks

Bethune Street

BH06 191.5 Compact sand and gravel 194.4 BH07 192.0 Loose silt and sand 193.9




Location BH Proposed invert

elevation, (m ASL)*



Remarks

BH08 192.0 Compact silty sand 193.7 BH09 192.5 Compact sand and gravel 193.8 BH10 192.5 Compact silty sand 194.4 BH11 193.0 Compact silty sand 194.3 BH12 193.5 Compact silty sand 196.0 BH13 193.5 Compact sand and gravel 194.9 BH14 193.5 Very dense sandy silt 195.6 BH15 194.5 Very dense sandy silt 197.1 Sanitary sewer manhole BH17 n/a Compact gravel 198.6 Trenchless construction BH18 n/a Compact gravel 197.4 Trenchless construction BH19 n/a Very dense sandy silt 198.4 BH20 n/a Very dense silt 204.8

*approximate invert elevation based on provided plan and profile drawings (from C201 to C206) ** approximate design groundwater level

Boreholes BH17 and BH18 were advanced in the vicinity of the existing bridge over Jackson Creek south of Murray Street on Bethune Street. The proposed 900 mm diameter sanitary sewer is planned to be installed using trenchless technology at this creek crossing location. Boreholes encountered about 2.3 m of granular fill underlain by 4 to 5 m thick compact sand and gravel, which is further underlain by a dense to very dense sandy silt till. Shallow groundwater was observed in the boreholes. It should be noted that groundwater levels are highly dependent upon creek water level and influenced by seasonal variations at the surface of the creek. Based on the vertical sanitary sewer alignment south of Murray Street, the trenchless tunnel will likely encounter the compact sand and gravel deposit below the groundwater table.

Table 4.1.2 Storm and Diversion Sewers (culvert and open channel)

Name of road BH # Proposed invert

elevation, (m ASL)*



remarks

Bethune Street

BH05 192.0 Compact sandy silt 192.1 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH06 193.0 Loose silt with sand 194.4 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH07 193.0 Loose silt and sand 193.9 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH08 193.5 Very stiff clayey silt with sand 193.7 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH09 193.5 Compact sand and gravel 193.8 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH10 193.5 Compact silty sand 194.4 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH11 194.0 Compact silty sand 194.3 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH12 194.6 Compact silty sand 196.0 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH13 194.5 Compact silty sand 194.9 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH14 195.0 Very dense sandy silt 195.6 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert BH15 195.3 Very dense gravel and sand 197.1 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert

BH16 194.5 Very dense sandy silt

197.9 Head wall (inlet)

196.0 Very dense sandy silt 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert

Townsend Street

BH1 BH24

189.0 Very loose organic silty sand 189.0

Open channel 187.0 Loose organic silty sand Head wall (outlet)

BH02 189.0 Very loose organic silty sand 189.2 1.2 x 3.0 m twin culverts




Name of road BH # Proposed invert

elevation, (m ASL)*



remarks

BH03 190.5 Compact sandy silt 191.7 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert,

CPR crossing

BH04 190.5 Loose sandy silt 191.3 1.8 x 4.5 m culvert,

CPR crossing

Charlotte Street

BH09*** 194.2 Dense to compact sand and

gravel 193.8

1350mm trunk storm Sewer

BH21 195.5 Compact to dense sand 198.5 1350mm trunk storm

Sewer

BH22 197.0 Very Stiff to Hard sandy silt till Dry upon

completion 1350mm trunk storm

Sewer *approximate invert elevation based on provided plan and profile drawings (from C201 to C211 and C218B to C220B) **approximate design groundwater level ***BH09 data is provided as it is located on Bethune St, at the south-east corner of the Bethune-Charlotte intersection, and is the closest BH to the proposed east end of the Charlotte Street storm sewer.

4.2 Storm, Sanitary and Diversion Sewer Construction

4.2.1 Trenching and Dewatering

For construction of the proposed sanitary sewer, diversion sewer and storm sewer, a 4 m to 7 m deep excavation should be carried out within the Bethune Street, and Townsend Street and Charlotte Street right-of-way (ROW). It is our understanding that the existing Bethune Street has a 20 m wide ROW with an 8.5 m wide paved road section.

All excavations should be carried out in accordance with the latest Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). Excavation below the groundwater table without prior dewatering is not recommended.

The width of the trench should be a minimum of 750 mm plus the outer diameter of the pipe (900 mm pipe = 1650 mm minimum trench width and 1350 mm pipe = 2100 mm minimum trench width), as required by the City of Peterborough Standard Drawing (CPD) 410.02.

Previously disturbed and backfill materials are generally classified as Type 3 above the groundwater table. The site fill and native soils below the groundwater table may be classified as Type 4 soil, and a minimum 3H:1V excavation side slopes are required for an open cut construction.

All groundwater should be lowered to at least one (1) metre below the excavation level (including bedding thickness) prior to excavation using appropriate dewatering measures such as well points or an ejector system. Proper hydrogeological assessments should be carried out to design the dewatering system.

In the planning of trench shoring and excavation, the presence of the adjacent existing buried utilities (if any) and adjacent site features (e.g. buildings) should be considered. In addition to the stability of the existing adjacent features which must be maintained without detrimental settlements/movements. The backfill in the trenches and the granular bedding surrounding the existing utilities, manholes, etc. may be a source of groundwater which, where encountered, must be mitigated for safety and stability of the worker and trenches.

It is recommended that trenches be excavated in short sections and that the laying of the sewer pipe, culvert and backfilling is carried out immediately to reduce the length of time any trench section will remain open.




It is our understanding that a temporary support system may be required for the proposed sewer installation due to space restrictions. Consideration may be given to the use of multiple trench boxes (stacked) or internally braced temporary shoring system with dewatering. All trench boxes and shoring systems are to comply with OHSA regulations and be designed and signed off by a Professional Engineer licensed to work in Ontario with sufficient experience in the design of support systems.

The internally braced retaining structure must be designed in accordance with the Fourth Edition of the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM) Chapter 26.

The soil parameters estimated to be applicable for general retaining structure design are as follows:

1) Earth Pressure Coefficients

(a) K=0.45 (compact granular soil) to 0.6 (loose organic soils) for limited deflection

(b) Passive earth pressure (unfactored) Kp=2.5 (loose organic soils) to 3.0 (compact granular soil)

2) For stability check

Cohesive soil:

f’= 28° (long term condition), g = 19.5 kN/m3

Cohesionless soil:

f’= 26 (loose organic soil) to 32° (compact granular soil), g = 18.0 (loose organics soil) to 21.0 (compact granular soil) kN/m3

Heavy machinery should not be placed within the zone of influence of excavation. Surcharge and water pressure should be taken into consideration as appropriate in all cases. Design groundwater tables listed in Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 may be used for earth pressure evaluation and stability assessment.

To aid in determining trenching and dewatering technologies, methodologies, and volumes of soil/water to be removed, refer to AECOMs Hydrogeology Report.

4.2.2 Monitoring of Temporary Support System and Temporary Construction Slope

To ensure that movements of the temporary support system are within an acceptable range (OPSS.MUNI 539 construction specification for temporary protection system) a monitoring program must be carried out within the excavation influence zone (typically 1.25 times the excavation depth). If the excavation is carried with the OHSA recommended excavation side slope, close monitoring of slope is also required.

4.2.3 Sewer Pipe and Culvert Support and Bedding

900 mm sanitary sewer on Bethune Street:

The undisturbed native subgrade encountered at the proposed sewer invert level (typically compact to very dense granular soil below the groundwater table) can provide adequate support for the sewer pipes and will allow the use




of normal Class B type bedding. The exposed subgrade should be inspected and approved by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to placement of the bedding. The bedding should conform to the current Ontario Provincial Standard specification (OPSD 802.010) or City of Peterborough standard CPD410.02, whichever is more stringent. All bedding should be compacted to 100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) as per City standards. Should unsuitable subgrade conditions be encountered below the invert level, it should be removed and replaced with compacted suitable granular fill. The minimum bedding thickness should follow CPD410.02. The bedding material should consist of granular material as described above unless wet conditions are encountered. In wet conditions, 19 mm crushed clear stone should be used as per City standards. A separator (non-woven geotextile) between subgrade and granular bedding should be provided. Should the pipes be laid in inadequately stabilized subgrade (as indicated by the wet, slough granular soil), unacceptable settlements could occur after backfilling of the trenches.

1.8 x 4.5 m box culvert (diversion sewer) on Bethune Street:

The undisturbed native subgrade at the proposed culvert invert level (typically compact to dense granular soil, except for the location around BH6 and BH7 where is it loose) can properly support the precast concrete box culvert. A factored geotechnical resistance of 200 kPa at ULS and geotechnical reaction at 125 kPa will be available on the undisturbed native subgrade level presented in Table 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 (except for BH6 and BH7). Typical 150 mm thick granular bedding and 75 mm leveling course should be provided under the culvert as per OPSD 803.010. A thicker bedding and levelling course (500 mm in total) may be required in the area around BH6 and BH7 due to the loose subgrade below the proposed culvert invert level. This bedding should be extended at least 1.5 times the bedding thickness beyond the edge of culvert to distribute the load to the wider areas. Although lower bearing capacity is expected, no significant bearing and settlement issues are expected since the overall loading conditions will be similar to or smaller than the existing loading condition (box culvert installation may be treated as an unloading condition). As per City standards, bedding should be granular material as described above unless running sand or wet conditions are encountered, then 19 mm crushed clear stone and a geo-synthetic separator (non-woven geotextile) will be required between the bedding and subgrade. Should unsuitable subgrade conditions be encountered below the culvert invert level, it should be removed and replaced with compacted suitable granular fill.

1.8 x 4.5 m box culvert and 1.2 m x 3.0 m twin box culvert on Townsend Street:

Based on the recorded lower SPT N values at the proposed open channel base level (BH1 and BH24) and culvert invert level (BH2), a thicker granular bedding and levelling course (1 m in total) may be required in the area around BH1, BH24 and BH2, which are near to the Otonabee River. This bedding should be extended at least 1.5 times the bedding thickness beyond the edge of culvert to distribute the load to the wider areas. Depending on the exposed subgrade condition, consideration should be given to the use of geogrid to reinforce the lower portion of bedding. Although lower bearing capacity is expected in the area around BH1 and BH2 locations, no significant bearing and settlement issues are expected for the proposed open channel and box culvert since overall loading conditions will be similar to or smaller than the existing loading condition (box culvert and open channel installation may be treated as an unloading process). The bedding material should consist of granular material as described above unless wet conditions are encountered. In wet conditions, 19 mm crushed clear stone should be used as per City standards. A separator (non-woven geotextile) should be provided between the subgrade and granular bedding. Should the culvert be placed in inadequately stabilized subgrade (as indicated by the wet, slough granular soil), unacceptable settlements could occur after the backfilling of the trenches.

It is noted that the native soil underlying the proposed open channel is expected to be moderately frost susceptible. Thermal insulation consisting of at least 75 mm of extruded polystyrene or equivalent R-value should be placed between the culvert and the bedding material.




1350 mm storm sewer on Charlotte Street:

Based on the soil conditions encountered in BH09, BH21 and BH22, the undisturbed native subgrade encountered at the proposed sewer invert level (typically dense to compact sand and gravel to compact sandy silt soil below the groundwater table) can provide adequate support for the sewer pipes and will allow the use of normal Class B type bedding. The exposed subgrade should be inspected and approved by a qualified geotechnical engineer prior to placement of the bedding. The bedding should conform to the current Ontario Provincial Standard specification (OPSD 802.010) or City of Peterborough standard CPD410.02, whichever is more stringent. All bedding should be compacted to 100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) as per City standards. Should unsuitable subgrade conditions be encountered below the invert level, it should be removed and replaced with compacted suitable granular fill. The minimum bedding thickness should follow CPD410.02. The bedding material should consist of granular material as described above unless wet conditions are encountered. In wet conditions, 19 mm crushed clear stone should be used as per City standards. A separator (non-woven geotextile) should be provided between the subgrade and granular bedding. Should the pipes be laid in inadequately stabilized subgrade (as indicated by the wet, slough granular soil), unacceptable settlements could occur after backfilling of the trenches.

4.2.4 Trench Backfilling

The selection and placement of the backfill should be in accordance with OPSD 803.010, OPSD 802.010 and OPSS.MUNI 401. The backfill, including pipe cover, should consist of well-graded, non-frost susceptible granular materials such as Granular ‘A’ or ‘B’ (OPSS.MUNI1010) soil. Backfill shall be placed in layers not exceeding 300 mm in thickness, loose measurement. Compaction shall be according to OPSS 501 or City of Peterborough CP501.01, whichever is more stringent. Backfilling on each side of the pipe or box shall be completed simultaneously. Especially for the pipe and earth cover zone (from the spring line of the pipe to 300 mm above the pipe obvert), no stones greater than 26.5 mm are permitted.

Table 4.2.4.1. City of Peterborough compaction requirements for different materials

Material type Minimum target density Earth backfill, backfill material, subgrade 98% SPMDD

Granular ‘A’, Granular ‘B’ Mod and SSM, Granular bedding and cover materials, Granular base and subbase 100% SPMDD

Above the pipe and culvert embedment, it is preferable that the native soils be re-used from approximately the position at which they are excavated providing that they are of low frost susceptible materials and not found to be environmentally impacted (contaminated per MOECC standards) so that frost response characteristics of the soils after construction remain similar to the existing conditions. Low frost susceptible material was observed to be pavement granular fill, inorganic fill, and the native sand and gravel.

All soil should comply with MOECC “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”. Soil assessment in terms of contamination is beyond the scope of this report. For information regarding the environmental condition of the soil and groundwater at the site, refer to AECOMs Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment report.




4.2.5 Foundations for Diversion Sewer Head Walls and Outlet Structures

Headwalls (inlet and outlet) are required for the proposed sewer culvert at Station 0+330 (outlet, close to BH1) and 0+140 (inlet, close to BH16).

The proposed inlet headwall will be founded on a very dense silty sand till at about elevation 195 m ASL (as shown on Drawing C-201). A factored geotechnical resistance of 350 kPa at ULs and geotechnical reaction of 250 kPa at SLS will be available based on the subsurface conditions encountered at BH16. An unfactored sliding resistance between the concrete pad and subgrade of 0.55 can be used for the stability assessment.

The proposed outlet headwall will be placed on a loose organic silt at about elevation 186.5 m ASL and a factored geotechnical resistance of 90 kPa at ULS and geotechnical resistance of 60 kPa at SLS will be available to support this structure. If a slightly higher capacity is required, consideration may be given to sub-excavate to one (1) metre and place one (1) metre thick granular padding below the footing elevation. An unfactored sliding resistance between the concrete pad and subgrade of 0.45 may be used for the stability assessment.

If the above provided bearing values are not sufficient to support this structure, consideration should be given to the use of deep foundations such as 200 mm diameter micropiles. The advantage of this foundation system is portability, relatively quick installation times, and the ability to install these piles without dewatering. A specialized contractor must be retained to design and install the micropiles. Full time monitoring by a qualified geotechnical consultant will be required during the installation of piles, to monitor the driving resistance and confirm the required depths of the piles. The micropiles should be driven into the competent bedrock (approximately 1.2m below the top bedrock elevation) to achieve 300kN (factored ULS) capacity. The final elevations of the piles need to be verified by a qualified engineer to achieve the above mentioned capacity.

4.2.6 Lateral Earth Pressure

The calculation of earth pressure acting against the box culvert and any retaining walls should be carried out as per the CFEM or other relevant design code. Backfilling behind the retaining walls should consist of free-draining granular materials to prevent hydrostatic pressure build up. Weep holes and backfill drains should also be provided. Static earth pressures (Ka and Ko are coefficients of active and at-rest earth pressure coefficients, respectively) may be calculated based on the following design parameters:




Compacted Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B’ Type II

Angle of Internal Friction f = 35° (unfactored)

Unit weight = 22 kN/m3

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:

Level Backfill Backfill Sloping at 3H:1V Backfill Sloping at 2H:1V Ka = 0.27 Ka = 0.34 Ka = 0.40 Ko = 0.43 KO = 0.56 KO = 0.62

Compacted Granular ‘B’ Type I

Angle of Internal Friction f = 30° (unfactored)

Unit Weight = 21 kN/m3

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure:

Level Backfill Backfill Sloping at 3H:1V Backfill Sloping at 2H:1V Ka = 0.33 Ka = 0.42 Ka = 0.54 Ko = 0.50 Ko = 0.66 Ko = 0.76

The earth pressure coefficient used in the design should consider the restraint provided for wall/structure movement. Allowance should be made for compaction induced stresses in the selection of the appropriate earth pressure coefficients. The use of vibratory compaction equipment behind the culvert and the retaining walls, and above the culvert roof, should be restricted in size to prevent any structural damage. If free draining condition cannot be maintained, water pressure acting on the structures should be considered separately.

Should sheet pilling be required during the construction of the outlet structure on Townsend Street, the following lateral earth pressure coefficients (based on the soil conditions encountered in BH01 and BH24) can be used:

Coefficients of Lateral Earth Pressures:

Granular Fill: Ko = 0.43 Cohesive Fill: Ko = 0.47 Organic Soil: Ko = 0.42 Sand with Silt: Ko = 0.5 Clayey Silt: Ko = 0.6

4.2.7 Buoyancy

Potential buoyancy issues that may arise with box culverts (diversion sewer) and open channels have not been considered in this report. This should be assessed by a structural engineer with consideration of design flood levels, and as required tie downs should be provided to prevent the uplift of these structures. Typically shear strength between soil and structure is ignored for this assessment.




4.3 Tunnels / Trenchless Crossing(s)

Two tunnel crossings are planned for this project, as described in the following sections

4.3.1 Trenchless crossing of 900 mm diameter sanitary sewer at Jackson Creek

A trenchless crossing is proposed for the sanitary sewer at the Jackson Creek bridge location on Bethune Street south of Murray Street. BH17 and BH18 were advanced on each side of Creek. No details of the trenchless crossing such as vertical alignment and length, and details of the existing bridge foundations were available at the time of preparing this report. Based on the proposed sanitary sewer gradient south of the crossing and gravity flow of sewer system, the proposed tunnel will likely encounter a compact gravel (sandy gravel to gravel) deposit which is classified as a “flowing” ground as per Tunnelman’s Ground Classification System (Terzaghi, 1950, Appendix D). An interaction between the existing bridge foundations and the tunnel during and after construction should be evaluated once the as-built drawings of the existing bridge and the actual vertical tunnel alignment are available. The local conservation authority should be informed about the plan to use trenchless construction early in the approvals process.

Based on the subsurface and groundwater conditions encountered in the boreholes, microtunneling is considered more feasible and safer for this creek crossing. Typically, the earth cover thickness should be greater than two times the tunnel diameter for most tunneling methods. Microtunneling is more appropriate than pipe jacking with a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). It is a remotely controlled, guided pipe-jacking process that provides continuous support to the excavation face. The guidance system usually consists of a laser or GPS mount in the drive shaft, communicating a reference line to a target mounted inside the tunneling machine. This technique provides the ability to control the excavation face stability by applying mechanical or fluid pressure to counterbalance the earth and hydrostatic pressures. Therefore, no dewatering will be required as it is a closed system operation for the entire tunnel alignment.

The contractor is responsible to maintain the tunnel stability for this method. Dewatering may be required at the entry and exit shafts depending on the shaft construction method. A ratio of horizontal earth pressure to vertical earth pressure about 0.5 and unit weight of soil, assumed to be g = 21 kN/m3 may be used for the preliminary tunnel design.

The main advantage of this technique is that construction typically is faster than other methods, and the project will likely be completed faster. Care should be taken to minimize the vibration created by the TBM and thereby minimize the deformation of granular soils below the groundwater. The main disadvantage of this technology is the relatively higher cost than open face tunneling but it has less risk.

4.3.2 Canadian Pacific Railway Crossing on Townsend Street

Based on the Drawing C209, the proposed 1.8 x 4.5 m box culvert should be installed under the existing Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) track. BH3 and BH4 were advance in the vicinity of existing at grade CPR crossing. The site granular fill and native soil can be classified as “slow to fast ravelling” ground above the groundwater table and “flowing” ground below the groundwater table. The earth pressure acting on the sewer box wall after construction can be estimated using unit weight of soil, assumed to be g = 21 kN/m3 and earth pressure coefficient K0=0.5., tunnelling methods or open cut may be considered. Consideration may be given to using an open cut excavation with active dewatering requirements such as well points. The preferred tunnelling method is to be advised by the Contractor’s Tunnelling Engineer based on site soil conditions.




Townsend Street may need to be closed during the CPR crossing construction if open cut construction methods are selected. CPR should be involved from the planning stage to select the preferred open cut or tunnelling method.

4.3.3 Tunnel Shafts and Jacking Pits

The shafts or jacking pits for the tunnelling should be excavated using temporary shoring. Consideration may be given to the use of watertight sheet pile wall or soldier pile and lagging with dewatering. Contiguous caisson walls may not be a cost effective solution for this crossing. The geotechnical design parameters mentioned in Section 4.2.1 may be used for a shaft design. Depending on the temporary support type, groundwater pressure should be considered for the shaft design. If dewatering is required, groundwater should be lowered at least one (1) m below the excavation base level.

4.3.4 Subsidence/Settlement

In general, subsidence and settlement can occur from lowering of the groundwater table, tunneling construction procedures, installation of temporary support systems, installation of dewatering system, and any form of excavation. During construction, the Contractor is responsible for maintaining the overall stability of tunneling operation including shafts, pits, and dewatering.

4.3.5 Existing Utility Protection

It is the Contractor’s responsibility to maintain the stability/integrity of utilities and buildings running parallel and close to the tunnel.

4.3.6 Monitoring

Careful monitoring of the railway, roadway and adjacent ground (including tunnel entry and exit points) should be carried out before, during and after construction of underground crossings to verify the amount of actual ground movement due to tunneling. A detailed monitoring plan and program should be established that takes into consideration of length and depth of the proposed tunnels. The selected tunneling method should also be considered when developing the monitoring program. A number of shallow monitoring points (SMP), deep monitoring points (DMP), utility monitoring points (UMPs), and pavement monitoring point (PMP) should be selected for monitoring when the tunneling details are available. Typically, the installation of monitoring points should be completed at least two weeks prior to shaft excavation, and baseline readings should be taken a week before excavation. The accuracy and frequency of monitoring should be decided once tunnel details are available.

4.4 Roadway Reconstruction and Pavement

A roadway reconstruction is proposed for Bethune Street, Townsend Street and Charlotte Street. It is understood that full depth removal of the existing roadway is included in the roadway reconstruction. The City of Peterborough typical roadway cross section for a 20 m ROW with 8.5 m road and 10 m road is provided in Appendix E. The City of Peterborough minimum pavement thicknesses (from City of Peterborough-Engineering Design Standards) are provided for the preliminary design purposes and are presented in Table 4.4.1.




Table 4.4.1. City of Peterborough Minimum Pavement Thicknesses

Road information ROW (m) / Pavement width (m)

Surface asphalt HL1 (mm)

Binder Asphalt HDBC (mm)

Road base Granular ‘A’ (mm)

Road base Granular ‘B’ (mm)

20.0 / 8.5 50 50 150 300 20.0 / 10.0 50 100 150 300

The existing pavement base (granular fill) contains more fine particles than the OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular ‘A’ requirements and cannot be reused as is. The native subgrade within the upper 1.6 m of the roadway (within frost depth) typically has low to moderate frost susceptibility as per the criteria presented in MTO pavement design and rehabilitation manual (2013).

Based on available traffic volume data that was projected to the year 2031, the following options (Table 4.4.2) are recommended for each road reconstruction considering the design frost depth and subgrade conditions:

Table 4.4.2. Recommended Pavement Structures

Road name Road Category

Lane Configurations

Cumulative ESALs till year 2031

Subgrade Conditions Pavement Reconstruction Options

Frost Susceptibility

for Heave

Resilient Modulus (MPa)

Option 1 Option 2

Bethune Street

Local 1-lane each direction

78,400 Moderate 22 90 mm HMA, 150 mm Granular A,

300 mm Granular B Type-I, 150 mm Select Subgrade Material (SSM)

90 mm HMA, 150 mm Granular A,

425 mm Granular B Type-I

Townsend Street

Collector 1-lane each direction

120,000 Moderate 22 90 mm HMA, 150 mm Granular A,

300 mm Granular B Type-I, 150 mm Select Subgrade Material (SSM)



Charlotte Street

Collector 1-lane each direction

1,108,600 Low 25 150 mm HMA, 150 mm Granular A,




Both above options satisfy the pavement structural requirements as per AASHTO 1993 for the expected traffic volumes. For Option 1 in accordance with the City of Peterborough standards an additional 150 mm of Select Subgrade Material (SSM) is recommended below the pavement structure considering the 1.6 m frost depth and the moderate susceptibility of the subgrade soils. A thicker sub-base course is recommended for Option 2, and this eliminates the requirement for a SSM layer.

After removal of the existing pavement structures (including base and subbase), the exposed subgrade should be proof rolled with loaded trucks. Soft or spongy/unstable subgrade areas identified during proof rolling should be further sub-excavated to a maximum depth of 500 mm. If fill is required to raise the grade, it is recommended to consist of compactable inorganic soil, placed in shallow lifts and compacted to 98% to 100% of SPMDD. About 2%




cross fall should be provided for the roadway pavement. Subdrains (150 mm diameter perforated PVC subdrain wrapped with geotextile filter cloth) should be installed as required by CPD405.01 (see Appendix E).

4.5 Frost Depth

The design frost depth in the Peterborough area is 1.6 m. All foundations should be installed below the frost depth, or alternatively an equivalent artificial insulation should be provided to protect foundations from any frost action.

For specific insulation requirements related to frost heave for the open-channel along Townsend Street, refer to Section 4.3.

5. Closure

We trust that the information contained in this report is satisfactory. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Appendix A

Site Key Plan and Borehole Logs

SITE LOCATIONDate:

April, 2016 Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer,Sanitary Sewer Upgrade and TownsendStreet/Bethune Street Reconstruction

Prepared By: ET

Reviewed By: GR

Project:60476375

Prepared for:City of Peterborough Drawing No 1

ApproximateSite Location

Source: www.google.ca/maps - April 2016

Reference: Google Earth. Image Date: 5/22/2015, Date Taken 4/22/2016

drawn ET client:

approved GR project:

date April 2017scale N.T.S title:

Drawing


original size Tabloid project no:

Jackson Creek Flood Diversion Sewer,Sanitary Sewer Upgrade and TownsendStreet/Bethune Street Reconstruction

Borehole Location Plan

260476375

NOTES:1. The boundaries and soil types have been

established only at borehole locations. Between boreholes they are assumed and maybe subject to considerable error.

2. Soil samples will be retained in storage for 3 months and then destroyed unless the client advises an extended time period is required.

3. Topsoil quantities should not be established from the information provided at the boreholelocations.

4. Borehole elevations should not be used to design building(s) or floor slab(s) or parking lot(s) grades.

5. This drawing forms part of the report (project number as referenced) and should only be

BH 1BH 2BH 3

BH 4

BH 24


drawn ET client:



Drawing





360476375


established only at borehole locations.Between boreholes they are assumed and maybe subject to considerable error.

2. Soil samples will be retained in storage for 3months and then destroyed unless the clientadvises an extended time period is required.

3. Topsoil quantities should not be establishedfrom the information provided at the boreholelocations.

4. Borehole elevations should not be used todesign building(s) or floor slab(s) or parkinglot(s) grades.

5. This drawing forms part of the report (projectnumber as referenced) and should only be

BH 5BH 6BH 7BH 8


drawn ET client:



Drawing





460476375







BH 10BH 11BH 13BH 14

BH 9BH 12


drawn ET client:



Drawing





560476375







BH 17BH 18BH 19

BH 20

BH 16

BH 15


drawn ET client:



Drawing





660476375







BH 10

BH 21

BH 22

BH 9

Notes on Sample Descriptions

1. All sample descriptions included in this report follow the Canadian Foundations Engineering Manual

soil classification system. This system follows the standard proposed by the International Society for

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Laboratory grain size analyses provided by AECOM

also follow the same system. Different classification systems may be used by others; one such

system is the Unified Soil Classification. Please note that, with the exception of those samples where

a grain size analysis has been made, all samples are classified visually. Visual classification is not

sufficiently accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise differentiation between size classification

systems.

ISSMFE SOIL CLASSIFICATION CLAY SILT SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS

FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE

0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2.0 6.0 20 60 200

EQUIVALENT GRAIN DIAMETER IN MILLIMETRES

FINES (CLAY, SILT) FINE MEDIUM CRS. FINE COARSE

SAND GRAVEL

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION

2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered

during the boring process. The reader is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable

in density or degree of compaction. The borehole description may therefore not be applicable as a

general description of site fill materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as

wood, large concrete pieces or subsurface basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have

been encountered in the boreholes. Since boreholes cannot accurately define the contents of the fill,

test pits are recommended to provide supplementary information. Despite the use of test pits, the

heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the exact composition of the fill. Most fills

contain pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This organic material can result in

the generation of methane gas and/or significant ongoing and future settlements. Fill at this site may

have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the results are given on the

borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially

generated nor does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of

gas only, and a detailed study is recommended for sites where any explosive gas/methane is

detected. Some fill material may be contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it

unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on

this site has not been tested for contaminants that may be considered toxic or hazardous. This

testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In most residential/commercial

areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally not detected in a

conventional geotechnical site investigation.

3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process

associated with glaciation. Because of this geological process the till must be considered

heterogeneous in composition and as such may contain pockets and/or seams of material such as

sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm).

Contractors may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders during excavation, even if they are not

indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated that normal sampling equipment cannot

differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical variability of

till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential

when dealing with sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.

APPENDIX A

50mm thick: ASPHALT1.05m thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand and GravelBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact to Loose

FILLSandy Silt to Silty Sand, Trace Clay, Trace GravelBlackish Grey, Moist to Wet, Loose

Bouncing on a stone at 1.5m

ORGANIC SILTSand, Trace Clay, Trace Gravel, Trace Peat and WoodInclusionsBlackish Grey, Moist to Wet, Loose to Very LooseGrain Size (SS5): 7% Gr, 47% Sa, 39% Si, 7% Cl

Wet below 4.5m

SAND and SILTSandy Silt to Silty SandBrown, Wet, Loose

End of Borehole

Water level measurements:- at completion: 3.5m B.E.G. (187.7m ASL)- on Feb. 10, 2016: 2.2m B.E.G. (189.0m ASL)

63

63

17

42

67

42

25

67

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.1191.2

1.1190.1

2.3188.9

5.3185.9

6.7184.5

29

8

30

3

4

4

9

5

8

5

15

5

30

61

86

54

20

19

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 7, 17

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD

SOIL/ROCK DESCRIPTION

SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

INTERVAL

January 8, 2016

m ASLLOGGED BYGROUND ELEV

AR

1 of 160476375 BH-01BOREHOLE:

DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG


Jackson Creek Flood Diversion

PROJECT: 4908363.3 713808.7

Solid St Aug Davis DrillingClient:

Northing:

Contractor:

Easting:Methodology: Peterborough, Ontario

191.20

>>

>>

180mm thick: ASPHALT280mm thick: GRANULAR BASE Gravel and Sand,Some Silt, Brown, Moist, Very DenseGrain Size (SS1): 50% Gr, 36% Sa, 14% F (Si and Cl)FILL Sand and Silt, Trace Gravel, Trace Brick Pieces,Trace Topsoil, Trace ClayBrownish Black, Moist, CompactGrain Size (SS2): 8% Gr, 46% Sa, 38% Si, 8% ClORGANIC SILTSand, Trace Clay, Trace Gravel, Trace Peat and WoodInclusionsBlackish Grey, Wet, Very Loose to Loose

CLAYEY SILT (Till)Silt and Clay, Trace Sand, Trace GravelGrey, Moist, HardGlacial Till

End of Borehole


71

71

63

92

92

63

100

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2191.5

0.5191.3

1.5190.2

4.1187.6

5.5186.3

51

11

5

2

2

8

100

100

10

23

15

26

55

5

7

8

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 7, 17

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

INTERVAL

January 12, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT: 4908351.1 713663.1


Northing:

Contractor:


191.71

>>

>>

900mm thick: TOPSOILSilty Organic Sand, Trace GravelBrownish Black, Moist, Compact

SILTSilt to Sandy SiltBrown, Moist, Loose

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Silty Gravel, Trace ClayGrey, Moist to Wet, Loose to CompactGlacial Till

bouncing on possible cobble at 3.3m

Grain Size (SS6): 35% Gr, 30% Sa, 26% Si, 9% Cl

CLAYEY SILT (Till)Silt and Clay, Trace Sand, Trace GravelGrey, Moist, HardGlacial Till


End of Borehole

83

92

58

75

58

83

100

83

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.9192.9

1.7192.1

6.1187.7

9.8184.0

11

6

7

9

57

13

63

93

46

13

21

5

9

8

5

5

4

8

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

INTERVAL

January 8, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908347.5 713552.9


Northing:

Contractor:


193.75

>>


N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

INTERVAL

January 8, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908347.5 713552.9


Northing:

Contractor:


193.75

1.7m thick: TOPSOILSilty Sand, Trace Organics, Trace GravelBrownish Black, Moist, Loose to Compact

Loose below 0.7m

FILLSilt, Some Organic inclusions (topsoil)Brown, Moist, Very Loose

SAND and GRAVELGravel and Sand, Trace Silt, Trace ClayBrown, Moist to Wet, Loose to Compact

Wet below 3.0mGrain Size (SS5): 52% Gr, 46% Sa, 3% F (Si and Cl)

SANDY SILT (Till)Sand and Silt, Some Gravel, Trace ClayGrey, Wet, LooseGlacial Till

Compact below 6.0mGrain Size (SS8): 15% Gr, 41% Sa, 35% Si, 9% Cl

End of Borehole

100

79

71

79

46

42

0

54

25

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1.7192.6

2.3192.0

3.8190.5

9.8184.6

32

8

1

11

7

7

9

21

16

24

3

41

104

5

2

8

11

7

6

5

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

INTERVAL

January 8, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908345 713520.9


Northing:

Contractor:


194.30

>>


N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

INTERVAL

January 8, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908345 713520.9


Northing:

Contractor:


194.30

300mm thick: ASPHALT

150mm thick: GRANULAR BASE Silty SandTrace Clay, Trace Gravel, Brown, Dry to Moist, LooseGrain Size (SS1): 6% Gr, 66% Sa, 20% Si, 9% Cl

SILT Silt to Sandy SiltTrace Organic Inclusions (topsoil), Organic StainingBrown to Dark Brown, Moist, Compact to Loose

SILTSilt to Sandy Silt, Brown, Moist, Compact

SAND and GRAVELGravely Sand, Some SiltBrown, Moist, CompactGrain Size (SS3): 29% Gr, 56% Sa, 15% F (Si and Cl)

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Silt, Some Gravel, Trace ClayGrey, Wet, Compact to DenseGlacial TillGrain Size (SS6): 17% Gr, 23% Sa, 52% Si, 9% Cl

Dense below 6.0m

End of Borehole


79

88

75

75

58

75

75

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.3194.8

0.5194.6

0.8194.3

1.7193.4

3.0192.1

6.7188.3

4

14

21

21

12

19

21

35

14

14

5

7

10

11

8

12

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

INTERVAL

January 5, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908508.9 713472.7


Northing:

Contractor:


195.05

150mm thick: GRANULAR BACKFILLSilty Sand, Some Gravel, Trace ClayBrownish Black, Moist, LooseGrain Size (SS1): 11% Gr, 53% Sa, 28% Si, 8% Cl

SILT Silt to Sandy Silt,Trace Organic Inclusions (topsoil), Organic StainingBrown to Dark Brown, Moist, Loose

SILTSilt, Some Sand, Some ClayBrown, Moist to Wet, Very, Compact

Wet below 1.5m

Loose below 2.3m


Very Loose below 4.5m

SAND and GRAVELGravely Sand, Trace Silt, Trace ClayBrown, Wet, CompactGrain Size (SS9): 34% Gr, 60% Sa, 6% F (Si and Cl)

End of Borehole


71

75

83

100

100

100

100

42

92

58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2197.2

0.7196.7

6.1191.3

7.5189.9

4

17

12

9

8

4

4

3

14

20

14

11

19

20

18

19

18

18

8

11

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

INTERVAL

January 5, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908706.6 713458.7


Northing:

Contractor:


197.39


200mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand and Gravel, Brown, Moist, Compact

SILT Silt to Sandy Silt,Trace Organic Inclusions (topsoil), Organic StainingBrown to Dark Brown, Moist, Loose

SILTSilt to Sandy SiltBrown, Moist to Wet, Loose to Compact

Wet below 2.3m

Loose below 3m

End of Borehole


67

46

75

83

83

100

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.1196.9

0.3196.7

1.2195.8

5.2191.8

10

5

21

10

7

7

5

11

7

13

17

19

18

22

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

INTERVAL

January 5, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908820.9 713446.5


Northing:

Contractor:


196.99


180mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand with Gravel, Trace ClayBrownish Black, Moist, CompactGrain Size (SS1): 26% Gr, 52% Sa, 17% Si, 5% Cl

FILLGravel and Sand to Sand and GravelBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact to Dense

SANDSand, Some Silt, Trace GravelBrown, Moist to Wet, CompactGrain Size (SS3): 2% Gr, 83% Sa, 15% F (Si and Cl)

Wet below 3.5m

SILTSilt, Some Sand, Some ClayBrown, Wet, CompactGrain Size (SS6): 0% Gr, 19% Sa, 67% Si, 14% Cl

End of Borehole


63

79

71

75

46

100

79

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2197.3

0.4197.1

1.1196.4

4.1193.4

7.0190.4

20

29

17

19

14

9

16

13

4

4

10

4

16

19

19

17

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

INTERVAL

January 5, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908935.7 713437.2


Northing:

Contractor:


197.45


360mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand and Gravel, Brown, Moist, Dense

SANDSand, Some Gravel, Trace SiltBrown, Moist to Wet, Compact to Dense

Grain Size (SS4): 19% Gr, 72% Sa, 9% F (Si and Cl)Wet, Compact below 2.3m

End of Borehole


88

100

79

88

96

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2197.3

0.6196.9

5.2192.3

26

33

23

14

11

12

11

10

2

15

18

14

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

INTERVAL

January 6, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909017.4 713431.3


Northing:

Contractor:


197.50


400mm thick: GRANULAR BASE Sand,Some Gravel, Some Silt, Brown, Dry to Moist, CompactGrain Size (SS1): 17% Gr, 47% Sa, 17% F (Si and Cl)

SAND Silty Sand, Some GravelTrace Organic Inclusions (topsoil), Organic StainingBrown to Dark Brown, Dry to Moist, LooseGrain Size (SS2): 11% Gr, 49% Sa, 33% Si, 7% Cl

SANDSand, Some Silt, Trace Gravel, Trace ClayBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact to Dense

Wet below 3.0mGrain Size (SS5): 5% Gr, 72% Sa, 20% Si, 3% Cl

Loose below 6.6m

End of Borehole


71

33

46

58

88

100

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2197.3

0.6196.9

1.5196.0

7.2190.3

19

4

12

32

12

17

8

18

12

4

11

19

16

16

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

INTERVAL

January 6, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909078 713426


Northing:

Contractor:


197.48


460mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand and Gravel, Grey, Moist, Compact

SANDSand, Some Gravel, Trace SiltBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact to Dense

Wet below 3.0mGrain Size (SS5): 19% Gr, 72% Sa, 10% F (Si and Cl)

End of Borehole


75

33

75

79

79

100

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2197.6

0.6197.1

5.2192.6

30

22

29

22

16

13

11

8

6

2

8

19

17

16

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

INTERVAL

January 6, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909134.1 713423.1


Northing:

Contractor:


197.73

500mm thick: GRANULAR BACKFILLSilty Sand with Gravel, Brown, Dry to Moist, Compact

Dark Brown, With Organics (topsoil) below 0.2m

SANDTrace Organic Inclusions (topsoil), Organic StainingBrown to Dark Brown, Dry to Moist, Compact

SANDSand, Some Gravel, Trace SiltBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact

Moist to Wet below 3.0m

Grey below 4.8m

GRAVELSandy Gravel, Trace SiltGrey, Wet, Compact

Greyish Brown, Very Dense below 7.5mGrain Size (SS9): 76.5% Gr, 20% Sa, 3% F (Si and Cl)

End of Borehole


92

67

67

75

100

100

88

50

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.5197.6

1.2196.9

6.1192.0

8.2189.8

19

18

25

27

23

14

16

13

55

13

2

3

4

9

19

20

10

4

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

INTERVAL

January 6, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909200 713417


Northing:

Contractor:


198.06

FILLSilty Sand and Gravel, Trace Slag, Trace TopsoilBrownish Black, Moist, Loose to Compact

SANDSilty Sand, Trace Clay, Trace GravelBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact to Very Dense


Loose, Wet below 3.0m

GRAVELSandy Gravel, Trace SiltGrey, Wet, Compact

End of Borehole


92

75

79

96

75

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1.1197.4

4.5194.0

5.2193.3

9

21

51

15

7

19

20

4

4

14

19

5

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

INTERVAL

January 6, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909273.1 713409.2


Northing:

Contractor:


198.45

50mm thick: ASPHALT

150mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand with Gravel, Brown, Dry to Moist, Dense

FILLSandy Silt, Trace Organic Inclusions (topsoil),Trace Gravel, Organic StainingBrown to Dark Brown, Moist, Loose

GRAVELSandy Gravel, Trace SiltBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Gravely Silt, Trace ClayGrey, Moist to Wet, Very DenseGlacial Till

Ocasional Cobbles below 6.0mGrain Size (SS8): 23% Gr, 27% Sa, 42% Si, 8% Cl

End of Borehole


83

54

46

67

67

67

73

100

83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.1198.7

0.2198.5

1.5197.2

4.0194.7

7.9190.8

48

8

16

23

36

56

58

100

100

5

16

6

5

4

11

7

11

2

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

INTERVAL

January 7, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909335.6 713405


Northing:

Contractor:


198.73

>>

>>


460mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand with Gravel, Brown, Dry to Moist, VeryDense

FILL Sandy SiltTrace Organic Inclusions (topsoil), Trace Gravel,Organic Staining, Brown, Moist, Loose

TOPSOILSilty Sand, Some Organics, Trace GravelBrownish Black, Moist, Loose

GRAVELGravel, Some Sand, Trace SiltBrown, Wet, Loose to Very DenseOcasional Cobbles

Compact below 3.0mGrain Size (SS5): 79% Gr, 15% Sa, 6% F (Si and Cl)

Very Dense below 4.5m

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Silt, Trace Gravel, Trace ClayGrey, Moist to Wet, Very DenseGlacial Till

End of Borehole


100

54

96

29

38

100

92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2199.1

0.6198.7

1.5197.8

2.3197.0

4.9194.4

6.4192.9

59

12

3

5

20

57

100

6

39

16

9

8

10

10

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

INTERVAL

January 6, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909469.5 713391.7


Northing:

Contractor:


199.26

>>

TOPSOILSilty Sand, Some Organics, Trace GravelBrownish Black, Moist, Loose

SAND Sand to Silty SandBrown, Wet, Loose to Compact

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Silt, Trace Gravel, Trace ClayGrey, Moist to Wet, CompactGlacial Till

Dense below 3.0m

Very Dense below 4.5m

End of Borehole


58

25

25

83

88

92

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

2.3197.7

2.7197.3

5.2194.8

5

10

11

10

48

72

9

37

19

16

9

14

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

INTERVAL

January 12, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909502.3 713359.2


Northing:

Contractor:


200.02

GRANULAR BACKFILLSandy Gravel, Some SiltTrace Organic Inclusions (topsoil)Brown to Dark Brown, Dry to Moist, Loose to CompactGrain Size (SS1): 53% Gr, 33% Sa, 14% F (Si and Cl)

Wet, Loose below 0.7m

GRAVELSandy Gravel to Gravel, Trace SiltBrown, Wet, Compact

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Silt, Some Clay, Trace GravelGrey, Moist to Wet, Very DenseGlacial Till

Dense to Very Dense below 7.5m


63

50

46

38

38

17

38

79

58

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

2.3197.7

6.1193.9

26

7

9

23

19

15

24

28

73

46

4

10

9

11

13

24

11

11

9

9

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

INTERVAL

January 7, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909541.4 713389.9

Hollow St Aug Davis DrillingClient:

Northing:

Contractor:

Easting:Methodology:BH

200.00

End of Borehole

Water level measurements:- at completion: 1.4m B.E.G. (198.6m ASL)

100

100

11

12

SS

SS

12.8187.2

59

38

10

12

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

11

12

INTERVAL

January 7, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909541.4 713389.9


Northing:

Contractor:


200.00

75mm thick: ASPHALT

280mm thick: CONCRETE

300mm thick: GRANULAR BASESandy Gravel to Gravely Sand, Trace SiltBrown, Moist, Compact

GRANULAR BACKFILLSand with Silt and GravelBrown to Dark Brown, Loose to Compact

GRAVELSandy Gravel, Trace Silt, Trace ClayBrown, Wet, Loose to Compact

Grain Size (SS6): 67% Gr, 23% Sa, 10% F (Si and Cl)

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Silt, Trace Gravel, Trace ClayGrey, Wet, Dense to Very DenseGlacial Till

63

8

25

17

50

38

100

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.1199.8

0.4199.5

0.7199.2

2.3197.5

7.6192.2

18

7

13

9

10

21

35

52

5

12

14

8

14

3

12

13

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

INTERVAL

January 11, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909572.9 713376.3


Northing:

Contractor:


199.84

End of Borehole

Watrer level measurements:- at completion: 2.8m B.E.G. (197.0m ASL)- on Feb. 10, 2016: 2.4m B.E.G. (197.4m ASL)

100

100

9

10

SS

SS

12.8187.0

42

55

16

10

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

11

12

INTERVAL

January 11, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909572.9 713376.3


Northing:

Contractor:


199.84


GRANULAR BASESilty Sand with GravelBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact

GRANULAR BACKFILLSand and GravelBrown, Wet, Loose

SANDY SILT (Till)Sandy Silt, Trace Gravel, Trace ClayGrey, Moist, Very DenseGlacial Till

Wet below 4.5m

End of Borehole

Watrer level measurements:- at completion: 2.7 B.E.G. (198.4m ASL)

71

79

29

26

96

100

100

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.1201.0

1.5199.6

2.7198.4

8.2192.9

25

14

8

6

100

57

100

100

2

9

8

14

5

8

4

2

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

INTERVAL

January 7, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909820.3 713362.5


Northing:

Contractor:


201.09

>>

>>

>>


100mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand and Gravel, Brownish Black, Moist, CompactGrain Size (SS1): 21% Gr, 49% Sa, 25% Si, 5% Cl

FILLSandy Silt to Silty Sand, Trace Clay, Trace GravelBrown, Moist, Loose

SANDY SILT (Till)Silty Gravel, Some Sand, Trace ClayBrown, Moist to Wet, Very DenseGlacial Till

Ocasional Cobbles, Wet below 3.0m

Wet, Seams/Lenses of Brown Sitly Sand below 5.0m

Grey below 6.0mGrain Size (SS7): 37% Gr, 18% Sa, 35% Si, 10% Cl

End of Borehole


88

96

92

75

58

38

72

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.2207.3

0.3207.2

1.2206.3

8.2199.3

14

9

75

70

100

100

61

100

9

9

7

9

9

7

9

8

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

INTERVAL

January 13, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909989 713344.6


Northing:

Contractor:


207.48

>>

>>

>>

25mm thick: ASPHALT


150mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand with Gravel, Brown. Dry to Moist, Compact

GRAVELSandy Gravel, Trace SiltBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact to Dense

Grain Size (SS5): 61% Gr, 33% Sa, 6% F (Si and Cl)

Ocasional Cobbles, Wet below 3.5m

End of Borehole


63

75

75

88

54

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.0198.6

0.4198.3

0.5198.1

5.2193.5

17

49

32

28

11

17

5

3

2

2

3

11

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

INTERVAL

January 11, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4909018.6 713272.9


Northing:

Contractor:


198.63

25mm thick: ASPHALT

50mm thick: GRANULAR BACKFILLSilty Sand with Gravel, Brown, Dry to Moist, Compact


75mm thick: GRANULAR BASESilty Sand with Gravel, Brown, Dry to Moist, Compact

GRAVELSandy Gravel, Trace SiltBrown, Dry to Moist, Compact to Dense

Ocasional Cobbles below 1.8m

SANDY SILT (Till)Clayey SIlt, Some Sand, Trace GravelGrey, Moist, Very Stiff to HardGlacial TillGrain Size (SS4): 3% Gr, 16% Sa, 60% Si, 21% Cl

Hard below 3.0mSeams/Pockets of Sand with Gravel to Gravel with Sand

at 3.3m

End of Borehole

Water level measurements:- at completion: dry, caved at 4.1m B.E.G.(195.8m ASL)- on Feb. 10, 2016: dry

72

79

71

100

100

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.0199.9

0.1199.8

0.4199.5

0.5199.4

2.3197.6

5.0194.9

18

18

36

22

67

100

1

5

4

12

4

5

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 21, 16

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

INTERVAL

January 8, 2016


AR


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT:

4908999.3 713090.5


Northing:

Contractor:

Easting:Methodology:cave

199.88

>>

50mm thick: ASPHALT SAND AND GRAVEL FILLTrace Clay and SiltBlackish-Grey, Damp to Moist, Dense to Compact


ORGANIC SILTSand and Gravel, Construction Debris (brick fragments)Blackish Grey, Moist to Wet, Soft

-----------------------Topsoil

-----------------------

SAND Some to Trace SiltBrown to Grey, Wet, Loose

Grain Size (SS8): 1% Gr, 92% Sa, 7% Fines

CLAYEY SILTTrace Gravel, Trace to Some SandGrey, Wet, Soft

---------------------sandy

83

58

75

54

83

83

75

75

75

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

0.1191.3

2.3189.0

4.9186.4

8.0183.3

33

12

14

4

1

0

4

7

4

16

6

8

6

84

35

139

14

22

23

14

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 7, 17

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

INTERVAL

November 7, 2016


MS


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT: 4908362.4 713813.8

Hollow Steam ProfileClient:

Northing:

Contractor:


191.30

>>

>>

--------------------


----shale fragments----

LIMESTONEInterbedded Shale and Siltstone

End of Borehole


100

47

100

100

100

7

95

82

83

11

12

13

14

15

SS

NQ

NQ

NQ

NQ

11.9179.4

17.3174.0

1 13

N Value K (m/sec)

C (kPa)u W (%)

15 30 45 60 75 10 10 10 10 102 4 6 8 10- - - - -

W W WP L

Printed:Apr 7, 17

10 20 30 40 5050 100 150 200STRATIGRAPHY

DEPTH (m)

MONITOR

DETAILS

NUMBER

TYPE

N VALUE

% WATER

% REC

% RQD


SAMPLE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

INTERVAL

November 7, 2016


MS


DATE:

BOREHOLE LOG



PROJECT: 4908362.4 713813.8

Hollow Steam ProfileClient:

Northing:

Contractor:


191.30

Appendix B

Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH2 / SS1 BH5 / SS1

BH8 / SS1 BH10 / SS1

BH20 / SS1

FIGURE: B-1

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONGranular Base

CLAY AND SILTSAND GRAVEL

Fine CoarseFine Medium Coarse

1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100

GRAIN SIZE IN MICROMETERS

10 30 75503 SIEVE DESIGNATION ( Imperial )

3/8"

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH2 / SS2 BH6 / SS1


BH24 / SS3

FIGURE: B-2

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONFill



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH6 / SS6

BH8 / SS6

FIGURE: B-3

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONSilt



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH1 / SS5

FIGURE: B-4

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONOrganic Silt



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH8 / SS3 BH9 / SS4

BH10 / SS2 BH10 / SS5

BH11 / SS5 BH13 / SS8

BH24 / SS8

FIGURE: B-5

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONSand



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH4 / SS5

BH5 / SS3

BH6 / SS9

FIGURE: B-6

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONSand and Gravel



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH12 / SS9

BH15 / SS5

BH18 / SS6

BH21 / SS5

FIGURE: B-7

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONGravel



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH24 / SS11

FIGURE: B-8

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONClayey Silt



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PER

CEN

T

PASS

ING

GRAIN SIZE ( mm )

BH3 / SS6 BH3 / SS9


BH5 / SS6 BH17 / SS10

BH20 / SS7 BH22 / SS4

FIGURE: B-9

PROJECT # : 60476375

DATE : April, 2017

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIONTill: Sandy Silt to Clayey Silt



1 51"3/4"1/2"#4#16#200 #50#100



3/8"


3"

Legend

LS702/D422

PLASTICITY CHARTSilt to Clayey Silt

DATE: April, 2017

Project #: 60476375

Figure: B-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IN

DEX

%

LIQUID LIMIT %

BH-8 / SS 6 BH-24 / SS 9

BH-24 / SS 11

C L

C I

M H O H

O IM IO LM L

C H

C L - M L

L E G E N D

PLASTICITY CHARTTill

DATE: April, 2017

Project #: 60476375

Figure: B-11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IN

DEX

%

LIQUID LIMIT %

BH-3 / SS 9 BH-4 / SS 8

BH-20 / SS 7

C L

C I

M H O H

O IM IO LM L

C H

C L - M L

L E G E N D

Appendix C

30% Design Drawings

Appendix D

Tunnelman’s Ground Classification

Tunnelman’s Ground Classification and Probable Working Conditions

SoilClassification Representative Soil Types Tunnel Working Conditions

Hard Very hard calcareous clay;cemented sand and gravel

Tunnel heading may be advancedwithout roof support

Firm Loess above GWT; Variouscalcareous clay with low plasticity

Tunnel heading may be advancedwithout roof support and the permanentsupport can be constructed before theground will start to move

Slow Ravelling

and

Fast Ravelling

Fast Ravelling occurs in residualsoils or in sand with clay binderbelow the GWT. Above the GWT,the same soils may be SlowlyRavelling or even Firm

Chunks or flakes of material begin todrop out of roof or the sides sometimeafter the ground has been exposed.In Fast Ravelling ground, the processstarts within a few minutes; otherwise itis classed as Slow Ravelling

Squeezing Soft or medium-soft clay

Ground slowly advances into tunnelwithout fracturing and withoutperceptible increase of water content inground surrounding the tunnel (maynot be noticed in tunnel but causesurface subsidence)

Swelling

Heavily pre-compressed clayswith a plasticity index in excess ofabout 30; Sedimentary formationscontaining layers of anhydrite.

Like squeezing ground, moves slowlyinto tunnel, but the movements isassociated with a very considerablevolume increase in the groundsurrounding the tunnel.

Cohesive Running

and

Running

Cohesive running occurs in clean,fine moist sand

Running occurs in clean, coarseor medium sand above the GWT

The removal of the lateral support ofany surface rising at an angle of morethan about 34 to the horizontal isfollowed by a ‘run,’ whereby thematerial flows like granulated sugaruntil the slope angle becomes equal toabout 34 . If the ‘run’ is preceded by abrief period of raveling, the ground iscalled Cohesive Running

Very SoftSqueezing

Clays and silts with high plasticityindex

Ground advances rapidly into thetunnel in a plastic flow

FlowingAny ground below the GWT thathas an effective grain size inexcess of about 0.005 mm

Flowing ground moves like a viscousliquid. It can invade the tunnel not onlythrough the roof and the sides but alsothrough the bottom. If the flow is notstopped, it continues until the tunnel iscompletely filled.

Bouldery

Boulder glacial till; rip-rap fill;some land slide deposits, someresidual soils. The matrixbetween boulders may be gravel,sand, silt, clay or combinations ofthereof.

Problems occurred in advancing shieldor in forepoling; blasting or handminingahead of machine may becomenecessary.

Appendix E

Standard Drawings (CPDs and OPSDs)

About AECOM AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is built to deliver a better world. We design, build, finance and operate infrastructure assets for governments, businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries. As a fully integrated firm, we connect knowledge and experience across our global network of experts to help clients solve their most complex challenges. From high-performance buildings and infrastructure, to resilient communities and environments, to stable and secure nations, our work is transformative, differentiated and vital. A Fortune 500 firm, AECOM companies had revenue of approximately US$19 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2015. See how we deliver what others can only imagine at aecom.com and @AECOM.

aecom.com

Documents

Final Geotechnical Report - Jackson Creek Flood Diversion ... · Between January 5th and January 13th 2016, twenty two (22) boreholes (BH1 to BH22) were advanced to depths ranging