-
Tetra Tech EBA Inc.Riverbend Atrium One, 115, 200 Rivercrest
Drive SE
Calgary, AB T2C 2X5 CANADATel 403.203.3355 Fax 403.203.3301
PRESENTED TOMorrison Hershfield
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEWBOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURF FIELD2000 RIVER HEIGHTS DRIVECOCHRANE, ALBERTA
FEBRUARY 2014ISSUED FOR USEFILE: 704-C12103317-01
-
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
This page intentionally left blank.
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
i
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................
1
2.0 PROJECT DETAILS
....................................................................................................................
1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
....................................................................................................................
2
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL
REVIEW..........................................................................................................
24.1 Subsurface
Conditions...........................................................................................................................24.2
Groundwater Conditions
........................................................................................................................3
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL
RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................
35.1 General
..................................................................................................................................................35.2
Site Preparation
.....................................................................................................................................35.3
Artificial Turf Field
Design......................................................................................................................45.4
Excavation and Backfill
..........................................................................................................................5
6.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
GUIDELINES...........................................................................
6
7.0
CLOSURE....................................................................................................................................
8
APPENDIX SECTIONS
APPENDICES
Appendix AAppendix BAppendix CAppendix D
General ConditionsGeotechnical Reports (Reviewed)Construction
GuidelinesFieldturf Base Design Guidelines
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
ii
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
LIMITATIONS OF REPORTThis report and its contents are intended
for the sole use of Morrison Hershfield and their agents. Tetra
Tech EBA Inc. (TetraTech EBA) does not accept any responsibility
for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the
recommendationscontained or referenced in the report when the
report is used or relied upon by any Party other than Morrison
Hershfield, or forany Project other than the proposed development
at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at
the solerisk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the
terms and conditions stated in Tetra Tech EBAs Services Agreement.
TetraTech EBAs General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of
this report.
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
1
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
1.0 INTRODUCTIONTetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech EBA) was
retained to conduct a geotechnical review of the Subsoil
Investigationand Geotechnical Assessment performed by Almor Testing
Services Ltd. (Almor) and Levelton Consultants(Levelton),
respectively. The Subsoil Investigation and Geotechnical Assessment
were conducted for the planneddevelopment of an artificial turf
field at Bow Valley High School, in Cochrane, Alberta (referred
herein as theproject site).
The objective of this review was to provide recommendations for
the geotechnical aspects of the design andconstruction of the
artificial turf field, based upon review of prior work completed
for the project site.
The scope of work for the review was described in our proposal
dated February 3, 2014. Authorization to proceedwith the review was
provided by Jack Vanstone, of Morrison Hershfield, via email, with
a signed serviceagreement on February 4, 2013.
2.0 PROJECT DETAILSThe project site is located within the south
portion of the Bow Valley High School, at 2000 River Heights Drive,
inCochrane, Alberta.
Based on the information provided by Morrison Hershfield, it is
understood that the site currently comprises abaseball field,
football field, and track/field. The existing grass-covered field
is to be replaced with an artificial turffield, with a proposed
field size of approximately 146 m by 76 m (11,100m2).
The aspects of the new turf field were discussed with Morrison
Hershfield on February 5, 2014. From discussion,it is understood
that the turf field will be supplied by Fieldturf and a brochure
for Base Design Guidelines isincluded in Appendix D. From the
Fieldturf guidelines and from discussions, it is understood that
the primary basedesign factors include highly permeable granular
base materials, sufficient for inflow of surface water in the
rangeof 10 to 20 inches per hour. The granular base materials must
also be thick enough for drainage and stableenough for effective
support of the athletes. It is understood that no traffic of any
kind will traverse the artificial turffield, with the exception of
emergency services and foot traffic.
The proposed development will also include possible light
standards and bleachers near the proposed artificialturf sports
field. Tetra Tech EBA acknowledges that the conceptual design,
specifically the exact locations of thebleachers and light
standards, for the proposed developments have not been finalized
and these project detailsmay be changed. For the purposes of this
report, only design recommendations for the installation of the
artificialturf are provided.
Tetra Tech EBA has reviewed the following reports (provided by
Morrison Hershfield) for the preparation of thisreport, included in
Appendix B for reference purposes:
Subsoil Investigation, Turf Football Field, Bow Valley High
School, Cochrane, Alberta, prepared by Almor,dated December 4,
2012; and
Geotechnical Assessment, Synthetic Field Project, Bow Valley
School, Cochrane, Alberta, prepared byLevelton, dated June 3,
2013.
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
2
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONThe project site is located within the south
portion of the Bow Valley High School, at 2000 River Crest Drive,
inCochrane, Alberta. The project site is bordered to the west and
south by Township Road 254A, to the north byRiver Heights Drive,
and the east by a residential community.
It is understood that fill soils existing on site have been in
place for approximately eight to ten years (placed asearly as
2004). The existing fields were generally flat and vegetated with
grass, exhibiting no noticeable slumpingor heaving. There have been
no known performance problems with the existing fields.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEWThe following sections and subsections
are provided based upon the review of the reports outlined in
Section 2.0.Information presented and/or referenced to for the
reviewed documents are based on Tetra Tech EBAs reviewand
interpretation. The reports reviewed can be found in Appendix
B.
Fieldwork programs were carried out for the project site by
Almor (October 2012) and Levelton (May 2013). Atotal of two
boreholes were drilled by Almor, designated as TH1 and TH2. A total
of eight boreholes were drilledby Levelton, designated as BH13-01
to BH13-08. Borehole locations and borehole logs can be found in
theirrespective reports in Appendix B.
It should be noted that geological conditions are innately
variable and glacial deposits, in particular, are seldomspatially
uniform. Information on subsurface stratigraphy is available only
at discrete borehole locations. In orderto develop recommendations
from the information, it is necessary to make some assumptions
concerningconditions at locations between boreholes.
4.1 Subsurface Conditions
Topsoil was encountered in all boreholes, with an approximate
layer thickness of 50 mm. This thickness reportedis thinner than
expected. As such, the topsoil thickness should be expected to vary
across the property.
Clay fill was encountered in both Almor boreholes (TH1 and TH2)
and in all Levelton boreholes, with theexception of BH13-01 and
BH13-08. The clay fill was encountered underlying the topsoil, with
a thickness rangingbetween 0.5 m and 2.8 m. The clay fill was
generally described as silty, trace to some sand, trace to some
graveland organics, damp to very moist, medium plastic, and stiff
to very stiff. Inclusions of organic layers were notedthroughout
the clay fill layer.
Native clay was encountered underlying the fill soils in all
boreholes, with the exception of BH13-01 (underlyingtopsoil) and
BH13-08 (underlying a sand layer). The clay was generally described
as silty and sandy, with tracegravel, moist to very moist, low to
medium plastic, and firm to very stiff in consistency and grey to
mottledgrey-brown in colour.
Silt was encountered in all boreholes, with the exception of
BH13-02, BH13-03, and BH13-04, inter-layered withinthe clay. The
silt was generally described as containing sand and was compact to
dense.
A sand layer was encountered in boreholes BH13-07 and BH13-08
inter-layered within the native clay andunderlying the topsoil,
respectively. The sand was generally described as containing silt
and was dense to verydense.
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
3
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
4.2 Groundwater Conditions
All boreholes were observed to be dry upon completion of
drilling. Subsequent groundwater levels weremeasured after
completion of drilling and were all found to be dry, with the
exception of BH13-01 where thegroundwater table was observed at a
depth of 4.55 m below the existing ground surface.
It should be noted that groundwater levels may fluctuate
seasonally and in response to climatic conditions.Accordingly,
groundwater levels should be monitored until start of construction.
It changes are noted ingroundwater levels, Tetra Tech EBA should be
notified so that implication of these changes to therecommendations
provided herein can be reviewed.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONSThe recommendations below may
offer varying options intended to aid in the development of the
project designconcepts and construction specifications. The
recommendations are provided on the understanding and conditionthat
Tetra Tech EBA will be retained to review the relevant aspects of
the final design and will be retained toconduct such field reviews
as are necessary to ensure compliance with geotechnical aspects of
this report.
5.1 General
Geotechnical recommendations provided are valid for the proposed
project details discussed in Section 2.0, asunderstood by Tetra
Tech EBA at the time of this reports preparation. These
recommendations may requirerevision if the project details are
altered at a later stage of design for the project.
Recommendations are provided for the granular base and drainage
details for the new turf field, which areintended to be in general
conformance with Fieldturfs Base Design Guidelines (Appendix
D).
No other recommendations are provided that are not in relation
with the installation of the artificial turf field (i.e.,foundation
options for light standards and bleachers). It is considered that
the Almor and Levelton reports aresuitable for this purpose.
5.2 Site Preparation
Due to the presence of topsoil and fill soils across the site,
some precautions regarding site preparation andgeotechnical aspects
of design and construction of the proposed development should be
undertaken asdiscussed below.
For the intended purpose and installation of the artificial turf
field, as stated in Section 2.0, the existing fills soils onthe
project site are not considered to impede the functionality or
construction of the artificial turf field. Therefore,complete
removal of fill soils for the project site is not deemed
necessary.
Tetra Tech EBA has no records that the fill soils, which
extended to depths up to 2.8 m below the ground surface,were placed
in a controlled manner with adequate compaction. Therefore, these
soils should be observed andapproved by qualified geotechnical
personnel during construction.
Following initial site stripping and excavation (shaping) of the
sports field area to achieve the design subgradeelevation, the
subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 150 mm, moisture
conditioned to between 0%and 3% above optimum moisture content, and
re-compacted to 95% of Standard Proctor maximum dry
density(SPD).
jcharleboisHighlight
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
4
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
During these preparation measures, prior to placement of the
drainage granular materials, the subgrade shouldbe proof-rolled to
detect structurally deficient areas. Areas of structurally
deficient subgrade should be evaluatedin the field to determine
appropriate remedial measures. If highly organic soils are
encountered during subgradepreparation, they should be removed. Any
otherwise soft areas should be over-excavated and backfilled to
95%of SPD using general engineered clay fill. The prepared subgrade
should be observed and approved by ageotechnical engineer.
The excavated subgrade should be protected during construction
from rain, snow, freezing temperatures, andexcessive drying, and
from the ingress of free water.
Full-time monitoring and compaction testing should be provided
during any fill placement to ensure suitablesubgrade conditions are
prepared. Qualified persons, independent of the contractor, should
complete thismonitoring.
All fill required for the project site to raise the subgrade
elevation should meet the requirements of generalengineered clay
fill, as defined in Backfill Material Compaction in Appendix C.
General engineered fill should beplaced in lifts not exceeding 200
mm in compacted thickness and a density of 95% SPD, unless noted
otherwise.
5.3 Artificial Turf Field Design
As noted, the Base Design Guidelines from Fieldturf are included
in Appendix D. From a geotechnicalperspective, in order to
generally comply with these guidelines, the following
recommendations are provided.
The turf field base clay subgrade should be prepared, as
recommended in Section 5.2, including sub-cut to finalsubgrade
elevation, moisture conditioning, compaction, and proof rolling. As
a special Fieldturf requirement, thesubgrade should be graded to a
minimum 0.5% gradient, from the field longitudinal centreline
towards the sideedges.
At the completion of these recommended subgrade preparation
procedures, given the condition of the clay soilsnoted, the
subgrade is considered to be suitable for the field support. That
is, the subgrade should be competentand there should be no need to
subexcavate to provide additional bridging. In addition, placement
of a geotextileon the prepared subgrade is not considered
necessary.
One of the key proprietary design aspects includes drainage
perforation of the surfacing. Guidelines for granularbase layers
are provided in the Fieldturf guidelines in Appendix D, including
Base Stone Type 1, Base StoneType 2, and Finishing Stone. The
guidelines include gradation for stability, as well as minimum
permeabilitycharacteristics of the stone types. Morrison Hershfield
has proposed a similar design for a previous projectcompleted for
an artificial turf field, utilizing the Crushed Stone Base with 2
Drains.
In Tetra Tech EBAs experience on past turf field projects, local
gravel suppliers have significant difficulty inproviding these
special granular products to these guidelines, which results in
significant increase in costs. Forexample, the Base Stone and
Finishing Stone types do not comply with standard local
specifications for AlbertaTransportation or The City of Calgary.
Therefore, Tetra Tech EBA recommends a modification to locally
availablegranular materials, as presented in Appendix C of this
report. The Finishing Stone layer should be replaced withAlberta
Transportation A.T. D2-C20 20 mm crushed gravel. The Base Stone
layer should be replaced withCoarse Gravel, with the 25 mm Gravel
gradation preferred (AT D8-C25). It is recommended that local
gravelsuppliers be consulted in order to provide options for
similarly acceptable granular materials at an effective cost.
Another factor is to provide sufficient granular thickness for
constructability, as well as to provide drainage of thebase to
sufficient depth to prevent frost effects from affecting the turf
surface over time. Therefore, with these
jcharleboisHighlight
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
5
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
considerations, referencing Tetra Tech EBAs experience with
similar turf fields on past projects, the followinggranular
structures is recommended, directly underlying the artificial turf
surfacing:
100 mm of Finishing Stone, comprising A.T. D2-C20 20 mm crushed
gravel, overlying
500 mm of Base Stone, comprising 25 mm Drainage Rock (AT
D8-C25), overlying
Prepared subgrade, inclusive of pipe drains.
The minimum 100 mm thick layer of crushed gravel is recommended
in order to better facilitate compaction andstability and to allow
very fine grading operations. This material should be compacted to
a minimum of 98% ofSPD. The 500 mm thick drainage rock is
recommended at the centreline of the field. Assuming the field
surface isquite flat, with 0.5 % drainage of the subgrade towards
the edges of the field, the thickness of the drainage rockwill
increase towards the outer edges. As noted, the intent of these
products is to provide surface stability as wellas to meet the
intent of excellent surface drainage, using locally available
granular products.
The base of the field below Base Stone layer should include a
system of subsurface drainage. Based onexperience, Tetra Tech EBA
recommends that drainage pipes be placed on the prepared subgrade.
It is notnecessary to install the drainage pipes within narrow
trenches excavated. The perforated drainage pipes shouldbe minimum
100 mm in diameter and should be fitted with a geosock. Either
perforated rigid pipes or flexiblepipes may be used. A maximum
lateral pipe spacing of 6.0 m is recommended for general usage. On
pastprojects, a W or herringbone or a V-shaped pattern have proven
to be an effective layout. Typically, the internalperforated pipes
would lead to a series of header pipes with increased diameters of
a minimum of approximately300 mm, considered appropriate. These
lines should drain into locally available systems.
5.4 Excavation and Backfill
Excavations should be carried out in accordance with Alberta
Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)regulations. The
consistencies of the soils encountered at the site should allow
conventional hydraulic excavatorsto remove these soils.
For this project, the depth of excavations is anticipated to be
relatively shallow and will be carried out for servicetrenches and
underground utilities.
For temporary excavations in clay deeper than 1.5 m (and up to 2
m deep), the sideslopes should be shored andbraced or the slopes
cut 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical (1.0H:1.0V) or flatter. Flatter
sideslopes may be required inthe clay at depths below 2 m from
grade. Where excavations are open for longer than one month or if
significantgroundwater seepage is encountered, the sideslopes
should be cut flatter than 1.0 horizontal to 1.0
vertical(1.0H:1.0V). In areas below the groundwater table or if
sand is encountered, flatter sideslopes will be required.
If sloping of excavation sides is not feasible due to space
limitations or other factors, then vertical-sidedexcavations
greater than 1.5 m deep should be shored or entered only in
conjunction with an appropriate safetydevice utilized in accordance
with the manufacturers recommendations. Upon request, Tetra Tech
EBA caneither provide recommendations for shoring design or
undertake the detailed shoring design.
Where the base of the excavation comprises of wet or soft soils,
it is recommended that the base beover-excavated to obtain a stable
base (or to a maximum of 600 mm). A woven geotextile should then be
placedon the sub-cut base of the trench. The trench may then be
backfilled to the original trench base elevation usingpit-run
gravel.
jcharleboisHighlight
jcharleboisHighlight
jcharleboisHighlight
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
6
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
Excavations left open for extended periods may collect
groundwater seepage or surface runoff. It is anticipatedpumping
from sumps or trench and sump systems will be sufficient to dewater
typical excavations. Any surfacewater or groundwater infiltration
into an excavation should be diverted away from the base to avoid
softening.Ponded water should not be permitted to remain near
excavation slopes as it may result in soil softening andshallow
slumping.
Temporary surcharge loads, such as construction materials and
equipment, should not be allowed within 3 m ofan unsupported
excavated face or the depth of excavation, whichever is greater. A
further setback may berequired for deeper excavations. Vehicles
delivering materials should be kept back from excavated faces by
atleast 1 m.
Prior to allowing workers to enter, and particularly after
periods of rain, construction excavations should becarefully
observed for evidence of instability, such as cracks, bulging, or
soil loss from seepage areas. Small earthfalls from the sideslopes
are a potential source of danger to workers and must be guarded
against. Evidence ofexcavation instability and/or seepage should be
reported to Tetra Tech EBA and corrected prior to allowingworker
access. Loose soil blocks, cobbles, and the like should be scaled
from the excavation slopes prior toworker entry.
Trenches must be backfilled in such a way as to reduce the
potential of differential settlement and frost heavemovements;
however, some variation in subgrade performance must be expected
across trench locations.
Trenches should generally be backfilled with soils similar to
the adjacent native soils, and the backfill should becompacted at
moisture contents within 3% of optimum. A minimum compaction to 95%
SPD is recommended forall trenches except for the top 600 mm, which
should be compacted to 98% SPD. The compacted thickness ofeach lift
of backfill should not exceed 150 mm. The upper 1.5 m of service
trenches should be cut at a maximumslope of 1.0H:1.0V, to avoid an
abrupt transition between backfill and in situ soil. If the trench
is within the footprintof a structure, all trench backfill should
comprise fill meeting the specifications of select engineered fill,
compactedto a minimum of 98% of SPD at moisture content within 3%
of optimum. The compacted thickness of each lift ofbackfill should
not exceed 150 mm.
The existing site soils comprising native clay and clay fill are
suitable for use as general engineered fill materialas defined in
Appendix C. However, the plasticity and the organic content of this
material should be confirmedprior to its use as general engineered
fill. Organic soils should be removed and placed in landscaped
areas.
Backfill comprising cohesive soils should be considered frost
susceptible and should not be used in areas where itmay become
frozen and where frost heaving would be unacceptable.
The ultimate performance of the backfill is directly related to
the uniformity of the backfill compaction. In order toachieve this
uniformity, the lift thickness and compaction criteria must be
strictly enforced.
General recommendations regarding construction excavation,
backfill materials, and compaction are contained inAppendix C.
6.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINESRecommended general design
and construction guidelines are provided in Appendix C, under the
followingheadings:
Backfill Materials and Compaction.
Proof-Rolling.
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
7
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
Construction Excavations.
These guidelines are intended to present standards of good
practice. Although supplemental to the main text ofthis report,
they should be interpreted as part of the report. Design
recommendations presented herein are basedon the premise that these
guidelines will be followed.
The design and construction guidelines are not intended to
represent detailed specifications for the worksalthough they may
prove useful in the preparation of such specifications.
In the event of any discrepancy between the main text of this
report and Appendix C, the main text should govern.
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
APPENDIX AGENERAL CONDITIONS
-
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
This report incorporates and is subject to these General
Conditions.
1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP
This geotechnical report pertains to a specific site, a
specificdevelopment and a specific scope of work. It is not
applicable to anyother sites nor should it be relied upon for types
of developmentother than that to which it refers. Any variation
from the site ordevelopment would necessitate a supplementary
geotechnicalassessment.
This report and the recommendations contained in it are
intendedfor the sole use of Tetra Tech EBAs Client. Tetra Tech EBA
doesnot accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the
data, theanalyses or the recommendations contained or referenced in
thereport when the report is used or relied upon by any party
otherthan Tetra Tech EBAs Client unless otherwise authorized in
writingby Tetra Tech EBA. Any unauthorized use of the report is at
thesole risk of the user.
This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced
eitherwholly or in part without the prior, written permission of
Tetra TechEBA. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be
obtainedupon request.
2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT
Where Tetra Tech EBA submits both electronic file and hard
copyversions of reports, drawings and other project-related
documentsand deliverables (collectively termed Tetra Tech EBAs
instrumentsof professional service), only the signed and/or sealed
versionsshall be considered final and legally binding. The original
signedand/or sealed version archived by Tetra Tech EBA shall be
deemedto be the original for the Project.
Both electronic file and hard copy versions of Tetra Tech
EBAsinstruments of professional service shall not, under
anycircumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered byany
party except Tetra Tech EBA. Tetra Tech EBAs instruments
ofprofessional service will be used only and exactly as submitted
byTetra Tech EBA.
Electronic files submitted by Tetra Tech EBA have been
preparedand submitted using specific software and hardware systems.
TetraTech EBA makes no representation about the compatibility of
thesefiles with the Clients current or future software and
hardwaresystems.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES
Unless stipulated in the report, Tetra Tech EBA has not
beenretained to investigate, address or consider and has
notinvestigated, addressed or considered any environmental
orregulatory issues associated with development on the subject
site.
4.0 NATURE AND EXACTNESS OF SOIL AND
ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
Classification and identification of soils and rocks are based
uponcommonly accepted systems and methods employed inprofessional
geotechnical practice. This report contains descriptionsof the
systems and methods used. Where deviations from thesystem or method
prevail, they are specifically mentioned.
Classification and identification of geological units are
judgmental innature as to both type and condition. Tetra Tech EBA
does notwarrant conditions represented herein as exact, but infers
accuracyonly to the extent that is common in practice.
Where subsurface conditions encountered during development
aredifferent from those described in this report, qualified
geotechnicalpersonnel should revisit the site and review
recommendations inlight of the actual conditions encountered.
5.0 LOGS OF TESTHOLES
The testhole logs are a compilation of conditions and
classificationof soils and rocks as obtained from field
observations andlaboratory testing of selected samples. Soil and
rock zones havebeen interpreted. Change from one geological zone to
the other,indicated on the logs as a distinct line, can be, in
fact, transitional.The extent of transition is interpretive. Any
circumstance whichrequires precise definition of soil or rock zone
transition elevationsmay require further investigation and
review.
6.0 STRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The stratigraphic and geological information indicated on
drawingscontained in this report are inferred from logs of test
holes and/orsoil/rock exposures. Stratigraphy is known only at the
locations ofthe test hole or exposure. Actual geology and
stratigraphy betweentest holes and/or exposures may vary from that
shown on thesedrawings. Natural variations in geological conditions
are inherentand are a function of the historic environment. Tetra
Tech EBA doesnot represent the conditions illustrated as exact but
recognizes thatvariations will exist. Where knowledge of more
precise locations ofgeological units is necessary, additional
investigation and reviewmay be necessary.
-
GENERAL CONDITIONSGEOTECHNICAL REPORT
2
7.0 PROTECTION OF EXPOSED GROUND
Excavation and construction operations expose geological
materialsto climatic elements (freeze/thaw, wet/dry) and/or
mechanicaldisturbance which can cause severe deterioration. Unless
otherwisespecifically indicated in this report, the walls and
floors ofexcavations must be protected from the elements,
particularlymoisture, desiccation, frost action and construction
traffic.
8.0 SUPPORT OF ADJACENT GROUND AND STRUCTURES
Unless otherwise specifically advised, support of ground
andstructures adjacent to the anticipated construction and
preservationof adjacent ground and structures from the adverse
impact ofconstruction activity is required.
9.0 INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There is a direct correlation between construction activity
andstructural performance of adjacent buildings and other
installations.The influence of all anticipated construction
activities should beconsidered by the contractor, owner, architect
and prime engineerin consultation with a geotechnical engineer when
the final designand construction techniques are known.
10.0 OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Because of the nature of geological deposits, the judgmental
natureof geotechnical engineering, as well as the potential of
adversecircumstances arising from construction activity,
observationsduring site preparation, excavation and construction
should becarried out by a geotechnical engineer. These observations
maythen serve as the basis for confirmation and/or alteration
ofgeotechnical recommendations or design guidelines
presentedherein.
11.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Where temporary or permanent drainage systems are
installedwithin or around a structure, the systems which will be
installedmust protect the structure from loss of ground due to
internalerosion and must be designed so as to assure
continuedperformance of the drains. Specific design detail of such
systemsshould be developed or reviewed by the geotechnical
engineer.Unless otherwise specified, it is a condition of this
report thateffective temporary and permanent drainage systems are
requiredand that they must be considered in relation to project
purpose andfunction.
12.0 BEARING CAPACITY
Design bearing capacities, loads and allowable stresses quoted
inthis report relate to a specific soil or rock type and
condition.Construction activity and environmental circumstances
canmaterially change the condition of soil or rock. The elevation
atwhich a soil or rock type occurs is variable. It is a requirement
ofthis report that structural elements be founded in and/or
upongeological materials of the type and in the condition
assumed.Sufficient observations should be made by qualified
geotechnicalpersonnel during construction to assure that the soil
and/or rockconditions assumed in this report in fact exist at the
site.
13.0 SAMPLES
Tetra Tech EBA will retain all soil and rock samples for 30
daysafter this report is issued. Further storage or transfer of
samples canbe made at the Clients expense upon written request,
otherwisesamples will be discarded.
14.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH EBA BY
OTHERS
During the performance of the work and the preparation of
thereport, Tetra Tech EBA may rely on information provided
bypersons other than the Client. While Tetra Tech EBA endeavours
toverify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so
bythe Client, Tetra Tech EBA accepts no responsibility for
theaccuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect
thereport.
-
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL
TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School
Artificial Turf.docx
APPENDIX BGEOTECHNICAL REPORTS (REVIEWED)
-
P a g e | i
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
Table of Contents
page
1
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................
1
2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
......................................................................................
1
3 SCOPE OF WORK
...........................................................................................................
1
4 DETAILS OF THE INVESTIGATION
.......................................................................................
2
4.1 Field Drilling and Soil Sampling
...................................................................................
2
4.2 Laboratory Test Programs
.........................................................................................
2
5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
...............................................................................................
2
5.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions
.........................................................................................
2
5.1.1 Topsoil
..............................................................................................................
2
5.1.2 Fill
...................................................................................................................
2
5.1.3 Clay
.................................................................................................................
3
5.1.4 Silt
..................................................................................................................
3
5.1.5 Sand
.................................................................................................................
3
5.2 Surface Geology
.....................................................................................................
3
5.3 Water Soluble Sulphate
............................................................................................
3
5.4 Groundwater Conditions
...........................................................................................
4
6 FROST PENETRATION DEPTHS
..........................................................................................
4
7 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
...............................................................................
4
7.1 General Comments
..................................................................................................
4
7.2 Field Site Preparation
..............................................................................................
5
7.2.1 Removal of Unsuitable Materials
..............................................................................
5
7.2.2 Frost Heave Protection
..........................................................................................
5
7.2.3 Excavation
.........................................................................................................
5
7.2.4 Subgrade Preparation
............................................................................................
5
7.3 Field High-Mast Lighting Systems
.................................................................................
6
7.3.1 Preliminary Comments
..........................................................................................
6
7.3.2 Foundations
.......................................................................................................
6
7.3.3 Additional Preliminary Commentary for Foundations
...................................................... 6 7.3.3.1
Lateral Pile Capacity
......................................................................................
7
7.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
.................................................................................
7
8 SULPHATE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION
...............................................................................
7
9 FIELD REVIEW
..............................................................................................................
7
10 CLOSURE
..................................................................................................................
7
APPENDIX A SITE PLANS (FIGURES 1 AND 2) BOREHOLE LOGS
........................................................ A
-
P a g e | ii
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
List of Tables
Table 1 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Fill
..................................................................................
3
Table 2 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Clay
................................................................................
3
Table 3 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Silt
.................................................................................
3
Table 4 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Sand
...............................................................................
3
Table 5 Summary of Groundwater Observations
...............................................................................
4
Table 6 Preliminary Skin Friction Values for Concrete Piers
....................................................................
6
2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND MAY NOT BE
REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, EXCEPT BY WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD.
-
P a g e | 1
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
1 Introduction
Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) was retained by the Town of
Cochrane to provide a geotechnical assessment for a proposed
synthetic field project at Bow Valley High School in Cochrane,
Alberta. This report presents the results of our geotechnical
assessment. It has been prepared for the Town of Cochrane in
accordance with the scope of work presented in Leveltons proposal,
File No. P713-0729-00 Rev. 1 dated March 27, 2013. Authorization to
proceed was received from Suzanne Gaida, Senior Manager of the Town
of Cochrane, on April 3, 2013.
2 Site and Project Description
The project site is located in the south east quadrant of Bow
Valley High School property in Cochrane, Alberta. Presently, the
project site is vegetated with grass and is being used as a
baseball field. The following provides a summary of background
information provided to us for the geotechnical assessment:
A site plan of the school property showing the baseball field
area (attached as Figure 1 in Appendix A of this report);
A site plan of the baseball field area showing proposed borehole
locations; and
Soil report prepared by Almor Testing Services Ltd. dated
December 4, 2012, File No 099-112-12. Based on discussions with
Douglas Wournell, Architect at Dialog Vancouver, our understanding
of the development plans for the synthetic field project is
summarized as follows:
Proposed field size to be about 146 m by 76 m (area about 11,100
m2);
Proposed field location to be in the general area of the
existing grass overlain baseball field;
Proposed field orientation not yet determined;
Proposed top of field elevation to be about 0.6 m above present
site grades; and
Field high-mast lighting systems will form part of synthetic
field development. No other details of the proposed development
plans were provided to us at the time of report preparation.
3 Scope of Work
The scope of work for the geotechnical assessment included:
determination of: subsurface soil profiles and their
geotechnical characteristics; and groundwater and sloughing
conditions.
providing: comments on the geotechnical aspects to be considered
for site development; comments on subgrade preparation requirements
for synthetic turf field construction; comments on soil
susceptibility to frost heave and soil swelling protection;
comments on concentrations of water soluble sulphates in the soil;
preliminary comments on surface and subsurface drainage; and
preliminary comments on site subgrade suitability and geotechnical
parameters for high mast
lighting system construction.
-
P a g e | 2
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
4 Details of the Investigation
4.1 Field Drilling and Soil Sampling
Field drilling was carried out on May 6, 2013, using a
truck-mounted drill rig owned and operated by Great West Drilling.
Soil sampling and logging of the various soil strata was performed
by Levelton geotechnical staff. A total of eight boreholes (BH13-01
to BH13-08) were drilled within the general area of the existing
grass overlain baseball field. The borehole locations were selected
by Dialog Vancouver. All boreholes were advanced to depth of 5.1 m
below ground surface. The soil conditions encountered during
drilling were described visually in accordance to the Modified
Unified Soil Classification System. Approximate borehole locations
are presented on a site plan, Figure 2 in Appendix A. Disturbed
auger samples were collected at 0.75 m intervals from all
boreholes. In addition, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were
conducted at selected intervals to obtain an indication of soil
consistency and unconfined compressive strength. All field test
results are contained in the borehole logs in Appendix A. The
groundwater conditions were monitored during drilling. Standpipe
piezometers (25 mm diameter) were installed in three of the
boreholes upon completion of drilling and the levels of accumulated
groundwater in the standpipe piezometers were monitored 24 days
later. The groundwater readings are presented on the borehole logs
in Appendix A and are summarized in Section 5.4 of this report.
4.2 Laboratory Test Programs
Laboratory testing was carried out on selected soil samples and
included:
Moisture contents;
Sulphate tests;
Atterberg limit tests; and
Particle size analysis. The laboratory test results are included
in the borehole logs in Appendix A.
5 Subsurface Conditions
The general soil profile at the borehole locations consisted of
topsoil and fill, underlain by native soil deposits consisting
mainly of clay and silt, with interlayered sand. Descriptions of
the soil strata encountered are provided in the following
sections.
5.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions
5.1.1 Topsoil
Generally, in all boreholes, a topsoil layer of up to about 5 cm
thickness was encountered.
5.1.2 Fill
Fill in thickness ranging from 1.0 to 2.8 m was encountered in
majority of boreholes, except for BH13-01 and BH13-08 where no fill
was noted. The fill thickness appeared to increase from north to
south. The fill was variable in composition, and was generally
described as a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and organics.
Field and laboratory test results obtained from this soil layer are
summarized below in Table 1.
-
P a g e | 3
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
Table 1 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Fill
Test Range
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 20 to 34
Natural Moisture Content (%) 10.8 to 30.7
5.1.3 Clay
Clay was encountered below the fill in all boreholes, extending
to termination depth of all boreholes except for boreholes BH13-01
and -05. The fill contained silty and sandy components, trace
gravel, and was grey to mottled grey or brown in color. Based on
field and laboratory test results, the clay was encountered in firm
to very stiff consistency and exhibits medium plasticity.
Laboratory and field test results obtained from the clay stratum
are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Clay
Test Range
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 7 to 32
Natural Moisture Content (%) 12.5 to 34.7
Liquid Limit (%) 31 to 41
Plastic Limit (%) 16 to 20
5.1.4 Silt
Silt was encountered in boreholes inter-layered within the
native clay except in BH13-02, BH13-03, and BH13-04 where no silt
layer was noted. Silt was generally described as brown, sandy,
moist, compact to dense. Laboratory and field test results on this
soil layer are summarized below in Table 3.
Table 3 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Silt
Test Range
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 19
Natural Moisture Content (%) 4.9 to 16,6
5.1.5 Sand
Sand was encountered in BH13-07 inter-layered within the native
clay. Sand was generally described as brown, silty, moist, dense to
very dense. Laboratory and field test results on this soil layer
are summarized below in Table 4.
Table 4 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Sand
Test Range
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 27
Natural Moisture Content (%) 4.0 to 10.2
5.2 Surface Geology
Based on the map of Surface Materials of the Calgary Urban Area:
Calgary Sheet, NTS 820/1, prepared by S.R. Moran (1986), we
understand that the soil conditions in the vicinity of the project
site generally comprise of superglacial lacustrine clay overlying
glacial till. The findings from the field drilling generally
conform with published geological soil descriptions.
5.3 Water Soluble Sulphate
The results of water soluble sulphate tests on selected soil
samples yielded concentration of 0.00% to 0.002% sulphate by dry
unit weight of soil.
-
P a g e | 4
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
5.4 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater conditions were observed during drilling. Standpipes
were also installed in boreholes BH13-01, BH13-02, and BH13-04 to
monitor relatively stabilized groundwater conditions. A summary of
the groundwater observations is presented in Table 5.
Table 5 Summary of Groundwater Observations
Borehole Number
Depth of Water Seepage (m)
Depth of Groundwater (m)
At End of Drilling On May 30, 2013
BH13-01 nil Dry 4.55
BH13-02 nil Dry Dry
BH13-03 nil Dry n/a
BH13-04 nil Dry Dry
BH13-05 nil Dry n/a
BH13-06 nil Dry n/a
BH13-07 nil Dry n/a
BH13-08 nil Dry n/a
It should be recognized that groundwater levels are dependent on
meteorological cycles and drainage. Higher groundwater levels than
those observed in this investigation may be encountered.
6 Frost Penetration Depths
The expected maximum depth of frost penetration at the subject
site is 2.5 m. The penetration depth is determined based on a
freezing index for a 30-year return period of 1100 degree-days
Celsius. The depth of frost penetration was determined based on the
assumption of granular fill subsoil with a turf cover at the
surface.
7 Discussions and Recommendations
This section of the report provides engineering information for
the geotechnical design aspects of the project, based on our
interpretation of the boreholes information from Leveltons site
investigation and available information, and on our understanding
of the project requirements. The recommendations provided are
intended as guidance for planning and design by design engineers
and architects. Where comments are made on construction, they are
provided to highlight aspects of construction that could affect the
design of the project. Parties requiring information beyond the
scope or purpose of this report must make their own interpretation
of the information provided.
7.1 General Comments
Based on the existing subsurface conditions presented in the
previous sections, the native soil deposits encountered below the
site are considered acceptable as soil bearing support for
construction of the proposed synthetic field. The soils are
considered to have low compressibility characteristics. The
following geotechnical issues should be considered in the design
and construction of the field:
Existing on-site fill is not considered suitable as structural
or engineered fill and is not considered suitable to support field
construction;
Native clay is medium plastic in characteristic, and considered
moderately susceptible to soil heaving due to frost; and
-
P a g e | 5
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
Depth of frost penetration below the field will be highly
dependent on the materials used to restore the field site to
grade.
7.2 Field Site Preparation
7.2.1 Removal of Unsuitable Materials
All topsoil, organics, vegetation, fill, and other deleterious
materials should be excavated from the project site as part of site
preparation for the construction of the field. Based on the
borehole findings, we anticipate that removal of unsuitable
materials including the fill soils encountered in the geotechnical
boreholes, will extend to about 2.8 m below grade. We anticipate
that stiff to very stiff native clay will be exposed in the
excavation after removal of all topsoil, organics, vegetation,
fill, and other deleterious materials from the field site. Proof
rolling of the exposed native subgrade should be completed to
identify any soft subgrade conditions. Levelton geotechnical
engineering staff should monitor proof roll activities and advise
on any remedial measures, if required.
7.2.2 Frost Heave Protection
The approximated frost depth penetration at the project site was
about 2.5 m as determined in Section 6. The following
recommendations are provided to reduce the anticipated frost heave
under the proposed synthetic turf field:
the backfill material to be used for the construction of the
proposed turf field base should be free draining in addition to
satisfying other required specifications, such as for stability and
durability;
the free draining base should extend below the approximated
frost depth by excavating the native soil and replacing with the
free draining base material; and,
appropriately designed subsurface drainage system should be
installed below the approximated frost depth to collect the surface
infiltrated water as soon as possible; no water is allowed to sit
within the free draining base and/or at the interface of free
draining base and native soil.
7.2.3 Excavation
Excavations with up to 3.0 m depth, cut back and shoring
operations should be conducted in accordance with Part 32 and other
applicable sections of the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety
Regulations. If required, Levelton can provide engineering analysis
to advise on side slope stability for excavations exceeding 3.0m in
depth. Care should be taken during excavations to avoid the
subgrade to become frozen, dried, or softened during winter or wet
seasons. Water should not be allowed to pond directly on exposed
subgrade soils as it can potentially soften subgrade soils and
reduce its bearing capacity. Site specific recommendations for
protecting bearing subgrade from softening or freezing should be
provided by Levelton at the time of construction.
7.2.4 Subgrade Preparation
After excavation of existing fill and native soils to the
approximated frost depth, the exposed subgrade should be visually
inspected and proof rolled. Soft or weak soils should be
sub-excavated and replaced with granular fills. Nonwoven geotextile
(Nilex 4553 or equivalent) is recommended to be installed on the
native soil subgrade prior to the backfilling of free draining base
material in order to prevent the intrusion of fine materials to the
free draining material. Subsurface drainage pipes are also
recommended to be wrapped with nonwoven geotextile.
-
P a g e | 6
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
7.3 Field High-Mast Lighting Systems
7.3.1 Preliminary Comments
No design details have been provided for the field high-mast
lighting systems. Based on our experience with these types of
lighting systems, for the purpose of preliminary commentary, we
assume the following design configuration:
poles for the high-mast lighting systems are about 25 m high,
light steel structures;
foundation type consist of small diameter (
-
P a g e | 7
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
Full-time pile reviews should be provided by Levelton during
pile installation. Pile reviews should keep complete and accurate
records of the pile installation operation. For cast in place
concrete piles, concrete should be poured immediately after
drilling out each pile location to reduce the risk of groundwater
seepage into the drilled out hole and sloughing of soil within the
hole.
7.3.3.1 Lateral Pile Capacity
The analysis of pile lateral load resistance can be performed
using computer programs such as LPILE. The lateral pile analysis is
used to determine the lateral pile capacity, the pile head
deflections, and maximum bending moments and shear forces induced
by lateral loads. Once the pile arrangements and loading conditions
are known, Levelton can complete the lateral analyses of piles up
on request.
7.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage
The drainage of the field is to be designed by others. At this
preliminary stage, based on site native soil conditions consisting
generally of clay deposits, we do not recommend that clay deposits
be relied upon to assist in the drainage design based on
potentially low porosity rates for clay soils.
8 Sulphate Exposure Classification
The result of water soluble sulphate test on selected soil
sample has indicated a negligible potential for sulphate attack on
concrete in contact with native soils at this site. Any imported
soils should be tested to determine water soluble sulphate
concentration and associated sulphate exposure classification.
9 Field Review
We recommend that on-site field reviews be performed to verify
that actual site conditions are consistent with assumed conditions,
which meet or exceed design criteria. We recommend adequate levels
of field reviews to include: review of adequacy of site excavation,
testing of engineered fill, review of all completed bearing
surfaces, and full time field reviews during construction of pile
foundations.
10 Closure
This geotechnical report has been prepared by Levelton
Consultants Ltd. exclusively for the Town of Cochrane and their
appointed agents. The report reflects our judgment in light of the
information provided to us at the time that it was prepared. Any
use of the report by third parties, or any reliance on or decisions
made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties.
Levelton Consultants Ltd. does not accept responsibility for
damages suffered, if any, by a third party as a result of their use
of this report. The attached Terms of Reference are an integral
part of this geotechnical report.
-
P a g e | A
Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
APPENDIX A
Site Plans (Figures 1 and 2)
Borehole Logs
-
TownOfCochrane.
SyntheticField-BowValleyHighSchoolCochrane, AB
SitePlanShowingBoreholeLocationsJob: Date:May31,2013
Figure:2R713-0641-00
8884-48 Avenue,Edmonton, Alberta, T6E5L1Phone:(780)438-0844
Fax:(780)435-1812
N
ApproximateBoreholeLocations
N
LEGEND
BH13-01
BH13-02
BH13-08
BH13-07
BH13-03
BH13-05
BH13-06
BH13-04
BoreholelocationplanadoptedfromthesiteplanprovidedbyDialogVancouver
-
TOPSOILBrown, silty, CLAY, trace sand, grey mottled,occasional
sand or silt seam, medium plastic,moist
Brown, sandy, SILT, fine grained, moist
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic, moist
Brown, sandy, SILT, wet
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
May 302013
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
12
11
13
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-01
Pie
zo 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Bentonite/Grout PlugSolid PipeCuttingsSlotted
PipeSand/Pea-Gravel
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TOPSOILVery stiff, brown, silty, FILL, clay, trace gravel,trace
sand, trace organics, grey mottled, mediumplastic, moist
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, trace gravel,rust stains,
grey mottled, medium plastic, moist
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
32
25
23
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-02
Pie
zo 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Bentonite/Grout PlugSolid PipeCuttingsSlotted
PipeSand/Pea-Gravel
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TOPSOILMedium dense, brown, sandy, FILL, silt, traceorganics,
damp
Very stiff, brown, silty, FILL, clay, moist
-organic soil layer encountered at 1.5 m
Stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, trace gravel, greymottled,
rust stains, medium plastic
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
25
7
14
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-03
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TOPSOILBrown, silty, FILL, trace clay, trace sand, blackorganic
soil admixing, damp
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, grey mottled, mediumplastic,
moist
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
20
10
10
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-04
Pie
zo 1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Bentonite/Grout PlugSolid PipeCuttingsSlotted
PipeSand/Pea-Gravel
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TOPSOILDense, brown, sandy, FILL, silt, trace organics,brown,
damp to moist
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, grey mottled,sand layers,
medium plastic, damp -SO4= 0.00%
Medium dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
34
26
19
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-05
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TOPSOILStiff, brown, silty, sandy, FILL, clay, trace
gravel,trace organic, medium plastic, damp to moist
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, grey mottled,silt and
sand seam, medium plastic -SO4=0.006%
Loose to medium dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
23
10
11
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-06
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TOPSOILBrown, sandy, FILL SILT, trace organics, blackmottled,
damp
Dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, silt and sandlayers,
medium plastic
Medium dense, brown ,silty, SAND, damp
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
24
27
14
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-07
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TOPSOILDense, brown, silty, SAND, occasional clay layer,damp
Stiff to very stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, moist,occasional silt
and sand layer, medium plastic
Medium dense, brown, SILT, sand, trace clay,occasional clay
layer, wet
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic, moist
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters
G
SPT
G
SPT
SPT
12
19
15
Pg 1 of 1
BH13-08
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description
N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of
RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip
Hammer
C: Condition of Sample
Good
Disturbed
No Recovery
Date Drilled: 5/6/2013
Type: Type of Sampler
SPT : 2 in. standard
ST : Shelby
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water
Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength
in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200
sieve
Wat
erLe
vel
Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment
Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND
CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
C
TypeN
By: T.W
Drill Method:
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
(m)
2
4
6
8
(ft)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
Project No: R713-0641-00
Depth
8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax:
780-435-1812www.levelton.com
1 LO
G P
ER
PA
GE
R71
3-06
41-0
0 B
OR
EH
OLE
LO
GS
.GP
J L
EV
ELT
ON
.GD
T 5
/31/
13
-
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
ISSUED BY LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD.
!
" # $ # % & ' ( ) ' ( * + % & , ( & * " & - . /
0 " # $ # % & ' ( 1 2 3 4 # 3 , 4 # - , ( - 5 * * + # - & 6
5 * 7 # ' & # 8 6 ( 5 8 , % 4 # 3 ' 4 & / & 6 # 0 9 # 3
' 4 & 1 2 : ' 4 5 & * 8 % 5 # ( &
/ & 6 # 0 ) % 5 # ( & 1 2 5 ( , 8 8 ' 4 - , ( 8 # ; 5
& 6 7 # ( # 4 , % % < = , 8 8 # 3 & # - # ( 7 5 ( # # 4
5 ( 7 8 ' ( * + % & 5 ( 7 3 4 , 8 & 5 8 # * : ' 4 & 6 #
7 # ' & # 8 6 ( 5 8 , %
- 5 * 8 5 3 % 5 ( # . > ' ' & 6 # 4 ; , 4 4 , ( &
< ? # @ 3 4 # * * # - ' 4 5 A 3 % 5 # - ? 5 * A , - # . B ( % #
* * * 3 # 8 5 : 5 8 , % % < * & , & # - 5 ( & 6 # 9
# 3 ' 4 & ? & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 &
- ' # * ( ' & , - - 4 # * * # ( $ 5 4 ' ( A # ( & , % 5
* * + # * .
C 6 # & # 4 A * ' : 4 # : # 4 # ( 8 # : ' 4 7 # ' & # 8
6 ( 5 8 , % 4 # 3 ' 4 & * 5 * * + # - D < " # $ # % & '
( / & 6 # 0 C # 4 A * ' : 9 # : # 4 # ( 8 # 1 2 8 ' ( & , 5
( # - 5 ( & 6 #
3 4 # * # ( & - ' 8 + A # ( & 3 4 ' $ 5 - # , - - 5
& 5 ' ( , % 5 ( : ' 4 A , & 5 ' ( , ( - 8 , + & 5 ' ( 4
# % , & # - & ' * & , ( - , 4 - ' : 8 , 4 # , ( - &
6 # + * # ' : & 6 #
9 # 3 ' 4 & . C 6 # ) % 5 # ( & * 6 ' + % - 4 # , - , (
- : , A 5 % 5 , 4 5 E # 5 & * # % : ; 5 & 6 & 6 # * # C
# 4 A * ' : 9 # : # 4 # ( 8 # .
F G H I ! ! ! J ! ! H
K % % - ' 8 + A # ( & * ? 4 # 8 ' 4 - * ? - 4 , ; 5 ( 7 * ?
8 ' 4 4 # * 3 ' ( - # ( 8 # ? - , & , ? : 5 % # * , ( - - # % 5
$ # 4 , D % # * ? ; 6 # & 6 # 4 6 , 4 - 8 ' 3 < ? # % # 8
& 4 ' ( 5 8 ' 4
' & 6 # 4 ; 5 * # ? 7 # ( # 4 , & # - , * 3 , 4 & '
: & 6 # * # 4 $ 5 8 # * : ' 4 & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & , 4 # 5
( 6 # 4 # ( & 8 ' A 3 ' ( # ( & * ' : & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4
& , ( - ?
8 ' % % # 8 & 5 $ # % < ? : ' 4 A & 6 # 5 ( * & 4
+ A # ( & * ' : 3 4 ' : # * * 5 ' ( , % * # 4 $ 5 8 # * / &
6 # 0 L ( * & 4 + A # ( & * ' : M 4 ' : # * * 5 ' ( , % N #
4 $ 5 8 # * 1 2 . C 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 &
5 * ' : , * + A A , 4 < ( , & + 4 # , ( - 5 * ( ' & 5
( & # ( - # - & ' * & , ( - , % ' ( # ; 5 & 6 ' +
& 4 # : # 4 # ( 8 # & ' & 6 # 5 ( * & 4 + 8 & 5
' ( * 7 5 $ # ( & ' " # $ # % & ' (
D < & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & ? & 6 # 8 ' A A + ( 5 8 ,
& 5 ' ( * D # & ; # # ( " # $ # % & ' ( , ( - & 6 #
) % 5 # ( & ? , ( - & ' , ( < ' & 6 # 4 4 # 3 ' 4
& * ? ; 4 5 & 5 ( 7 * ? 3 4 ' 3 ' * , % *
' 4 - ' 8 + A # ( & * 3 4 # 3 , 4 # - D < " # $ # % &
' ( : ' 4 & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & 4 # % , & 5 $ # & '
& 6 # * 3 # 8 5 : 5 8 * 5 & # - # * 8 4 5 D # - 5 ( & 6
# 9 # 3 ' 4 & ? , % % ' : ; 6 5 8 6
8 ' ( * & 5 & + & # & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 & .
C O M 9 O M P 9 " Q B > R P 9 N C K > R C S P L > T O 9
U K C L O > ? O V N P 9 W K C L O > N ? T L > R L > X N
? N B X X P N C L O > N ?
9 P ) O U U P > R K C L O > N K > R O M L > L O >
N ) O > C K L > P R L > C S P 9 P M O 9 C ? 9 P T P 9 P
> ) P U B N C V P U K R P C O
C S P Y S O " P O T C S P 9 P M O 9 C . " P W P " C O > ) K
> > O C V P 9 P N M O > N L V " P T O 9 B N P V Q K > Q
M K 9 C Q O T
M O 9 C L O > N O T C S P 9 P M O 9 C Y L C S O B C 9 P T P 9
P > ) P C O C S P Y S O " P 9 P M O 9 C K > R L C N W K 9 L O
B N
) O U M O > P > C N .
Z [ \ J ! ! H
" # $ # % & ' ( 3 4 # 3 , 4 # - & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 & :
' 4 & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & : ' 4 & 6 # * 3 # 8 5 : 5 8 * 5
& # ? - # $ # % ' 3 A # ( & ? D + 5 % - 5 ( 7 ? - # * 5 7 (
' 4 D + 5 % - 5 ( 7
, * * # * * A # ( & ' D ] # 8 & 5 $ # * , ( - 3 + 4 3 '
* # & 6 , & & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & - # * 8 4 5 D # -
& ' " # $ # % & ' ( . C 6 # , 3 3 % 5 8 , D 5 % 5 &
< , ( - 4 # % 5 , D 5 % 5 & < ' : , ( O O C S P 9 M K 9 C
Q U K Q B N P O 9
9 P " Q B M O > C S P 9 P M O 9 C O 9 K > Q M O 9 C L O
> O 9 ) O U M O > P > C Y L C S O B C C S P Y 9 L C C P
> ) O > N P > C O T
" P W P " C O > . " # $ # % & ' ( ; 5 % % 8 ' ( * # (
& & ' , ( < 4 # , * ' ( , D % # 4 # ^ + # * & D <
& 6 # ) % 5 # ( & & ' , 3 3 4 ' $ # & 6 # + * # ' :
& 6 5 * 9 # 3 ' 4 & D