geotechnical assessment – north surrey truck parking detailed … · 2020-06-09 · based on...

Geotechnical Assessment – North Surrey Truck Parking Detailed Design

North Surrey Truck Parking Site – Highway No. 17 at Port Mann Bridge, Surrey, BC

Prepared for: British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Suite 310 – 1500 Woolridge Street Coquitlam, BC V3K 0B8

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 500-4730 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 0C6

Project No.: 115815018

January 20, 2017

Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review

1 Detailed Design

12/21/16 AM 12/21/16 AM 12/30/16 WQ

0 Preliminary Design

08/12/16 AM 08/15/16 AM 08/18/16 WQ

GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT – NORTH SURREY TRUCK PARKING DETAILED DESIGN

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ........................................................................... 4 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 PROPOSED CONCEPT DESIGN ........................................................................................ 4

2.2.1 Truck Parking Lot ............................................................................................. 5 2.2.2 SFPR Widening ................................................................................................. 5

3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 7 3.1 SITE INVESTIGATIONS BY OTHERS ..................................................................................... 7 3.2 SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD .................................................................................... 7 3.3 SETTLEMENT DATA .............................................................................................................. 8

3.3.1 Settlement at the NSTP Site ........................................................................... 9 3.3.2 Settlement of SFPR ........................................................................................ 10

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION AND TESTING ................................................. 11 4.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 NSTP Site ......................................................................................................... 11 4.1.2 Additional Site ............................................................................................... 11

4.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 12

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 13

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 15 6.1 PARKING LOT SUBGRADE ............................................................................................... 15

6.1.1 Stockpile Cut to Grade ................................................................................ 15 6.1.2 Re-use of Stockpiled Soil as Site Grading Fill ............................................. 15 6.1.3 Pavement Structure Design Considerations ............................................. 17

6.2 PROTECTION OF EXISTING SEWER ................................................................................. 17 6.2.1 Background Information ............................................................................. 17 6.2.2 Lightweight Materials ................................................................................... 18 6.2.3 Recommendations for Sewer Protection .................................................. 18

6.3 SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 19 6.3.1 Truck Parking Site .......................................................................................... 19 6.3.2 SFPR Widening ............................................................................................... 23

6.4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................. 26 6.5 RETAINING WALLS AND FILL SLOPES ............................................................................. 27

6.5.1 Ministry Accepted Products ........................................................................ 27 6.5.2 MSE Wall and Reinforced Soil Slope Design Considerations .................. 28 6.5.3 Permanent Fill Slopes .................................................................................... 30 6.5.4 Ditch Slopes ................................................................................................... 31

6.6 FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 31 6.6.1 Shallow Foundations .................................................................................... 31


6.6.2 Deep Foundations ........................................................................................ 32 6.7 EXCAVATIONS, DEWATERING, AND UTILITIES ............................................................... 32

7.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 34

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Proctor Density (Laboratory Compaction Test) Results .......................................... 14 Table 2 Settle3D Soil Parameters ............................................................................................. 20 Table 3 Estimated Post-Construction Settlement in Fill Areas .............................................. 21 Table 4 Post-Construction Settlement for Delayed Construction ....................................... 23 Table 5 Gabion Style Gravity Wall Specifications ................................................................. 29

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Stockpile Settlement at NSTP Site ................................................................................ 9 Figure 2 Settlement of SFPR adjacent to NSTP Site ................................................................ 10

LIST OF APPENDICES

STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS .................................................... A.1

DRAWINGS ................................................................................................ B.1

BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS .......................................................... C.1

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ....................................................................... D.1

PAVEMENT DESIGN MEMO ........................................................................ E.1


Introduction January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has carried out a geotechnical assessment for the proposed North Surrey Truck Parking (NSTP) project on Highway No. 17 (South Fraser Perimeter Road) at the Port Mann Bridge in Surrey, BC (the Site). The purpose of this assessment is to provide geotechnical recommendations in support of 100% detailed design of the proposed truck parking lot concept for this site.

Our geotechnical assessment of the proposed truck parking lot concept designs included review of published geological mapping, record drawings for the existing South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), and available geotechnical information in our project files. We also reviewed geotechnical information provided by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (the Ministry), which included a Stage 1 and 2 Preliminary Site Investigation report and geotechnical memorandum for the site prepared by others, test hole records from geotechnical site investigations carried out by others for the SFPR project, and historical settlement gauge survey data (prior to November 2012) recorded at the Site and adjacent section of the SFPR. Finally, Stantec carried out a geotechnical investigation of the Site to supplement the existing information.

This report presents the findings of our detailed geotechnical assessment and supplemental geotechnical site investigation, includes discussion of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and geotechnical issues pertaining to the proposed truck parking lot concept design, and provides design and construction recommendations necessary to support the detailed design.

Pavement structure design is beyond the scope of the geotechnical assessment and will be completed by a Stantec pavement/transportation engineer using site-specific subsurface soil and groundwater information and subgrade strength recommendations presented in this report. A copy of the Stantec pavement design memo is provided in Appendix E.


Site and Project Understanding January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 4

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Site is located along the north side of Highway 17, or the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), and near the south end of the Port Mann Bridge in Surrey, BC. The Site is bounded to the north by Canadian National (CN) railway tracks and to the south by the SFPR.

Existing grade at the Site varies roughly between EL. 3.5 m and EL. 13 m (Geodetic). However, much of the Site is covered by a few, large stockpiles of excavation spoils that were taken from construction of the SFPR, with the top of these stockpiles located between approximately EL. 7 m and EL. 13 m. We understand that stockpile construction occurred at the Site roughly between mid-2011 and the end of 2012, and that the sides of the existing stockpiles are sloped between approximately 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) and 3H:1V.

Prior to stockpile placement, we understand that original site grade varied between roughly EL. 3 m and EL. 7 m. As such, the existing stockpiles are understood to vary between 3 m and 7.5 m in height (approx.) above original site grades.

We understand that a Metro Vancouver 1372 mm outside diameter by 11.7 mm thick wall steel sanitary force main (the North Surrey Interceptor, or NSI) crosses beneath the Site (north-south) between the two easternmost soil stockpiles and that the force main is situated near the toe of the eastern stockpile. Existing grade along this section of the NSI is roughly between EL. 6 m and EL. 7 m (Geodetic), while the crest of the adjacent stockpile is located near EL. 11.5 m to EL. 12 m.

Based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (Metro Vancouver) plan and profile drawings SF-1729 (Aug. 1983) and C-005 (File S-3038; May 30, 2005), we understand that invert elevation of the NSI is located at EL. 0.76 m near the south side of the NSTP site (north side of SFPR) and slopes down to the north at approximately 0.08%. Metro Vancouver drawing SF-1729 (as-constructed drawing) indicates that the NSI sewer trench was over-excavated during construction to fully remove the peat layer and that compacted gravel fill replaced the peat. Based on Metro Vancouver’s typical trench details, we envisage that the trench excavation extended no more than 300 mm below the invert elevation of the force main.

2.2 PROPOSED CONCEPT DESIGN

Our review of the Stantec 75% Detailed Design drawings (dated July 2016) indicates that the proposed truck parking site will be located between approximately 600 m and 1,400 m east of the Port Mann Bridge. The Site will provide 158 truck parking spots and 49 passenger vehicle parking spots. The new parking lot will connect to the SFPR roughly 600 m to the east of the Port Mann Bridge via a new, two-lane access roadway.



Project. No.: 115815018 5

No other information pertaining to displacement (settlement) tolerance, loading conditions or design life has been provided to us. Stantec should be contacted immediately to review the recommendations presented herein if the geotechnical design criteria and loading conditions change or are different from those assumed or once detailed design information becomes available.

2.2.1 Truck Parking Lot

The 75% Detailed Design drawings indicate the following with respect to development of the NSTP project:

• Current site grades within the proposed footprint vary between EL. 3.5 m and EL. 13 m (approx.)

• Design grade (top of finished surface) will vary between EL. 6 m and EL. 9.5 m (approx.). • The existing stockpiles will be cut to design subgrade elevation, with cuts ranging from 2 m to

6 m in height (approx.). • Fill placement will be necessary to achieve design grade in low-lying areas (e.g., beyond the

toe of the existing soil stockpiles, and between adjacent stockpiles, etc.) − Fill placement thicknesses are expected to range from 1.5 m to 4 m (approx.). − The lateral extent of filling will range from 5 m to 50 m (approx.) beyond toe of the

existing stockpiles. − The side slopes of the newly placed permanent fill will be sloped at 2H:1V or retained by

near-vertical retaining walls.

The 75% Detailed Design drawings indicate that new storm drains will be installed roughly along the centerline (east-west) of the new parking lot, and that storm water will outlet to retention pond at the east end of the Site after passing through an oil/water separator. We also understand that at least two new culverts will be installed beneath the east end of the Site as part of this project.

The NSTP project will also include the construction of a few ancillary structures including overhead lighting and pre-fabricated, security kiosk and unplumbed washroom and shower units. We understand that a thickened raft slab will support the new washroom facility and new security kiosk structure.

The 75% Detailed Design drawings indicate that overhead lighting to be installed throughout the parking lot will be founded on 1.5 m high, modified Type-C (pedestal) concrete bases and on 2.8 m long, Type-X (500 mm diameter) concrete base posts. We understand that the Type-X concrete base posts will be embedded either 1.8 m or 2.8 m below final grade depending on the type of electrical pole being supported and that the modified Type-C bases will be fully embedded.

2.2.2 SFPR Widening

As shown on the 75% Detailed Design drawings, the existing SFPR would be widened as part of the NSTP project. The north side of SFPR (adjacent to the Site) will be widened by up to 5 m (i.e.,



Project. No.: 115815018 6

new pavement edge constructed up to approximately 5 m beyond current pavement edge) to construct deceleration and acceleration lanes for traffic entering and exiting the Site.

This road widening will be constructed beyond the existing road shoulder and require placement of up to 2.5 m (approx. height) of permanent granular fill materials to achieve design road grade. The 75% Detailed Design drawings also indicate that the south side of the existing SFPR will be widened, which will require permanent fill placement in the order of 0.5 m to 1 m (approx.). A new gravel access road will be constructed south of the SFPR widening to maintain access to the existing leachate collection station.

New street lighting and overhead signage will be installed along the adjacent section of SFPR and a new signalized intersection will be constructed to provide access between SFPR and the NSTP site. The 75% Detailed Design drawings indicate that new street lighting will be founded on 1.5 m high, modified Type-C concrete bases (pedestal bases) that will be fully embedded below surrounding grade.

We understand that the new overhead signage (including advanced warning signs) and overhead poles for the signalized intersection will consist of Type H and Type L overhead poles that will be supported by groups of three 300 mm diameter piles. The three piles will be arranged in a triangular pattern and spaced at 1,500 mm centre-to-centre.

We understand that either concrete piles or steel pipe piles driven open-ended will be used to support the overhead poles. The factored Ultimate Limit State (ULS) resistance required (both in compression and tension) for piles supporting Type H and Type L overhead poles are 100 kN and 75 kN, respectively.


Background Information January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 7

3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.1 SITE INVESTIGATIONS BY OTHERS

Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) previously provided the Ministry with a Stage 1 and 2 Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) report for the Site1. We were provided a copy of this report on May 10, 2016. Included in Appendix A of this document is a Golder technical memorandum providing geotechnical fill characterization and settlement comments for the existing soil stockpiles on and to the west of the Site.

The Golder site investigation was carried out in August 2013 and included completion of 41 boreholes and installation of 6 monitoring wells (i.e., 47 unique investigation locations) distributed across the stockpiles at the Site. The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 5.7 m to 16.8 m below top of the existing stockpiles using a solid-stem continuous auger.

3.2 SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD

We have been provided with geotechnical information for design and construction of SFPR from Stantec’s prior involvement with that project. This information includes a geotechnical report2 and subsurface soil profiles developed by Trow Associates Inc. (now exp) and GeoEngineers Inc. based on drilling and test hole logs prepared by Golder. Copies of the subsurface soil profile drawings have been included in Appendix B.

Based on settlement gauge data provided by the Ministry, the NSTP site is located approximately between STA. 371+00 and STA. 383+00 as shown on the subsurface soil profile drawings from the SFPR project (Appendix B). The subsurface profile for this section of the SFPR was developed by Trow Associates and GeoEngineers from review of four Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings (CPT06-106 through CPT06-109) and logs of ten boreholes carried out by Golder in 1988 (BH88-2 through BH88-4), 1995 (BH95-3 through BH95-5), and 2006 (AH06-106 through AH06-109). The Ministry has provided Stantec with copies of the Golder CPT soundings and borehole logs that were used to develop the subsurface profile drawings.

SFPR record drawings have been reviewed, and indicate that some sections of the SFPR alignment between STA. 371+00 and STA. 383+00 were preloaded prior to construction. SFPR Profile drawings 04830-10-ST-0000-D8-201 through 203 (Rev. 7; dated March 17, 2014) indicate the following:

• STA. 374+80 to STA. 375+40 – 1.5 m high surcharge

1 Golder Associates Ltd (2014). Stage 1 and Stage 2 Preliminary Site Investigation: South Fraser Perimeter Road, 11688 Highway 1, Surrey, BC, Site ID No. 116. Golder Associates Ltd., Report No. 1214360045-028-R-Rev0-116, January 15, 2014. 2 Trow Associates Inc. & GeoEngineers, Inc. (2010). South Fraser Perimeter Road Geotechnical Report, South Delta/Surrey, BC. Trow Ref. No.: 091-01009G, Rev. No. C, October 31, 2010.



Project. No.: 115815018 8

• STA. 381+20 to STA. 382+00 – 1.5 m high surcharge • STA. 382+60 to STA. 383+00 – 2.0 m high surcharge

A surcharge load (preload) was not placed for any of the remaining sections of SFPR between STA. 371+00 and STA. 383+00. Settlement data provided by the Ministry (refer to Figure 2) is from settlement gauges located in areas where 1.5 m high preloads were placed prior to SFPR construction.

Review of the SFPR Typical Sections (Dwg. no. 04830-10-ST-0000-D8-501 Rev. 5; dated March 13, 2014) indicates that the preloads, where placed, extended at full height to the design edge of pavement, beyond which point the preload sloped down to existing grade at 1.5H:1V. Therefore, the proposed widening areas for new deceleration and acceleration lanes and gravel access roads were not preloaded to the same extent as the adjacent pavement sections of SFPR.

3.3 SETTLEMENT DATA

The Stage 1 and 2 Preliminary Site Investigation report by Golder presents settlement gauge data that were provided by the Ministry for readings taken up to November 2012. This settlement gauge information was provided to Stantec by the Ministry on July 18, 2016 and comprised the following:

• A Google Earth image showing the approximate locations of seven (7) settlement gauges (gauge numbers 4002 to 4005, 4008 to 4010) distributed across the stockpiles at the NSTP project site and five (5) settlement gauges (no. 1400, 1401, 1740, 1741, and 1374) distributed along the adjacent section of SFPR. − Two of the seven gauges at the NSTP project site (4008 and 4010) were installed at the

same location, as the original gauge at this location (4008) was damaged during stockpile placement.

− It is unknown whether the settlement gauges were located near the centerline of the stockpiles or closer to the perimeter.

• An Excel spreadsheet containing settlement survey readings from the NSTP project site taken between: − June 2011 and November 2012 for gauges 4002 to 4004. − July 2011 and November 2012 for gauge 4005. − August and November 2011 for gauge 4008, then January through July 2012 for

replacement gauge 4010. − September 2011 and November 2012 for gauge 4009.

• An Excel spreadsheet containing settlement survey readings from the SFPR taken between: − February and July 2011 for gauges 1740 and 1741. − March and September 2011 for gauge 1374.

Settlement survey readings for gauges 1400 and 1401 were not provided.



Project. No.: 115815018 9

3.3.1 Settlement at the NSTP Site

The provided settlement gauge data for the NSTP project site indicates that between roughly 300 mm and 915 mm of total settlement had occurred as of the end of 2012 due to placement of roughly 6.2 m to 7.6 m of stockpiled soil at the Site (i.e., stockpile height at the settlement gauge locations varied from 6.2 m to 7.6 m above original grade). The data also indicates that minor fill placement was still occurring as of the time of the last few settlement gauge readings. Golder predicted that up to 400 mm of additional settlement could occur over the 18 months after the last settlement gauge readings (after November 2012) and recommended that additional settlement readings be taken by the Ministry; however, we understand that no additional settlement monitoring had occurred at the Site by the Ministry since the end of 2012.

Stantec carried out additional settlement gauge surveys at the Site on September 21, 2016 to supplement the data provided by the Ministry. Survey measurements were taken at six settlement gauges: 4002 through 4005, 4008, and 4009. However, observations by our surveyor suggested that the readings from gauge 4008 be ignored.

Figure 1 shows the settlement that has occurred to date at the NSTP site. The Ministry discontinued settlement readings on November 27, 2012, which corresponds between 429 days and 517 days of settlement.

Figure 1 Stockpile Settlement at NSTP Site

As shown in Figure 1, relatively minor settlement has occurred at the location of gauge 4004 in the roughly 4 years since the Ministry discontinued settlement gauge readings at the Site. Considerable settlement has occurred at the other four gauge locations, with between 300 mm and 400 mm of settlement occurring at the locations of gauges 4002, 4003, and 4005 and roughly 800 mm at gauge 4009 since November 2012. Except for settlement gauge 4004, total

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.601 10 100 1000 10000

Sett

lem

ent (

m)

Time (Days)

D16-SSG-4002

D16-SSG-4003

D16-SSG-4004

D16-SSG-4005

D16-SSG-4009



Project. No.: 115815018 10

settlement between roughly 950 mm and 1,500 mm has occurred due to placement of roughly 6.2 m to 7.6 m of stockpiled soil at the Site.

This new settlement data has been used to calibrate settlement models created during the Functional Design phase and to estimate preload configuration and duration needed to mitigate post-construction settlement for the NSTP project.

3.3.2 Settlement of SFPR

Survey data provided for SFPR indicates that between roughly 50 mm and 150 mm of settlement occurred due to the placement of 2.5 m to 2.7 m of fill at the three SFPR settlement gauge locations (i.e., 1740, 1741, and 1374), as is shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Settlement of SFPR adjacent to NSTP Site

The data from the three SFPR settlement gauges indicates that minor fill placement was still occurring at the time the last few survey readings were taken.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.201 10 100 1000 10000

Sett

lem

ent (

m)

Time (Days)

L2000-SGG-1740

L2000-SGG-1741

L2000-SSG-1374


Geotechnical Site Investigation and Testing January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 11

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION AND TESTING

4.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION

4.1.1 NSTP Site

Stantec carried out a geotechnical investigation at the Site over four days between May 13, 2016 and May 18, 2016. The purpose of this investigation was to supplement the information obtained by Golder and to collect bulk samples of the stockpiled fill soils to assess potential re-use of these soils as site grading fill.

Our investigation of the existing fill stockpiles at the NSTP project site consisted of seven (7) solid-stem auger boreholes (BH16-05 to BH16-11) and thirteen (13) mechanically-excavated test pits (TP16-01 to TP16-13). The boreholes were completed using solid stem auger drilling methods to collect disturbed soil samples for visual classification and laboratory soil index testing. The boreholes were carried out using a truck-mounted drill rig operated by Downrite Drilling Ltd. and advanced to 9 m depth below grade (tops of stockpiles). The test pits were advanced to between 3.8 m and 5.2 m depth below grade using a Komatsu 300 excavator operated by Greenbelt Excavating. The boreholes and test pits were located approximately as shown on Drawings No. 1 to 4 (Appendix B).

Dynamic cone penetration tests (DCPTs) were completed at all Stantec borehole locations to assess in-situ consistency of the stockpile fills. DCPT blow counts represent the number of blows required to advance a 60-degree apex cone 305 mm into soil using a drop-hammer with a standardized drop height and weight. DCPT blow counts generally provide an indication of soil consistency or compactness, and may also be used to aid in estimation of other soil parameters. Golder did not carry out in-situ soil testing during their investigation, and therefore could only infer soil consistency. DCPT blow counts recorded in the field are shown on the Stantec Borehole Records included in Appendix C.

The field work was continuously monitored by a Stantec geotechnical field engineer, who identified the borehole, test pit and sample locations, classified the soils, recorded the results of DCPT testing, kept a detailed log of each test hole, and observed and recorded pertinent site features. Representative, disturbed soil samples were collected from the boreholes and test pits and brought to the Stantec soils laboratory in Burnaby, BC in moisture tight containers for further visual identification and soil index testing.

4.1.2 Additional Site

The purpose of our geotechnical site investigation was also to investigate subsurface conditions at a potential 38-stall parking lot located along SFPR and to the west of the Port Mann Bridge (14599 116A Avenue, Surrey, BC). Our investigation of this site included completion of four (4)


Geotechnical Site Investigation and Testing January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 12

solid-stem auger boreholes (BH16-01 to BH16-04) that were advanced to 4.6 m below grade. DCPT tests were completed to 4.6 m depth at all four borehole locations.

We understand that this potential site is no longer under consideration for the NSTP project. As such, we have omitted further discussion of this potential site from this report. However, the records of these four boreholes have been included in Appendix C.

4.2 LABORATORY TESTING

The primary objectives of the Stantec laboratory testing program were to aid in the visual classification of the soil samples and to measure pertinent index soil parameters to assess geotechnical hazards and facilitate geotechnical engineering analyses necessary to support functional design of the proposed truck parking lot concept.

In general, geotechnical laboratory testing was performed in accordance with applicable American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) test procedures and/or laboratory equipment manufacturer’s recommended test procedures. All soil descriptions and identifications were made in accordance with ASTM Standard D2488 (Visual Manual Procedure).

Laboratory testing for the soil samples from the Stantec site investigations were performed in Stantec’s laboratory in Burnaby, BC and generally included moisture content measurement, fines content determination and Atterberg limit testing. Modified Proctor density tests (ASTM D1557) were also performed on selective bulk soil samples. The results of the laboratory testing program are summarized on the Stantec Borehole Records included in Appendix C as well as on laboratory results sheets in Appendix D.


Subsurface Conditions January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 13

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Based on Surficial Geology Map 1484A3, the proposed NSTP project site near the south end of the Port Mann Bridge in Surrey, BC is anticipated to be underlain by native bog, swamp, and shallow lake deposits consisting of lowland peat. The lowland peat is anticipated to be underlain by Fraser River sediments including silty to silt clay loam over deltaic and distributary channel fill sandy to silt loam, interbedded fine to medium sand, and minor silt beds.

The findings of the Golder Stage 1 and Stage 2 PSI report and geotechnical memorandum, Golder test hole records from 1988, 1995, and 2006, and interpreted subsurface profiles generated for the SFPR project (Appendix B) generally agree with the published surficial geology information and indicate that the native deposits are overlain by anywhere from 1 m to 8 m of predominantly sand fill with variable silt content (traces of silt to silty), though layers of silt fill and deleterious materials (wood chips, Styrofoam, etc.) were also occasionally present. The sand fill is loose to compact and underlain by in the order of 3 m to 4 m of very soft to soft organic material (peat and organic silt) that, in turn, is underlain by as much as 10 m of soft to firm silt and clay deposits.

The subsurface profiles and associated test hole records along the SPFR alignment indicate that loose to compact native sand soil layers were encountered below the silt and clay deposits. The test hole records indicate that the surface of the sand layers encountered anywhere from approximately 14 m to 20 m below grade at the times of the site investigations, though generally encountered between 17 m and 20 m depth. The Golder test hole records indicate that the local groundwater level varied between approximately 2 m and 7 m depth below grade at the times of their site investigations.

The information provided in the Golder Stage 1 and Stage 2 PSI report and geotechnical memorandum indicates the following with respect to subsurface conditions at the NSTP project site:

• The stockpiled fill generally comprises silty sand to sandy silt: − The stockpiled silty sand to sandy silt fills contained variable gravel content and

occasionally contained trace amounts to some wood debris, roots, organic material, and debris.

− The stockpiled silty sand to sandy silt fills also contained up to 1 m thick layers of organic rich fills (including sawdust, hog fuel, and peat/organic silt fill).

− Moisture content of the samples of stockpiled silty sand to sandy silt fill materials varied between roughly 5% and 40%. Higher moisture contents were measured in the organic rich fill layers.

− The fill soils extend to between 0.5 m and 1 m (approx.) below original grade

3 Armstrong, J.E. and Hicock, S.R. (1980). Map 1484A – Surficial Geology, New Westminster, West of Sixth Meridian, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, December 1, 1980.


Subsurface Conditions January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 14

• Peat was encountered beneath the stockpiled fill at the locations of deeper boreholes/wells, and ranged in thickness from 1.2 m to 2.9 m; however, some of these boreholes/wells terminated within the peat.

• The depth to groundwater ranged from 4.3 m to 12.2 m (approx.) below the tops of the stockpiles (i.e., groundwater within, or near the base of, the stockpiles). Groundwater encountered above the base of the stockpiles is likely perched/trapped water within the fill layers and anticipated to be discontinuous across the site.

In general, the subsurface conditions encountered during the Stantec site investigation agree reasonably well with those reported in Golder’s geotechnical memorandum. DCPT blow counts recorded during the Stantec investigation indicate that the compactness of the stockpiled fill material greatly varies with depth and location, but generally infer loose to compact conditions with occasional zones of very loose to loose fill and of compact to dense fill.

The results of modified Proctor density tests (ASTM D1557) performed on three bulk samples of the stockpiled silty sand to sandy silt fill materials are summarized in the following table.

Table 1 Proctor Density (Laboratory Compaction Test) Results

Test Pit ID Sample Depth

In-Situ Moisture

Content (%)

Optimum Moisture Content for Compaction (%)

Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density (kg/m3)

Rock Corrected

Uncorrected Rock Corrected

Uncorrected

TP16-03 2.4 m 12.9 9.5 11.2 2092 1989

TP16-07 2.7 m 12.8 7.9 8.3 2132 2099

TP16-10 3.0 m 16.3 10.7 11.0 2015 1993 Copies of the laboratory Proctor density test results are provided in Appendix D for reference.


Discussion and Recommendations January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 15

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 PARKING LOT SUBGRADE

6.1.1 Stockpile Cut to Grade

Based on our understanding of the proposed concept design, subgrade for the parking lot will generally be located within the existing stockpiled fill material and approximately 2 m to 6 m below current top of stockpile grade. Based on our review of the Golder information and the results of our site investigation, subgrade conditions are generally anticipated to consist of loose to compact, silty sand to sandy silt fill.

This material is considered suitable to remain in place as parking lot subgrade, subject to the following conditions:

• Proof-rolling of the exposed subgrade surface should be carried out during construction to identify any areas of soft, loose, or poor-quality fills that will need to be remediated prior to placement of the pavement structure.

• Sub-excavation of any exposed areas of organic rich fills (sawdust and peat/organic silt fill) will be necessary.

• The exposed subgrade soils will be moisture-sensitive and could be disturbed by extended periods of precipitation, excessive compaction and handling, and exposure to construction traffic.

All exposed soil surfaces within the parking lot and roadway areas should be reviewed by a Stantec geotechnical engineer/engineering technician prior to placement of any permanent site grading or pavement structure fill soils.

6.1.2 Re-use of Stockpiled Soil as Site Grading Fill

The results of geotechnical site investigations by Golder and Stantec indicate that the existing fills stockpiled at the Site primarily consist of silty sand to sandy silt with variable gravel content and occasionally trace amounts to some deleterious materials including wood debris, roots, organic material, debris, and up to 1 m thick layers of organic rich fills (sawdust and peat/organic silt fill). From a geotechnical engineering perspective, we consider that the stockpiled silty sand to sandy silt materials can be re-used as site grading fill at the proposed NSTP project site if the Contractor removes all the deleterious materials prior to placement and compaction.

6.1.2.1 Placement and Compaction

The results of our Proctor density testing, as well as moisture content testing by Golder, indicates that the stockpiled fill materials are wet of the “optimum” moisture content for compaction. Based on the Proctor density test results, these materials at their in-situ moisture contents could



Project. No.: 115815018 16

be compacted to in the order of 90% to 93% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (MPMDD) value. However, scarifying and “drying” of this material under appropriate weather conditions (i.e., sunny, warm, and breezy) could be carried out to reach moisture contents in the optimum range to achieve higher soil densities.

These cut materials will need to be placed and compacted in maximum 150 mm thick loose lifts. As such, the fill placement rate would be slower than if using granular materials. Compaction difficulties with these soils should be expected during wet weather conditions, and it is therefore best that these soils be placed and compacted during periods of dry weather.

The fines content of the existing stockpiled fills is typically greater than 20%. Soils with fines content greater than 20% are likely to be moisture-sensitive and disturbed by extended periods of precipitation, excessive compaction and handling, and exposure to construction traffic.

Inspection and density testing by Stantec will be required during the placement and compaction of fill materials.

6.1.2.2 Removal of Deleterious Materials

The wood debris, roots, organic material, and debris (construction materials, discarded geotextiles, etc.) are anticipated to make up a portion of the stockpiled materials at this site. It is preferable that the Contractor remove these materials from any soils cut from the stockpiles to be used as site grading fill and removed from material remaining in place at or below the design grade where identified during construction.

The thick layers of organic rich fills are not suitable for use as parking lot subgrade or to re-use as site grading fill and will comprise the bulk of the waste material from this site. Where encountered in the Golder and Stantec boreholes and test pits, the thickness of the organic rich fill layers varied between approximately 0.25 m and 1 m. The sequencing of these layers varied at the test hole locations (i.e., placement of these materials was not uniform during stockpile construction), and multiple layers of organic rich fills were encountered in a few borehole/test pit locations. Therefore, organic rich soils encountered during construction will need to be removed and replaced with suitable material as part of sub-grade preparation.

6.1.2.3 Stockpiling

Any material cut from the existing stockpiles that is then stockpiled on site, prior to placement as site grading fill, should be covered with polyethylene sheeting. The Contractor should install temporary berms and/or ditches or grade the surrounding area to prevent runoff from entering adjacent water courses and the municipal storm sewer system (following periods of precipitation).



Project. No.: 115815018 17

6.1.3 Pavement Structure Design Considerations

Subgrade for the proposed parking lot is anticipated to consist of silty sand to sandy silt fill soils following site grading comprised of re-grading existing stockpiles or placement and compaction of site grading fill. We consider that a resilient modulus, MR, in the order of approximately 20 MPa to 25 MPa is appropriate based on the present information to represent pavement structure subgrade consisting of silty sand to sandy silt fill that has been prepared in accordance with Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of this report.

This preliminary resilient modulus could be re-evaluated during construction to assess whether a higher value could be utilized in pavement designs for the NSTP project. A Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) could be used to estimate the in-situ soil strength based on the penetration rate, which can be directly correlated to California Bearing Ratio (CBR). The CBR is a parameter that describes the mechanical strength of pavement structure materials and is used as direct input to asphalt pavement design.

6.2 PROTECTION OF EXISTING SEWER

6.2.1 Background Information

We understand that a Metro Vancouver 1372 mm outside diameter sanitary force main (the NSI) crosses beneath the Site (north-south) between the two easternmost soil stockpiles. This sewer crossing will be located roughly beneath future truck parking stalls no. 79 and no. 110 near the east end of the Site.

Existing grade above this section of the NSI is between roughly EL. 6 m and EL. 7 m. We understand that sewer invert elevation is roughly EL. 0.76 m near the south side of the NSTP site and that the sewer slopes down to the north at approximately 0.08% (i.e., top of pipe roughly near EL. 2.13 m near the north side of the NSTP). Based on the 75% Detailed Design drawings, top of the new parking lot above the NSI alignment will be located approximately near EL. 8.7 m (i.e., roughly 1.7 m to 2.7 m of permanent fill placement needed to achieve design grade). We understand that the Fraser River flood level is EL. 5.4 m in this area (not including climate change but including 600 mm of freeboard).

Metro Vancouver as-constructed drawing SF-1729 indicates that the NSI sewer trench was over-excavated during construction to fully remove the peat layer and that compacted gravel fill replaced the peat. Based on geotechnical information for the Site, we anticipate that the gravel fill is underlain by between 7 m and 10 m of soft to firm silt and clay deposits.

Metro Vancouver has indicated that “no net loading” should be added to the NSI because of the NSTP project. We also understand that Metro Vancouver was not previously made aware of how close to the NSI the easternmost soil stockpile had been constructed.



Project. No.: 115815018 18

6.2.2 Lightweight Materials

Stantec considers that excavation of a portion of the existing overburden fill and placement of expanded polystyrene (EPS) to the underside of the pavement structure may be used to achieve the objective of minimal load increase on the existing NSI sewer across the Site. EPS geofoam blocks have been used as a construction material for several local projects where the loads imposed on nearby and underlying soils and structures must be greatly reduced.

EPS geofoam is an ultra-lightweight construction material, with unit weights in the order of 0.2 to 0.3 kN/m3 (i.e., roughly 1.5% and 3% the unit weights of conventional site grading fill and lightweight aggregate fill, respectively). As such, Stantec considers that the increase in overburden stress on the existing sewer due to placement of EPS would be negligible.

The design Fraser River flood level is understood to be roughly located at EL. 5.4 m, which corresponds to roughly 0.6 m to 1.6 m below existing grade near the NSI crossing. It is therefore anticipated that an EPS zone overtop the existing NSI would be located almost entirely above the design flood level. The effective weight of backfill material (0.8 m thick pavement structure) overtop the EPS zone is estimated to be greater than the potential buoyant forces on the EPS zone and, therefore, buoyancy of the EPS zone should not be an issue.

6.2.3 Recommendations for Sewer Protection

Stantec considers that EPS blocks should be used to minimize additional loading on the existing NSI sewer due to raising of the Site to Elev. 8.7 m (approx.) along the NSI sewer alignment. The proposed pavement structure for this area of the NSTP site will be 800 mm thick and comprise 150 mm of asphalt over 300 mm of granular base over 350 mm of granular sub-base. A layer of triaxial TX-5 geogrid will be placed between the base and sub-base layers.

To offset the weight of the pavement structure, we recommend that at least 1 m of the existing soils above the NSI alignment be excavated and replaced by EPS blocks (existing soils have lower unit weight than the new pavement structure materials). The zone contributing the greatest stress influence overtop the existing NSI sewer can be estimated by projecting a 1H:2V line upwards from the top of the sewer to the final design grade (on both sides of the sewer). Based on a 1.372 m OD sewer with invert elevation near EL. 0.76 m and existing site grades between EL. 6 m and EL. 7 m, we recommend the following configuration for EPS blocks placed along the sewer alignment:

• The bottom row of EPS blocks should be founded at EL. 5 m and should extend laterally at least 2.4 m beyond the centerline of the NSI on both sides.

• The width of each row of EPS blocks should be greater than the underlying row and should be determined based on a 1H:2V projection through mid-height of each row.

Stantec recommends the EPS blocks have the following physical properties to ensure they are sufficient to resist applied overburden pressure from the pavement structure and future traffic loading:



Project. No.: 115815018 19

• Min. 40 kPa compressive resistance at 1% deformation. • Min. 200 kPa flexural strength. • Min. 4000 kPa elastic modulus.

The EPS blocks should be underlain by a 150 mm thick bedding layer 19 mm or 25 mm crushed gravel in accordance with the BC MOTI 2012 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (Volume 1). Blocks should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The exposed ends of the EPS blocks (at the north and south ends of the sewer crossing) should be covered by at least 0.5 m of soil cover.

EPS geofoam can be damaged when exposed to certain hydrocarbons. Therefore, we recommend that any fill soils placed around the EPS geofoam blocks be tested for presence of hydrocarbon chemicals unless a hydrocarbon-resistant geomembrane or other physical barrier is installed around the blocks.

6.3 SETTLEMENT

6.3.1 Truck Parking Site

6.3.1.1 General

Settlement due to primary consolidation is associated with the dissipation of excess pore water pressure induced by development loads (e.g., permanent fill placement to raise site grade, foundation loads, etc.). Primary consolidation settlement is relatively common in the Lower Mainland and is typically a concern for cohesive soils having soft to firm consistency. Preloading is often used to mitigate primary consolidation settlement.

Mitigation of settlements due to secondary consolidation can also be achieved by preloading the site, since this will reduce the overall thickness of these deposits, as well as the secondary consolidation settlement rate, for a given period. However, preloading is less effective in mitigating secondary consolidation settlements than primary consolidation settlements, and the risk of excessive settlements due to secondary consolidation may still exist for preloaded sites underlain by thick, organic-rich soil deposits.

Given the proximity to the Fraser River and the presence of several metres of existing sand fil, it is likely that any existing cohesive soil deposits (silts and clays) below the Site are slightly over-consolidated in the upper few metres and normally consolidated at depth. Like the results of previous stockpile construction at the Site, primary consolidation is likely to induce settlement in areas where design grade will be located above existing grade. In areas where design grade (top of finished surface) will be located at or below existing site grade, post-construction settlement due to primary consolidation will be negligible.

Settlement due to primary and secondary consolidation could negatively impact surface drainage patterns, pavement condition, overhead lighting, and overall functionality of the Site. The magnitude of this settlement depends upon the site-specific subsurface conditions (e.g., soil



Project. No.: 115815018 20

layer thickness, over-consolidation of fine-grained soil deposits, etc.), stress history (from the large soil stockpiles), and the proposed development plans (e.g., changes to site grade, etc.).

6.3.1.2 Settlement Modeling

Settlement models were created using the Settle3D computer software from Rocscience Inc. to evaluate the magnitude of total settlements that could occur following construction of the proposed truck parking concept. Settlement data discussed in Section 3.3 was used to model stockpile placement at the settlement gauge locations, both in terms of fill placement rate and ultimate height. Subsurface profile drawings from the SFPR project (Appendix B) were used to model the original (pre-stockpile) soil layer thicknesses and sequencing near the settlement gauge locations. The Settle3D soil model ultimately comprised four soil types: loose to compact sand fill, very soft to soft organic material (peat/organic silt), very soft to soft cohesive soil (slit/clay), and loose to compact native sand.

Initial primary and secondary consolidation soil parameters were assigned to the organic material and cohesive soil layers using the ‘typical values’ provided in Settle3D, which are obtained from referenced engineering publications. We adjusted these consolidation soil parameters similarly in each of our Settle3D models until the models reasonably predicted the total settlement magnitudes and rates that were measured by the Ministry up to November 2012 (i.e., Settle3D soil parameters were back-calculated using the Ministry’s settlement data and adjusted until the predicted total settlement was within roughly 10% to 15% of the measured total settlement for the same period). The consolidation soil parameters used in our Settle3D are provided in Table 2.

Table 2 Settle3D Soil Parameters

Soil Type

Primary Consolidation (non-linear) Secondary Consolidation

Cc Cr e0 Cv

(m2/yr) OCR Method Cα/Cc

PEAT/Organic SILT 4.5 0.5 8 5 1 Mesri 0.06

SILT/CLAY 0.5 0.1 2 2 1 N/A N/A We have reviewed our Settle3D models and the input soil consolidation parameters after the settlement gauge monitoring carried out by Stantec on September 21, 2016. Our initially selected soil consolidation parameters (Table 2) did not require further refinement for the Settle3D model to reasonably match the total settlement that has occurred since November 2012 (since the end of regular settlement gauge monitoring by the Ministry).

6.3.1.3 Prediction of Post-Construction Settlement

Stantec has carried out post-construction settlement analyses using Settle3D to assess the magnitude of total settlement that could occur following fill placement to achieve design grade



Project. No.: 115815018 21

in low-lying areas. As discussed in Section 2.2, we understand that fill height will range from 1.5 m to 4 m above existing grade in these areas and will extend between 5 m and 50 m beyond the toe of the existing soil stockpiles. Our estimates of post-construction settlement are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Estimated Post-Construction Settlement in Fill Areas

Fill Height (Approx.)

Approximate Total Settlement based on Extent/Width of Fill Placement

5 m 15 m 25 m or more

1.5 m 135 mm 200 mm 250 mm

2 m 150 mm 275 mm 350 mm

3 m 225 mm 350 mm 475 mm

4 m 275 mm 475 mm 600 mm

The values provided in Table 3 indicate the magnitude of post-construction differential settlement that could occur between the stockpile-covered areas and adjacent fill areas unless mitigation measures are carried out during site preparation (i.e., this settlement could occur without preloading).

Post-construction settlement occurring in the field can vary from theoretical estimates due to the limitations of the soil models used in the analyses, the uncertainty of the input soil parameters and the spatial variability of the consolidation characteristics of the soil deposits.

6.3.1.4 Settlement Mitigation

Post-construction differential settlement is anticipated to occur between the areas presently covered by soil stockpiles that will be cut to design grade and the adjacent low lying areas that will be filled to design grade. Mitigation of this potential hazard can be accomplished by surcharging the future fill areas with a preload or by delaying construction of the pavement structure for several months to allow a portion of the anticipated settlement to occur in advance.

6.3.1.4.1 Preloading 6.3.1.4.1.1 General The preload height, lateral extents, and minimum duration are governed by the magnitude of settlement that is expected to occur and the post-construction settlement tolerance of the proposed truck parking lot and all ancillary structures. For design purposes, it has been assumed that differential settlement between the cut and fill areas of the Site will need to be limited to in the order of approximately 50 mm to 100 mm over a horizontal distance of 10 m.

We estimate that a preload constructed to at least 2.5 m above design grade would mitigate 90% of the total estimated settlement in approximately 6 months. It should be noted that the



Project. No.: 115815018 22

actual preload duration will be dependent on the observed/monitored rate of consolidation and measured settlements.

The preload should extend laterally at full height a minimum distance of 1.5 m beyond the crests of the future retaining walls. At full height, the preload should extend laterally to the crest of any new fill slopes along the outer side of the fill areas and at least to the point where the new fill intersects the existing stockpiled soils on the inner side of the fill areas. Sides of the preload should be sloped at 1H:1V or flatter from the top of the preload down to meet design subgrade or existing grade. Lock blocks could be used to retain the preload for any areas of the truck parking site where space is limited and it is not possible to slope the preload down to existing grade (e.g., adjacent to property lines or rights-of-way).

We recommend that at least five (5) settlement gauges be distributed throughout the NSTP site and at least one (1) settlement gauge in fill areas greater than 200 m2 in plan area, to monitor preload settlement and estimate the earliest time for preload removal.

The recommendations provided in this section, including preload height, extent, and duration, assumed that differential settlement should be limited to in the order of approximately 50 mm to 100 mm over a horizontal distance of 10 m. The analyses completed to develop these recommendations should be revisited if the actual tolerable differential settlement range is different than assumed (either more stringent or relaxed) as this will have an impact on preload requirements for the project.

6.3.1.4.1.2 Preloading adjacent to the NSI Sewer To mitigate potential settlement of the existing NSI sewer due to construction of the NSTP project, we recommend that the crest of any adjacent preloads be setback at least 15 m from the sewer centerline. We also recommend that settlement gauges be installed in at least three (3) locations along (i.e., directly above) the NSI sewer to monitor potential settlement due to site filling and preloading for the NSTP project. These gauges should be monitored regularly throughout fill placement and while the preload is in place. Should sewer settlement occur beyond what is deemed tolerable by Metro Vancouver, the adjacent preload will need to be removed (if already in place) and possibly a portion of the site grading fills will need to be replaced by lightweight materials.

6.3.1.4.2 Delayed Construction As an alternative to preloading, if time is not of the essence for the NSTP project, the Site could be filled to design top of subbase elevation and allowed to settle for several months prior to construction of the pavement structure as a means of limiting the impact of potential post-construction settlement. The amount of post-construction remaining at the time of paving depends on the length of time prior that site grading fill will be in place.

The amount of total post-construction settlement remaining at the time of paving could be reduced by over-building by at least 1 m (i.e., over-fill by at least 1 m above design grade). The



Project. No.: 115815018 23

excess fill material would need to be cut and removed from the Site prior to construction of the design pavement section.

Table 4 provides the percentage of total settlement that could occur if the parking lot is filled to grade, or over-built by 1 m, and allowed to settle for several months prior to construction of the pavement structure.

Table 4 Post-Construction Settlement for Delayed Construction

Delay Prior to Paving

Approximate Percentage of Total Estimated Settlement

Filled to Grade Over-Build by 1 m

3 months 40 to 45% 50 to 55%

6 months 55 to 60% 65 to 70%

9 months 65 to 70% 75 to 80%

12 months 70 to 75% 80 to 85%

15 months 75 to 80% 85 to 90%

The amount of total settlement that could occur if adopting this delayed construction approach depends on the thickness and extent of fill to be placed (refer to Table 3) and how long construction of the pavement structure is delayed. For example, it has been estimated that a 15 m wide area that is raised with 3 m of permanent fill could undergo an estimated 350 mm of total settlement. If this area is filled to grade and allowed to settle for a period of 12 months, we estimate that approximately 87.5 mm to 105 mm of total settlement could occur following paving.

As such, roughly 87.5 mm to 105 mm of differential settlement could occur between the outer edge of the 15 m wide fill area (crest of retaining wall or fill slope) and the adjacent stockpile-covered area. This differential settlement could impact surface drainage patterns and result in pavement distress (cracking), which could be a maintenance issue. We recommend that paving be delayed for as-long-as practically possible after filling the Site to the top of the sub-base layer to minimize the amount of post-construction settlement.

We recommend that at least five (5) settlement gauges be distributed throughout the NSTP site and at least one (1) settlement gauge in fill areas greater than 200 m2 in plan. The purpose of these gauges is to monitor settlement following fill placement and to estimate the approximate magnitude of settlement that could occur following the delay prior to paving.

6.3.2 SFPR Widening

6.3.2.1 Road Sections Previously Preloaded

We understand that preloads were placed prior to construction of the SFPR to 1.5 m above design grade from STA. 374+80 to STA. 375+40 and STA. 381+20 to STA. 382+00 and to 2.0 m



Project. No.: 115815018 24

above design grade from STA. 382+60 to STA. 383+00. The preload extended at full height to the proposed edge of pavement for the existing roadway, beyond which point the preload sloped down to existing grade at 1.5H:1V.

6.3.2.2 Settlement Analysis

A settlement analysis was carried out using the Settle3D model described in Section 6.3.1.2 and our understanding of preload placement prior to construction of the SFPR. The results of this analysis indicate that the proposed widening areas could experience as much as 200 mm to 250 mm of post-construction total settlement (due to both primary and secondary consolidation).

The Settle3D analysis results also indicate that construction of the proposed road widening could induce approximately 50 mm to 75 mm of settlement near the edge of existing SFPR pavement. The results also indicate that post-widening settlement of the existing SFPR would be less than 5 mm at an approximate distance of 10 m into the existing pavement (i.e., road widening could induce differential settlement of the existing SFPR in the order of 50 mm to 75 mm over 10 m horizontal distance).

6.3.2.3 Settlement Mitigation

Post-construction settlement of the future road widening areas could be addressed by delaying asphalt paving works until after these areas have been allowed to settle. This approach might require the placement of additional gravel base materials prior to paving to offset the settlement that had occurred.

Mitigation of the potential settlement of the existing SFPR roadway due to construction of the proposed widenings (approx. 50 mm to 75 mm of settlement near the edge of existing SFPR pavement) might be necessary to satisfy the requirements of the SFPR concessionaire. However, settlement mitigation could be eliminated if this estimated amount of settlement is tolerable to the concessionaire.

Preloading the road widening areas prior to construction should not be used to mitigate potential post-construction settlement. Preloading could induce differential settlement within the outside lanes of the existing SFPR roadway (up to 75 mm over 10 m horizontal distance) and therefore might not be desirable for the Ministry and/or the concessionaire.

A feasible solution to mitigate this differential settlement issue would involve utilizing lightweight fill materials as subgrade fill in the widening areas. Excavation and replacement of the existing subgrade soil with lightweight materials such as lightweight aggregate (basalt, pumice, etc.) or expanded polystyrene (EPS) would also be necessary alleviate this potential issue.

While there is some variability between the different types of lightweight aggregate materials, the in-place unsaturated density of these materials is generally in the order of 7 kN/m3 to 10 kN/m3 (the average unit weight of the existing, near surface soils at this site is approximately



Project. No.: 115815018 25

18 kN/m3). Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam blocks have been used as a construction material for several local projects where the loads imposed on nearby and underlying soils needed to be greatly reduced. EPS geofoam is an ultra-lightweight construction material, with unit weights in the order of 0.2 to 0.3 kN/m3 (i.e., roughly 1.5% and 3% the unit weights of conventional site grading fill and lightweight aggregate, respectively).

To achieve minimal increase in overburden stress on the existing soils (needed to minimize post-construction settlement), the pavement structure would need to be directly underlain by lightweight construction materials and a portion of the existing materials would need to be excavated and replaced by similar lightweight material. If lightweight aggregate is utilized beneath the pavement structure, at least 2.0 m of the existing soils would need to be excavated from the proposed widening area and replaced with lightweight aggregate. If EPS blocks are utilized for this application, the minimum excavation and replacement depth would be reduced to 0.5 m.

We recommend that the lightweight aggregate, if used for this application, consist of vesicular basalt or pumice that meets the following criteria:

• LA Abrasion value of 44 or less from 500 revolutions (ASTM C131). • R-value of 50 or higher (ASTM D2844). • Durability Index of 35 or higher (ASTM D3744). • Comprise nominal particle sizes between 75 mm and 4.75 mm. • In-place density less than 750 kg/m3. • Significantly free of foreign material.

A non-woven geotextile separation layer should encapsulate the lightweight aggregate such as NILEX 4551 (or equivalent) to prevent migration of fines from the adjacent soils into the lightweight backfill. Dry, lightweight aggregate should be placed in maximum 300 mm lifts, unless placed into deep excavations where compaction, spreading, and further manipulation would be impractical or impossible. Compaction should be performed using only light equipment, such as a small plate compactor or hoe-pack with no vibration. Excessive compaction effort, such as with oversized equipment (e.g., heavy drum roller) should be avoided as it will lead to particle breakage and an increase in fines content without any significant gain or benefit from increased density.

6.3.2.4 Sections Not Previously Preloaded

As discussed in Section 3.2, certain sections of the SFPR adjacent to the NSTP project site were not preloaded prior to construction. The sections that were not previously preloaded include from STA. 371+00 to STA. 374+80, STA. 375+40 to STA. 381+20, and STA. 382+00 to STA. 382+60. Based on our review of the SFPR Record drawings, these areas were not surcharged because existing site grades were either above or less than 0.5 m below design grade along the centerline of the new roadway.



Project. No.: 115815018 26

Based on the information provided by the Ministry, we understand that settlement of these sections of the SFPR was not monitored during or after roadway construction. However, we envisage that post-construction settlement due to primary consolidation was minor-to-negligible in areas where design grade is located at or below original site grade. Some settlement likely occurred in areas where design grade was up to 0.5 m above existing site grade, though the magnitude of predicted post-construction settlement would have met the Ministry’s criteria for these areas to have not been preloaded.

Post-construction settlement of the proposed road widening areas is anticipated to be of similar magnitude as those experienced following construction of the existing roadway (i.e., it is anticipated that these widening areas will settle in accordance with the Ministry’s previously accepted criteria). As such, we consider that settlement mitigation will not be necessary for road widening in these sections unless the Ministry and/or concessionaire requires more stringent criteria than what was used in construction of the existing SFPR.

6.4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

We understand that the Ministry does not require the NSTP project to be designed for seismic loading conditions. As such, a seismic site assessment has not been carried out to date. Stantec can complete such an assessment if provided with the earthquake return period(s) to be considered and the associated seismic performance criteria (e.g., tolerable displacements, functional requirements, etc.) if necessary.

The Site is underlain by loose to compact sand fill and native sand deposits. The local groundwater level is anticipated to be present above or within the loose to compact sand fill layer. Saturated loose to compact sand deposits and low plastic silt layers may be susceptible to liquefaction due to the occurrence of a seismic event that has a 10% or less probability of exceedance in 50 years (475-year return period or greater). As such, seismic classification for this site is Site Class F in accordance with the 2012 British Columbia Building Code (2012 BCBC).

The 2012 BC Building Code (Division B – Part 4, Item 4.1.8.4., note 5) states that “Site Class and the corresponding values of Fa and Fv may be determined as described in Tables 4.1.8.4.A, B, and C by assuming that the soils are not liquefiable” provided that the fundamental period of vibration of the proposed structures is equal to or less than 0.5 seconds. Based on the results of our investigation and factual geotechnical information discussed in Section 5.0, the non-liquefied classification for the NSTP site would be Site Class E.

Post-liquefaction permanent lateral soil displacement could occur at NSTP project site due to the proximity of the Site to the Fraser River. The magnitude of total and differential lateral displacement depends on the thickness of the potentially liquefiable soils and the distance from the river banks. Post-liquefaction vertical settlement could also occur at the Site due to reconsolidation of zones of liquefied soil.



Project. No.: 115815018 27

This potential hazard could result in damage to the new truck parking lot, including cracking, settlement, and differential displacement of the pavement structure. Liquefaction of the existing loose to compact sand fill layer could also result in slope instability issues. While some damage to the proposed washroom and kiosk structures would be expected under the influence (shaking) of a seismic event that has a 475-year return period or greater, we anticipate that structure collapse would not occur due to foundation failure.

It is anticipated that the costs to mitigate potential soil liquefaction and the resulting ground displacement could be too high for the Ministry to consider practical for a truck parking lot, particularly since large soil stockpiles presently cover the liquefaction susceptible soil deposits. However, potential mitigation measures can be evaluated once the Ministry confirm their seismic design criteria for the project.

6.5 RETAINING WALLS AND FILL SLOPES

6.5.1 Ministry Accepted Products

Post-construction settlement of retaining walls for the NSTP project could occur as these walls will be in areas beyond the existing stockpiles and underlain by fill soil over very soft to soft organic materials and slightly over-consolidated cohesive soils. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls and reinforced soil slopes (slope retention systems) that have flexible facing units (wire faced wall systems) can tolerate much larger settlements than rigid concrete faced walls and are often preferred for sites with poor foundation soils such as this site in Surrey, BC.

The Ministry’s Recognized Products List4 (RPL) states “products recognized to be acceptable and may be used on Ministry Projects if the products meet the requirements of the Standard Specifications and/or the Work”. The following wire faced MSE wall systems are listed as “accepted products” in the Ministry’s RPL (page 74) for walls up to 5 m in height:

• Maccaferri Gabions PVC • Maccaferri Terramesh • Hilfiker Welded Wire (pending application) • Modular Gabions • StrataSlope System

The Ministry’s RPL (page 74) notes that approval for wire faced wall systems is “conditional on compliance with AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, corrosion-resistance durability requirements” and notes that exposure to drainage, runoff and spray containing de-icing salts “shall be specifically addressed by a corrosion evaluation during the design phase”. We recommend that the detailed designers consult a metallurgist to determine appropriate protection measures for wire faced MSE walls at the Site.

4 Government of British Columbia (2016). Recognized Products List, 2016 Edition. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure – New Products Evaluation Standing Committee, September 1, 2016, 93 pp.



Project. No.: 115815018 28

The Ministry’s RPL (page 78) lists the following reinforced soil slope (slope retention system) products as being “acceptable” for slopes up to 5 m in height and no steeper than 70 degrees:

• Sierra Slope Retention System • Flex MSE • Strata Slope System

6.5.2 MSE Wall and Reinforced Soil Slope Design Considerations

As previously stated, it has been assumed that the Ministry do not require that any retaining walls and reinforced fill slopes for the NSTP project to be designed for seismic loading conditions. As such, the following design considerations pertain only to static loading. Our analysis for these structures has been carried out to meet a minimum Factor of Safety (FOS) of 1.5 under static loading conditions for internal stability, sliding, overturning, bearing capacity, and deep-seated shear failure modes (for internal and global stability).

We understand that MSE walls and reinforced fill slopes will typically be constructed on relatively level ground. However, based on the 75% Detailed Design drawings it is possible that some of these structures will be constructed on slopes as steep as 1.5H:1V (approx.). Where an MSE wall or reinforced fill slope will be constructed on a slope, we recommend that the structure face be setback at least 1.2 m from the slope (minimum 1.2 m wide horizontal bench in front of wall toe).

Regardless of type, it is recommended that foundations for any grade supported structures be offset a minimum clear distance of 1 m from the wall/reinforced slope face (i.e., minimum 1 m horizontal distance between the wall face and the front edge of the footing). We recommend that a similar minimum offset distance should be established between the wall face and the centerline of any post and beam traffic barriers installed along the top of the wall. The minimum offset distance from the wall face to centerline of any no-post traffic barriers (e.g., Jersey barriers) should be at least 0.75 m.

The final ground surface should be graded to direct surface runoff away from the crest of all retaining walls and reinforced soil slopes. We recommend that a drainage swale is installed behind the top of the wall/ slope if the ground surface is graded towards the wall/ slope.

6.5.2.1 Gravity Type MSE Walls

Gravity retaining walls comprised of wire mesh baskets filled with granular soil (e.g., gabion baskets) could be utilized to minimize the amount of excavation and subsequent backfill placement required relative to an MSE wall, as geogrid reinforcement is not required. Gabion baskets are typically 1 m in width and height, and 3 m in length (though alternative sizes may be available depending on the manufacturer).

The Gabion baskets should be filled with 300 mm minus crushed rock. A narrow pocket of topsoil, separated from the crushed rock by filter fabric, could be placed along the face of the Gabion baskets to facilitate planting of vegetation. Based on our stability analyses, we recommend that



Project. No.: 115815018 29

Gabion walls with wall batter of 1H:10V and without soil reinforcement be constructed using the specifications shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Gabion Style Gravity Wall Specifications

Exposed Wall Height Minimum Embedment Depth Minimum Average Wall Width*

Up to 2.7 m 0.3 m 1 m

Up to 4.5 m 0.3 m 1.5 m

*Min. average wall width can be achieved by rotating the bottom rows of Gabion baskets perpendicular to the wall face

Construction of a Gabion wall to the minimum specifications provided in Table 5 will yield a FOS of at least 1.5 for internal and global stability. Increased wall heights would be feasible for gravity walls inclined flatter than 1H:10V.

Gabion walls constructed to the specifications in Table 5 can be designed using a factored Ultimate Limit State (ULS) bearing resistance of 150 kPa. This factored ULS bearing resistance is based on a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.5.

The existing stockpiles of silty sand to sandy silt materials can be placed as Gabion wall backfill. The re-used stockpile soil should be placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of Section 6.1.2.

The backfill soils should be separated from the Gabion baskets by a layer of non-woven geotextile, such as NILEX 4551 or approved alternate. The geotextile is necessary to allows for free drainage of the retained soils and prevent loss of soil during drainage. Adjacent sections of geotextile should overlap by at least 150 mm. A drainage pipe is not required at the base of any Gabion style retaining wall.

6.5.2.2 Reinforced MSE Walls

Reinforced MSE walls, such as the StrataSlope System and Hilfiker Welded Wire wall, generally comprises welded-wire mesh forms at the wall face (i.e., facing baskets) filled with gravel and cobbles, and uniaxial geogrid or wire mesh to provide primary soil reinforcement for the wall. The type and length of soil reinforcement required depends on wall height, type, and inclination, with typical lengths of extensible geogrid reinforcement ranging between 0.7H and 1.1H (where H is the exposed wall height).

The base of any MSE wall should be buried at least 0.45 m below final grade (or adjacent site grade).

All fill placed within the reinforced zone (i.e., within the area of geogrid reinforcement) of all MSE retaining walls should consist of imported granular backfill material that has a minimum friction



Project. No.: 115815018 30

angle of 34° as per FHWA guidelines5. The existing stockpiled material does not meet the requirements for reinforced fill and cannot be placed within the areas of geogrid reinforcement.

We recommend that a drainage system, consisting of at least 150 mm diameter slotted or perforated rigid wall pipe, be placed at the base of all MSE walls. Note that "Big O" type pipe is not considered to be suitable for building drainage purposes.

The drainage pipes should be surrounded by a minimum of 150 mm of 25 mm drain rock or 25 mm clear crush gravel that, in turn, should be encapsulated by a layer of filter fabric. The perforated pipe should be installed with perforations at 60 degrees off the base of the pipe and the pipes should be provided with permanent clean-outs.

6.5.2.3 Reinforced Soil Slopes

Reinforced soil slopes (slope retention systems) typically consist of welded wire forms and a biaxial geogrid-wrapped face that is backfilled with either stone fill (gravel and cobbles) or fine-grained organic soil that is placed to support the growth of vegetation.

Uniaxial geogrid is used to provide primary soil reinforcement, with the type and length of soil reinforcement dependent upon slope height (H) and inclination. The typical lengths of extensible geogrid reinforcement ranges between 0.7H and 1.1H. Biaxial geogrid is wrapped behind the welded wire forms for secondary support to ensure surficial stability.

Like MSE walls, the base of any reinforced soil slope should be buried at least 0.45 m below final site grade and all fill placed within the reinforced zone should consist of imported granular backfill material that has a minimum friction angle of 34°. We recommend that a permanent drainage system be installed at the base of all reinforced soil slopes, with similar requirements to those provided in Section 6.5.2.2.

6.5.3 Permanent Fill Slopes

Based on the 75% Detailed Design drawings, we understand that permanent slopes will be constructed at 2H:1V. These permanent slopes will consist of the existing silty sand to sandy silt fill materials described in Section 5.0 and could contain zones of deleterious materials such as wood chips and peat.

Based on the results of our global slope stability analysis, permanent 2H:1V slopes that consist of the existing silty sand to sandy silt fill will result in a FOS of at least 1.5 against moderate and deep-seated failures. However, slopes as steep as 2H:1V in these fill materials could be prone to erosion and surficial slumping. These potential issues could be mitigated by flattening the slopes

5 Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., and Samtani, N.C. (2009). “Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume 1,” Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024, FHWA GEC 011 – Volume 1, U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration, November 2009.



Project. No.: 115815018 31

to 2.5H:1V and/or by installing surficial slope stabilization measures such as an erosion control blanket or riprap armoring placed over a layer of non-woven geotextile.

We recommend that all post and beam traffic barriers installed around the perimeter of the parking lot be setback at least 1.2 m from the crest of the fill slopes (distance from slope crest to barrier centerline). We recommend that the centerline of any no-post traffic barriers be setback at least 0.75 m from the crest of any fill slopes. We also recommend that a minimum 1 m horizontal distance be established between the front edge of any footing and the slope crest.

6.5.4 Ditch Slopes

A new drainage ditch will be constructed between the NSTP site and the SFPR following the proposed road widening. It is understood that ditch slopes will need to be constructed at 1.5H:1V in order to maximize the ditch width. We recommend that these slopes be protected by a layer of 10 kg riprap armoring placed over a layer of non-woven geotextile to mitigate erosion and soil slumping.

6.6 FOUNDATIONS

6.6.1 Shallow Foundations

Thickened raft slab foundations will be used to support the new, unplumbed washroom unit and kiosk structure at the NSTP site, while overhead lighting will be founded on concrete pedestal bases and 500 mm diameter concrete base posts both for the truck parking lot and along the widened sections of SFPR.

A shallow-depth modified raft foundation (i.e., thickened-edge slab foundation) should be placed on a minimum of 150 mm of well-graded 19 mm minus crushed gravel (MMCD, Section 31 05 17, Item 2.10) compacted to 95% MPMDD and can be structurally designed based on a factored Ultimate Limit State (ULS) bearing resistance of 110 kPa. This factored ULS bearing resistance includes a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.5. A uniform vertical subgrade modulus, kv1, of 10 MPa/m is considered appropriate to represent the elastic behavior of the subgrade soils at the base of any floor or modified raft foundation (for a 300 mm by 300 mm loaded area) following site preparation as discussed in Section 6.1.

Where the modified raft foundation is constructed below surrounding exterior grade, the under-slab drainage layer should be connected to a perimeter drain system.

We recommend using a factored ULS bearing resistance of 135 kPa (using a resistance factor of 0.5) for overhead lighting foundations (concrete pedestal bases and concrete base posts). Bedding fill beneath overhead lighting foundations, if utilized, should consist of 19 mm or 25 mm crushed gravel in accordance with the BC MOTI 2012 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (Volume 1) and be compacted to at least 93% SPMDD.



Project. No.: 115815018 32

We recommend that foundations for any grade supported structures located around the perimeter of the NSTP site (e.g., overhead lighting) are offset at least 1 m from the adjacent slope crest or wall face. Note that this offset distance will likely be necessary for the proposed concrete pedestal bases and 500 mm diameter concrete base posts to avoid conflict with the back (retained) side of any Gabion basket retaining walls.

6.6.2 Deep Foundations

The ultimate geotechnical axial resistance of pile foundations for new overhead signage and signal poles along SFPR was computed from the results of CPTs provided by the Ministry (see Section 3.2). We utilized the LCPC method (Bustamante and Gianeselli, 1982) as described in the 2006 Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM)6 to carry out this analysis.

Factored ultimate axial pile resistance in bearing (compression) and uplift (tension) was calculated using static geotechnical resistance factors of 0.4 and 0.3, respectively. These geotechnical resistance factors are based on semi-empirical analysis using laboratory and in-situ test data (as per Table K-1 of the 2010 National Building Code of Canada).

The ultimate axial resistance of pile foundations in compression is provided by the bearing capacity at the pile toe and shaft friction along the side of the pile. Under compression loading, the piles were analyzed to derive the point below which the factored axial resistance (toe bearing and shaft friction) would exceed the maximum applied vertical force in combination with the dead weight of the pile itself. In tension (uplift), pile foundations will rely on the factored shaft friction and total self-weight of the foundation to generate the required uplift resistance.

Based on the results of our analyses, we recommend that the 300 mm diameter concrete piles supporting Type H and Type L poles be installed to at least 20 m and 18 m below grade, respectively, to provide the factored ULS resistance values required under compression and tension for each pole type (100 kN in both compression and tension for Type H poles; 75 kN for Type L).

Alternatively, 304.8 mm diameter steel pipe piles (or larger) with 9.53 mm wall thickness that are driven open-ended to at least 20 m below grade can be used to support the Type H and Type L poles. A greater pile wall thickness might be required for driving purposes depending on the piling contractor’s selected equipment and methodology. We recommend that the piling contractor carry out a drivability analyses to determine the appropriate driving system (hammer, shoe, cushion, etc.) for the size and strength of pile to be installed.

6.7 EXCAVATIONS, DEWATERING, AND UTILITIES

Excavations greater than 1.2 m depth, but no deeper than 6 m deep, must have side slopes no steeper than 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical) based on the subsurface conditions encountered 6 The Canadian Geotechnical Society (2006). Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, Fourth Edition, Canadian Geotechnical Society. 488 p., 2006.



Project. No.: 115815018 33

during our site investigation. Temporary shoring measures will be required if steeper and/or deeper excavation cuts are required. Excavations should be inspected regularly for signs of instability and slopes flattened, if required. All excavations should be carried out in accordance with WorkSafeBC regulations.

It is possible that water seepage will be encountered in shallow excavations at the NSTP site due to perched/trapped water within the existing fill stockpiles. Based on the geotechnical information provided, we anticipate that the local groundwater level will could be encountered along SFPR for any excavations greater than 2 m depth (approx.). All excavations should be kept dry during construction, and it is likely that dewatering can likely be handled with conventional construction sumps and pumps. However, any excavations along SFPR extending below 2 m depth, if necessary, could require the use of more rigorous dewatering methods to maintain dry working conditions and stable cut slopes (e.g., cut-off walls, well-points, etc.).

Bedding fill and pipe surround for buried utilities should consist of 19 mm or 25 mm crushed gravel in accordance with the BC MOTI 2012 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction (Volume 1). Bedding fill should be compacted to a minimum 100% SPMDD. A minimum of 150 mm of bedding fill should be placed below all buried utility pipes. The remainder of the utility trenches can be backfilled using the existing stockpiled silty sand to sandy silt fill if this fill material is placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in Section 6.1.2.


Closure January 20, 2017

Project. No.: 115815018 34

7.0 CLOSURE

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (the Ministry) and its agents for specific application to Functional Design of the North Surrey Truck Parking project. Any use of this report or the material contained herein by third parties, or for other than the intended purpose, should first be approved in writing by Stantec.

Use of this report is subject to the Statement of General Conditions included in Appendix A. It is the responsibility of the Ministry, who is identified as “the Client” within the Statement of General Conditions, and their agents to review the conditions and notify Stantec should any of them not be satisfied. The Statement of General Conditions addresses the following:

• Use of the report• Basis of the report• Standard of care• Interpretation of site conditions• Varying or unexpected site conditions• Planning, design, or construction

We trust that this report meets your present requirements. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Regards,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Reviewed by:

Adam McIntyre, M.Eng., P.Eng. Wayne Quong, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Associate, Geotechnical Senior Associate, Geotechnical Phone: (778) 331-0214 Phone: (604) 412-2990 [email protected] [email protected]

u:\pc 1158 transportation, van\115815018_moti_truck_parking_study\251_north_surrey\report\rpt_geo_nstp_detailed_design_fnl.docx


Appendix A Statement of General Conditions January 20, 2017

A.1

STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS


Appendix A Statement of General Conditions January 20, 2017

A.2

USE OF THIS REPORT: This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the Client or its agent and may not be used by any third party without the express written consent of Stantec and the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this report is the responsibility of such third party.

BASIS OF THE REPORT: The information, opinions, and/or recommendations made in this report are in accordance with Stantec’s present understanding of the site specific project as described by the Client. The applicability of these is restricted to the site conditions encountered at the time of the investigation or study. If the proposed site specific project differs or is modified from what is described in this report or if the site conditions are altered, this report is no longer valid unless Stantec is requested by the Client to review and revise the report to reflect the differing or modified project specifics and/or the altered site conditions.

STANDARD OF CARE: Preparation of this report, and all associated work, was carried out in accordance with the normally accepted standard of care in the state or province of execution for the specific professional service provided to the Client. No other warranty is made.

INTERPRETATION OF SITE CONDITIONS: Soil, rock, or other material descriptions, and statements regarding their condition, made in this report are based on site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time of the work and at the specific testing and/or sampling locations. Classifications and statements of condition have been made in accordance with normally accepted practices which are judgmental in nature; no specific description should be considered exact, but rather reflective of the anticipated material behavior. Extrapolation of in situ conditions can only be made to some limited extent beyond the sampling or test points. The extent depends on variability of the soil, rock and groundwater conditions as influenced by geological processes, construction activity, and site use.

VARYING OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS: Should any site or subsurface conditions be encountered that are different from those described in this report or encountered at the test locations, Stantec must be notified immediately to assess if the varying or unexpected conditions are substantial and if reassessments of the report conclusions or recommendations are required. Stantec will not be responsible to any party for damages incurred as a result of failing to notify Stantec that differing site or sub-surface conditions are present upon becoming aware of such conditions.

PLANNING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION: Development or design plans and specifications should be reviewed by Stantec, sufficiently ahead of initiating the next project stage (property acquisition, tender, construction, etc.), to confirm that this report completely addresses the elaborated project specifics and that the contents of this report have been properly interpreted. Specialty quality assurance services (field observations and testing) during construction are a necessary part of the evaluation of sub-subsurface conditions and site preparation works. Site work relating to the recommendations included in this report should only be carried out in the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer; Stantec cannot be responsible for site work carried out without being present.


Appendix B Drawings January 20, 2017

B.1

DRAWINGS

30

10

10

20

5

35

10

5

35

5

10

15

10

5

5

5

10

5

5

10

5

35

5

25

5

15

45

15

10

10

10

5

30

5

5

10

5

5

5

5

5

10

15

35

15

10

15

25

25

15

10

5

25

20

10

30

5

20

5

5

25

40

55

5

20

35

5

5

5

25

20

20

25

35

15

5

5

45

5

30

35

5

25

5

35

15

10

35

5

30

5

5

30

15

35

15

25

10

40

5

5

5

5

15

30

15

5

10

30

5

10

50

5

5

25

5

10

55

45

5

5

35

5

5

5

5

5

20

5

15

10

15

10

5

5

25

30

15

30

15

5

20

5

5

5

5

5

35

5

10

5

40

25

30

10

5

20

35

35

25

10

10

45

5

30

5

5

5

10

5

5

20

30

15

30

10

10

5

5

5

5

45

30

35

45

10

35

35

25

40

5

25

35 65

5

5

10

20

5

5

30

30

5

5

40

35

10

40

5

5

5

30

5

10

15

30

20

15

5

30

5

10

25

10

10

25

5

20

10

10

55

35

5

30

30

5

35

5

35

15

10

35

5

5

5

10

5

20

35

20

5

30

45

45

5

20

30

5

20

5

30

25

5

5

20

30

5

20

25

5

35

15

5

65

5

5

10

10

5

1525

10

30

5

15

15

25

5

5

10

30

15

10

30

5

5

5

40

5

45

10

5

5

20

20

30

20

20

15

5

10

5

5

25

25

10

15

25

5

25

25

5

15

20

5

30

5

5

20

5

25

25

25

20

10

30

25

30

5

20

15

10

10

5

35

10

5

5

10

5

5

10

10

10

5

5

10

10

5

25

15

25

15

30

20

30

25

5

5

10

15

5

10

25

15

5

20

5

5

5

20

5

15

20

5

25

10

55

5

15

10

25

5

10

15

30

25

20

5

25

10

20

5

5

5

10

30

25

5

5

10

20

5

5

25

5

10

10

10

25

5

5

5

10

25

10

1515

5

10

30

5

15

30

5

10

10

15

5

5

10

10

5

15

5

105

5

20

10

5

5

5

15

10

5

10

25

10

25

15

5

5

10

25

5

25

10

15

10

10

45

5

30

5

5

15

55

5

5

15

5

30

5

5

5

30

5

20

25

25

5

20

5

10

5

5

10

20

5

15

5

10

5

10

5

5

5

25

20

15

5

5

10

10

5

25

5

20

20

15

5

20

5

510

5

5

30

5

20

5

25

10

30

10

10

5

5

10

5

10

25

10

5

10

10

5

10

5

5

25

10

5

5

30

15

25

30

45

5

45

10

15

5

5

35

20

35

10

5

5

30

5

35

10

25

10

25

10

15

15

35

5

5

5

5

15

5

10

15

5

25

35

30

15

5

5

5

5

5

5

35

5

5

5

20

60

35

25

5

15

25

30

5

35

5

5

5

5

30

30

15

5

5

10

25

5

55

25

5

10

30

5

20

35

15

10

20

5

20

5

5

5

25

30

25

5

55

30

45

30

5

25

30

30

30

10

5

10

5

40

25

25

10

510

5

20

25

5

20

5

25

35

5

10

30

5

15

5

20

30

5

30

5

15

5

5

35

5

5

10

10

10

5

G-104 km 38

ASPHALT FLUME

6P 1GUY

X

X

X

X

X

EW

EW

SEISMIC ARRAY

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

X

XX

UE

UE

X

X

X

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUMES

X

CNR PROPERTY

2 POST SIGNG-050-1G-050-5

X

STEEL MESH SAFETYFENCE

MH

San

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SANSAN SA

N

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

FO

FO

FO

FO

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

SAN

SAN

200 mm Ø PE

200 mm Ø PVC

200 mm Ø PE

200 mm Ø PVC

MH

San

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

6P 1GUY

X

X

X

EW

EWEW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

X

X

148th S

TR

EE

T

116th AVENUE

148A

S

TR

EE

T

SO

U

TH

F

R

AS

ER

P

ER

IM

ET

ER

R

O

AD

T

R

A

N

S

C

A

N

A

D

A

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

#

1

F

R

A

S

E

R

R

IV

E

R

BH16-03

BH16-04 BH16-01

BH16-02

BH16-05

BH16-06

BH16-07

BH16-08

BH16-09BH16-10

BH16-11TP16-13

TP16-11

TP16-09TP16-08

TP16-07TP16-06

TP16-05

TP16-04

TP16-03TP16-02

TP16-01

TP16-10 TP16-12S

O

U

T

H

F

R

A

S

E

R

P

E

R

IM

E

T

E

R

R

O

A

D

LEGEND

TEST HOLE LOCATION PLANOVERVIEW 1DISCLAIMER: The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT

scale the drawing - any error or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproductionor use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

TITLE Dwg No.

Client/ProjectProject Information

Scale:Project No.:

Date:

Checked by: Drawn by:

Project Location

1158150181:50002016-JUN-14G. HUYNHR. PLASTERER

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

HIGHWAY 17 - WEST BOUNDLOCATION UNDER PORT MANN BRIDGE, SURREY, BC

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

NORTH SURREY TRUCK PARKING

N

SITE PROPERTY LINE

PAVED ROAD

GRAVEL ROAD

EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH

RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING BUILDING

PROJECT LOCATION

1:5000

100SCALE IN METRES

500 150 200 250

BOREHOLE LOCATION

TEST PIT LOCATION

SITE

LOT LINE

SEE DRAWING 2

SEE DRAWING 3

SEE DRAWING 4

SourcesBASE DRAWING FROM STANTECTRANSPORTATION GROUP

DWG NO.: R1-???-101 Rev. ADATED: 2016-MAR-11

PROPOSED ROADWAY ANDPARKING AREA LIMITS

5

5

5

5

5

5

55

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

55

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

ASPHALT FLUME

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

SEISMIC ARRAY

XX

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EWEW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

UE

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUME

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

STEEL MESH SAFETYFENCE

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

FO

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

BH16-03

BH16-04BH16-01

BH16-02

TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN 2DISCLAIMER: The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOTscale the drawing - any error or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproductionor use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

TITLE Dwg No.


Scale:Project No.:

Date:


Project Location




AND INFRASTRUCTURE


N

0 10 3020

1:750

SCALE IN METRES5040

SO

UT

H F

RA

SE

R P

ER

IM

ET

ER

RO

AD

P

O

R

T

M

A

N

N

B

R

ID

G

E



LEGENDSITE PROPERTY LINE

PAVED ROAD

GRAVEL ROAD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING BUILDING

BOREHOLE LOCATION

TEST PIT LOCATION

LOT LINE


5

5

10

10

10

1010

5

5

15

10

20

5

15

10

5

10

10

5

5

10

5

5

10

5

5

10

15

10

10

5

10

10

5

5

5

10

10

10

5

5

10

2025

5

5

20

5

10

5

10

15

20

10

15

25 20

15

10

25

5

5

10

15

10

15

5

5

20

5

10

5

5

25

15

5

10

25

20

10

10

5

10

10

10

10

10

5

5

5

5

15

10

5

10

5

5

5

5

5

15

G-104 km 38

6P 1GUY

X

X

X

X

X

X

EW

X

X

X

X

EWEW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

ASPHALT FLUME

ASPHALT FLUMES

CNR PROPERTY

2 POST SIGNG-050-1G-050-5

SAN SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

6P 1GUY

EW

EW

EW

EWEW

EW

EW

EW

EWEW

EWEW

EW

EW

EW

EW

BH16-05

BH16-06

BH16-07

TP16-05

TP16-04

TP16-03

TP16-02

TP16-01

S

O

U

T

H

F

R

A

S

E

R

P

E

R

IM

E

T

E

R

R

O

A

D

H

IG

H

W

A

Y

1

BOREHOLE LOCATION PLANEAST FUTURE EXPANSION AREA 3DISCLAIMER: The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOT

scale the drawing - any error or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproductionor use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

TITLE Dwg No.


Scale:Project No.:

Date:


Project Location




AND INFRASTRUCTURE


N

250 75 10050

1:1500

SCALE IN METRES




PAVED ROAD

GRAVEL ROAD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING BUILDING

BOREHOLE LOCATION

TEST PIT LOCATION

LOT LINE


30

10

10

10

15

10

15

15

10

5

30

5

5

5

10

10

25

25

25

20

10

30

5

25

40

20

35

5

25

20

25

35

5

5

25

35

15

10

5

15

25

10

30

15

30

5

20

15

20

5

35

30

10

35

10

5

30

10

10

5

35

35

25

40

30

30

15

20

30

5

25

10

10

2535

35

5

5

20

20

20

25

20

25

5

15

5

10

1525

30

15

25

5

30

15

10

20

20

30

20

15

10

5

25

25

10

15

25

5

15

20

5

30

5

20

5

20

10

30

30

15

10

10

35

10

5

10

5

10

10

5

15

25

30

30

25

5

5

5

10

15

5

20

20

25

10

55

5

15

25

10

15

20

5

25

10

20

5

10

30

5

10

20

5

5

10

10

10

25

5

5

10

25

10

15

10

15

30

5

10

10

5

10

10

15

10

10

5

5

10

25

10

15

5

5

10

5

25

10

15

10

10

5

5

15

5

5

5

30

25

25

10

20

5

15

10

5

5

20

5

10

5

5

20

15

20

10

10

10

5

10

25

5

10

5

5

5

30

15

25

5

5

35

25

10

25

10

15

15

10

15

35

30

15

5

35

20

35

5

35

5

30

25

10

30

35

25

30

30

10

10

20

25

35

10

30

5

15

30

35

10

10

10

G-104 km 38

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

EW

MH

San

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SANSAN

SAN SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

SAN

200 mm Ø PE

200 mm Ø PVC

200 mm Ø PE

200 mm Ø PVC

MH

San

1350 mm Ø SP FORCE

X

X

X

X

S

O

U

T

H

F

R

A

S

E

R

P

E

R

IM

E

T

E

R

R

O

A

D

BH16-08

BH16-09

BH16-10

BH16-11 TP16-13

TP16-11

TP16-09

TP16-08

TP16-07

TP16-06

TP16-10

TP16-12

F

R

A

S

E

R

R

IV

E

R

TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN 4DISCLAIMER: The Contractor shall verify and be responsible for all dimensions. DO NOTscale the drawing - any error or omissions shall be reported to Stantec without delay.The Copyrights to all designs and drawings are the property of Stantec. Reproductionor use for any purpose other than that authorized by Stantec is forbidden.

TITLE Dwg No.


Scale:Project No.:

Date:


Project Location




AND INFRASTRUCTURE


N

50

1:2500

SCALE IN METRES0 25 75 100




PAVED ROAD

GRAVEL ROAD


RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING BUILDING

BOREHOLE LOCATION

TEST PIT LOCATION

LOT LINE



Appendix C Borehole and Test Pit Records January 20, 2017

C.1

BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS – JULY 2014 Page 1 of 3

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Terminology describing common soil genesis:

Rootmat - vegetation, roots and moss with organic matter and topsoil typically forming a

mattress at the ground surface

Topsoil - mixture of soil and humus capable of supporting vegetative growth

Peat - mixture of visible and invisible fragments of decayed organic matter

Till - unstratified glacial deposit which may range from clay to boulders

Fill - material below the surface identified as placed by humans (excluding buried services)

Terminology describing soil structure:

Desiccated - having visible signs of weathering by oxidization of clay minerals, shrinkage cracks, etc.

Fissured - having cracks, and hence a blocky structure

Varved - composed of regular alternating layers of silt and clay

Stratified - composed of alternating successions of different soil types, e.g. silt and sand

Layer - > 75 mm in thickness

Seam - 2 mm to 75 mm in thickness

Parting - < 2 mm in thickness

Terminology describing soil types:

The classification of soil types are made on the basis of grain size and plasticity in accordance with the Unified

Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487 or D 2488) which excludes particles larger than 75 mm. For

particles larger than 75 mm, and for defining percent clay fraction in hydrometer results, definitions proposed by

Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition are used. The USCS provides a group symbol (e.g. SM)

and group name (e.g. silty sand) for identification.

Terminology describing cobbles, boulders, and non-matrix materials (organic matter or debris):

Terminology describing materials outside the USCS, (e.g. particles larger than 75 mm, visible organic matter, and

construction debris) is based upon the proportion of these materials present:

Trace, or occasional Less than 10%

Some 10-20%

Frequent > 20%

Terminology describing compactness of cohesionless soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesionless soils includes compactness (formerly "relative density"), as

determined by the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-Value - also known as N-Index. The SPT N-Value is described

further on page 3. A relationship between compactness condition and N-Value is shown in the following table.

Compactness Condition SPT N-Value

Very Loose <4

Loose 4-10

Compact 10-30

Dense 30-50

Very Dense >50

Terminology describing consistency of cohesive soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesive soils includes the consistency, which is based on undrained shear

strength as measured by in situ vane tests, penetrometer tests, or unconfined compression tests. Consistency

may be crudely estimated from SPT N-Value based on the correlation shown in the following table (Terzaghi and

Peck, 1967). The correlation to SPT N-Value is used with caution as it is only very approximate.

Consistency Undrained Shear Strength Approximate

SPT N-Value kips/sq.ft. kPa

Very Soft <0.25 <12.5 <2

Soft 0.25 - 0.5 12.5 - 25 2-4

Firm 0.5 - 1.0 25 - 50 4-8

Stiff 1.0 - 2.0 50 – 100 8-15

Very Stiff 2.0 - 4.0 100 - 200 15-30

Hard >4.0 >200 >30


ROCK DESCRIPTION

Except where specified below, terminology for describing rock is as defined by the International Society for Rock

Mechanics (ISRM) 2007 publication “The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing

and Monitoring: 1974-2006”

Terminology describing rock quality:

RQD Rock Mass Quality Alternate (Colloquial) Rock Mass Quality

0-25 Very Poor Quality Very Severely Fractured Crushed

25-50 Poor Quality Severely Fractured Shattered or Very Blocky

50-75 Fair Quality Fractured Blocky

75-90 Good Quality Moderately Jointed Sound

90-100 Excellent Quality Intact Very Sound

RQD (Rock Quality Designation) denotes the percentage of intact and sound rock retrieved from a borehole of

any orientation. All pieces of intact and sound rock core equal to or greater than 100 mm (4 in.) long are

summed and divided by the total length of the core run. RQD is determined in accordance with ASTM D6032.

SCR (Solid Core Recovery) denotes the percentage of solid core (cylindrical) retrieved from a borehole of any

orientation. All pieces of solid (cylindrical) core are summed and divided by the total length of the core run (It

excludes all portions of core pieces that are not fully cylindrical as well as crushed or rubble zones).

Fracture Index (FI) is defined as the number of naturally occurring fractures within a given length of core. The

Fracture Index is reported as a simple count of natural occurring fractures.

Terminology describing rock with respect to discontinuity and bedding spacing:

Spacing (mm) Discontinuities Spacing

Bedding

>6000 Extremely Wide -

2000-6000 Very Wide Very Thick

600-2000 Wide Thick

200-600 Moderate Medium

60-200 Close Thin

20-60 Very Close Very Thin

<20 Extremely Close Laminated

<6 - Thinly Laminated

Terminology describing rock strength:

Strength Classification Grade Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)

Extremely Weak R0 <1

Very Weak R1 1 – 5

Weak R2 5 – 25

Medium Strong R3 25 – 50

Strong R4 50 – 100

Very Strong R5 100 – 250

Extremely Strong R6 >250

Terminology describing rock weathering:

Term Symbol Description

Fresh W1 No visible signs of rock weathering. Slight discoloration along major

discontinuities

Slightly W2 Discoloration indicates weathering of rock on discontinuity surfaces.

All the rock material may be discolored.

Moderately W3 Less than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.

Highly W4 More than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.

Completely W5 All the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.

The original mass structure is still largely intact.

Residual Soil W6 All the rock converted to soil. Structure and fabric destroyed.


STRATA PLOT

Strata plots symbolize the soil or bedrock description. They are combinations of the following basic symbols. The

dimensions within the strata symbols are not indicative of the particle size, layer thickness, etc.

Boulders

Cobbles

Gravel

Sand Silt Clay Organics Asphalt Concrete Fill Igneous

Bedrock

Meta-

morphic

Bedrock

Sedi-

mentary

Bedrock

SAMPLE TYPE

SS Split spoon sample (obtained by

performing the Standard Penetration Test)

ST Shelby tube or thin wall tube

DP Direct-Push sample (small diameter tube

sampler hydraulically advanced)

PS Piston sample

BS Bulk sample

HQ, NQ, BQ, etc. Rock core samples obtained with the use

of standard size diamond coring bits.

RECOVERY

For soil samples, the recovery is recorded as the length of the soil sample recovered. For rock core, recovery is

defined as the total cumulative length of all core recovered in the core barrel divided by the length drilled and

is recorded as a percentage on a per run basis.

N-VALUE

Numbers in this column are the field results of the Standard Penetration Test: the number of blows of a 140 pound

(63.5 kg) hammer falling 30 inches (760 mm), required to drive a 2 inch (50.8 mm) O.D. split spoon sampler one

foot (300 mm) into the soil. In accordance with ASTM D1586, the N-Value equals the sum of the number of blows

(N) required to drive the sampler over the interval of 6 to 18 in. (150 to 450 mm). However, when a 24 in. (610

mm) sampler is used, the number of blows (N) required to drive the sampler over the interval of 12 to 24 in. (300

to 610 mm) may be reported if this value is lower. For split spoon samples where insufficient penetration was

achieved and N-Values cannot be presented, the number of blows are reported over sampler penetration in

millimetres (e.g. 50/75). Some design methods make use of N-values corrected for various factors such as

overburden pressure, energy ratio, borehole diameter, etc. No corrections have been applied to the N-values

presented on the log.

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (DCPT)

Dynamic cone penetration tests are performed using a standard 60 degree apex cone connected to ‘A’ size

drill rods with the same standard fall height and weight as the Standard Penetration Test. The DCPT value is the

number of blows of the hammer required to drive the cone one foot (300 mm) into the soil. The DCPT is used as a

probe to assess soil variability.

OTHER TESTS

S Sieve analysis

H Hydrometer analysis

k Laboratory permeability

γ Unit weight

Gs Specific gravity of soil particles

CD Consolidated drained triaxial

CU Consolidated undrained triaxial with pore

pressure measurements

UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial

DS Direct Shear

C Consolidation

Qu Unconfined compression

Ip

Point Load Index (Ip on Borehole Record equals

Ip(50) in which the index is corrected to a

reference diameter of 50 mm)

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT

measured in standpipe,

piezometer, or well

inferred

Single packer permeability test;

test interval from depth shown to

bottom of borehole

Double packer permeability test;

test interval as indicated

Falling head permeability test

using casing

Falling head permeability test

using well point or piezometer

1

2

3

4

5

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

1

5

23

18

18

FL

FL

SP

SM

ML

CL

ML

FILL: Grey, well graded gravel with sand- traces of silt- geogrid at 0.1 m

FILL: Brown, poorly graded sand with silt- traces of gravel

Grey, poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) with silt- traces of gravel- passing #200 at 2.0 m: fines = 7.3%- wood debris at 2.4 m

Grey, SILT (ML) with sand- traces of clay

- wood debris at 3.9 m

Grey, silty CLAY (CL-ML)- traces of sand- passing #200 at 4.1 m: fines = 86.2%

End of BH16-01 at 4.6 m.No groundwater observed.

SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:

Sample Type: GS - Grab SamplePT - Piston Tube

May 26, 2016PiezometerBackfill Type: Drill Cuttings SandBentonite

ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed

CC - Continuous CoreSS - Split Spoon

W

Disturbed Torvane (kPa)

50kPa 100kPa 150kPa 200kPa

Insitu Shear Vane (kPa)

WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Remoulded Shear Vane (kPa)

Moisture Content & Atterberg Limits

Dynamic Cone Penetration Test, blows/0.3m

L

Pocket Penetrometer (kPa)

DRILLING DATE

CLIENTNorth Surrey Truck ParkingPROJECT

LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE

DRILLING CO. Downrite Drilling Ltd. Solid Stem AugerMay 17, 2016

PROJECT No. 115815025

BH16-01

NORTHING

EASTINGNorth Surrey, BC

British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure5451360513668

Geodetic

>>

>>

>>

54

>>

>>

>>49

18

12

6

4

5

14

9

5

17

25

1

2

3

4

GS

GS

GS

GS

27

29

FL

FL

SP

SM

CL

FILL: Grey, well graded gravel- traces of sand and silt- geogrid at 0.2 m

FILL: Grey to brown, well graded sand with silt- traces gravel

Dark grey, poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) with silt- traces of gravel

Grey, lean CLAY (CL)- traces of sand- mottled with brown

- grey below 3.8 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-02

NORTHING



Geodetic

>>

>>

59

71

>>

>>

88

61

25

10

5

3

3

23

25

19

1

2

3

4

GS

GS

GS

GS

11

15

FL

FL

SP

SM

SCSM

CL

FILL: Grey, well graded gravel- traces of sand and silt- geogrid at 0.3 m

FILL: Black, organic soil with sand- traces of gravel

Dark grey, poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) with silt- traces of gravel

Blue to grey, silty clayey SAND (SC-SM)- traces of gravel and organics- mottled with black- passing #200 at 2.3 m: fines = 39.1%- silty sand seam from 3.2 m to 3.5 m

Grey, lean CLAY (CL)- mottled with light brown- traces of sand and gravel below 3.5 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-03

NORTHING



Geodetic

88

60

21

8

4

4

7

12

23

31

1

2

3

4

GS

GS

GS

GS

6

19

10

FL

FL

CL

FILL: Grey, well graded gravel- traces of sand and silt

FILL: Brown, poorly graded sand with silt- traces of gravel- passing #200 at 0.6 m:fines = 7.4%

Grey, lean CLAY (CL)- traces of sand and gravel

- brown, mottled with grey below 2.6 m

- sand seams and partings from 3.0 m to 3.6 m

- grey, mottled with brown below 3.6 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-04

NORTHING



Geodetic

7

2

3

6

50

50

39

26

21

12

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

28

14

24

37

28

79

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL

FILL: Dark brown to black, organic soil with sand

FILL: Grey to brown, silt with sand- traces of gravel, wood debris and constructiondebris

FILL: Brown to black, wood debris

FILL: Grey, silt with sand- traces of gravel and organics- mottled with black

- brown sandy silt below 4.3 m

- DCPT refusal at 6.9 m

FILL: Brown to black, wood debris

FILL: Dark brown, organic soil with sand- traces of gravel and roots


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-05

NORTHING



Geodetic

>>

4

5

5

5

10

13

17

13

27

15

10

8

7

6

7

6

10

9

8

8

6

11

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

16

18

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL


FILL: Grey, silty sand- traces of gravel, wood debris and organics

- silt with sand from 1.0 m to 1.2 m

FILL: Grey, poorly graded sand with silt- traces of gravel and organics

FILL: Brown, silty sand- traces of gravel, organics and wood debris

- grey sand seams at 4.9 m

FILL: Grey, silt with sand- traces of gravel and wood debris

- wood debris at 8.1 m- sandy silt below 8.1m- DCPT refusal at 8.3 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-06

NORTHING



Geodetic

>>

18

8

6

7

7

7

8

5

4

9

6

7

7

5

8

9

36

21

13

15

11

11

11

11

14

15

37

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

12

17

14

16

FL

FL

FL


FILL: Brown, silty sand- traces of gravel and wood debris

- passing #200 at 2.1 m: fines = 19.5%- dark brown to grey, traces of organics below 2.7 m- passing #200 at 2.7 m: fines = 16.6%

FILL: Dark grey, poorly graded sand- traces of silt


- traces of gravel from 4.6 m to 6.1 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-07

NORTHING



Geodetic

>>

21

11

6

6

15

22

15

12

10

15

12

26

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

32

24

8

26

FL

FL

FL

FL


FILL: Grey, silt with sand- traces of organics and rootlets- brown with traces of gravel below 0.6 m

FILL: Grey, silty sand with gravel

- wet below 4.0 m

FILL: Brown, silty sand- traces of gravel and organics

- grey, without organics below 6.1 m


- dark brown wood debris at 7.3 m

- trace to with organics from 8.4 m to 8.8 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-08

NORTHING



Geodetic

>>

20

16

9

5

10

9

8

21

30

64

29

8

7

14

35

31

21

23

30

24

29

>>

1

2

3

4

5

6

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

12

19

24

19

21

FL

FL

FL


FILL: Light brown, silty sand- traces of gravel

- grey below 0.9 m

FILL: Grey, silt with sand- traces of gravel

- mottled with dark brown, traces of organics below4.0 m

- without mottling or organics below 6.1 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-09

NORTHING



Geodetic

32

26

25

18

17

18

16

14

9

6

6

5

5

4

6

10

22

13

15

15

13

13

14

17

23

19

23

26

32

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

13

17

22

34

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL


FILL: Light brown, silty sand- traces of gravel- grey, with gravel below 0.6 m

- mottled with light brown, traces of gravel below 2.0m

- mottled with dark brown, traces of organics andwood debris from 3.0 m to 3.7 m

FILL: Dark brown, organic soil- traces of sand

FILL: Grey, poorly graded sand with silt- traces of gravel- passing #200 at 5.6 m: fines = 10.4%

FILL: Dark brown to grey, silty sand- traces of organics and gravel

FILL: Grey sandy silt- traces of gravel and organics

- grey to black silt with organics and sand from 8.2 mto 8.8 m


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-10

NORTHING



Geodetic

21

13

9

12

8

6

9

8

7

10

6

7

14

31

27

19

17

13

24

21

20

19

18

13

12

13

24

12

14

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

11

9

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL

FL



FILL: Grey, poorly graded sand- traces of silt and gravel


- traces of wood debris below 3.0 m

FILL: Grey, poorly graded sand- traces of silt, gravel and wood debris

FIL: Grey, sandy silt- traces of organics and wood debris


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


DRILLING DATE


LOCATION

RECORD

DRILLING METHOD

DATUM

ELEVATION

BOREHOLE



BH16-11

NORTHING



Geodetic

31

20

10

10

21

11

6

7

4

5

12

26

39

32

38

43

38

32

29

20

13

16

37

23

34

33

32

40

38

41

FL

FL


FILL: Grey to brown, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics and construction debris- occasional cobbles

- grey below 1.8 m

End of TP16-01 at 4.0 m.No groundwater observed.

1GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION

EXCAVATION DATE CONTRACTOR ExcavatorEXCAVATION METHODMay 13, 2016

115815025PROJECT No.

GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION

TEST PIT RECORD TP16-01

Greenbelt

CLIENTNorth Surrey Truck ParkingBritish Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL

FL


FILL: Grey to brown, sandy silt with gravel- traces of organics and construction debris

FILL: Grey, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics and construction debris- occasional cobbles


1

2

GS

GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL

FL


FILL: Brown, sandy silt with gravel- traces of organics and construction debris- occasional cobbles

FILL: Grey, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics and wood debris- occasional cobbles


1

2

GS

GS 13

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL


FILL: Brown to grey, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics- occasional cobbles- rubber tire at 0.9 m- traces of wood debris and construction debris below1.2 m

- grey, without construction debris below 4.3 m


1GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL

FL

FL


FILL: Brown to grey, sandy silt with gravel- traces of organics- occasional cobbles

FILL: Brown to grey, silty sand- traces of gravel, organics and wood debris- occasional cobbles, logs and stumps

- no logs or stumps below 2.1 m

FILL: Brown to grey, sandy silt with gravel- occasional cobbles


1

2

GS

GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL

FL


FILL: Brown to grey, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics, wood debris and constructiondebris- occasional cobbles

FILL: Brown to grey, sandy silt with gravel- occasional cobbles

- frequent wood debris from 2.1 m to 3.6 m

- occasional wood debris below 3.6 m


1GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL

FL


FILL: Brown to grey, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics, wood debris and constructiondebris- occasional cobbles

FILL: Brown to grey, sandy silt with gravel- traces of organics- occasional cobbles

- brown below 3.2 m


1GS 13

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL


FILL: Brown, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics, wood debris and constructiondebris- occasional cobbles- steel cable at 0.2 m

- grey below 1.8 m


1GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL


FILL: Brown, silty sand with gravel- traces of construction debris- occasional cobbles

- grey below 1.2 m

- boulder at 2.4 m


DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL


FILL: Brown, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics and construction debris- occasional cobbles

- grey below 1.5 m

- with wood debris from 3.8 m to 4.1 m


1GS 16

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL

FL

FL


FILL: Brown, sandy silt with gravel- traces of organics- occasional cobbles

FILL: Grey, silty sand with gravel- traces of wood debris- occasional cobbles- without wood debris below 1.5 m

FILL: Grey, sandy silt with gravel- traces of organics


1GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL

FL


FILL: Brown, sandy silt with gravel- traces of organics, wood debris and constructiondebris- occasional cobbles

FILL: Grey, silty sand with gravel- traces of organics and wood debris- occasional cobbles


1

2

GS

GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L


FL

FL


FILL: Brown, silty sand with gravel- traces of construction debris

- grey, traces of organics, and occasional cobblesbelow 0.8 m


1

2

GS

GS

DE

PT

H (

m)

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SOIL DESCRIPTION

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

SO

IL T

YP

E

Reviewed by:

Logged by:

Date:



ST - Shelby TubeAM

RP

Sloughed


SAMPLES

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PROJECT

LOCATION



GeodeticDATUM

ELEVATION


Greenbelt


North Surrey, BC

W




WP W

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90




L



Appendix D Laboratory Test Results January 20, 2017

D.1

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Tested By: EV Checked By: AM

Stantec Consulting, Ltd.

Burnaby, British Columbia

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

Ministry of Trasportation

BC MOTI Port Mann Truck Parking

115815025

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL

USCSSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY

NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX(%) (%) (%) (%)

SOIL DATA

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o

r OL

CH o

r OH

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximateupper limit boundary for natural soils

4

7

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

BH16-01 5 4.1m 17.9 18 24 6 CL-ML

Tested By: EV Checked By: AM


Burnaby, British Columbia

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

Ministry of Trasportation


115815025

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL

USCSSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY

NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX(%) (%) (%) (%)

SOIL DATA

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

LIQUID LIMIT0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CL-ML

CL o

r OL

CH o

r OH

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximateupper limit boundary for natural soils

4

7

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

BH16-03 3 2.3m 15.2 14 18 4 CL-ML

Tested By: KT/EV Checked By: AM

COMPACTION TEST REPORTD

ry d

ensity, kg/m

3

1500

1650

1800

1950

2100

2250

Water content, %

- Rock Corrected - Uncorrected

8 10 12 14 16 18 20

9.5%, 2092 kg/m3

11.2%, 1989 kg/m3

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70

Test specification:ASTM D 4718-87 Oversize Corr. Applied to Each Test Point

ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure C Modified

2.4m SM 12.9 2.7 18.8 17.8

Grey silty SAND with gravel, trace organics

115815025 Ministry of Trasportation

Sampled by MY

Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI

% > % <

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: TP16-03 Sample Number: 2


Burnaby, British Columbia Figure

1989 kg/m3 Maximum dry density = 2092 kg/m3

11.2 % Optimum moisture = 9.5 %


Tested By: RP Checked By: EV


ry d

ensity, kg/m

3

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

Water content, %


5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20

7.9%, 2132 kg/m3

8.3%, 2099 kg/m3

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70



2.7m SM 12.8 2.7 7.0 45.3



Sampled by MY


% > % <




Project:







Tested By: RP Checked By: EV


ry d

ensity, kg/m

3

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

Water content, %


3 8 13 18 23 28 33

10.7%, 2015 kg/m3 11.0%, 1993 kg/m3

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70



3.0m SM 16.3 2.7 4.1 36.8



Sampled by MY


% > % <




Project:








Appendix E Pavement Design Memo January 20, 2017

E.1

PAVEMENT DESIGN MEMO

Memo

ajm u:\pc 1158 transportation, van\115815018_moti_truck_parking_study\251_north_surrey\report\app_e_pavement\mem_north_surrey_pavet_design_20170112.docx

To: Jennifer Stites From: Harry Sturm

Kamloops BC Vancouver BC

File: 115815018 Date: January 12, 2017

Reference: Pavement Design; North Surrey Truck Parking, Surrey, BC

INTRODUCTION

Pavement design was completed for the proposed North Surrey truck parking facility. The facility’s proposed location is on the south side of the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) just west of Highway 1 in Surrey, BC. The site is denoted as NSTP.

Pavement design analysis was completed using information from a subsurface investigation completed by Stantec. The information is presented in a report titled “Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment – North Surrey Truck Parking Functional Design” dated August 20, 2016.

It is understood that the parking lot will be constructed centered on the access road off the SFPR. The parking lot includes 158 truck parking stalls located to the east of the entrance road (East Lot), with a future expansion including 77 truck parking stalls located to the west of the proposed entrance (West Lot). A total of 235 truck stalls will be accessed via the entrance road once the parking lot is completed.

The parking facility construction will include widening of the SFPR for the on and off ramps to access the parking facility. The SFPR was constructed with an asphalt pavement. Only asphalt pavement options were considered for the proposed SFPR widening and parking facility. The asphalt pavement design analysis for the proposed truck parking is provided in the following sections.

GEOTECHNICAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The subgrade conditions were interpreted from the geotechnical information presented in the report noted above. The subsurface conditions are summarized as follows;

The soils on site include stockpiled fill which is generally a silty sand to sandy silt. The thickness varied from 1 m to 8 m, and contains variable amounts of gravel, and trace amounts of wood debris, roots, and organic material. The fill is underlain by very soft to soft organic materials such as peat and organic silt with thickness varying from 3 m to 4 m. The organic materials are underlain by very soft to soft silt and clay deposits of up to 10 m in thickness.

The as-built drawings for the SPFR indicate the westbound lanes were constructed using the following pavement structures;

January 12, 2017 Jennifer Stites Page 2 of 6



East of station 366+40 to station 375+45 SFRP

• 50 mm Asphalt Surface Course • 100 mm Asphalt Base Course • 150 mm – 25 mm Well Graded Base • 425 mm Course Graded Subbase

725 mm Total Thickness


• 50 mm Asphalt Surface Course • 100 mm Asphalt Base Course • 150 mm – 25 mm Well Graded Base • 770 mm Course Graded Subbase



• 40 mm Asphalt Open Graded Friction Course • 50 mm Asphalt Surface Course • 100 mm Asphalt Base Course • 150 mm – 25 mm Well Graded Base • 700 mm Course Graded Subbase


PAVEMENT DESIGN

The flexible pavement design analysis was completed using the AASHTO 1993 Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. A Flexible Pavement Design spreadsheet utility developed by Stantec was used for the AASHTO 93 analysis.

It is understood that the proposed truck parking facilities for North Surrey site will have approximately 235 truck parking spaces in total. A turnover of three trucks per space per day was assumed for design. This yielded a truck volume estimate of approximately 705 trucks per day for the entrance road and ramps. The East Lot would have a truck volume of approximately 475 trucks per day. The West Lot, or future expansion lot, would have a truck volume of approximately 230 trucks per day.




For analysis in the AASHTO 1993 pavement design procedure, the traffic was converted to an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL). The following truck types were used in the analysis;

• 2/3 axles – 5% • 4 axles – 15% • 5 axles – 50% • 6 axles – 30%

The design ESALs were estimated as follows;

• Entrance Road: 15.27 MESAL’s • East Lot: 10.29 MESAL’s • West Lot (Future Expansion): 4.98 MESAL’s

The design ESAL’s assume a 20-year service life.

The design parameters used in the analysis were extracted from British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s Pavement Structure Design Guidelines, dated January 26, 2015. The design parameters used for design are as follows;

• Reliability – 80% • Serviceability – Initial 4.2, Terminal 2.5 • Pavement Material Properties SN

o Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 0.40 o Crushed Granular Base (CBC) 0.14 o Select Granular Sub-Base (SGSB) 0.10

• Subgrade and Drainage o Silt and Clay: Mr = 25 MPa o Drainage Coefficient: CBC and SGSB = 0.95

Pavement design analysis was completed using the AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design procedure incorporating the parameters noted above.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the subsurface information and the design parameters summarized above, recommendations are provided for the proposed construction below.




Entrance Road

The following pavement structure is recommended for construction of the entrance road;

• 75 mm Top Lift Hot Mix Asphalt (PG 64-22) • 75 mm Bottom Lift Hot Mix Asphalt (PG 64-22) • 300 mm Crushed Base Course (25 mm Well-Graded) • 650 mm Select Granular Sub Base (75 mm Well-Graded)


Alternative design; if a Triaxial TX-5 geogrid is placed under the Crushed Base Course, the thickness of the Select Granular Sub Base course and total pavement structure may be reduced as follows;

• 450 mm Select Granular Sub Base (75 mm Well-Graded) 900 mm Total Thickness

Parking Facilities

The following pavement designs are recommended for the east and west lots.

East Lot



Alternative design; If a Triaxial TX-5 geogrid is placed under the Crushed Base Course, the thickness of the Select Granular Sub Base course and total pavement structure may be reduced as follows;

• 350 mm Select Granular Sub Base (75 mm Well-Graded) 800 mm Total Thickness

West Lot (Future Expansion)






Alternative design; If a Triaxial TX-5 geogrid is placed under the Crushed Base Course, the thickness of the Crushed Base and Select Granular Sub Base courses and total pavement structure may be reduced as follows;

• 250 mm Crushed Base Course (25 mm Well-Graded) • 250 mm Select Granular Sub Base (75 mm Well-Graded)


Ramps to South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR)

Widening for the SFPR exit ramp (west of station 375+40 SFRP) should be constructed with the following pavement structure;

• 75 mm Top Lift Hot Mix Asphalt (PG 64-22) • 75 mm Bottom Lift Hot Mix Asphalt (PG 64-22) • 300 mm Crushed Base Course (25 mm Well-Graded) • TX-5 Triaxial Geogrid • 450 mm Select Granular Sub Base (75 mm Well-Graded)


Widening for the SFPR on ramp (east of station 375+40 SFRP) should be constructed with the following pavement structure;

• 75 mm Top Lift Hot Mix Asphalt (PG 64-22) • 75 mm Bottom Lift Hot Mix Asphalt (PG 64-22) • 300 mm Crushed Base Course (25 mm Well-Graded) • 650 mm* Select Granular Sub Base (75 mm Well-Graded)

1100 mm Total Thickness Notes: * Select Granular Subbase depth variable to match the bottom of the existing granular material on the SFPR.

The pavement structures for the ramps noted above provide positive lateral drainage for the existing pavements.

In areas of pavement widening, the upper lift of asphalt should be keyed into the existing SFPR pavement to a width of 300 mm from the pavement edge.

It is understood that some areas on this site may have softer soils than assumed for design. A contingency item of a geotextile and geogrid is recommended to address soft areas.




This document should be considered a “living document” that may need to be changed or adapted during the life of the project.

We trust this meets your current requirements. Please call if you have any questions.

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Lewis Wong, P.Eng. Pavement Engineer [email protected]

Harry Sturm, P.Eng Senior Review [email protected]

geotechnical assessment – north surrey truck parking detailed … · 2020-06-09 · based on...

Documents