Top Banner
PROJECT #16850 Highway 28 Heber River Bridge #6898 Geotechnical Design Report File No.: 01-RG-1167 Date: June 17, 2021 Distribution: Digital Copy – Regional Project Manager 1 copy – File Prepared For: Prepared By: Stuart Johnson Project Manager South Coast Region British Columbia Ministry of Transportation 3 rd Floor – 2100 Labieux Road Nanaimo, BC V9T 6E9 Ryan Gustafson, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer
57

PROJECT #16850 Highway 28 Heber River Bridge #6898

Oct 03, 2021

Download

Documents

dariahiddleston
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Geotechnical Design Report
File No.: 01-RG-1167
Date: June 17, 2021 Distribution: Digital Copy – Regional Project Manager 1 copy – File
Prepared For: Prepared By: Stuart Johnson Project Manager South Coast Region British Columbia Ministry of Transportation 3rd Floor – 2100 Labieux Road Nanaimo, BC V9T 6E9
Ryan Gustafson, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
2
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................................2 1.0 Summary of Geotechnical Design Criteria and Recommendations ...............................................................3 2.0 Project and Background Information .............................................................................................................4 3.0 Subsurface Investigation ................................................................................................................................7 4.0 Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................................................8
4.1 Environment Testing for Concrete Deterioration .................................................................................... 10 5.0 Design Factors and Loading ......................................................................................................................... 10 6.0 Seismic Design ............................................................................................................................................. 11 7.0 Foundation Design Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 11 8.0 Approach Design Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 14 9.0 Closure ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
3
1.0 Summary of Geotechnical Design Criteria and Recommendations
Table 1a – Design Criteria from CHBDC S6-14 and Ministry Supplement Reference Design Criteria Value
S6-14
Section 4.4.2 Bridge Importance Category Major Route
Table 4.1 Seismic Site Classification Class C Table 4.10 Seismic Performance Category 3 Table 6.1 Consequence Factor for the Bridge, ψ1 1.0 Section 6.5.3.2 Degree of Understanding Typical
Table 6.2 Geotechnical Resistance Factors Deep Foundations Compression, φgu 0.4
MoTI Supplement Section 4.4.6.4 Pseudo-static FOS against slope failure under 975-year ground motion (for
walls, slopes and embankments) 1.1
Table 6.2b FOS for Global Stability – Permanent (Embankments) 1.54
Table 1b – Factored NRCC Ground Accelerations for Use in Design Reference 2% in 50 years [g] ground acceleration Site Coefficient F(PGA,T) Factored Ground Motion [g] PGA 0.420 1.0 0.420 Sa(0.2) 0.905 1.0 0.905 Sa(1.0) 0.609 1.0 0.609
Table 1c – Geotechnical Design Recommendations Pile Design
Pile Diameter Wall Thickness
Anticipated Pile Tip Elevation (masl)
Maximum Pile Tip Elevation (masl)
610 mm 15.9 mm 15.9 m 5000 kN 2000 kN 266.6 267.8
Pile Installation Utilize outside fit, open-ended, cast steel driving shoe. Excessive driving resistance and obstructions may occur (to El. 277.3), and removing obstructions may be required. Suitable methods include downhole hammer air rotary or percussive drill. Vibration and jetting is not permissible.
Cut and Fill Slopes
Fill Slope Angles Recommended: 2H:1V Maximum: 1.5H:1V
Materials and Pavement Degree of Exposure (per Table 3 in CSA A23.1-14/A23.2-14 (2018)
Low severity
Pavement Structure 100 mm AP 300 mm WGB 300 mm SGSB
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
4
2.0 Project and Background Information
Project Information This report provides geotechnical design recommendations for replacement of the Heber River bridge (Structure #6898) located on Highway 28, connecting Gold River to Campbell River on Vancouver Island. The Heber River bridge is located 11 km northeast of Gold River at LKI Segment 2320, km 76.01. Structural and hydrotechnical design of the Heber bridge is being completed by Associated Engineering (AE), while geotechnical design is being completed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Geotechnical Branch (Ministry Geotech). This report is based on AE’s 100% design submission, dated April 30, 2021. The Heber Bridge was constructed in 1967 and is due for replacement. AE describes the existing structure as a single-span, 34.2 m long glulam I-beam structure supported by timber pile-and-lagging abutments. The span is comprised of four glulam I-beams and is supported by a treated timber substructure consisting of an abutment founded on timber piles at either end and concrete wingwalls which support the adjacent highway fills. The bridge structure is skewed at 45 degrees which is greater than the skew of the watercourse (Figure 1). The abutment piles are tied back to ‘deadman’ anchors buried in the approach fills. The flexibility of the anchorage system combined with the high skew has caused the superstructure to rotate (in plan view) which is evident from the inclination of the abutment piles. Figure 1 – Heber River Plan View (AE IFT Drawings)
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
5
The proposed replacement structure spans 45 m, is skewed 20 degrees from perpendicular to Heber River, and has integral abutments. The girders will be cast integrally with the concrete end diaphragm and pile caps at each abutment. Each abutment is supported by a single row of 610 mm diameter steel piles driven into the native granular subsoils. The replacement structure is based on strategic use of a detour bridge to allow demolition and replacement of the existing structure. Surficial Geology The surficial geology of the project area is described in MOE Technical Report 17 “Soils of Southern Vancouver Island” and mapped in Soil Survey Report #44 “Soils of Southern Vancouver Island” Sheet 6, (1:100,000) (Figure 2). The surficial geology is characterized as Honeymoon Soils (HM8), which have developed in deep, sandy gravelly fluvial, fluvioglacial and/or marine deposits. The coarse fragment content is generally at least 35% and usually exceeds 50% by volume. These soils are described as rapidly drained, very gravelly, loamy sand.
Figure 2 - Excerpt from MOE Soil Survey Report #44 Sheet 6
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
6
Bedrock Geology
According to BC Geological Survey Open File 2009-11 and retrieved through iMapBC, the bedrock geology at the site consists of basaltic volcanic rocks of the Middle to Upper Triassic Karmutsen Formation. These rocks are described as basalt pillowed flows, pillow breccia, hyaloclastite tuff and breccia, massive amygdaloidal flows, minor tuffs, interflow sediment and limestone lenses. In the Heber River watershed upstream of the site, bedrock geology generally consists of the Karmutsen Formation, with isolated areas intrusive rocks of the Island Plutonic Suite.
The Early to Middle Jurassic Island Plutonic Suite is described as granodiorite, quartz diorite, quartz monzonite, diorite, agmatite, feldspar porphyry, minor gabbro and aplite.
Bedrock was not encountered during the subsurface investigations. These rock types are expected to be the origin of most of the sediments at the site.
Topography
East of the Heber River bridge, Highway 28 follows the Elk River Valley roughly east/west past Crest Lake, to a topographic divide in the valley near El. 330 m. About 1.4 km east of this divide, the upper Heber River valley joins east/south valley followed by the Highway 28 corridor, and the Heber River Bridge is located in this three valley confluence. Through this area, the highway descends to the west towards Gold River at a grade of about 4%. The valley bottom is planar along contour, and slopes consistently across contour in the downstream direction towards Gold River.
Near the existing Heber River bridge, the road is supported by 3 to 4 m high fill slopes constructed at about 1.5H:1V. Based on the position of the bridge site within the base of the broad valley, a review of aerial imagery, and the field work completed, the Heber bridge is expected to be located outside the zone of influence of potential upslope hazards originating from the steep slopes that form the valley sidewalls.
Hydrotechnical Conditions
AE’s February 2021 draft hydrotechnical design report for the Heber River bridge identifies scour potential ranging from 0.5 m at the left bank to 0.7 m at the right bank. A q200 flood elevation at the bridge of 281.9 m was identified. Climate Conditions
According to Climate Atlas of Canada (climateatlas.ca) the site experiences a total annual rainfall of 2931 mm with an annual average of 215 days of rain. High volume and high intensity rainfall events are common. The highest monthly precipitation occurs in November which averages 444 mm. The site also experiences 5 days of freezing and a mean freezing index of 44.7 degree-days.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
7
3.0 Subsurface Investigation Three bridges in sequence along Highway 28 are due for replacement: Heber River Bridge, Elk River Bridge and Cervus Creek Bridge. Two separate Geotechnical Consultants were retained in 2020 and 2021 to complete Phase I and Phase II drilling investigations for all three bridges. Factual data inclusive of both phases of investigation are presented in Appendix A (test hole logs) and Appendix B (laboratory data). The Phase I investigation was completed by WSP Canada Inc. (WSP) using a track-mounted sonic drill provided by Drillwell Enterprises Ltd. Two boreholes SH20-05 and SH20-06 were advanced at the Heber River bridge from December 12 to 15, 2020. Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was conducted using a 140 lb. automatic trip hammer every 1.5 m in the upper 20 m, and at 3 m intervals thereafter. Grab samples were also taken from select locations within the sonic core. Phase I Samples were submitted to the Golder Associates Ltd. Lab in Burnaby and the WSP lab in Nanaimo. Select sieve analyses were completed on the granular soils and hydrometers were completed where the soils had a notable fines content. Laboratory results are provided in Appendix B. A standpipe piezometer was installed in SH20-05 (base of screen at 30.5 m depth/254.5 m elevation). Measurement taken on Dec. 4, 2020 indicated a groundwater depth of 7.1 m corresponding to an elevation of 277.9 m. The Phase II investigation was completed by Tetra Tech Canada (Tetra Tech) using a Becker Hammer rig provided by Foundex Explorations Ltd in an effort to supplement the SPT blow counts and gain an understanding of pile drivability in the coarse, variable deposit. A HAV-180 Becker Hammer rig was used, equipped with a blower and a Link Belt 180 Diesel Hammer rated for 8100 ft. lbs of energy per blow. The rig was equipped with a bounce chamber pressure gauge although bounce chamber pressures were not recorded. One test hole TH21-02 was advanced at the west abutment of the Heber River bridge from April 8 to 9, 2021. No soil sampling was completed due to the close proximity of sonic hole TH20-06 which provided continuous soil sampling with less sample disturbance than the Becker rig. Harder and Seed (1978) provide a method to correlate Becker blowcounts to SPT N60 values as well as a recommended procedure for Becker Hammer drilling. The Harder and Seed correlation is not directly applicable to the results of TH21-02 because the recommended drilling procedure was not followed. Bounce chamber pressures were not recorded during drilling and an open bit was used at lower depths due to refusal with the closed bit. As a result, the Becker test results were only considered qualitatively to illustrate the location of potential obstructions for pile driving and to calibrate SPT blow counts where SPT refusal occurred on cobbles/boulders. Test hole logs for all test locations are presented in Appendix A. Logs include uncorrected Standard Penetration Test values and uncorrected Becker Hammer values (blow counts). Soil descriptions and laboratory results are shown on the sonic logs. Table 2 below provides an abbreviated summary of drilling details from the investigation. Test hole locations are shown on AE drawing 6898-101.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
8
Table 2: Test Hole Summary Test Hole ID Method Abutment Northing (m) Easting (m) Ground
Elevation (m) Termination Depth (m)
Termination Elevation (m)
SH20-05 Sonic East 5524809 288748 286.1 30.5 255.6 SH20-06 Sonic West 5524795 288704 286.1 30.7 255.4 TH21-02 Becker West 5524793 288697 286.0 30.8 255.2
4.0 Subsurface Conditions Based on available background information, visual inspection, and the subsurface investigations completed, a summary of stratigraphy near the proposed foundation locations is shown in Table 3. Depths in Table 3 are from ground surface, and the underside of the proposed pile caps is at a depth of 3.65 m.
Table 3 – Summary of Stratigraphy and Representative (N1)60 Values (based on SPT and Becker/SPT correlation) Stratigraphic Unit West Abutment (SH20-05) East Abutment (SH20-06, TH20-02)
From (m) To (m) (N1)60 From (m) To (m) (N1)60 Compact Granular Fill (COBBLES and GRAVEL)
0.2 3.0 18 0.2 3.2 18
Compact Fluvial (GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES)
3.0 9.1
4.9 12.0
18 30
4.9 9.1 30 3.2 4.6 30
Dense Fluvial/ Glaciofluvial (GRAVEL) 12.0 29.0 40 6.7 30.6 40 to 45 Dense Fluvial/ Glaciofluvial (SAND) 29.0 30.7 50 Total Drilled Depth (m) SH20-06: 30.7
TH21-02: 30.8 SH20-05: 30.5
Groundwater Conditions Depth (m) Elevation (masl) December 4, 2020 7.1 277.9 Q200 Water Level 4.2 281.9
The stratigraphic units encountered can be summarized as follows: Fill Materials: Existing Pavement Structure: The test holes were drilled in the driving lanes of Highway 28 and encountered an asphalt thickness of 200 mm. Based on the test holes and typical highway construction in the area, it is expected the existing pavement thickness ranges from 100 to 200 mm.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
9
Compact Granular Fill (COBBLES and GRAVEL): The bridge approaches are approximately 3 m thick and consist of cobbles and gravel fill, with some sand and minimal to no fines. SPT refusal occurred on SPT1 in SH20-05, while closed ended Becker blows ranged from 13 to 51. A representative (N1)60 value of 18 was used for design. The fines content of sample GS1 in test hole SH20-06 was 0%. A maximum particle size of 150mm was estimated during the drilling investigation. Native Soils: Underlying the approach fills, coarse native granular soils are present. These soils are interpreted as fluvial and glaciofluvial granular deposits. Both SPT and Becker Hammer data identified increasing density from compact to dense to very dense with depth. Density increases from a depth of 7 to 12 m, and may mark the transition between the fluvial and the glaciofluvial deposits. The expected nature of these deposits is described below. Compact Fluvial (GRAVEL with SAND and COBBLES) and Compact Fluvial (COBBLES AND BOULDERS): The fluvial deposits at the east abutment consist of a cobble and boulder deposit about 1.5 m thick, overlying approximately 7.5 meters of coarse fluvial deposits. These materials are typically compact. The fluvial deposits at the west abutment are typically gravel with sand and cobbles, but include a very coarse cobble and boulder layer from about 5 to 9 m depth (el. 281.1 m to 277.1 m), where Becker refusal occurred during the investigation. Uncorrected SPT values ranged from 17 to 89, with several refusals. Uncorrected closed ended Becker blows ranged from 10 to 228 until refusal was encountered at 5.5 m depth. Drilling switched to open ended Becker methods at 5.5 m depth, with uncorrected open blows ranging from 8 to 327. Representative (N1)60 values of 18 to 30 were used for design. The fines content of samples tested within this unit ranged from 2 to 9%, and a maximum particle size of 300 mm was encountered during the drilling investigation. The locations and thicknesses of cobble and boulder layers within the fluvial deposits are expected to be variable, and could differ from those encountered in the test holes. Cobbles or boulders larger than the oversize material noted on the test hole logs could be present within this unit (at any depth). Dense GRAVEL (Glaciofluvial): The interpreted glaciofluvial deposit underlying the fluvial deposits consists of dense gravels, with varying sand and cobble content, and trace to some silt. Uncorrected SPT values ranged from 49 to 98 with several refusals, while uncorrected open ended Becker blows ranged from 9 to 184. Representative (N1)60 values of 40 to 45 were used for design. The fines content of samples tested within this unit ranged from 2 to 12%, and a maximum particle size of 150 mm was encountered during the drilling investigation.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
10
It is expected that cobbles or boulders larger than the oversize material noted on the test hole logs could be present within this unit (at any depth). Dense SAND (Glaciofluvial): A dense, poorly graded sand unit was encountered at a 29 m depth in the bottom 1.7 m of SH20-06. An uncorrected SPT value of 82 was obtained, while open ended Becker blows ranged from 6 to 42. A representative (N1)60 value of 50 was used for design. The fines content of this unit was 12% in Sample SPT12 in test hole SH20-06. Groundwater: The depth to groundwater was measured as 7.1 m (el. 277.9) in Dec 2020. The Q200 flood level at the bridge location is 4.5 m below the highway grade at an elevation of 281.9 m. Groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variation and extreme weather events, with maximum levels corresponding to flood events.
4.1 Environment Testing for Concrete Deterioration
Select samples from SH20-05 and SH20-06 were tested for the presence and concentration of sulfates and chlorides. The results indicated that the total sulphate ion content ranged from 0.02% to 0.05% in all samples tested. The chloride ion content was found to vary across the site as per Table 4 below:
Table 4: Water-soluble Ion Chloride Content Results Abutment Test Hole Depth (m) Water Soluble Ion Content (%)
West SH20-05 1.2 <0.005 3.7 0.009 7.0 0.006
East SH20-06 1.5 0.009 5.2 0.026 7.0 0.015
The degree of exposure is characterized as low severity according to Table 3 in CSA A23.1-14/A23.2-14 (2018). Testing results are included in Appendix B.
5.0 Design Factors and Loading Table 1a summarizes geotechnical factors used for this project, in accordance with CHBDC S6-14 and the Ministry Supplement to S6-14.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
11
Factored loading has been provided by AE by email on May 14, 2021, and is summarized in Table 5 below:
Table 5: Summary of Pile Loads (6-piles each abutment)
Governing load case Vertical load
(kN) Lateral load
ULS 5 (Min.) -200 (uplift) N/A
6.0 Seismic Design Based on soil testing data, the Heber bridge site is classified as Class C (Table 4.1 of CHBDC S6-14). The bridge is in Seismic Performance Category 3. The NRCC 2015 seismic hazard calculator values for the 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years event, the site coefficients, and the factored ground accelerations are summarized in Table 6 below:
Table 6 – Factored NRCC Ground Accelerations for Use in Design Reference 2% in 50 years [g] ground acceleration Site Coefficient F(PGA,T) Factored Ground Motion [g] PGA 0.420 1.0 0.420 Sa(0.2) 0.905 1.0 0.905 Sa(1.0) 0.609 1.0 0.609
Liquefaction Potential The potential for liquefaction triggering was assessed at each foundation location with reference to Boulanger and Idriss 2008 and liquefaction is not anticipated.
7.0 Foundation Design Recommendations Pile Design The pile foundations will be installed through compact granular fill, into native compact fluvial and dense glaciofluvial deposits. Axial pile capacity was determined following the Alpha Beta method described in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (2006), while the lateral pile capacity was assessed using the software Ensoft L-PILE 2019. AE specified use of concrete filled steel pipe piles with a 610 mm diameter and a 15.9 mm wall thickness.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
12
Ground conditions at the Heber River site include coarse cobble/boulder deposits that may result in difficult driving conditions and/or pile refusal. Pipe piles should be driven with a outside fit, open ended cast steel driving shoe to help driving through the coarse fluvial deposits. Pile refusal is likely to occur in the coarse materials, and suitable methods to advance through the coarse cobble and boulder deposits are expected to be required to reach the specified tip elevation. Suitable methods to advance past obstructions may include use of a percussive drilling or downhole hammer. Vibration or jetting should not be permitted. Axial pile analysis was carried out for both abutments, assuming drilling through the cobble/boulder deposits. These cobble/boulder deposits are located at approximately 3 m to 4.5 m depth (el. 283.1 m to el. 281.8 m) at the east abutment, 5 to 9 m depth (el. 281.1 m to el. 277.1 m) at the west abutment). The base of the pile cap at both abutments is located at a depth of 3.65 m, or an elevation of 282.45 masl. Recommendations are based on soil conditions at the west abutment which is the critical case for the pile design. The analysis completed indicates that the pile design is governed by the axial pile capacity. The results of the axial pile analysis are summarized below:
Table 7 – Recommended Pile Design Pile Properties
Abutment Length Anticipated Tip Elevation
Max Tip Elevation
15.9 m 266.6 masl 267.8 masl
5000 kN 2000 kN East 266.6 masl 267.8 masl
Pile settlement was considered following the empirical methods in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (2006). With a load applied of 2000 kN per pile, a total settlement of < 10 mm is estimated. It is expected that the differential settlement may equal the total settlement. Lateral deflection was estimated using the software L-Pile under the loading conditions summarized in Table 8, resulting in the following estimated deformations in each load case. The analysis considers the horizontal load applied to the top of the pile, and the pile head fixed and unable to rotate.
Table 8: Estimated Pile Lateral Deflection for Each Load Case
Load Case Lateral Load (kN) Estimated Maximum Deflection (cm)
SLS1 120 0.14 ULS 1 70 0.25
ULS 5 (Max.) 325 0.75 Lateral Earth Pressures – Static Under static conditions for walls above the groundwater level, the lateral loading from earth fill is determined by:
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
13
pp γHK 2 1kN/mP = H = height of wall in meters
The following assumptions have been made in calculation of the earth pressure coefficients:
• The fill behind the wall is uniform (BEF or existing sand and gravel fill) and has a friction angle of 36 degrees;
• The interface friction between the wall and backfill is 24 degrees; and • The soil at the top of the wall is horizontal.
Earth pressure coefficients for both materials are presented in Table 9 below: Table 9 - Earth Pressure Coefficients – Static Loading
The theoretical triangular earth pressure loading for static conditions is redistributed as an equivalent uniform loading over the entire embedded height of the wall with the resultant force (Pe) acting at 2/3H of the wall height measured from the wall base. If walls are to be restrained against rotation or lateral displacements, the structural designer should use the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, Ko. If walls are free to rotate or move 1 mm per meter of the wall height (unrestrained), the coefficient of active lateral earth pressure, Ka, may be used. Lateral Earth Pressures – Seismic For non-yielding walls, combined static and seismic earth pressures can be calculated using Mononobe- Okabe method using the coefficients in Table 10 below. The seismic horizontal ground acceleration corresponding to zero wall movement is the site adjusted PGA assumed at ground surface (CSA S-6, C4.6.5), which is 0.420g for this site. The resulting loads can be applied using the following formulas at height H.
H: = PA
Active Loads: PAE= 1 2 KAEyH2(1-kv), Passive Loads: PPE= 1
2 KPEyH2(1-
kv),
In this case (CHBDC S6-14, C 4.6.5) kv can be ignored, and assumed to be zero. An interface friction angle of 24 degrees has been assumed between the wall and backfill.
Earth Pressure Coefficient Bridge End Fill and Insitu Sand and Gravel Fill*
Coulomb Active Coefficient Ka 0.235 Coulomb Passive Coefficient Kp 3.85
Coefficient at rest, Coarse grained l
0.412
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
14
Table 10 – Earth Pressure Factors, Seismic Conditions
Scour Protection AE’s February 2021 draft hydrotechnical design report for the Heber River bridge identifies scour potential ranging from 0.5 m at the left bank to 0.7 m at the right bank, and recommends installation of rip rap as a scour countermeasure. Rip rap should be installed as per AE’s hydrotechnical recommendations and the requirements of SS205. A non-woven geotextile should be installed at the interface of the native granular soils and the underside of the rip rap, and should have the following properties:
• Minimum Grab Tensile Strength (ASTM D-4632): 1100 kN • Minimum Permittivity (ASTM D-4491): 1.2 sec-1 • Maximum AOS (ASTM D-4751): 0.3 mm • Product listed on MoTI Registered Products List (RPL) under: geotextiles, non-woven • Minimum overlap at joints in geotextile: 0.6 m
8.0 Approach Design Recommendations Embankment Fill Slopes: Relevant geotechnical design criteria for slope stability are summarized in Table 1a, and repeated below:
• Consequence Factor: Typical • Degree of Understanding achieved by 2020/2021 site investigation: Typical • Bridge Importance Category: Major Route • Static Permanent FoS for Embankment Stability: 1.54 • Pseudo-static FoS against slope failure under 975-year ground motion (for walls, slopes and
embankments): 1.1 A slope stability assessment of the embankments proposed for the Heber bridge replacement was completed using limit equilibrium methods with Geostudio 2019 Slope/W. As requested by the project team due to RoW constraints, the performance of 2H:1V and 1.5H:1V slopes was reviewed on the upstream face of the embankment. 2H:1V slopes were reviewed on the downstream face of the embankment. The stability analysis was based on a critical section at STA 105+60 (AE 100% design cross- section) and the results are considered representative of the expected conditions at the project site.
Earth Pressure Coefficient Bridge End Fill and Insitu Sand and Gravel Fill
Bridge End Fill, Seismic Active Coefficient, Kae
0.617 Bridge End Fill, Seismic Passive Coefficient, Kpe 8.308
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
15
Soil parameters used in the slope stability assessment are presented in Table 11 below.
Table 11: Slope Stability Analysis – Assumed Material Parameters
Material Model Unit Weight (kN/m3)
Phi (°) Cohesion (kPa)
Notes
Granular Fill M-C 20 38 0 New BEF or existing coarse granular fill. Includes pavement structure.
Coarse Fluvial M-C 20 36 0 Gravel, cobbles, and sand, compact. Material properties were assumed based on the results of the drilling investigations and empirical correlations from Bowles (1977) summarized by the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (2014). Granular fill is assumed to consist of BEF and/or existing granular fills meeting the Ministry’s specifications for SGSB as per SS202. The stability analysis assumes the embankment geometry will not change over the design life of the structure due to potential scour, based on use of rip rap as a scour countermeasure as per AE’s hydrotechnical report. As the existing fills and the proposed new fills have <5% fines, the embankment is expected to remain unsaturated unless subjected to a flood event, after which it will rapidly drain. The stability analysis considered drained loading conditions. Both seismic (using 50% of the 1:475 year PGA) and static scenarios were considered. For the static case, the Q200 water level at the Heber bridge at el. 281.9 m (as predicted by AE) was also considered. The results of the slope stability assessment are summarized in the following table:
Table 12: Slope Stability Analysis – Results
Scenario Loading Condition
Factor of Safety
slope 1.0 m 1.5 m
2H:1V Embankment (Upstream)
Static 1.72 - C.1 Static – Q200 (Water El.: 281.9 m) 1.72 - C.2
1:975 year Seismic Event (0.5*PGA)
1.23 -
C.3
1.5H:1V Embankment (Upstream)*
Static - 1.54 C.4 Static – Q200 (Water El.: 281.9 m) - 1.54 C.5
1:975 year Seismic Event (0.5*PGA)
- 1.12
C.6
2H:1V Embankment (Downstream)
Static 1.70 - C.7 Static – Q200 (Water El.: 281.9 m) 1.67 - C.8
1:975 year Seismic Event (0.5*PGA)
1.22 -
C.9
*: This scenario is considered representative of Dwg. R1-964-901 Typical Section - Small Lock Block Wall (Upstream), where the slope profile with the wall is effectively 1.5H:1V
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
16
The stability analyses indicate that the travelled lanes of the highway will meet slope stability design criteria for both 1.5H:1V and 2H:1V slope configurations, with 1.5H:1V slopes undergoing increased shoulder displacement in the 1:975 year design seismic event (for embankments) as compared to 2H:1V slopes. It is recommended that embankment fill slopes be constructed at 2H:1V. A fill slope angle of 1.5H:1V may be selectively employed to transition near structural elements or to stay within the right of way. Climate Adaptation and Frost Depth: In accordance with Technical Circular T-04/19 PCIC Plan2Adapt (plan2adapt.ca) and Climate Atlas of Canada (climateatlas.ca) online tools were used as models to account for effects of climate change. The Plan2Adapt 2080 model horizon (2070 to 2099) was selected to fit the design life of the Structures (75 years). The West Coast model is applicable to the site location and indicates a median increase in precipitation of 9% in the winter months when rainfall is the heaviest. This median increase in precipitation is not expected to have a notable impact on the stability of the approach embankments or other geotechnical design considerations.
The Climate Atlas of Canada (climateatlas.ca) was used to obtain a prediction of freezing conditions at the site for the 75-year horizon for the RCP 8.5 and RCP 4.5 climate futures (2051 to 2080). According to the Climate Atlas the bridge site will experience an overall reduction in the freezing index, a higher annual air temperature, and a reduced duration of freezing conditions.
Table 13: climateatlas.ca Climate Change Information and Estimated Frost Depth
Site Parameters Climate Scenario
RCP 8.5 High Carbon climate future 2051-2080
RCP 4.5 Low Carbon climate future 2051-2080
Is - Mean Freezing Index (degree days) 44.5 8.6 12.8 MAAT - Mean Annual Air Temperature
(°C) 4.5 7.5 6.6
t - Duration of freezing period (days)* 4.8 1.0 1.4 Estimated Frost Depth (m) 0.7 0.6 0.6
Notes: • Climate data from climateatlas.ca for Nootka Sound Region. No elevation correction applied. • * assumed to equal “Icing Days”, defined as a day on which the daily maximum temperature (Tmax) is less than or equal
to 0 °C. • Frost depth estimated as per CFEM Section 13 p. 185-199.
The estimated frost penetration ranges from 0.7 meters (current calculated value) to 0.6 meters at the 75-year horizon.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
17
Pavement Structure: The pavement structure design considered the following:
• Ministry Technical Circular T-01/15 and the AASHTO 1993 pavement design method. • Subgrade materials consisting of BEF and/or existing granular fills meeting the Ministry’s
specifications for SGSB as per SS202. The subgrade was assumed to have a resilient modulus value of 100 MPa (i.e. equivalent to SGSB as per T-01/15).
• Construction of the pavement structure in accordance with the current version of the Ministry’s Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.
• Limited traffic information from traffic data count station 14-023EW. Traffic data count station 14-023EW on Highway 28 near Buttle Lake indicates the average annual daily traffic (AADT) value for Highway 28 was 590 vehicles per day in 2018 and 1011 vehicles per day in 2019. Traffic counts are likely lower west of Strathcona Provincial Park near Gold River at the Heber bridge site.
Given the items outlined above, the recommended pavement structure is a Type B structure as per Technical Circular T-01/15 with:
• 100 mm of Asphalt Pavement (AP), over • 300 mm of 25 mm well graded base (WGB), over • 300 mm of select granular sub base (SGSB).
Stripping and Material Reuse The estimated organic stripping depth in areas outside the road prism is 300 mm. Native granular materials underlying the stripping are expected to be suitable for reuse as Type D embankment fill. Existing granular approach fills are expected to consist of coarse granular material with the majority (approximately 2/3) suitable for reuse as Type D embankment fill. Unsuitable areas may be present near the surface of the fill slopes. All materials may require some sorting and removal of the oversize fraction.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
18
9.0 Closure This report is intended to address geotechnical design issues for the Heber Bridge Replacement Project. Please contact the undersigned with any comments or questions. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Ryan Gustafson, P.Eng. Warren Lemky, P.Eng. Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer References:
Bowles, J. E., (1977), Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York
Caltrans (2014), Caltrans Geotechnical Manual.
Canadian Geotechnical Society (2006). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition.
Cotic, I. (1986). Soils of South Vancouver Island - Soil Survey Report #44, Sheet 6, (1:100,000).
Harder L. and Seed H. (1986). Determination of Penetration Resistance for Coarse Grained Soils Using the Becker Hammer Drill.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008) Soil Liquefaction during Earthquake. EERI Publication, Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Jungen, J. (1985). Soils of Southern Vancouver Island, MOE Technical Report 17.
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
Appendix A – Test Hole Logs
0.2m
3.2m
4.6m
6.1m
6.7m
9.1m
GS1
SS1
GS2
SS2
GS3
SS3
GS4
SS4
GS5
SS5
GS6
SS6
0
0
0
21
29
38
AC
GM1
SB
GP
ASPHALT (Fill) (approximately 200mm thick).
SAND and GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some silt and cobbles (maximum particle diameter 150mm), brown, moist, compact to dense (Fill).
COBBLES, sub-rounded to sub-angular (maximum particle diameter 200 mm), trace sand and silt, moist, brown, compact to dense.
GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, poorly graded, maximum particle diameter 50mm - 75mm, some sand, trace silt, grey, moist, compact to dense.
GRAVEL and SAND, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some silt, some cobbles (maximum particle diameter 150 mm), grey, moist, compact to dense.
sandy GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some cobbles and silt (maximum particle diameter 150 mm), grey, wet, very dense.
SAND and GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some cobbles (maximum particle diameter 150 mm), trace silt, grey, wet, very dense.
{G:40 S:40 F:20}
{G:40 S:40 F:20}
{G:90 S:5 F:5}
{G:50 S:40 F:10}
{G:70 S:25 F:5}
{G:60 S:35 F:5}
{G:60 S:35 F:5}
{G:60 S:35 F:5}
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-03-2020 & 12-04-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
Final Depth of Hole: 30.6 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
Grout Cement
GW
SAND and GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some cobbles (maximum particle diameter 150 mm), trace silt, grey, wet, very dense. (continued)
sandy GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, well graded, (maximum particle diameter 37.5mm - 50mm), trace silt, brownish grey, wet, very dense.
{G:60 S:35 F:5}
{G:60 S:30 F:10}
{G:65 S:50 F:5}
{G:65 S:50 F:5}
{G:65 S:50 F:5}
{G:65 S:50 F:5}
{G:65 S:50 F:5}
{G:65 S:50 F:5}
{G:65 S:50 F:5}
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-03-2020 & 12-04-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
Final Depth of Hole: 30.6 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
Grout Cement
GP
GP
sandy GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, well graded, (maximum particle diameter 37.5mm - 50mm), trace silt, brownish grey, wet, very dense. (continued)
SAND, fine to coarse grained, poorly graded, (maximum particle diameter 12.5mm - 19mm), some silt, some fine grained gravel, brownish grey, moist, dense to very dense.
SAND and GRAVEL, medium to coarse grained, sub-angular to angular, some cobbles (maximum particle diameter 100 mm), trace silt , grey, moist, dense to very dense.
SAND and GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, trace silt, some cobbles (maximum particle diameter 100 mm), grey, moist, dense to very dense.
Sieve (Sa#SS13) G:16% S:72% F:12%
{G:50 S:45 F:4}
{G:55 S:40 F:5}
{G:55 S:40 F:5}
{G:55 S:40 F:5}
{G:55 S:40 F:5}
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-03-2020 & 12-04-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
266
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
20
Final Depth of Hole: 30.6 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
Grout Cement
End of borehole at 30.55m. 50 mm diameter standpipe installed.
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-03-2020 & 12-04-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
30
Final Depth of Hole: 30.6 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
Grout Cement
ASPHALT (Fill) (approximately 200mm thick).
COBBLES and GRAVEL, fine to coarsed grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, poorly graded, maximum particle diameter 75mm - 100mm, brown, grey, moist, compact to dense (Fill).
SAND and GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some cobbles (maximum particle diameter 150 mm), trace silt, brownish grey, moist, compact to dense.
SAND, fine grained, some silt, brownish grey, moist, compact.
sandy GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, poorly graded, maximum particle diameter 37.5mm - 50mm, trace silt, grey, moist, loose to compact.
COBBLES and BOULDERS, maximum particle diameter 300 mm, some gravel and sand, trace silt, grey, wet, compact to dense.
Sandy GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some silt, trace cobbles (maximum particle diameter 150 mm), brownish grey, moist, compact to dense.
Sieve (Sa#GS1) G:100% S:0% F:0%
{G:60 S:30 F:10}
{G:70 S:25 F:5}
{G:70 S:25 F:5}
{G:70 S:25 F:5}
{G:60 S:20 F:20}
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-04-2020 & 12-05-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
286
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
Final Depth of Hole: 30.7 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
R
17
46
R
1
11
7
9
12.0m
GS5
SS5
SS6
GS7
GS8
SS7
GS9
GS10
SS8
13
0
0
0
GW
Sandy GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, some silt, trace cobbles (maximum particle diameter 150 mm), brownish grey, moist, compact to dense. (continued) -At 10.7 m, GRAVEL and SAND seam, 300mm thick, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, maximum particle diameter 25mm - 37.5mm, trace silt, grey, moist, loose to compact.
GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, maximum particle diameter 50mm - 75mm, trace sand and silt, grey, moist, dense to very dense.
{G:60 S:20 F:20}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-04-2020 & 12-05-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
276
275
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
10
Final Depth of Hole: 30.7 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
R
R
R
R
10
11
13
14
16
18
29.0m
GS11
SS9
GS12
SS10
GS13
SS11
25
33
42
GW
SP
GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, sub-rounded to sub-angular, maximum particle diameter 50mm - 75mm, trace sand and silt, grey, moist, dense to very dense. (continued)
SAND, fine to medium grained, poorly graded, some silt, grey, moist, dense to very dense.
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
{G:90 S:9 F:1}
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-04-2020 & 12-05-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
266
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
20
Final Depth of Hole: 30.7 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
R
83
71
20
24
26
30
30.7m
GS14
SS12 50
SAND, fine to medium grained, poorly graded, some silt, grey, moist, dense to very dense. (continued)
End of borehole at 30.7m. Backfill with drill cuttings, bentonite seals as per the groundwater protection act and asphlat at surface.
Sieve (Sa#GS14) G:0% S:88% F:12% {G:0 S:85 F:15}
Driller: Tyler Parkhouse
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 12-04-2020 & 12-05-2020Project: As & When Geotechnical Services, Highway 28 Bridges
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
30
Final Depth of Hole: 30.7 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
E LE
V A
T IO
WSP Canada Inc. Datum: UTM Zone 10U, NAD 83Prepared by:
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 2
01 -0
85 73
-0 0
G IN
T L
O G
S M
O T
W %W % L
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
00
10
0
Final Depth of Hole: 30.8 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
Drill Make/Model: HAV 180 Becker Hammer
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 2021-04-08 to 2021-04-09Project: Hwy 28 Bridges, Becker Drilling Exploration
285
284
283
282
281
280
279
278
277
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
R E
C O
V E
R Y
Elevation: 286.02 m
20 40 60 80 W %W%PW % L
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 H
IG H
W A
Y 2
8 D
R IL
LI N
G B
E C
K E
R H
A M
M E
R M
O T
I T
E M
P LA
T E
.G P
J M
O T
I_ D
A T
A T
E M
P LA
T E
_R E
V 3.
G D
T 2
1- 5-
2 6
8.2m 2021-04-09
1010
20
10
Final Depth of Hole: 30.8 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
Drill Make/Model: HAV 180 Becker Hammer
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 2021-04-08 to 2021-04-09Project: Hwy 28 Bridges, Becker Drilling Exploration
275
274
273
272
271
270
269
268
267
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
R E
C O
V E
R Y
Elevation: 286.02 m
20 40 60 80 W %W%PW % L
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 H
IG H
W A
Y 2
8 D
R IL
LI N
G B
E C
K E
R H
A M
M E
R M
O T
I T
E M
P LA
T E
.G P
J M
O T
I_ D
A T
A T
E M
P LA
T E
_R E
V 3.
G D
T 2
1- 5-
2 6
2020
30
20
Final Depth of Hole: 30.8 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
Drill Make/Model: HAV 180 Becker Hammer
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 2021-04-08 to 2021-04-09Project: Hwy 28 Bridges, Becker Drilling Exploration
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
R E
C O
V E
R Y
Elevation: 286.02 m
20 40 60 80 W %W%PW % L
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 H
IG H
W A
Y 2
8 D
R IL
LI N
G B
E C
K E
R H
A M
M E
R M
O T
I T
E M
P LA
T E
.G P
J M
O T
I_ D
A T
A T
E M
P LA
T E
_R E
V 3.
G D
T 2
1- 5-
2 6
99
100
101
End of Borehole at 30.8 m, Target depth reached. Backfilled with pea gravel, betonite, and sealed with cold mix asphalt. Borehole location measured on field relative to local landmarks.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
3030
40
30
Final Depth of Hole: 30.8 m Depth to Top of Rock:
COMMENTS TESTING
SUMMARY LOG
Drill Make/Model: HAV 180 Becker Hammer
C LA
SS IF
IC AT
IO N
Date(s) Drilled: 2021-04-08 to 2021-04-09Project: Hwy 28 Bridges, Becker Drilling Exploration
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
R E
C O
V E
R Y
Elevation: 286.02 m
20 40 60 80 W %W%PW % L
M O
T I-
S O
IL -R
E V
3 H
IG H
W A
Y 2
8 D
R IL
LI N
G B
E C
K E
R H
A M
M E
R M
O T
I T
E M
P LA
T E
.G P
J M
O T
I_ D
A T
A T
E M
P LA
T E
_R E
V 3.
G D
T 2
1- 5-
2 6
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
Appendix B – Laboratory Results
(m)
201-08573-00
(m)
201-08573-00
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 7
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Material: GRAVEL, some sand, trace silt (GP)
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 03-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 26-Jan-21 75 100.0
Sample No: 5300A 50 41.6
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 38.2
Supplier: insitu 25 28.8
9.5 17.6
4.75 13.8
2.36 10.7
1.18 8.3
0.600 6.4
0.300 5.1
0.150 4.2
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 8
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 03-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 26-Jan-21 75 100.0
Sample No: 56300B 50 100.0
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 92.3
Supplier: insitu 25 82.6
9.5 57.5
4.75 43.8
2.36 33.6
1.18 24.3
0.600 14.5
0.300 6.9
0.150 3.8
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 9
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Material: SAND, some silt, trace gravel (SP-SM)
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 03-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 26-Jan-21 75 100.0
Sample No: 5300C 50 100.0
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 100.0
Supplier: insitu 25 100.0
9.5 95.4
4.75 90.3
2.36 83.7
1.18 77.8
0.600 69.6
0.300 49.7
0.150 25.0
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 10
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Material: COBBLES and GRAVEL (SB)
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 03-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 26-Jan-21 75 41.5
Sample No: 5300D 50 16.0
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 16.0
Supplier: insitu 25 16.0
9.5 1.4
4.75 0.3
2.36 0.2
1.18 0.2
0.600 0.2
0.300 0.2
0.150 0.1
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 10
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Material: COBBLES and GRAVEL (SB)
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 03-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 26-Jan-21 75 41.5
Sample No: 5300D 50 16.0
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 16.0
Supplier: insitu 25 16.0
9.5 1.4
4.75 0.3
2.36 0.2
1.18 0.2
0.600 0.2
0.300 0.2
0.150 0.1
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber RIver Bridge - MTS Report No.: 11
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 04-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 25-Jan-21 75 100.0
Sample No: 5300E 50 100.0
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 90.6
Supplier: insitu 25 63.1
9.5 49.5
4.75 43.0
2.36 37.4
1.18 31.2
0.600 23.6
0.300 16.8
0.150 12.1
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 12
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Material: GRAVEL and SAND, trace silt (GW)
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 04-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 25-Jan-21 75 100.0
Sample No: 5300F 50 100.0
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 100.0
Supplier: insitu 25 90.7
9.5 65.9
4.75 52.8
2.36 42.4
1.18 29.4
0.600 14.2
0.300 6.3
0.150 3.7
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 13
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Material: GRAVEL, trace sand, trace silt (GW)
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 04-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 26-Jan-21 75 100.0
Sample No: 5300G 50 85.9
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 63.5
Supplier: insitu 25 42.2
9.5 22.8
4.75 14.6
2.36 9.6
1.18 5.5
0.600 2.5
0.300 1.1
0.150 0.5
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project Heber River Bridge - MTS Report No.: 14
Sample Location Sonic Hole
Material: SAND, some silt (SP)
Specification: N/A
Date Sampled 04-Dec-20 100 100.0
Date Tested 26-Jan-21 75 100.0
Sample No: 5300H 50 100.0
Fracture by Count: n/a 37.5 100.0
Supplier: insitu 25 100.0
9.5 100.0
4.75 100.0
2.36 100.0
1.18 99.9
0.600 99.3
0.300 90.5
0.150 44.5
REMARKS: Tested in accordance with ASTM C- 136 and C-117
WSP CANADA INC.
per:
This report represents a testing service only. No engineering interpretation opinion is expressed or implied. Engineering review and interpretation can be provided on written request.
AGGREGATE GRADATION ANALYSIS
P E
R C
E N
T P
A S
S IN
Project 16850 - Geotechnical Design Report Highway 28 Heber River Bridge
Appendix C – Slope Stability Analyses
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.1: 2H:1V Embankment (Upstream) - Static
Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.2: 2H:1V Embankment (Upstream) - Static,
Q200 Water Level Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.3: 2H:1V Embankment (Upstream) - 1:975 year
Seismic Event (0.5*PGA) Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.4: 1.5H:1V Embankment (Upstream) - Static
Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.5: 1.5H:1V Embankment (Upstream) - Static,
Q200 Water Level Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.6: 1.5H:1V Embankment (Upstream) - 1:975 year
Seismic Event (0.5*PGA) Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.7: 2H:1V Embankment (Downstream) - Static
Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.8: 2H:1V Embankment (Downstream) - Static,
Q200 Water Level Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Date: June 07, 2021 FIGURE C.9: 2H:1V Embankment (Downstream) - 1:975
year Seismic Event (0.5*PGA) Project: Highway 28—Heber River Bridge Drawn by: RG
Table of Contents
2.0 Project and Background Information
3.0 Subsurface Investigation
4.0 Subsurface Conditions
5.0 Design Factors and Loading
6.0 Seismic Design
1.2 Alternative Document Format
1.3 Standard of Care
1.5 Information Provided to TETRA TECH BY Others
1.6 General Limitations of Document
1.7 Environmental and Regulatory Issues
1.8 Nature and exactness of soil and rock descriptions
1.9 Logs of TestHoles
1.12 Support of Adjacent Ground and Structures
1.13 Influence of Construction Activity
1.14 Observations During Construction
TRN.PAVE03225-04.001 TH Plan R0a-Figure 1.pdf
Sheets and Views
Sheets and Views
Sheets and Views
p18.pdf