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
REPORT
Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project FINAL GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT
Submitted to:
Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. 2889 E 12th Ave. #500 Vancouver, BC V5M 4T5
Submitted by:
Golder Associates Ltd. Suite 200 - 2920 Virtual Way, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5M 0C4, Canada
+1 604 296 4200
18106808-006-R-Rev1
29 August 2019
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
i
Distribution List 1 Copy: Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.
1 Copy: BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure
3.0 PROJECT SITE ............................................................................................................................................... 2
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................... 2
4.1 2018 Geotechnical Investigation for Functional Design ....................................................................... 2
8.1 Subgrade Preparation and Site Grading ............................................................................................ 15
8.1.1 Site Stripping ................................................................................................................................. 15
8.1.2 Permanent Embankment Fill Construction ................................................................................... 15
8.1.3 Material Re-Use ............................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 6: Computed CSR And PGA Profiles For The Crustal And Inslab Ground Motions
Figure 7: Computed CSR And PGA Profiles For The Interface Subduction Ground Motions
Figure 8: CSR vs. CRR Comparison For Crustal And Inslab Motions And Interface Subduction Motions
Figure 9: Pseudo-Static Stability Analysis To Determine Yield Acceleration
Figure 10: Lateral Earth Pressures
Figure 11: Ultimate Pile Axial Resistance for 610 x 15.9 mm Pipe Pile (North and South Abutment/Pier)
Figure 12: Liquefied Ultimate Pile Axial Resistance for 610 x 15.9 mm Pipe Pile (North Abutment/Pier)
Figure 13: Liquefied Ultimate Pile Axial Resistance for 610 x 15.9 mm Pipe Pile (South Abutment/Pier)
Figure 14: p-y Curves - 610 X 15.9 mm Diameter Steel Pipe Pile North Pier/Abutment
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
iv
Figure 15: p-y Curves - 610 X 15.9 mm Diameter Steel Pipe Pile South Pier/Abutment
Figure 16: Pavement Joint Transitions and Tie-Ins
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Summary Logs
APPENDIX B Laboratory Soils Index Testing Results
APPENDIX C Sonic Core Photographs
APPENDIX D Laboratory Soils Corrosivity/Aggressivity Testing Results
APPENDIX E 2015 NBCC Seismic Hazard Calculations
APPENDIX F Embankment Slope Stability Models (Removed from Project Scope)
APPENDIX G Slope Stability Models - Retaining Wall 10214R
APPENDIX H Slope Stability Models – Third Westbound Lane Fly-Over Ramp Wall (Removed from Project Scope)
APPENDIX I Existing Pavement Condition Photographs
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. (AE) to provide geotechnical
investigation and detailed design services for the Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project (the Project) in North
Vancouver, BC (see Figure 1). This geotechnical design report documents our geotechnical input to the 90%
detailed design submission for the project being prepared by AE and includes factual results of the detailed
subsurface geotechnical investigation carried out at the site by Golder, together with our interpretation of the
investigation results and our comments and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the Project.
We have provided on-going geotechnical input to the design team, as documented in several technical
memoranda, email transmittals and meeting minutes, and this input is summarized within this geotechnical design
report.
The scope of this report is limited to the geotechnical engineering services only and does not include provision for
archaeological, bio-environmental, geo-environmental or hydrotechnical services for the Project. This report does
not include any review or assessment of the potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination at the site which
we understand is being reviewed/assessed by others.
This report should be read in conjunction with the “Important Information and Limitations of This Report”
which is appended following the text of this report. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to this information
as it is essential that it is followed for the proper use and interpretation of this report.
2.0 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE UPGRADES The proposed Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project configuration is illustrated on Figure 1, Figure 2 and
Figure 3. Based on our understanding of the Project design at the time of preparing this report (90% Detailed
Design), the main improvements will include:
A new eastbound on-ramp configuration to Highway 1 from Dollarton Highway and Phibbs Exchange;
including a new two-lane overpass adjacent to (and west of) the existing Highway 1 overpass.
An altered eastbound on-ramp to Highway 1 from Main Street; changed in geometry, addition of a merge
lane and multi-use path on the west side.
An upgraded westbound off-ramp from Highway 1; from an existing one lane to a new two-lane off-ramp,
along with reconfiguration of the off-ramp tie-in to Main Street.
Various alterations to the existing on-ramps including slight re-alignment, removal of curb and gutter, and
new paved shoulders.
Removal of curb and gutter and a widened shoulder with added pull-outs along Highway 1 both directions
between Second Narrows Bridge and Fern Interchange.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
2
3.0 PROJECT SITE The Project location is in the District of North Vancouver, approximately 0.7 km north of Burrard Inlet, as shown
on Figure 1. The specific Project site includes the segment of Highway 1 between Iron Worker’s Memorial Bridge
Crossing and Fern Road interchange, along with areas located immediately east and west of this highway
segment. Highway 1 has four travel lanes including two eastbound and two westbound lanes through this
segment with various on and off-ramps to/from both Dollarton Highway (to the east) and Main Street (to the west).
The Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project is part of the overall Lower Lynn Improvements Project to
Highway 1, including on-going construction at Mountain Highway Interchange and Keith Road, Fern Road and
Mount Seymour Parkway Interchange and connectivity improvements. Various local network roads and features
including Dollarton Highway (east), Phibbs Exchange (west) and Main Street (west) exist within the Project limits
and will be impacted by the proposed improvements.
The Project site is generally flat in topography and Highway 1 rises in elevation towards Second Narrows Bridge
to the south on an approach embankment, with an overpass crossing over Main Street/Dollarton Highway and an
underpass crossing beneath the Dollarton Highway eastbound on-ramp to Highway 1. Other on and off-ramps are
also supported on various embankment fills. Various open drainage systems (ditching and culverts) exist
throughout the site; however, there are no major watercourses within the Project area. Lynn Creek is located
nearby to the site to the west and Seymour river is located nearby to the east; both outside of the Project footprint.
The current land-use adjacent to the Project site generally consists of a variety of residential, commercial and light
industrial developments.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
4.1 2018 Geotechnical Investigation for Functional Design Golder previously conducted a three-day geotechnical investigation program between 19 and 22 March 2018 to obtain deep geotechnical subsurface information at a location considered to be of maximum benefit to the functional design and detailed design of the Project; where one of the main structural elements of the Project would likely be located (at the north abutment/pier location of the proposed new Dollarton Highway eastbound on-ramp to Highway 1 overpass structure). The specific details of the 2018 geotechnical investigation are presented in Golder’s report titled “Highway 1 – Dollarton Interchange Project Functional Design – Preliminary Geotechnical Report”, dated 21 September 2018. A brief summary of the 2018 geotechnical investigation is presented below.
Golder put down one deep sonic cored borehole and one deep Becker Penetration Test (BPT) as part of the preliminary geotechnical investigation. The subsurface information collected at the two test holes is presented on one Summary Log sheet, designated BPT/SH18-01; however, the actual as-drilled locations were separated in the field by approximately 3 m. The test holes were conducted to 48.5 m and 49.1 m depth below existing ground surface, respectively, for the sonic borehole and BPT. The BPT was carried out in advance of the sonic borehole and included acquisition of Becker Bounce Chamber Pressure, Pile Driving Analyser (PDA) and Becker casing pull out measurements that could be used for future detailed geotechnical assessment. Due to disturbance, displacement and loss of material associated with the drilling process, samples collected in the sonic borehole were not continuous, and consequently there is some uncertainty regarding the subsurface conditions and interpreted stratigraphic boundaries shown on the Summary Log sheets in Appendix A. Summary Log sheets referring to BPT/SH18-01 are shown under Golder Project No. 1787066, the project number used during the functional design phase of the Project.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
3
The sonic borehole was conducted using a track-mounted DB320 sonic drill rig owned and operated by Mud Bay
Drilling Co. Ltd. of Surrey, BC and the Becker Penetration Test was conducted using a HAV-180 truck-mounted
Becker drill rig owned and operated by Foundex Explorations Ltd. of Surrey, BC.
The detailed subsurface information encountered in the boreholes is shown on the Summary Log sheet in
Appendix A following the text of this report.
Following completion of the investigation activities, the test holes were backfilled and sealed in accordance with
the BC Groundwater Protection Regulations using a combination of bentonite chip/pellet seals and backfill
material.
4.1.1 Laboratory Testing
Golder carried out a laboratory testing program on selected samples obtained from the sonic borehole. The
results of these tests were used to aid in the classification of the soils encountered. The specific laboratory tests
included the following:
Eight water content determination tests (ASTM D4959-07).
Eight grain size distribution analysis tests (ASTM D422-63 (2007) and ASTM D6913).
The results of the laboratory index testing are presented in Appendix B following the text of this report as well as
the Preliminary Geotechnical Report referenced in Section 4.1 above. The results of the laboratory testing are
also summarized on the Summary Log sheets included in Appendix A.
It is noted that the grain size distribution analyses were carried out on samples smaller than 100 mm diameter
obtained from the sonic borehole. Consequently, the results of the grain size analyses do not include the
contribution of the larger size particles (such as cobbles and boulders) noted during the drilling and may not
represent actual conditions in the field.
4.1.2 Sonic Core Photographs
The sonic core obtained during the drilling investigation was transported to Golder’s Burnaby warehouse for
detailed logging, sampling and photography. Photographs were taken of the sonic core under controlled
conditions, allowing for consistent lighting. The sonic core photographs are provided in Appendix C.
4.2 2019 Geotechnical Investigation for Detailed Design Golder prepared and submitted a geotechnical investigation work plan for the field investigation work in our
technical memorandum “18106808-002-TM-Rev0-Geotech Investigation Work Plan 08NOV_18”. AE provided
approval to proceed with the above referenced work plan on 28 November 2018. Due to challenges associated
with permitting and traffic management, fifteen of the proposed twenty-one augerholes were removed from the
work plan as agreed upon with AE and the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) on 15 February
2019. Further design changes resulted in the removal of the Main Street eastbound bus bay work, as requested
by AE on 25 February 2019, reducing the number of proposed drilled rotary boreholes from five to four. All rotary
boreholes were originally planned as mud-rotary boreholes; however, due to limited working hours made available
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
4
under the permit conditions, it was determined that an alternative drilling system (ODEX air-rotary) would be more
appropriate to complete the three shallower boreholes (10 – 15 m depth) within the available time window.
Permits and permission to access properties affected by the proposed geotechnical investigation were provided
by MoTI and Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC). The field work was carried out between 7 March 2019 and
21 March 2019, in accordance with the permitted dates.
The components of the geotechnical investigation generally included drilled mud-rotary boreholes and ODEX air-
rotary boreholes put down in areas where deeper sub-surface information was required for design purposes and
shallow drilled augerholes put down in areas to supplement the deeper subsurface information and where near-
surface information was required for design purposes. Detailed descriptions of each of the field investigation
components is provided in the following sections. In total, four drilled boreholes (one mud-rotary and three air-
rotary) and six augerholes were conducted. The details of the drilling investigation program and results are
generally summarized on the Summary Logs provided in Appendix A following the text of this report. A summary
of pertinent information relevant to the previous and current geotechnical investigation test holes is provided in
1 All coordinates provided are referenced to UTM NAD83, Zone 10U. 2 Coordinates were obtained using a hand-held GPS typically accurate to within 5 m. 3 Elevations were provided by AE dated 9 April 2019 – rounded to one significant digit.
4.2.1 Site Reconnaissance
Golder visited the Project site several times to carry out visual reconnaissance and plan and coordinate the geotechnical investigation activities. The site visits were completed between December 2018 and March 2019. The intention of the reconnaissance was to observe/record visual indications of existing slope instability, pavement distress and to verify topographic features. The proposed test hole locations, access routing and traffic management requirements for the geotechnical investigation were assessed concurrently with the visual reconnaissance.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
5
4.2.2 Permitting and Permissions
Prior to undertaking the geotechnical field investigation program, Golder planned and coordinated permits and access permissions to conduct the field work. These permits and permissions were coordinated with MoTI and CMBC; the two authorities having jurisdiction within the Project boundary.
On 14 January 2019, MoTI issued Golder an H0020 permit allowing for the drilling investigation field work to proceed as proposed in our work plan. Due to the complexities of the traffic management required to conduct the investigation program, the acquisition of the necessary H1080 permit (allowing for lane closure works) was delayed. Golder was issued the H1080 permits from MoTI on 1 March 2019 – following removal of fifteen augerholes, and associated ramp closures which would have been required, from the investigation program.
CMBC provided approval to conduct one augerhole (AH19-09) within the area of bus operations at Phibbs Bus Exchange on 27 February 2019.
4.2.3 Utility Locating and Hydro-vacuum Utility Clearance
Prior to undertaking ground disturbance (including activities such as drilling), Golder conducted a BC One Call to obtain underground utility information within the area of the proposed testholes. With the information obtained from the BC One Call and additional utility information provided by AE on the base plans dated 31 August 2018, Golder conducted an office review of the proposed testhole locations in relation to known existing utilities. Following this review, field locates were conducted by Golder and specialist third-party utility locators GeoScan Subsurface Surveys Inc. of Burnaby, BC and Quadra Utility Locating Ltd. of Surrey, BC. Two separate field utility locates were conducted on 7 March 2019 and 14 March 2019 due to access limitations and winter road/weather limitations.
Based on the office review and field locates, three locations were identified as having potential for underground utilities near the proposed testhole locations. The three testholes, BH19-03, BH19-04 and BH19-05, were hydro-vacuumed prior to undertaking drilling to daylight the upper subsurface, ensuring the locations were clear of underground utilities. First Call Energy of Langley, BC conducted the hydro-vacuum work on 13 March 2019 and 20 March 2019.
4.2.4 Mud-rotary Borehole Investigation
Golder put down one rotary borehole, designated as BH19-01, as part of the investigation. BH19-02 was removed from the work plan due to the removal of the Main Street eastbound bus bay as described previously. The one rotary borehole comprised a 54 m deep borehole located at the proposed south pier location for the new Highway 1 overpass crossing Main Street.
The rotary borehole was put down using a truck-mounted SIMCO 5000 drill rig owned and operated by Foundex Explorations Ltd. of Abbotsford, BC. Soil sampling was carried out at regular intervals using conventional SPT techniques with a 50 mm diameter split-soon sampling tube and a 63.6 kg, 760 mm drop safety hammer.
All drilling activities were monitored by Golder personnel who positioned the borehole location in the field, logged the soil and groundwater conditions encountered and prepared the samples obtained for shipping to our Burnaby laboratory. The borehole was located approximately using hand-held GPS. The borehole was sealed (fully grouted) from the base of the open hole to installation depth in accordance with the permit conditions and current groundwater regulations. A standpipe piezometer was installed within the upper 12 m of the borehole to allow for measurement of stabilized groundwater levels (details of installation provided in Section 5.6).
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
6
4.2.5 ODEX Air-rotary Borehole Investigation
Golder put down three ODEX air-rotary boreholes, designated as BH19-03, BH19-04 and BH19-05, as part of the
investigation. The air-rotary boreholes include the following:
Two 13 m and 15 m deep air-rotary boreholes at the proposed retaining wall location for the Main Street on-
ramp to Highway 1 eastbound.
One 13 m deep air-rotary borehole at the formerly proposed retaining wall location for the third Highway 1
westbound thru-lane at the Dollarton Highway on-ramp flyover to Highway 1 eastbound (this component of
the Project has recently been cancelled).
The ODEX air-rotary boreholes were put down using a B-80 Mobile truck-mounted drill rig owned and operated by
Geotech Drilling Services Ltd. of Delta, BC. Soil sampling was carried out at regular intervals using conventional
SPT techniques with a 50 mm diameter split-soon sampling tube and a 63.6 kg, 760 mm drop safety hammer;
however, it should be noted that conducting SPTs within an ODEX air-rotary borehole does not strictly comply
with ASTM standards and engineering judgement must be employed when reviewing and interpreting the SPT
results obtained using this drilling methodology.
All drilling activities were monitored by Golder personnel who positioned the borehole locations in the field, logged
the soil and groundwater conditions encountered and prepared the samples obtained for shipping to our Burnaby
laboratory. The boreholes were located approximately using hand-held GPS. The boreholes were sealed using a
combination of bentonite chips and backfill materials in accordance with current groundwater regulations and
surface sealed by reinstating the pavement structure utilizing cold patch asphalt.
4.2.6 Shallow Augerhole Investigation
Golder put down a total of six shallow augerholes, designated as AH19-09, AH19-10, AH19-11, AH19-14,
AH19-18 and AH19-19, to depths ranging from 2.3 m to 6.1 m below existing ground surface. The augerholes
were all located in off-road areas and were conducted using a Marl M6 track-mounted drill rig owned and
operated by VanMars Drilling Ltd. of Abbotsford, BC.
The augerholes were conducted using 150 mm diameter solid stem augerholes and representative grab soil
samples were obtained at selected intervals at each of the augerhole locations. A dynamic cone penetration test
(DCPT) was conducted at each augerhole location prior to drilling to obtain a continuous relative
density/consistency profile of the subsurface soils. The DCPT was conducted using a 63.6 kg, 760 mm drop
safety hammer, with blow counts recorded per 0.3 m of advancement.
All drilling activities were monitored by Golder personnel who positioned the augerholes in the field, logged the
soil and groundwater conditions encountered and prepared the samples obtained for shipping to our Burnaby
laboratory. The augerholes were located approximately using hand-held GPS. The augerholes were sealed using
a combination of bentonite chips and backfill materials in accordance with current groundwater regulations.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
7
4.2.7 Laboratory Testing
4.2.7.1 Geotechnical Index Testing
Upon completion of the detailed field drilling investigation program, Golder carried out a laboratory testing
program on selected samples obtained during the field work. The laboratory testing program was based on the
type and condition of the samples obtained and the required geotechnical design parameters, which included the
following:
73 Water Content Determination Tests (ASTM D2216)
17 Grain Size Distribution Analysis Tests (ASTM D422-63)
The results of the laboratory index testing are presented in Appendix B following the text of this report. The results
of the geotechnical index testing are also summarized on the Summary Log sheets included in Appendix A.
It is noted that grain size distribution analyses were carried out on samples smaller than 50 mm diameter obtained
from the drilled test holes and smaller than 75 mm diameter obtained from the augerholes. Consequently, the
results of the grain size analyses do not include the contribution of the larger size particles noted during the
drilling and may not represent actual conditions in the field.
4.2.7.2 Specialized Soils Aggressivity Testing
4.2.7.2.1 Soil Corrosivity Testing
Soil corrosivity testing was carried out on samples obtained at the proposed soil nail retaining wall location to
determine the potential aggressiveness of the soils to the proposed soil nail retention systems. Soil samples were
obtained in two of the ODEX air-rotary boreholes conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation specifically
for the purpose of soil corrosion potential testing. The soil samples were brought to an external laboratory, Soil
Corrosion Services Ltd., to carry out the suite of aggressiveness testing outlined by the Federal Highways
Administration report “Hollow Bar Soil Nails: Review of Corrosion Factors and Mitigation Practice” (Publication No.
FHWA-CFL/TD-10-002). Specifically, the following suite of tests was carried out for each of the two samples.
Soil Resistivity Testing (AASHTO T288)
Soil pH Testing (AASHTO T289)
Chloride Ion Testing (AASHTO T291)
Sulphate Ion Testing (AASHTO T290)
The results of the soil corrosivity testing are presented in Appendix D.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
8
4.2.7.2.2 Soil Aggressivity Testing for General Use Limestone (GUL) Concrete
Soil aggressivity testing was carried out on selected soil samples at locations where the use of general use limestone (GUL) concrete could occur, including the proposed retaining wall locations, in addition to testing at other locations to provide spatial coverage across the Project site. Eight soil samples were obtained through various drilling methodologies described previously, and generally comprised high quantity grab samples obtained in the upper few metres (approx. 1.2 m) of subsurface soil and/or at the groundwater table (where encountered). The soil samples were brought to Golder’s Burnaby laboratory for screening and testing. Additional testing, to complete the required suite of aggressivity tests, was conducted by an external laboratory, CARO Analytical Services Ltd. (CARO). Specifically, the following suite of tests was carried out for each of the eight samples.
Sulphate Ion Content (CSA A23.2-3B) [Golder]
Chloride Ion Content (ASTM C1218/ASTM C114-18) [CARO]
The results of the soil aggressivity testing are presented in Appendix D following the text of this report.
5.0 INTERPRETED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS At the time of preparing this geotechnical design report, the following information on site and subsurface conditions was available for our use:
Geological Survey of Canada Surficial Geology Map No. 1486A-Vancouver.
“Phibbs Exchange, North Vancouver BC, 50% Geotechnical Design Report”, Thurber Engineering Ltd., 16 January 2018.
“Iron Worker’s Memorial Bridge Temporary Guide Sign Field Inspection Report”, Thurber Engineering Ltd., 28 January 2014.
Geotechnical test hole information obtained by Golder during the geotechnical investigation field and laboratory activities described above.
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes and augerholes are reported on the Summary Log sheets, prepared in conformance with the format specified by MoTI and are included in Appendix A.
Classification of the subsurface soil conditions is in accordance with the MoTI Modified Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A copy of the Materials Classification Legend (utilized with the referenced system) from the BC Ministry Bridge Foundation Investigation Manual (1991) has been included in Appendix A.
A brief description and summary of the inferred subsurface conditions within the Project site is presented below. The relevant Summary Log records should be referred to for more detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered. It is noted that subsurface conditions may differ and vary between the test hole locations and between sampling depths. It should also be noted that the groundwater conditions indicated on the Summary Logs and those reported below are those generally observed in the open holes at the time of investigation, except where standpipe piezometers were installed (BH19-01). As such, the groundwater levels recorded in the open holes may not represent the stabilized groundwater level at the time of the investigation work.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
9
Based on this information, the anticipated subsurface stratigraphy across the site is generalized as described in
the following sections.
5.1 Organic Topsoil and Asphaltic Concrete Organic soils consisting of silt and sand mixtures with variable organic content were observed in the undeveloped
areas of the Project site. Where encountered at the test hole locations, the thickness of the topsoil material
containing organics ranged between approximately 150 mm and 300 mm in thickness.
In the traffic areas, a layer of asphaltic concrete was observed in each of the test holes. Where encountered at the
test hole locations, the thickness of the asphaltic concrete ranged between approximately 180 mm and 230 mm in
thickness. The asphaltic concrete was typically underlain by pavement and/or embankment fill materials as
described below.
5.2 Fills Surficial fill materials of variable thickness and composition were encountered at each of the test hole locations.
The fills varied in thickness significantly, extending to depths between 2.3 m and 12.5 m below existing ground
surface where encountered. These materials generally comprised granular material including sands, gravels,
cobbles and possible boulders with trace to some silt. All of the augerholes and boreholes put down as part of the
investigation(s) with the exception of BPT/SH18-01 and BH19-01 were terminated within the fills.
Based on the observed resistance to drilling penetration and in-situ DCPT and SPT results, the fill materials are
inferred to be very loose to very dense.
It is considered likely that the origin of the fill materials is associated with historical grading and road construction
activities. The generally thicker layers (several metres thickness or more) of fill materials will likely be
concentrated in and around the abutments of existing overpass/underpass and bridge structures as well as road
embankments. Relatively thinner layers of fill materials were encountered across the Project site which are
assumed to be associated with historical site grading activities.
5.3 Salish Sediments Salish sediments, consisting of varying mixtures of sands and gravels with trace to some silt, were encountered
within the deeper boreholes beneath the surficial materials described above. The Salish Sediments were
observed to extend to a depth of 25.9 m and 29.0 m below existing ground surface in the two deep boreholes.
Occasional cobbles and/or inferred boulders were observed in both boreholes, located irregularly throughout the
deposit.
Based on the observed resistance to drilling and in-situ SPT results, the Salish Sediments are inferred to be
generally compact to very dense.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
10
5.4 Capilano and Vashon Sediments Capilano deposits were observed in BH19-01 and comprised sand trace to some silt with some gravelly inclusions. The Capilano deposits were observed to extend to a depth of 49.1 m and 54.0 m below existing ground surface in the two deep boreholes; however, the extent of the Capilano deposits was not determined as both deep boreholes were terminated within this deposit. Occasional cobbles and/or inferred boulders were observed in both boreholes, located irregularly throughout the deposit.
Based on the observed resistance to drilling penetration and in-situ SPT results, the Capilano Sediments are inferred to be generally compact to very dense.
5.5 Vashon Drift Deposits Vashon Drift (till-like) deposits were not encountered in the test holes put down as part of the investigation. Vashon Drift deposits generally consist of heterogeneous materials containing widely ranging amounts of clay, silt, sand and gravel, with sand and gravel being the predominant components. Large cobbles and boulders are often observed in these deposits. These deposits have been targeted as a dense bearing layer in other projects nearby the Project site as they exist in reasonable proximity to the ground surface at these other locations. Based on the publicly available information, the Vashon Drift deposits are likely to be encountered at depths of about 60 m or greater below existing ground surface, extending to significant depths.
5.6 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in several of the open test holes put down during the investigation and a
temporary standpipe piezometer was installed in BH19-01 to monitor the stabilized groundwater level. A summary
of the groundwater levels recorded during the field investigation program are provided below in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Observed Groundwater Levels
Test Hole Groundwater
Depth (mbgs)
Groundwater
Elevation
(m Geodetic)
Date Type of Recording
AH19-09 1.8 1.0 9 March 2019 Open Hole
BH19-01 1.9 2.6 27 March 2019 Standpipe Piezometer
BH19-03 12.3 -0.7 22 March 2019 Open Hole
BH19-05 10.4 -0.6 19 March 2019 Open Hole
It is expected that the groundwater levels will fluctuate with varying precipitation and season, and water flow within
adjacent water courses, particularly during periods of heavy rain and snowmelt. Perched water conditions should
also be expected at transitions between relatively coarse and fine-grained subsurface soil layers. Although not
observed in the test holes put down, fine-grained layers may be encountered within the deeper Capilano and
Vashon Drift deposits. Due to the variable nature of the subsurface deposits encountered, concentrated zones of
groundwater seepage should be expected in excavations below the groundwater table.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
11
6.0 KEY GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS From our experience with the nearby Mountain Highway Interchange, Lower Lynn Connectivity Projects, other MoTI highway improvement projects of similar scope and knowledge of the subsurface conditions in the area, we see the following as the key geotechnical issues and constraints that may impact design and construction of the proposed highway improvement components:
The project site is expected to be underlain by variable surficial fill materials and organic topsoil; relatively thick, unconsolidated mineral soils, including stream deposits and at significant depth, glacially consolidated soil deposits, including dense fluvial and flood plain sediments and till-like formations. The thickness of the fills, organic topsoil and surficial mineral soils is expected to vary across the project site and the depth to competent deposits for foundation support of heavily loaded structures is expected to be greater than 20 m below existing ground surface.
The surficial organic soils and some of the fills and surficial mineral soils will not be suitable for direct support of key structural elements such as retaining walls and higher embankment fills. As such, these materials may require sub-excavation down to more competent deposits or possible densification. More heavily loaded structural foundation elements may need to extend down through these surficial deposits into competent, dense Salish deposits or glacially consolidated soils (see below). Similarly, organic topsoil and unsuitable fill materials will require removal/sub-excavation beneath new highway embankments. Since the depth to these deposits will vary, it will be important to determine the stripping and excavation requirements in advance of construction so that the design and quantity estimates can be sufficiently detailed.
Considering both static and seismic design, the near-surface unconsolidated Salish deposits may not be suitable for direct foundation support of bridge structure(s) and, as such, the bridge structure(s) will likely need to be supported by deep foundations (such as steel pipe piles) that extend down into more competent, dense Salish deposits and/or glacially consolidated deposits.
In order to accommodate the required grade changes for the new ramps, roads, bridge structure approaches and road widening within the limited available Right(s)-of-Way, retaining wall construction will likely be required. It is understood that a retaining wall up to 6 m in height may be required along the new on-ramps to Highway 1 from Main Street. In general, the natural soil deposits are considered be suitable for support of the retaining wall structures; however, the actual foundation subgrade preparation and foundation design will be dependent upon the overall performance requirements for the structures and ground conditions beneath the structures. Design/construction of retaining walls on existing fills will likely require special consideration for site preparation and foundation support, possibly requiring some form of localized ground densification.
The project site is generally underlain by looser stream channel deposits, which have been observed to extend to at least 20 m depth in the deep boreholes put down as part of the investigation. These looser channel deposits might be liquefiable when subjected to shaking during a design seismic event and should be assessed/analyzed in detail during detailed design to determine the potential impact(s) that such affects could have on the Project components. Such effects could include vertical and horizontal ground deformations. To mitigate against severe impacts in more critical areas, it is possible that ground improvement/densification may be required, such as where structures are proposed adjacent to higher embankments or there are other significant changes in ground elevation. In other areas where liquefaction impacts are less severe, or where such ground displacement impacts can be tolerated, it may be more practical/economical to repair damaged areas following a seismic event than incorporating permanent measures into the Project to prevent such impacts.
Detailed consideration of the import material requirements will be required to verify that the structural and grade fill requirements are optimized.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
12
Based on the above, the following sections present our detailed geotechnical comments and recommendations to support development of the functional design concept being prepared by AE.
7.0 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Golder obtained site-specific 2015 seismic hazard parameters from National Resources Canada (NRC) for the
Project site located at 49.305°N and 123.028°W, and have presented the results in Appendix E.
In accordance with the CAN/CSA S6.14 the following seismic parameters apply to the Project site:
Site Classification: F – liquefiable soils present in the upper 15 m, based on detailed liquefaction assessment
of soils observed in BPT/SH18-01 and BH19-01
Seismic Performance Category: 3
Major Route Structure, Extensive Damage for 2% exceedance in 50 years (1:2475 return period event)
In accordance with CAN/CSA S6.14, a detailed liquefaction assessment and ground response analysis was
conducted at the Project site to determine the risk of liquefaction and subsequent seismic performance. The
detailed one-dimensional (1-D) ground response analysis and results are discussed in this section.
7.1 Seismic Response As identified above, the project site is identified as site class F (liquefiable) and, as such, we have assessed the
site-specific, 5% Damped, Acceleration Response Spectra for Dollarton Interchange Site. In the assessment, ten
Crustal, ten Inslab, and ten Interface ground motions were used to develop the 5% damped acceleration response
spectra at the ground surface. The effect of liquefaction was not considered in the analysis (i.e., earthquake
forces represented by the spectra are initial earthquake forces before liquefaction).
Individual Crustal and Inslab acceleration response spectra were combined and an average response spectrum
was developed, shown on Figure 4 attached, in black color. Similarly, individual interface acceleration response
spectra were combined and an average response spectrum was developed, shown in blue colour. From these two
mean spectra, an envelope of mean spectra was developed and recommended as Class F spectrum before
liquefaction, shown as a red dashed line in the figure.
For comparison purposes, the previously reference CSA S6-14 code-based Class D spectrum also presented in
the Figure 4, shown in green color.
7.2 1-D Ground Response Analysis Near continuous data collected at a 0.3 m depth interval of penetration resistance at BPT/SH18-01 was used in
developing design shear wave velocity profile for the 1-D ground response analyses. The 1-D ground response
analysis was carried out using the computer code SHAKE2000.
The SPT data collected from the mud-rotary borehole BH19-01 is considered to have gravel influence and the
data was collected at discrete depths (at 1.5 m depth interval up to 30 m depth and at 3 m depth interval below
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
13
30 m depth) and, therefore, this SPT data was not used in the development of shear wave velocity profile for the
subject site. The data from BPT/SH18-01 was used for this purpose as described below.
Data from the Becker Penetration Test associated with BPT/SH18-01 was reduced to equivalent SPT(N60) values
based on the methodology outlined by Sy and Campanella (1994) for the upper 25 m with relatively lower blow
counts, where potentially liquefiable soils are present based on the preliminary assessment. Based on site
characterization carried for a site immediately east of the subject site considering multiple methods of obtaining
penetration resistance values including iBPTs and interpretations, we consider that the Sy and Campanella
method provides consistent and appropriate equivalent SPT(N60) values in coarse-grained soils.
The methodology outlined by Harder and Seed (1986) was used in interpreting the equivalent SPT(N60) values
for the deeper soils with relatively higher blow counts, where the potential for liquefaction is considered to be low.
It is our engineering judgement, based on the adjacent sites, compared with other interpretation methods in sand,
that the Sy and Campanella method estimate is appropriate for estimation of equivalent SPT(N60) values in the
potentially liquefiable soils at this location. In the absence of measured shear wave velocity (Vs) data, the Vs
profile at BPT/SH18-01 location was established from equivalent SPT(N1)60 values based on the published
correlation described below:
The estimated design shear wave velocity profile and water table used in the 1-D ground response analysis is
presented in Figure 5.
The modulus reduction and damping curves published by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for
cohesionless soils (1993) were used in the 1D ground response analysis. Scenario-based 2475-year earthquake
acceleration time histories developed for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project were used in the
analysis after uniformly scaling the motions to the location-specific PGAs for Site Class C ground conditions. A
PGA of 0.34g was used to scale the Crustal and Inslab acceleration time-histories, and a PGA of 0.14g was used
to scale the Interface acceleration time-histories. Considering the similarities in the PGAs and the magnitude of
earthquakes, for purposes of our analyses, the CSR values obtained from the Crustal and Inslab acceleration
time-histories were combined when computing the average CSRs. The average CSR profile from the Interface
scenario acceleration time-histories was established separately for the liquefaction assessment. The computed
CSR and PGA profiles for the Crustal and Inslab scenario ground motions are presented in Figure 6 and the
computed CSR and PGA profiles for the Interface scenario ground motions are presented in Figure 7.
7.3 Liquefaction Potential and Consequences Liquefaction assessment for the subject site was carried out by comparing the average CSRs obtained from the 1D ground response analysis with the CRR values obtained from the equivalent SPT(N1)60_cs profiled established at the SH/BPT18-01 and BH19-01 locations. The SPT-based liquefaction assessment methodology outlined in Idriss and Boulanger (2008) and the modifications provided in Boulanger and Idriss (2015) were used in the assessment. A mean earthquake magnitude of M7.0 was used for the liquefaction assessment when using the empirical liquefaction resistance chart for the crustal and inslab earthquake ground motions, and a mean
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
14
earthquake magnitude of M8.7 was used for the interface subduction earthquake ground motions. The liquefaction assessment results are presented in Figure 8.
The results presented in Figure 8 indicate that potentially liquefiable soils exist about 6 m to 13.5 m depth below
ground surface at BPT/SH18-01 location (north abutment/pier) and 12.5 m to 15.5 m depth below ground surface
at BH19-01 location (south abutment/pier).
The soil liquefaction will result in permanent lateral displacements and post-seismic settlements due to
reconsolidation of liquefied soils. The magnitude of these displacements was estimated using simplified methods
of analyses and the results are presented below.
Other consequences of soil liquefaction include down-drag loads and lateral kinematic loads due to flow of soil
around the piled foundations penetrating the different soil strata. These effects will be assessed and presented
separately.
7.3.1 Lateral Displacements
The permanent lateral ground displacements, as a result of soil liquefaction, were estimated using the simplified
Newmark approach. The method involved carrying out a pseudo-static stability analysis to estimate the yield
acceleration. In this analysis, the liquefied soils were assigned a residual shear strength based on a pre-liquefied
average equivalent SPT(N1)60cs value of 15 blows/0.3 m. Considering the presence of gravel fill on top of the
potentially liquefiable ground and relatively flat surrounding ground conditions, it was assumed that potential for
void redistribution is not significant at this site. The displacements were estimated for the 2475-yr demand only.
The result of pseudo-static stability analysis is presented in Figure 9. The computed yield acceleration is 0.21g.
Material properties used in the analysis are also listed in Figure 9. A uniform surcharge load of 16 kPa was
applied within the bridge approach footprint as shown in the Figure 9.
The simplified approach indicates liquefaction-induced permanent lateral displacement ranging from 25 to 100
mm is anticipated near north abutment/pier location at site. The liquefaction-induced lateral displacement near
south abutment/pier anticipated to be in the range of zero to 50 mm.
7.3.2 Post-Liquefaction Settlement
Post-liquefaction settlement was estimated using the empirical approach outlined in Idriss and Boulanger (2008)
using the anticipated volumetric strains as a function of the CSR and the penetration resistance values. Based on
this procedure, a free-field post-liquefaction settlement of the order of 200 mm and 75 mm estimated to occur at
ground surface near north abutment pier and south abutment pier locations, respectively.
7.3.3 Impact of Liquefaction on New Overpass Structure
Based on discussions with AE’s structural designers, it is understood that the new overpass structure will be
designed to withstand the estimated ground deformations indicated above as well as withstand the estimated
downdrag forces on the piles induced by liquefaction (see discussion of downdrag forces in Section 8.3 below).
As such, measures to mitigate against liquefaction are not considered warranted for the new overpass structure.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
15
8.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Subgrade Preparation and Site Grading 8.1.1 Site Stripping
Topsoil, organic, deleterious and/or loose fill materials are generally considered not suitable for direct subgrade
support or re-use as embankment fill and should be stripped/sub-excavated from the entire footprint of the
proposed fill, structure foundation and pavement areas. It is recommended that stripping/sub-excavation of these
materials be carried down to underlying, undisturbed, competent mineral soil and/or mineral fill deposits and that
the prepared subgrade should be adequately sloped/shaped to prevent ponding of surface and/or groundwater.
Based on the information obtained from the test holes put down at the site as part of the current geotechnical
investigation, the stripped depths at the following test hole locations are estimated to be as follows:
Table 3: Estimated Stripping Depths
Testhole ID Stripping Depth (m)
AH19-09 0.30
AH19-10 0.15
AH19-11 0.15
AH19-14 0.15
AH19-19 0.23
AH19-20 0.23
The average stripped depth across the site is estimate at 0.20 m. It should be noted that the stripping depths
could locally exceed those indicated above, particularly in poorly drained, low-lying areas.
8.1.2 Permanent Embankment Fill Construction
Embankment construction will be required for the new/widened on/off ramps to and from Highway 1. These will
generally be fills that will be placed adjacent to existing fill slopes. The embankment subgrade preparation should
be carried out as outlined in Section 8.1.1 above. The prepared subgrade should be inspected by the
geotechnical Engineer of Record, or designated representative, prior to placing highway embankment fills.
Following the subgrade preparation, the proposed highway fills may be constructed consistent with SS201.37 of
the BC MoTI 2012 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (Standard Specifications), except where
Bridge End Fill zones are required. As per the specifications, the new embankment fills should be terraced in a
continuous series of minimum 1.5 m wide steps into the existing highway embankments. Step heights should be
no more than 1 m in height.
In general, it is recommended that fill slopes for embankments be developed no steeper than 2 Horizontal to
1 Vertical (2H:1V). Consideration may be given to developing fill slopes as steep as 1.5H:1V; however,
specialized embankment treatment, such as internal reinforcement or construction using coarse angular rock
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
16
(Type A) fill or concrete facing will likely be required to achieve the necessary embankment performance
requirements identified in MoTI’s Supplement to CSA S6-14. Performance criteria are based on the degree of
understanding and consequence factor, which we have assumed to be a high degree of understanding and typical
consequence factor. The resultant required static factor of safety is 1.43 and seismic factor of safety is 1.10.
Embankments that cannot meet the performance requirements will require special acceptance by MoTI.
In light of the above, Golder has carried out slope stability analyses for widening embankments, targeting the area
along the Highway 1 westbound off-ramp to Main Street (L60 line), assuming use of Type D fills at 2H:1V slopes.
The analysis was carried out using the commercially available slope stability software GeoStudio 2018 by
GeoSlope International Ltd. and available local test hole information. The results of the analysis are presented in
Appendix F.
Based on the results of the analyses, slopes constructed at 2H:1V using Type D fill exceeds the static
performance requirements (the calculated Factor of Safety (static) is about 1.83) but does not quite meet the
seismic performance requirements (the calculated Factor of Safety (seismic) is about 1.07); and thus, the slightly
lower Factor of Safety (seismic) will require special acceptance by MoTI. Golder recommends maintaining 2H:1V
slopes as the seismic factor of safety exceeds 1.0 (failure is not anticipated) and the critical failures surfaces
remain outside of the proposed travel lanes (i.e. within the paved shoulder area).
It is understood that newly placed embankments will generally range from 5 m to 8 m in height. It is estimated that
the potential settlement of embankment fill up to 8 m in height could range between 50 mm and 75 mm, including
approximately 10 mm to 25 mm of settlement due to consolidation/compression of the underlying subgrade soils
and approximately 25 mm to 50 mm of settlement due to consolidation/compression of the embankment fills. It is
anticipated that the majority of settlement due to compression of the underlying subgrade soils will occur during
construction; however, settlement due to compression of the embankment fills could continue for an extended
period following construction.
8.1.3 Material Re-Use
The excavated materials originating from the site are expected to be generally either organic or granular in nature.
The organic soils are considered unacceptable for material re-use and should be stripped as recommended in
Section 8.1 and generally wasted or re-used in landscaped areas. It is understood, that no other Type D
excavation will originate from the site and the Project will need to import borrow materials in order to meet
material needs. All import borrow materials should meet/exceed Type D material specifications as per SS201.37.
8.2 Retaining Walls Previously, three retaining wall structures were required to accommodate the proposed site grading within the
geometrical constraints within the Project site. At the time of preparing this report, the number of required
retaining walls has been reduced to two (the soil nail/shotcrete retaining wall required to accommodate the third
westbound travel lane has been eliminated from the design). A discussion of the geotechnical aspects of the three
proposed retaining wall structures is presented in the following sections along with Golder’s geotechnical design
recommendations for each wall.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
17
8.2.1 Cast-In Place Nail Wall (10214R)
It is understood that a cast-in-place tie back (non-tensioned anchor/soil nail) retaining wall is proposed along the
west side of the existing Highway 1 eastbound on-ramp from Main Street to accommodate widening along this
route. The cast-in-place tie back wall is anticipated to be up to 6 m vertical height, 110 m long, and will be an
anchored/soil nailed cantilever-type design on spread footings. It is understood that the spread footings will be
approximately 3 m in width and stepped to meet grading requirements. The spread footings will be buried at least
1.0 m below the existing ground surface.
Based on our understanding of the proposed nailed cast-in-place retaining wall configuration, we provide the
following geotechnical recommendations for use in the design of the retaining wall system:
Ultimate Bearing Resistance – Ru: 350 kPa.
Ultimate Geotechnical Resistance Factor – φ: 0.5 (assumes a Typical degree of understanding).
Serviceability Bearing Resistance – Rs: 250 kPa (limited to 50 mm settlement).
Serviceability Geotechnical Resistance Factor – φ: 0.8 (assumes a Typical degree of understanding).
The recommended lateral loading configurations for the cast-in-place wall (assuming yielding walls) is illustrated
in Figure 10.
Golder has carried out a slope stability analysis to assess the tie-back requirements for the cantilever wall. A limit
equilibrium analysis was carried out to assess the overall global stability in the permanent static condition and a
pseudo-static limit equilibrium analysis was carried out to assess the overall seismic condition for the existing
embankment slope conditions and the various wall heights. The analysis was carried out using the commercially
available slope stability analysis software package GeoStudio 2018 R1 by GeoSlope International Ltd. The slope
profiles analyzed and the stability analysis results, which were based on the currently available subsurface
information, are presented in Appendix G. The soil stratigraphy between test hole locations was based on our
interpretation of the geological conditions of the area and consequently, the actual field conditions may vary from
that used in our model and analyses.
The material properties tabulated below were assumed in the slope stability analysis:
Table 4: Slope Stability Analysis Material Properties (Retaining Wall 10214R).
Material Soil Model Friction Angle Cohesion Unit Weight
Existing Embankment Fill Mohr-Coulomb 34 0 20 kN/m3
A visual review of existing pavement condition for the Project site was conducted on 04 April 2019. The visual
condition of pavements is summarized as following:
Table 10: Existing Pavement Condition Assessment
Road Segment Pavement Condition Notes
Highway 1 Eastbound and Westbound
Fatigue cracking of asphalt pavement along wheel paths was visible at numerous locations. At one spot loss of significant material leading to a small pothole was visible. In addition, longitudinal and transverse cracks at random locations were visible.
Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway
The existing pavement condition was observed to be generally fair except minor localized rutting and cracking of pavement along inner wheel path.
Highway 1 WB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway
The existing pavement exhibited longitudinal and transverse cracks at numerous locations in addition to fatigue cracks along wheel paths, some of which have formed into alligator cracked shapes.
Highway 1 EB Off-Ramp to Main Street
The existing pavement exhibited longitudinal, transverse and random shape cracks at numerous locations.
Highway 1 WB Off-Ramp to Main Street
The existing pavement exhibited transverse cracking at irregular short intervals as well as longitudinal cracks at certain locations.
Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Main Street
The pavement exhibits longitudinal and transverse cracks at certain locations.
Main Street and Dollarton Highway
The pavement is in a poor condition exhibiting longitudinal and transverse cracking at numerous locations including loss of surficial material and formation of a pothole.
Selected photographs showing pavement distress are included in Appendix I.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
25
The existing pavements were observed to be in deteriorated condition to a varying degree which is indicative of pavement structure deficiency or age-related wear of surficial asphalt. Based on the visual review, the existing pavements likely require upgrading or rehabilitation in the short-term. However, it would be preferable that the existing pavement life is also extended to 20 years in tandem with the new construction to offer consistent performance across the road cross section(s). Further investigation such as pavement deflection testing and asphalt coring would be required to prepare detailed pavement upgrading/rehabilitation strategies for the existing asphalt.
It is understood that rehabilitation of the existing pavements through the Project site is not being considered at this time. However, it should be noted that, based on our experience conducting the geotechnical field investigation, it may be extremely difficult to obtain the necessary permits and permissions to conduct the detailed testing, investigation and sampling that would be required to properly assess the required rehabilitation strategies.
8.4.2 Traffic Loading and Pavement Design
Pavement design for the new widened areas and highway lanes was carried out consistent with the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements as well as the current MoTI Pavement Structure Design Guidelines (Technical Circular T-01/15, pavement structures Type A and B). The analysis was completed for a 20-year (2021 to 2041) design period using the resilient modulus of subgrade soils, as estimated from the site investigation results and the traffic data provided by AE. The information provided by AE for use in the analysis included:
Total traffic volumes for various segments of Highway 1 and adjoining road segments
A growth rate of 0.45% for Highway 1 eastbound traffic
A growth rate of 0.65% for all other road segments (such as westbound lanes, ramps, etc.)
Truck traffic as 7% of total traffic (from the Business Case Report, as requested by AE)
For analysis purposes, a uniform truck factor of 2.5 equivalent single-axel loads (ESALs) was assumed for heavy vehicular traffic. Based on the lane configurations at various locations and traffic flow, the computed 20-year design lane for various roads is shown in Table 11.
Highway 1 New Eastbound Curb Lane (New Overpass Lane)
70 1 1 1 23,643 23,643 0.65 32.4
Main Street & Dollarton Highway
0 4 0.5 0.8 24,610 9,844 0.65 13.5
8.4.3 Pavement Structure Recommendations
The following pavement design criteria for flexible pavements have been utilized for the pavement structure design within the new paved areas for the Project:
20 Year Analysis Period
90% Reliability
0.45 Standard Deviation
Initial Serviceability Index (pi) = 4.2
Terminal Serviceability Index (pt) = 2.5
A subgrade resilient modulus of 60 MPa was assumed in the analysis representing well compacted granular fill subgrade conditions.
Based on the above criteria, the following sections present the recommended pavement structure for the various road segments within the Project.
Table 12: Pavement Structure Recommendations for Various Road Segments
Road Segment Structural Number Required
Pavement Thickness (mm)
Asphaltic Concrete
Granular Base
Granular Sub-Base
Highway 1 Westbound 145.82 200 300 325
Highway 1 Eastbound 143.96 200 300 325
Highway 1 EB Off-Ramp to Main Street 115.46 130 300 300
Highway 1 WB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway
Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway
Highway 1 WB Off-Ramp to Main Street
Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Phibbs Exchange
Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Main Street 121.80 145 300 300
Highway 1 New Eastbound Curb Lane (New Overpass Lane) 141.45 195 300 300
Main Street & Dollarton Highway 125.13 155 300 300
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
27
It is recommended that the granular base courses and subbase be compacted to not less than 100% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) and the material conform to SS 202 of the current edition of BC MoTI Standard Specifications. The asphaltic concrete recommended is 16 mm Class 1 Medium mix or 12.5 mm NMS Superpave underlain by 19 mm NMS Superpave asphalt mix pavement in accordance with SS 502. Prior to installation of subbase course, the prepared subgrade should be reviewed and approved by a geotechnical engineer for its suitability.
8.4.4 Pavement Joints and Transitions
The recommended pavement joint configuration for areas where new pavement structure directly adjoins existing pavement structure is presented on Figure 16.
Special consideration may be required at transition areas between the existing highway and local road networks and the new lane configurations, such that some asphalt overlay and levelling course of the existing asphalt pavement may be required.
Where asphaltic overlay or levelling course is required, it is recommended that the levelling course consist of 16 mm Class 1 Medium mix or 12.5 mm NMS Superpave mix. Levelling course should be constructed in lifts with individual lift thickness in the range of 50 mm to 75 mm or otherwise approved by MoTI or the Engineer of Record.
At the transition locations where no overlay or levelling course over existing pavement is necessary, provision of a butt joint is recommended. To provide a butt joint, approximately 300 mm width of existing pavement should be milled to a depth of 50 mm and repaved along with the adjacent pavement.
8.5 Geotextile Separator It is understood that a general purpose geotextile separator will be required to separate coarser grained erosion protection (riprap) materials, drain rock and the like. The recommended geotextile specifications for use as separation layers between fine grained soils and coarse grained soils should be non-woven and needle-punched with properties that meet or exceed the following minimum average roll values:
Table 13: Minimum Geotextile Specifications
Drainrock, Riprap Less than 50kg
Grab Tensile Strength: (ASTM D4632); 0.71 kN
Grab Tensile Elongation: (ASTM D4632); 50 %
CBR Puncture Strength: (ASTM D6241); 1.82 kN
UV Resistance: (ASTM D4355); 70 % @ 500 hrs
Trapezoidal Tear: (ASTM D4533); 0.267 kN
Apparent Opening Size: (ASTM D 4751); 0.212 mm
Permittivity: 1.5 sec-1 (ASTM 4491); and 1.3 sec-1
Water Flow Rate: 4480 l/min/m2 (ASTM D4491). 4482 l/min/m2
The selected geotextile should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
e recommended overlap for the geotextile is dependent on the application, but it is typically 0.5 m.
REFERENCE(S)BASE PLAN OBTAINED FROM CLIENT. FILE NAME: ACAD-GEOMLANE-12627-2019-20190322.DWGDATE RECEIVED: MARCH 25, 2019.DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: ZONE 10.
REFERENCE(S)BASE PLAN AND PROFILE OBTAINED FROM CLIENT.FILE NAME: ACAD-GEOMLANE-12627-2019-20190322.DWG
R1-931-201_209_20190327.DWGDATE RECEIVED: MARCH 25, 2019.DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: ZONE 10.
WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESSILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURESCLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAYMIXTURESWELL-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,< 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLYSANDS, < 5% FINESSILTY SANDSSAND-SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY SANDSSAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDSOR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDYCLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYSOF LOW PLASTICITYINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOM-ACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,PLASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS, ETC.
ROCK FRAGMENTS AND COBBLES, PARTICLESIZE 75mm TO 300mm
BEDROCK
GM1;
GM2;
GM3;
GM4;
GC1;
GC2;
GC3;
GC4;
SM1;
SM2;
SM3;
SM4;
SC1;
SC2;
SC3;
SC4;
PASSING .075mm SIEVE
*
GWGP
GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PtTSSB
BR
ORGANICSOILS
TOPSOIL
COBBLES
BEDROCK
MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
FIN
E G
RAI
NED
SO
ILS
CO
ARSE
GR
AIN
ED S
OIL
S
SILT
S AN
DC
LAYS
w >
50SI
LTS
AND
CLA
YS w
<50
SAN
D A
ND
SAN
DY
SOIL
SG
RAV
EL A
ND
GR
AVEL
LY S
OIL
S
12 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
40 - 50%
FOR SOILS HAVING 5 - 12% PASSING .075 SIEVE, USE DUAL SYMBOL
LB BOULDERS, PARTICLE SIZE OVER 300mmLARGEBOULDERS
LL
MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE MAJOR
DIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESSILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURESCLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAYMIXTURESWELL-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,< 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLYSANDS, < 5% FINESSILTY SANDSSAND-SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY SANDSSAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDSOR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDYCLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYSOF LOW PLASTICITYINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOM-ACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,PLASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS, ETC.
ROCK FRAGMENTS AND COBBLES, PARTICLESIZE 75mm TO 300mm
BEDROCK
GM1;
GM2;
GM3;
GM4;
GC1;
GC2;
GC3;
GC4;
SM1;
SM2;
SM3;
SM4;
SC1;
SC2;
SC3;
SC4;
PASSING .075mm SIEVE
*
GWGP
GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PtTSSB
BR
ORGANICSOILS
TOPSOIL
COBBLES
BEDROCK
MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
FIN
E G
RAI
NED
SO
ILS
CO
ARSE
GR
AIN
ED S
OIL
S
SILT
S AN
DC
LAYS
w >
50SI
LTS
AND
CLA
YS w
<50
SAN
D A
ND
SAN
DY
SOIL
SG
RAV
EL A
ND
GR
AVEL
LY S
OIL
S
12 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
40 - 50%
FOR SOILS HAVING 5 - 12% PASSING .075 SIEVE, USE DUAL SYMBOL
LB BOULDERS, PARTICLE SIZE OVER 300mmLARGEBOULDERS
PLAN AND PROFILE - MAIN STREET / DOLLARTON HIGHWAY TITLE
PROJECT NO. REV.
PROJECTCLIENT
CONSULTANT
PREPARED
DESIGNED
REVIEWED
APPROVED
YYYY-MM-DD
Path
: \\g
olde
r.gds
\gal
\bur
naby
\CAD
-GIS
\Clie
nt\A
ssoc
iate
d En
gine
erin
g\D
olla
rton_
Inte
rcha
nge\
99_P
RO
JEC
TS\1
8106
808\
3200
\100
0\02
_PR
OD
UC
TIO
N\D
WG
\ |
File
Nam
e: 1
8106
808-
3200
-100
0-00
3.dw
g |
Las
t Edi
ted
By: a
nwon
g D
ate:
201
9-04
-12
Tim
e:11
:00:
42 A
M |
Prin
ted
By: A
NW
ong
Dat
e: 2
019-
08-0
1 T
ime:
9:25
:40
AM
IF T
HIS
MEA
SUR
EMEN
T D
OES
NO
T M
ATC
H W
HAT
IS S
HO
WN
, TH
E SH
EET
SIZE
HAS
BEE
N M
OD
IFIE
D F
RO
M: A
NSI
D
PLANSCALE 1:1,250m
PROFILESCALE 1:1,250m
1:1,250
50 1000
METRES
LEGEND
REFERENCE(S)BASE PLAN AND PROFILE OBTAINED FROM CLIENT.FILE NAME: ACAD-GEOMLANE-12627-2019-20190322.DWG
R1-931-201_209_20190327.DWGDATE RECEIVED: MARCH 25, 2019.DATUM: NAD83, PROJECTION: ZONE 10.
AUGER HOLE LOCATION (GOLDER, 2019)
BOREHOLE LOCATION (GOLDER, 2019)
BPT AND SONIC HOLE LOCATION (GOLDER, 2018)
WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESSILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURESCLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAYMIXTURESWELL-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,< 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLYSANDS, < 5% FINESSILTY SANDSSAND-SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY SANDSSAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDSOR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDYCLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYSOF LOW PLASTICITYINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOM-ACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,PLASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS, ETC.
ROCK FRAGMENTS AND COBBLES, PARTICLESIZE 75mm TO 300mm
BEDROCK
GM1;
GM2;
GM3;
GM4;
GC1;
GC2;
GC3;
GC4;
SM1;
SM2;
SM3;
SM4;
SC1;
SC2;
SC3;
SC4;
PASSING .075mm SIEVE
*
GWGP
GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PtTSSB
BR
ORGANICSOILS
TOPSOIL
COBBLES
BEDROCK
MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
FIN
E G
RAI
NED
SO
ILS
CO
ARSE
GR
AIN
ED S
OIL
S
SILT
S AN
DC
LAYS
w >
50SI
LTS
AND
CLA
YS w
<50
SAN
D A
ND
SAN
DY
SOIL
SG
RAV
EL A
ND
GR
AVEL
LY S
OIL
S
12 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
40 - 50%
FOR SOILS HAVING 5 - 12% PASSING .075 SIEVE, USE DUAL SYMBOL
LB BOULDERS, PARTICLE SIZE OVER 300mmLARGEBOULDERS
LL
MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE MAJOR
DIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SANDMIXTURES, < 5% FINESSILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILTMIXTURESCLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAYMIXTURESWELL-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS,< 5% FINESPOORLY-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLYSANDS, < 5% FINESSILTY SANDSSAND-SILT MIXTURESCLAYEY SANDSSAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDSOR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITYINORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDYCLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYSORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYSOF LOW PLASTICITYINORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOM-ACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS,PLASTIC SILTSINORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGHPLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS, ETC.
ROCK FRAGMENTS AND COBBLES, PARTICLESIZE 75mm TO 300mm
BEDROCK
GM1;
GM2;
GM3;
GM4;
GC1;
GC2;
GC3;
GC4;
SM1;
SM2;
SM3;
SM4;
SC1;
SC2;
SC3;
SC4;
PASSING .075mm SIEVE
*
GWGP
GM*GC*SWSPSM*SC*
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PtTSSB
BR
ORGANICSOILS
TOPSOIL
COBBLES
BEDROCK
MAJORDIVISIONS SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION LEGEND
FIN
E G
RAI
NED
SO
ILS
CO
ARSE
GR
AIN
ED S
OIL
S
SILT
S AN
DC
LAYS
w >
50SI
LTS
AND
CLA
YS w
<50
SAN
D A
ND
SAN
DY
SOIL
SG
RAV
EL A
ND
GR
AVEL
LY S
OIL
S
12 - 20%
20 - 30%
30 - 40%
40 - 50%
FOR SOILS HAVING 5 - 12% PASSING .075 SIEVE, USE DUAL SYMBOL
LB BOULDERS, PARTICLE SIZE OVER 300mmLARGEBOULDERS
PSEUDO-STATIC STABILITY ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE YIELD ACCELERATION
9
a) Pseudo-Static Stability Model near North Abutment/Pier; Yield Acceleration = 0.21 g b) Pseudo-Static Stability Model near South Abutment/Pier; Yield Acceleration = 0.33 g
1. FOR ACTIVE STATIC CONDITIONS: CONSIDER THE COMBINED ACTION OF (i)+(iv)+(v).2. FOR ACTIVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN: CONSIDER THE COMBINED ACTION OF (i)+(iii)+(iv)+(v).3. FOR ACTIVE SEISMIC CONDITIONS: CONSIDER THE COMBINED ACTION OF
(i)+(ii)+(iv)+(v).
g = 21 kN/m3
g' = 13 kN/m3
gw = 9.8 kN/m3
qs = SURCHARGE WEIGHT OF SOIL ABOVE WALL (VARIES WITH WALL HEIGHT)H = HEIGHT OF WALLDE = DEPTH OF TOE EMBEDMENTDw = DEPTH TO WATER TABLEKA = ACTIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT = 0.22 (10214R), 0.32 (10245R)KAE = ACTIVE SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT = 0.31 (10214R), 0.60 (10245R)PC = COMPACTION PRESSURE = 12 kPaCC = DEPTH OF COMPACTION INFLUENCE = 2.0 mCO = SEISMIC ACCELERATION COEFFICIENT = 0.16 g
WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, < 5% FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, < 5% FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
WELL GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, < 5% FINES
POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, < 5% FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILT-CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, PLASTIC SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS, ETC.
ROCK FRAGMENTS AND COBBLES, PARTICLE SIZE 75 mm TO 300 mm
BOULDERS, PARTICLE SIZE OVER 300 mm
ADAPTED FROM: BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS "GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR BRIDGE FOUNDATION INVESTIGATIONS" , JANUARY 1991, SHEET REV. 90-04-26.
BEDROCK
PASSING 0.075 mm SIEVE
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSORGANIC SOILS
TOPSOIL
COBBLES
LARGE BOULDERS
BEDROCK
1/1
0.3m
0.76m
1.53m
3.66m
1
2
3
SM4
SM1
SP
SM2
[TOPSOIL] SAND and SILT with organics(rootlets), fine sand, dark brown, moist,loose.
[FILL] SAND some silt, fine to mediumsand, grey-brown, moist, loose.
[FILL] gravelly SAND trace silt, fine tocoarse sand, fine gravel, grey-brown,moist, loose.
[FILL] silty SAND trace gravel withorganics (rootlets), fine to coarse sand,fine, sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,grey-brown, moist to wet, compact to verydense.
- with cobbles and/or boulders inferred at3.66 m based on visual observation andresistance to penetration.
End of Augerhole - Refusal
Sieve (Sa#2)G:23% S:74% F:3%
Driller: T. Koett
Drill Make/Model: Marl M6 Track Rig
CLA
SSIF
ICAT
ION
Location: Phibbs Exchange Bus Loop, North Vancouver, BC
No groundwater seepageencountered in open augerhole.
ML
SM2/SM3
SM1
SM1
[TOPSOIL] sandy SILT with organics(rootlets), non-plastic, fine to mediumsand, dark brown, moist, loose.
[FILL] silty SAND trace to some gravel,fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel, light brown withorange, moist, compact to dense.
- with pockets of sandy SILT below 2.13m depth.
[FILL] SAND some silt, fine to mediumsand, brown-grey with orange, moist,loose to compact.
[FILL] SAND some silt trace gravel, fineto coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded gravel, grey-brown, moist,loose to dense.- with pockets of sandy SILT below 3.35m depth.
- with organics (rootlets) below 4.57 mdepth.
- with cobbles up to 0.10 m diameterobserved below 5.03 m depth.
No groundwater seepageencountered in open augerhole.
SM4
SP-SM
[TOPSOIL] SAND and SILT with organics(rootlets), fine to medium sand, darkbrown, moist, very dense.
[FILL] gravelly SAND trace silt withorganics (rootlets), fine to coarse sand,fine, sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel,grey-brown, moist, compact to verydense.
- with cobbles and/or boulders inferred at2.29 m based on visual observation andresistance to penetration.
End of Augerhole - Refusal
Sieve (Sa#3)G:28% S:64% F:8%
Driller: T. Koett
Drill Make/Model: Marl M6 Track Rig
CLA
SSIF
ICAT
ION
Location: Highway 1 WB Off-Ramp to Main Street, North Vancouver, BC
[FILL] gravelly SAND some silt to silty,fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse,sub-rounded to sub-angular gravel, greywith orange, moist, compact to verydense.
[FILL] sandy silty GRAVEL, fine tocoarse, sub-rounded to sub-angulargravel, fine to coarse sand, grey withorange, moist to wet, compact to verydense.
SAND and GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angularto sub-rounded gravel, grey, moist to wet,compact to dense.
[FILL] GRAVEL some sand trace to somesilt, fine to coarse, sub-angular gravel,fine to coarse sand, brown-grey, moist,compact to very dense.- with cobbles to 1.53 m depth.
- trace silt below 2.74 m depth.
- inferred cobbles/boulders below 4.57 mdepth.
[FILL] silty SAND some gravel, fine tocoarse sand, fine to coarse, sub-angulargravel, brown, moist, compact to dense.
No groundwater seepageencountered in open borehole.
25
54
33
21
21
AP
GW-GM
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE.
[FILL] sandy GRAVEL trace to some silt,fine to coarse, sub-rounded tosub-angular gravel, fine to coarse sand,brown-grey, moist, compact to verydense.- with inferred cobbles and/or bouldersintermittently throughout layer.
[FILL] sandy GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse, sub-angular to sub-roundedgravel, fine to coarse sand, brown-grey,with cobbles, moist, loose to very dense.
- inferred cobbles and/or boulders from6.40 m to 10.36 m depth.
Sieve (Sa#6)G:60% S:33% F:7%
Driller: T. Truphet
Drill Make/Model: Mobile B-80 Truck Rig
CLA
SSIF
ICAT
ION
Location: Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway
[FILL] sandy GRAVEL trace silt, fine tocoarse, sub-angular to sub-roundedgravel, fine to coarse sand, brown-grey,with cobbles, moist, loose to very dense.(continued)
End of Borehole - Target Depth
Driller: T. Truphet
Drill Make/Model: Mobile B-80 Truck Rig
CLA
SSIF
ICAT
ION
Location: Highway 1 EB On-Ramp from Dollarton Highway
sandy SILT; non-plastic, fine sand; brown,with organics (rootlets and grass), wet.[TOPSOIL]
sandy GRAVEL trace to some silt; fine tocoarse, sub-rounded to sub-angulargravel, fine to coarse sand; grey-brown,with cobbles and boulders, moist to wet.[Possible FILL]
sandy GRAVEL; fine to coarse,sub-rounded to sub-angular gravel, fine tocoarse sand; grey-brown, wet.
ML
GP/GP-GM
GW
Sieve (Sa#1)G:77% S:21% F:2%
Sieve (Sa#2)G:74% S:26% F:0%
ELE
VA
TIO
N (
m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LegendSample Type:
S-SplitSpoon
O-Odex(air rotary)
T-ShelbyTube
C-CoreA-Auger G-Grab V-Vane
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Driller: B.Ivens / K.Vandebossche
Drill Make/Model: HAV180 / DB320
CLA
SSIF
ICAT
ION
Location: North Vancouver, BC
Date(s) Drilled: March 19-20, 22, 2018
Drilling Method: Becker / SonicCoordinates taken with GPS
National IM Server:GINT_GAL_NATIONALIM Unique Project ID:1909 Output Form:_LAB_PARTICLE SIZE (W/ GRADATIONS) 2018 JBrunswick 8/1/19
Tech Date Checked Date
Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd.
Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project
Client:
Project:
Location:
Project No.:
North Vancouver, BC
1787066 Phase: 3000
Tel: Fax: www.golder.com
Golder Associates Ltd.
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
APPENDIX C
Sonic Core Photographs
CLIENT PROJECT
FIGURE
Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Deliverables/90%25%20Design%20Report?csf=1&e=ljeVuf | FileName: Appendix C – Core Photos.pptx
CONSULTANT TITLEYYYY-MM-DD 2019-08-07
DESIGN J.BRUNSWICK
REVIEW PROJECTNo####
Rev
0####
####APPROVED ####
HIGHWAY 1 - DOLLARTON INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, BC
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (BC) LTD.
1787066Phase3000
PREPARED J.BRUNSWICK
P.BAKKER
T.FITZELL
Core Box 1: 1.52 m to 5.79 m (5 ft to 19 ft)
Core Box 2: 5.79 m to 12.50 m (19 ft to 41 ft)
Core Box 3: 12.50 m to 17.98 m (41 ft to 59 ft)
Core Box 4: 17.98 m to 24.08 m (59 ft to 79 ft)
SONIC CORE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR BPT/SH18-01 – BOXES 1 TO 4
C1
CLIENT PROJECT
FIGURE
Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Deliverables/90%25%20Design%20Report?csf=1&e=ljeVuf | FileName: Appendix C – Core Photos.pptx
CONSULTANT TITLEYYYY-MM-DD 2019-08-07
DESIGN J.BRUNSWICK
REVIEW PROJECTNo####
Rev
0####
####APPROVED ####
HIGHWAY 1 - DOLLARTON INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, BC
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (BC) LTD.
1787066Phase3000
PREPARED J.BRUNSWICK
P.BAKKER
T.FITZELL
Core Box 5: 24.08 m to 27.13 m (79 ft to 89 ft)
Core Box 6: 27.13 m to 30.17 m (89 ft to 99 ft)
Core Box 7: 30.17 m to 33.22 m (99 ft to 109 ft)
Core Box 8: 33.22 m to 36.27 m (109 ft to 119 ft)
SONIC CORE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR BPT/SH18-01 – BOXES 5 TO 8
C2
CLIENT PROJECT
FIGURE
Path: https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/:f:/r/sites/31065g/Deliverables/90%25%20Design%20Report?csf=1&e=ljeVuf | FileName: Appendix C – Core Photos.pptx
CONSULTANT TITLEYYYY-MM-DD 2019-08-07
DESIGN J.BRUNSWICK
REVIEW PROJECTNo####
Rev
0####
####APPROVED ####
HIGHWAY 1 - DOLLARTON INTERCHANGE PROJECTNORTH VANCOUVER, BC
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING (BC) LTD.
1787066Phase3000
PREPARED J.BRUNSWICK
P.BAKKER
T.FITZELL
Core Box 9: 36.27 m to 42.37 m (119 ft to 139 ft)
Core Box 10: 42.37 m to 45.41 m (139 ft to 149 ft)
Core Box 11: 45.41 m to 48.46 m (149 ft to 159 ft)
SONIC CORE PHOTOGRAPHS FOR BPT/SH18-01 – BOXES 9 TO 11
C3
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
APPENDIX D
Laboratory Soils Corrosivity/Aggressivity Testing
Results
Notice: The test data given herein pertain to the samples provided. This report constitutes a testing service only. Interpretation of the data
given here may be provided upon request. GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD., 300 - 3811 North Fraser Way, Burnaby, BC Canada V5J 5J2 Tel: 604-412-6899 Fax: 604-412-6816
DETERMINATION OF TOTAL OR WATER-SOLUBLE SULPHATE ION
CONTENT OF SOIL CSA A23.2-3B
Client: Associated Engineering (BC) Ltd. Project No.: 18106808 Project: Highway 1 - Dollarton Interchange Project Phase No.: 5000 Date sampled: March 2019 Date tested: April 2, 2019 Sampled by: JB Tested by: RZ
Sample ID Depth (m) Total Sulphate Ion Content %
Water-Soluble Sulphate Ion Content %
AH19-09, SA1 0.305 - 0.457 0.01 Not Applicable *
AH19-09, SA3 2.134 - 2.286 0.01 Not Applicable *
AH19-11, SA1 0.305 - 0.457 0.02 Not Applicable *
AH19-14, SA1 0.310 - 0.460 0.02 Not Applicable *
BH19-01, SA1 0.305 - 0.457 0.01 Not Applicable *
BH19-01, SA7 9.144 - 9.754 0.01 Not Applicable *
BH19-03, SA2 0.914 - 0.994 0.03 Not Applicable *
BH19-05, SA2 1.143 - 1.219 0.02 Not Applicable *
Notes: 1. * Per Clause 9.1.4, the water-soluble sulphate ion content need not be tested when the total sulphate ion content
is less than 0.20% 2. Detection limit for the test is 0.005% Reported by: S. John, AScT Reviewed by: L. Hu, M. Sc. E., P.Eng.
LHu
Lily Hu
REPORTED TO Golder Associates Ltd. (Bby Lab)
Burnaby, BC V5J 5J2
Authorized By:
#110 4011 Viking Way Richmond, BC V6V 2K9 | #102 3677 Highway 97N Kelowna, BC V1X 5C3 | 17225 109 Avenue Edmonton, AB T5S 1H7
1-888-311-8846 | www.caro.ca
300-3811 North Fraser Way
Junior Account Manager
Alana Crump
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Introduction:
CARO Analytical Services is a testing laboratory full of smart, engaged scientists driven to make the world a safer and
healthier place. Through our clients' projects we become an essential element for a better world. We employ methods
conducted in accordance with recognized professional standards using accepted testing methodologies and quality
control efforts. CARO is accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratories Accreditation (CALA) to ISO
17025:2005 for specific tests listed in the scope of accreditation approved by CALA.
Big Picture Sidekicks
You know that the sample you collected after
snowshoeing to site, digging 5 meters, and
racing to get it on a plane so you can submit it
to the lab for time sensitive results needed to
make important and expensive decisions
(whew) is VERY important. We know that too.
We've Got Chemistry
It�s simple. We figure the more you
enjoy working with our fun and
engaged team members; the more
likely you are to give us continued
opportunities to support you.
Ahead of the Curve
T h r o u g h r e s e a r c h , r e g u l a t i o n
knowledge, and instrumentation, we
are your analytical centre for the
technica l knowledge you need,
BEFORE you need it, so you can stay
up to date and in the know.
ATTENTION Siny John
PO NUMBER
PROJECT 18106808-5000
RECEIVED / TEMP 2019-03-29 13:50 / 24°C
REPORTED 2019-04-05 16:11
PROJECT INFO AE, Highway 1 (Dollarton IC)
Work Order Comments:
Samples for chloride was prepared according to ASTM C1218/C1218M - 17 ( Standard Test Method for
Water-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete) and analysis was performed according to ASTM C114-18 ( Standard
Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement).
WORK ORDER 9032479
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [email protected]
Page 1 of 5Rev 2017-11-07 Caring About Results, Obviously. Page 1 of 5
Testing of the provided soil samples for the above noted project was completed by March 29th, 2019. Test procedures and survey results are outlined in the following sections. 1. Soil Testing and Evaluation Summary Please see Appendix I for the AWWA C-105 Soil Evaluation Table. Survey results are outlined in Appendix II and as can be seen, neither sample produced C-105 test scores greater than 10 points, which in the absence of other considerations, indicates corrosion preventions measures are not required. Note however that we do not recommend using the C-105 analysis when the sample testing is delayed as the severity of the results can be understated. 2. Project Scope As part of the design process, new watermain projects are usually required to include a soil corrosivity investigation. The work is intended to identify areas along proposed alignments that pose significant corrosion risk to ductile iron pipe. Depending on the assessment, standard piping provisions including un-coated ductile iron pipe and fittings may be required to have corrosion protection measures. In the subject case we were provided only samples for analysis with the samples collected from locations chosen by others. 3. Testing Procedures ANSI/AWWA C-105 Latest Version (Appendix I), commonly referred to as the “10 Point System” is widely used for determining soil corrosivity for ductile iron water mains. The model specifies various soils parameters for analysis including, resistivity, pH, moisture, sulphides and redox potential. Based on sample test results numeric assessments are given for each of the parameters. The more corrosive the condition, the higher the assessment. Overall point totals are given for each sample with values greater than 10 indicating a need for corrosion prevention
Corrosion Service Company Limited 1103 Cliveden Avenue East, Annacis Island, Delta, B.C. V3M 6G9 (604) 521‐1234 Fax: (604) 521‐0910 Web: www.corrosionservice.com
HALIFAX • MONTREAL • SARNIA • TORONTO • CALGARY • EDMONTON • VANCOUVER • INTERNATIONAL
measures. Note sample values that approach 10 may also require corrosion prevention measures (depending on other considerations) while values significantly less than 10 indicate that no measures are required. Please note that testing for pH, sulphides, redox and moisture is time sensitive and as such the accuracy of the test results may be understated. 4. Soil Samples Two soil samples from varying depths were provided from test locations along the subject alignment. The test locations were selected by others and we are uncertain as to handling procedures of the samples. The soil samples were tested for various parameters including resistivity, moisture, pH, sulfides and redox potential, all of which are considered important factors in determining soil corrosivity. Additional comments on specific procedures are as follows. Soil Resistance: Soil resistance is often considered the single most important factor in determining corrosivity and generally the more conductive the soil the greater the corrosion risk. Representative soil samples were collected at varying depths from both test locations. Sample material was subsequently placed in a Nilsson test box and compacted to approximate native conditions. Due to the relatively small size of the test apparatus some selection bias against larger stones, rock etc. is likely. Soil samples were saturated with distilled water and then tested by passing a D.C. current through the sample and measuring the voltage drop between test box electrodes. The ohmic reading from the soil box is converted to an ohm-cm reading by multiplying the value by a correction factor. Soil Moisture: Soil sample moisture content was estimated and characterized as dry, moist or wet. Samples characterized as dry were considered to be in areas having good drainage characteristics. Moist samples were considered to be in areas having fair drainage characteristics while saturated samples were considered to be in areas having poor drainage. Soil pH: Soil sample pH was measured utilizing a copper-copper sulphate half cell electrode to antimony half cell electrode. Millivolt measurements are subsequently converted to standard numeric pH values. pH values less than 4.0 are considered aggressive, values between 5 and 8 are considered less aggressive to innocuous although values between 6.5 to 7.5 indicate soil that can support sulfate-reducing bacteria if other factors are suitable. Soil Sulphides and Redox Potential: Soil samples were checked for the presence of sulphides utilizing 3% sodium azide in 0.1 normal iodine solution. In the presence of sulphide bacteria the immersed sample will produce gas. Sample results are characterized as Negative (as absence of gas bubbling), Trace (minor gas bubbling) or Positive (vigorous gas bubbling). A test of the oxidation-reduction potential was also completed which provides an indication of the degree of aeration of the soil. Low or negative values indicate an anaerobic environment, which may support sulfate-reducing bacteria.
Corrosion Service Company Limited 1103 Cliveden Avenue East, Annacis Island, Delta, B.C. V3M 6G9 (604) 521‐1234 Fax: (604) 521‐0910 Web: www.corrosionservice.com
HALIFAX • MONTREAL • SARNIA • TORONTO • CALGARY • EDMONTON • VANCOUVER • INTERNATIONAL
5. Tessting Results 4.1 Summary: All test data is tabulated and analyzed in Appendix II. The tables include the C-105 data and test scores, including summary comments. In summary, both samples produced C-105 test scores less than 10 points, which in the absence of other considerations, indicates corrosion preventions measures are not required. As Noted above, however we do not recommend using the C-105 analysis when the sample testing is delayed as the severity of the results can be understated. Further details are covered in the following sections. 4.2 Soil Sample Resistivities: As can be seen from the data, the lowest measurement was 8,600 ohm-cms. Such measurements are consistent with native soils containing sands, gravels, clays and rock. In summary, the resistivity readings are considered relatively non-conductive and consistent with lower risk to innocuous conditions. 4.3 pH & Moisture: Soil moisture and pH parameters indicate somewhat acidic conditions with moderate moisture content. Soil acidity and moisture work to increase soil corrosiveness with the presence of the water table adding further concentration effects. 4.4 Sulphides & Redox: Negative results for sulphides were noted from both test locations. The presence of sulphides work to increase corrosion risk and this is particularly true in combination with low or negative redox potentials. For both samples the redox potentials were high or positive. In summary, based on the above noted test criterion, neither sample meets the threshold for requiring corrosion prevention measures. We trust this information is as required. If you have questions, please contact us at our Annacis Island office. Yours truly, Corrosion Service Company Ltd.
Trevor Holland Technician NACE Certified No. 50810 Encl.
Corrosion Service Company | Corrosion Prevention in Soil and Water | Industrial – Marine - Infrastructure
APPENDIX I ANSI/AWWA C-105 (Latest Version) APPENDIX A Table A.1 Soil Test Evaluation Soil Characteristics Based on Samples Taken to Pipe Depth
SOIL CORROSIVITY EVALUATIONREFERENCE: HWY 1 Dollarton Interchang Project SOIL SAMPLES: ProvidedSAMPLE COLLECTION DATE: BH19-03 on March 21/19, BH19-05 on March 14/19SAMPLE TEST DATE: March 29, 2019
Corrosion Service Company Ltd. | Corrosion Prevention in Soil and Water | Industrial - Marine - Infrastructure
29 August 2019 18106808-006-R-Rev1
APPENDIX E
2015 NBCC Seismic Hazard Calculations
2015 National Building Code Seismic Hazard CalculationINFORMATION: Eastern Canada English (613) 995-5548 français (613) 995-0600 Facsimile (613) 992-8836
Western Canada English (250) 363-6500 Facsimile (250) 363-6565
Probability of exceedance per annum 0.000404 0.001 0.0021 0.01
Probability of exceedance in 50 years 2 % 5 % 10 % 40 %
Sa (0.05) 0.420 0.289 0.207 0.091
Sa (0.1) 0.638 0.442 0.318 0.140
Sa (0.2) 0.791 0.554 0.402 0.178
Sa (0.3) 0.791 0.558 0.406 0.178
Sa (0.5) 0.698 0.489 0.351 0.147
Sa (1.0) 0.397 0.272 0.190 0.075
Sa (2.0) 0.243 0.162 0.110 0.041
Sa (5.0) 0.078 0.046 0.027 0.009
Sa (10.0) 0.027 0.016 0.010 0.003
PGA (g) 0.343 0.241 0.174 0.076
PGV (m/s) 0.516 0.350 0.243 0.091
Notes: Spectral (Sa(T), where T is the period in seconds) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) values aregiven in units of g (9.81 m/s2). Peak ground velocity is given in m/s. Values are for "firm ground"(NBCC2015 Site Class C, average shear wave velocity 450 m/s). NBCC2015 and CSAS6-14 values arehighlighted in yellow. Three additional periods are provided - their use is discussed in the NBCC2015Commentary. Only 2 significant figures are to be used. These values have been interpolated from a10-km-spaced grid of points. Depending on the gradient of the nearby points, values at thislocation calculated directly from the hazard program may vary. More than 95 percent ofinterpolated values are within 2 percent of the directly calculated values.
References
National Building Code of Canada 2015 NRCC no. 56190; Appendix C: Table C-3, Seismic DesignData for Selected Locations in Canada
Structural Commentaries (User's Guide - NBC 2015: Part 4 of Division B)Commentary J: Design for Seismic Effects
Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7893 Fifth Generation Seismic Hazard Model for Canada: Gridvalues of mean hazard to be used with the 2015 National Building Code of Canada
See the websites www.EarthquakesCanada.ca and www.nationalcodes.ca for more information