Geotechnical Investigation Mill of Kintail Bridge ......Geotechnical Investigation – Report No....

July 2012

Geotechnical Investigation Mill of Kintail Bridge Reconstruction

Town of Mississippi Mills, Ontario

Reference No. 60158.005 Prepared for: Town of Mississippi Mills 3131 Old Perth Road Almonte, ON K0A 1A0 Attention: Mr. Cory Smith By: AME Materials Engineering 104 - 215 Stafford Road West Ottawa, ON K2H 9C1 Distribution: 3 copies – Town of Mississippi Mills 1 copy – AME Materials Engineering

Specialists in Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Engineering and Testing

104 - 215 Stafford Rd. WestOttawa (Nepean), Ontario,

K2H 9C1 Canada Tel: (613) 726-3039 Fax: (613) 726-3004

E-mail: [email protected]

Report No. 60158.005 July 25, 2012 Town of Mississippi Mills 3131 Old Perth Road Almonte, ON K0A 1A0 Attn: Mr. Cory Smith Re: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

MILL OF KINTAIL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT TOWNSHIP OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS, ONTARIO

Dear Mr. Smith:

Please find attached our geotechnical report for the above mentioned project.

We trust that this report provides sufficient information for your purposes. If you have any questions

concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

AME MATERIALS ENGINEERING

Steve Goodman, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Branch Manager

Geotechnical Investigation – Report No. 60158.005 Mill of Kintail Bridge Reconstruction, Township of Mississippi Mills, Ontario

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1

4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 2

4.1. FIELD WORK ............................................................................................................................ 2

4.2. LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................................... 3

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 4

5.1. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 4

5.2. ASPHALT .................................................................................................................................. 4

5.3. GRANULAR FILL ...................................................................................................................... 4

5.4. SILTY CLAY FILL ...................................................................................................................... 5

5.5. SILTY SAND TILL ..................................................................................................................... 5

5.6. BEDROCK ................................................................................................................................ 6

5.7. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 6

5.8. DEGRADATION OF CONCRETE ............................................................................................. 7

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 8

6.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................................................. 8

6.2. SITE PREPARATION ............................................................................................................... 8

6.3. EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING ......................................................................................... 8

6.4. FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 10


6.5. SITE COEFFICIENT ............................................................................................................... 12

6.6. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR DESIGN ..................................................................... 13

6.7. APPROACH RECONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 17

7.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 19

7.1. SITE INSPECTIONS ............................................................................................................... 19

7.2. WINTER CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 19

8.0 LIMITATION OF THE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 20

APPENDIX 1 Site Location Plan Drawing No. 60158.005.1

Borehole Location Plan Drawing No. 60158.005.2

APPENDIX 2 Symbols and Terms

Borehole Reports (BH12-01 to BH12–02)

APPENDIX 3 Laboratory Testing Grain Size Analysis Report

Rock Core Uniaxial Compressive Strength

Moisture Content Test Results

Paracel Chemical Results

Certificate of Analysis


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report discusses the findings of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the proposed

reconstruction of the Mill of Kintail Bridge. The existing bridge crosses over the Indian River and is located

on Ramsay Concession Road 8 approximately 800m south of Bennies Corners Road in the Township of

Mississippi Mills, Ontario. A Site Location Plan is provided as Drawing 60158.005.1, Appendix 1.

The purpose of the investigation was to advance a limited number of boreholes adjacent to the existing

structure to assess the soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions, and based on an interpretation of the

factual information obtained; provide recommendations with respect to the geotechnical design aspects of

the project, including construction considerations which could influence design decisions.

This report has been prepared based on our Proposal No. P12056 dated May 9, 2012 and authorized

by Mr. Cory Smith.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project consists of the replacement of the existing deck truss type structure located on Ramsay

Concession Road 8 approximately 800m south of Bennies Corners Road. The existing structure spans

a length 20.4 metres with an overall width of 5.5 metres that includes abutments, steel girders and

wing-walls (refer to Drawing No. 60158.005.1, Appendix 1 for general layout details). It is expected that

the bridge will be reconstructed in the same location, elevation and will consist of a structure of similar

size and opening. The bridge footing foundations will be located within the same vicinity as the existing

footings. The existing approach embankments will likely remain at similar elevations to the present.

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located in a rural setting on the two lane Ramsay Concession Road 8. It consists of an open

/ rigid concrete frame spanning 20.4 metres and 5.5 metres wide. This structure was found to be in

extremely poor condition. Areas of concrete scaling, spalling and exposed reinforcing steel on the

bridge superstructure and substructure were identified. It is assumed that the existing bridge footings

are founded directly on bedrock.


2

The topography surrounding the existing structure slopes downward from both the north and south

towards the watercourse. The surrounding area consists of cultivated farmland to the west and a

forested conservation area to the east. Undulating hills were noted to the west of the site. The roadway

on either side of the bridge is asphalt covered and its surface elevation is approximately 2.0 – 2.5 m

above the existing ground level at the approaches.

The elevation of the stream water level at the time of the field investigation was 3.5 m (Elev. 95.8 m

relative to local datum) below the top of asphalt at the centerline of the bridge. The stream bed was

observed to be comprised of cobbles, boulders and exposed bedrock.

4.0 METHODOLOGY

4.1. FIELD WORK

The site work consisted of drilling two (2) boreholes and completing a level survey. The field

investigations proceeded once all utility clearances were received, and a tool box safety meeting was

performed. Ramsay Concession Road 8 was closed between Bennies Corners Road and Clayton Road

before any borehole drilling was conducted. The boreholes were advanced to depths of between

approximately 5.7 m and 7.0 m below present site grades. The boreholes were terminated within the

underlying bedrock formation, which were advanced by diamond core sampling techniques 3.1 to 3.8 m

into the bedrock.

The locations of the boreholes are shown on the enclosed Drawing No. 60158.005.2 in Appendix 1, while

a complete description of the stratigraphy encountered at each test location, is presented in Appendix 2.

The boreholes were advanced by means of a truck mounted drilling rig (CME-75) equipped with

continuous flight augers and diamond core sampling equipment. Soil samples were secured at regular

intervals in the overburden with a 51 mm diameter Standard Penetration Test split-spoon sampler.

Sampling procedures were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard D-1586, which provides the

penetration resistance ("N-value") of the soils. Diamond core sampling of the bedrock was carried out

using an NQ wireline retrieval system.


3

Groundwater observations were made in each of the boreholes as they were drilled through the

overburden prior to rock coring.

Ground surface elevations were measured at various points, including the borehole locations. The

elevations were referenced to a temporary local benchmark established as a nail on a guard rail (“TBM”)

located to the north west of the bridge as shown on Drawing No. 60158.005.2. The local elevation of this

temporary benchmark was assumed as 100.00 m.

Additional information regarding the procedures of in-situ testing, as well as information concerning the

borehole logs, may be found in the Appendix 2 of this report.

All retained soil and bedrock core samples were taken to our laboratory, where they were given detailed

visual examination to confirm descriptions and classification for reporting purposes. These samples will be

stored for a six-month period, after which they will be discarded unless we are advised otherwise.

4.2. LABORATORY TESTING

Moisture contents tests were completed on retained soil samples in our laboratory and individual soil

samples were selected for grain size analysis. The results of these tests are presented in Appendix 3,

and the moisture contents are profiled on the individual borehole logs in Appendix 2.

Analytical chemistry testing was carried out on a sample of surface water from the watercourse and two

(2) soil samples (BH12-01 SS-4 and BH12-02 SS-5) to determine the potential for sulphate attack and

degradation on below grade concrete in contact with existing soil. Results are discussed in Section No.

5.8, with laboratory results presented in Appendix 3.


4

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1. SUMMARY

The detailed results of the individual boreholes are recorded on the Boreholes Logs in Appendix 2.

The soils at the site typically consist of an asphalt pavement surface overlying granular fill overlying a

silty gravelly sand fill or a silty clay fill overlying native silty sand till with trace gravel. Boreholes BH12-

01 and BH12-02 were extended to approximately 3.0 m and 3.8m, respectively, into bedrock by

diamond core sampling for confirmation purposes.

It should be noted that the borehole locations are offset from the existing footing locations by

approximately 9.4 m (refer to Dwg. No. 60158.005.2 in Appendix 1). Subsurface conditions are

confirmed at the borehole locations only and may vary at other locations, particularly with respect to the

thickness and condition of fill and bedrock condition, and possible buried topsoil and organic soils. The

following sections are intended to comment on and amplify the subsurface conditions encountered.

5.2. ASPHALT

A layer of asphaltic concrete pavement with a thickness ranging from 45 mm to 50 mm was

encountered in both Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02.

5.3. GRANULAR FILL

Following the surface layer of asphaltic concrete, a layer of crushed gravel and sand fill was

encountered in BH12-01 with a thickness of 320 mm. In BH12-02, a silty gravelly sand fill was

encountered directly below the asphaltic concrete layer and extended to a depth of 1.77 m. The

granular fill materials were brown to grey in color and moist.


5

Standard Penetration Resistance in the crushed gravel and sand fill had "N”-values of 4 to 11 blows per

305 mm, indicating a loose to compact relative density. The moisture content of the samples taken within

this silty gravelly sand fill ranged from 6.5 to 9.3% by weight.

A gradation analysis carried out for a representative sample of the silty gravelly sand fill designated as

Sample No. SS2 obtained in Borehole BH12-02 revealed a particle size distribution comprised of 21.3%

Gravel, 53.2% Sand and 25.5% Silt and Clay. The maximum particle size was 19 mm.

5.4. SILTY CLAY FILL

Beneath the pavement structure, Borehole BH12-01 penetrated a layer of fill consisting of silty clay,

trace sand and gravel with occasional cobbles and boulders that extended to a depth of approximately

1.9 m below the existing grade. The earth fill was generally brown in color and moist becoming reddish

brown and wet below 1.7 m.

Standard Penetration Resistance in the silty clay earth fill yielded "N”-values that ranged from 6 to 50

blows per 305 mm. The higher blow count of 50 likely represents striking a cobble or boulder embedded

in the silty clay fill. The lower “N”-value of 6 is considered to be representative and indicates a firm

consistency for the material. The moisture content of the samples of the earth fill ranged from 19.3 to

25.4% by weight. The re-use of this fill material is described in section 6.5.

5.5. SILTY SAND TILL

A deposit of native silty sand till with trace gravel was encountered beneath the fill materials in both

Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02 at depths of 1.8 m and 1.9 m (EL. 97.59 m and 97.46 m),

respectively. The thickness of this layer ranged from approximately 0.8 m to 1.4 m. The silty sand till

was generally light brown in colour and moist.

Standard Penetration Resistance in the silty sand till had "N-values" ranging from 17 to more than 100

blows per 305 mm, indicating a compact to very dense relative density. The moisture content of the

samples of the silty sand till ranged from 3.1 to 13.3% by weight. The re-use of this native deposit is

described in Sections 6.5 and 6.6.


6

5.6. BEDROCK

Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02 contacted bedrock at respective depths of 2.69 m (Elev. 96.65 m) and

3.20 m (Elev. 96.16 m), and were extended by NQ diamond core sampling techniques 3.1 m and 3.8 m

into the bedrock. The bedrock consisted of a white to grey granite with pink bands.

The bedrock encountered in BH12-01 on the southern approach was fresh with only a slightly

weathered zone in the upper 200mm. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranged between 70% and

74%, which corresponds to a fair rock mass quality. Core run recoveries in BH12-01 were 77% and

100%.

The bedrock encountered in BH12-02 on the northern approach was highly fractured throughout the

upper 2.7 m with Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranging between 0% and 13%, indicating a very poor

rock mass quality and moderate weathering. Core run recoveries in BH12-02 ranged between 13% and

88%. Fractures were generally of the bedding plane variety; however, diagonal fractures were noted

below depths of 4.5 m in Borehole BH12-02. Below the upper zone of highly fractured bedrock, good

rock mass quality was found from Elev. 93.49 m down to the vertical limit of investigation at Elev. 92.40

m.

Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02 were terminated within the granite bedrock at depths of 5.74 m and

6.96 m below grade corresponding to Elev. 93.60 m and Elev. 92.40 m, respectively.

5.7. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Groundwater observations were made in each of the boreholes as they were drilled and prior to the start

of rock coring. No standing water was observed within the boreholes through the overburden soils. No

standpipes were installed for long future monitoring as part of this mandate. Based on the highly fractured

nature of the upper zone of the bedrock, it is expected that groundwater levels will be similar to the stream

level. The stream elevation at the time of our field investigations on June 25, 2012 was found to be at

Elev. 95.79 m.


7

Groundwater and stream levels can be expected to fluctuate both seasonally and in response to

precipitation events.

5.8. DEGRADATION OF CONCRETE

Two (2) soil samples (BH12-01 SS-4 and BH12-02 SS-5) and one (1) sample of surface water taken

from the river were analysed for Chlorides (Cal -), Sulphates (SO42-), pH and resistivity in order to

evaluate the potential of the existing soil and water to degrade concrete in the future. Table 1 below

presents results for the samples tested.

Table No. 1

Chlorides, Sulphates and pH

Sample No. Depth

Interval (m)

Parameters Analysed

Chlorides (Cl -)

(ppm)

Sulphates (SO42-)

(ppm) pH

Resistivity

(Ohm m)

BH12-01 / SS-4 2.28 – 2.69 76 39 7.78 42.2

BH12-02 / SS-5 3.05 – 3.20 729 205 7.70 11.9

Surface Water - 12 7 7.70 32.1

According to CSA Standard A23.1-04, Sulphate concentrations in soil should not exceed 1,000 ppm

(less than 0.1 % water soluble sulphate), while it is generally recognised that Chloride concentrations

should be below 250 ppm. Sulphate concentrations in surface water should not exceed 150 ppm.

The analytical chemistry test results indicate that the soil and water samples tested yielded sulphate

concentrations less than the criteria considered damaging to concrete and, therefore, there should be

negligible sulphate attack on concrete at this site. The chloride concentration for the sample of silty

sand till (Borehole 12-02 / SS-5), however, exceeded the generally recognised limit. Therefore, there is

a potential for the chlorides contained in the silty sand till at this site to produce corrosion of embedded

reinforcing steel in concrete.


8

The results of the analytical chemistry are presented in Appendix 3.

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1. GENERAL

Recommendations are given based on the project description as provided in Section 2.0.

Based upon these borehole results and assuming them to be representative of subsoil conditions across

the entire area, the following comments and recommendations are offered for the foundations of the

proposed structure at the test locations only:

6.2. SITE PREPARATION

Prior to reconstruction of the bridge structure the existing bridge will be demolished. Measures must be

taken to ensure minimal disturbance to the creek, bearing surface for the proposed footings and

surrounding area. This will include but is not limited to silt fences to trap eroded sediment run-off,

temporary caissons and water diversion measures. Further details are presented in the following

sections.

6.3. EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING

Based on the existing bridge details, stream channel characteristics and the subsurface information, we

expect the new bridge structure will be supported by spread footings bearing on bedrock. Bedrock was

encountered in Borehole BH12-01 (Southern Approach) at a depth of 2.7 m (EL. 96.65 m) and in

Borehole BH12-02 (Northern Approach) at a depth of 3.2 m (EL. 96.16 m). Due to the weathered and

highly fractured condition of the bedrock in the upper 2.7 m of bedrock encountered in Borehole BH12-

02, spread foundations will be required to extend to the underlying sound bedrock. The level of sound

bedrock in Borehole BH12-02 was found to occur below the prevailing stream level (Northern

approach).


9

In order to remove the existing foundations and place the new foundations at the required level,

measures will have to be taken to temporarily divert the water flow in the stream or construct a

cofferdam upstream of the works area to reduce the dewatering requirements at the bridge abutment

locations.

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

With respect to OHSA, the existing fill materials and compact silty sand till are classified as Type 3

Soils. The dense silty sand till is classified as Type 2 Soil and the weathered bedrock should be

considered as Type 1 within the context of planning excavations. Locally, where the soil is very soft to

soft or very loose at shallow depths or within zones of persistent seepage, it may be necessary to

flatten the side slopes. Excavation side slopes should not be unduly left exposed to inclement weather.

Excavations should not extend below an imaginary line drawn downward at 10 horizontal to 7 vertical

from the leading edges of foundations, services or other settlement sensitive structures without

underpinning the structure and / or providing temporary bracing / support of the structure and founding

soil.

Excavations in sound bedrock can be carried out using near vertical side walls, provided all loosened rock

has been scaled prior to entering the excavation. An examination of the slopes should be carried out by

qualified geotechnical personnel for excavations with a height greater than 3 m before any worker enters

the excavation. A minimum 1 m horizontal ledge should be left at the interface between the overburden /

weathered rock excavation and the top of the sound bedrock surface to provide an area to allow for

potential sloughing or to provide a stable base for the overburden shoring system.

Where bedrock excavation is required for small scale excavations, it is expected that line drilling in

conjunction with hoe ramming may be used to excavate the highly fractured and weathered bedrock.

It is not anticipated that blasting operations would be required for this site. If the underlying fresh bedrock

with fair to good rock quality does need to be removed, however, this may require the use of controlled

blasting. Prior to considering blasting operations, the blasting effects on the any existing services,

buildings or other structures located in close proximity to the work area should be addressed. A pre-blast

or pre-construction condition survey of the existing structures should be carried out prior to commencing


10

site activities. The extent of the survey should be determined by the blasting consultant and should be

sufficient to respond to any in inquiries / claims related to the blasting operations. During the blasting,

vibration monitoring should be performed and include monitoring of existing structural defects where

identified. As a general guideline, the peak particle velocities (measured at the structures) should not

exceed 25 mm per second during the blasting program to reduce the risks of damage to the existing

structures.

The blasting operations should be planned and conducted under the supervision of a licensed

professional engineer who is also an experienced blasting consultant.

It is expected that the bridge foundations will be based below the water level in the adjacent river which

was measured at Elev. 95.79 m on June 25, 2012. This will require use of temporary shoring and

proper dewatering techniques to allow excavation to the required elevation.

The rate of groundwater flow into open excavations through the overburden should be low. The hydraulic

conductivity of the sound granite bedrock is in the order of 1 x 10-7 cm / sec, or lower, and therefore the

flow of groundwater into open excavations within the bedrock will be governed by the number and spacing

of joints and fractures within the rock mass. The in-situ hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass will be

higher at locations where a significant degree of jointing or fractured rock exists, especially within the

upper weathered zone. However, it is expected that the amount of groundwater inflow during bulk

excavation will be controllable by pumping from suitably located collector sumps.

It is not expected a temporary MOE permit to take water (PTTW) will be required for this project as the

groundwater pumping rate should not exceed 50,000 litres / day during the construction period. This is

contingent on effective diversion of water flow in the stream or cutoff of flow via a cofferdam constructed

upstream of the works area.

6.4. FOUNDATIONS

Based on the existing bridge details, river channel characteristics and the subsurface information

determined, the bridge structure may be supported by spread footing foundations bearing on bedrock.

Bedrock was encountered in Borehole BH12-01 (Southern approach) at a depth of 2.7 m (EL. 96.65 m)


11

and in Borehole BH12-02 (Northern approach) at a depth of 3.2 m (EL. 96.16 m). Due to the

weathered and highly fractured condition of the bedrock in the upper portion of the bedrock, spread

foundations will be required to extend to the underlying sound bedrock at local elevation of

approximately between 96.4 m (Borehole BH12-01) for the South Abutment and 93.5 m (Borehole 12-

02) for the North Abutment. Variations in this thickness should be expected and, in this regard, a unit

price allowance for bedrock removal or exclusion should be included in the construction contract.

For protection against frost heave, the foundations must be provided with sufficient earth cover

equivalent to the frost penetration depth. Foundation frost depth for the Site area is 1.8 m according to

OPSD – 3090.101. The requirement for frost protection may be reduced to 50% of the foundation frost

depth where the footings are founded on sound bedrock that is free of soil infill in fractures and joints at

the footing level.

The sound bedrock at this site is considered to have fair to good rock quality with an RQD > 50% (i.e.,

moderately spaced bedding plane fractures). One core sample of sound granite obtained in Borehole

BH12-01 from a depth of 2.9 to 4.2 m was tested for uniaxial compressive strength with a resulting

value of 82.2 MPa, indicative of strong rock strength. Based on the prescribed founding elevation and

the corresponding competency of the sound granite bedrock, it is considered that the foundations of the

bridge structure will have adequate scour protection. Any voids between the new abutment walls /

foundations should be infilled with 25 MPa concrete to minimize future weathering.

Spread footing foundations bearing on the sound granite bedrock may be sized according to the

parameters recommended in Table 3 below.

Table No. 2

Geotechnical Resistance at SLS and ULS

Geotechnical Resistance Note

Vertical and centric – Factored ULS 2000 KPa Factor = 0.5

Vertical - SLS n/a -

Provided the bedrock surface is properly cleaned of soil at the time of construction, the settlement of

footings sized using the factored Ultimate Limit States (ULS) bearing resistance should be negligible,

and therefore Serviceability Limit States (SLS) need not be considered.


12

The geotechnical bearing resistance provided herein is given under the assumption that the loads will

be applied perpendicular to the surface of the footings. Where the load is not applied perpendicular to

the surface of the footing, inclination of the load should be taken into account in accordance with

Section 6.7.4 of the CHBDC.

The above recommended bearing resistance for foundation design is subject to verification by the Geotechnical Engineer by field inspection of the excavated foundation bases at the time of construction. This is to ensure that the founding soils or bedrock exposed at the excavation base are consistent with the design bearing resistance values intended by the Geotechnical Engineer.

Prior to pouring concrete for the foundations, all footing areas must be cleaned to remove all loose, fractured rock to expose sound, intact bedrock prior to placement of formwork and concrete. If construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the footing base and concrete must be provided. The rock bearing surface should be inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel. It is critical that the bearing surface is clear of any debris and the method of concrete placement is pre-approved in order to ensure good contact between concrete and bedrock.

Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the concrete footings and bedrock should be

calculated in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC. The coefficient of friction, tan δ, may be

taken as 0.7 for cast-in-place concrete footings constructed on bedrock. This represents an unfactored

value; in accordance with the CHBDC, a resistance factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the

horizontal resistance. The resistance to lateral loading could be increased by keying or dowelling the

footings into bedrock.

Given the weathered nature of the upper bedrock and the potential for disturbance due to excavating

and blasting, the weathered bedrock should not be considered for lateral resistance. Rock anchors

should be considered for uplift and overturning resistance.

6.5. SITE COEFFICIENT

For seismic design purposes, the Site Coefficient, S, for this site in accordance with Section 4.4.6

of the CHBDC may be taken as 1.0, consistent with Soil Profile Type I.


13

6.6. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR DESIGN

The lateral earth pressures acting on the bridge abutments will depend on the type and method of

placement of the backfill materials, the nature of the soils behind the backfill, and the magnitude of

surcharge including construction loadings, the freedom of lateral movement of the structure, and the

drainage conditions behind the walls. Seismic (earthquake) loading must also be taken into account in

the design.

The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the abutment stems and retaining

walls in accordance with the CHBDC:

Select free-draining granular fill meeting the specifications of OPSS Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B’

Type II but with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve should be used as backfill behind

the wall. This fill should be compacted in accordance with OPSS 501.

Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to provide positive drainage of the granular

backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to subdrains and frost

tapers should be in accordance with OPSD 3101.150, 3190.100, and 3121.150. The outlets for

these subdrains should not be subject to freezing or flooding.

A minimum compaction surcharge of 12 kPa should be included in the lateral earth pressures for

the structure design of the walls, in accordance with CHBDC Section 6.9.3 and Figure 6.6. Care

must be taken during the compaction operation not to overstress the wall. Heavy construction

equipment should be maintained at a distance of at least 1 meter away from walls where the

backfill soils are being placed. Hand-operated compaction equipment should be used to compact

the backfill soils within a 1.0 metre wide zone adjacent to the walls. Other surcharge loadings

should be accounted for in the design, as required.

The granular fill may be placed in a zone with width equal to at least 1.8 metres behind the back of

the abutment stem (Case (a) on Figure C6.20 of the Commentary to the CHBDC) or within the

wedge-shaped zone define by a line drawn at 1.5H:1.0V extending up and back from the rear face

of the footing (Case(b) on Figure C6.20 of the Commentary to the CHBDC).


14

It is not recommended to re-use the silty clay fill with cobbles and boulders described in Section 5.4 since

it is often subject to excessive frost action and swelling when used as wall backfill. The silty gravelly sand

fill and native silty sand till as described in sections 5.3 and 5.5 are generally not recommended for wall

backfill.

Earth pressures acting on the abutment walls should be computed in accordance with Clause 6.9 of the

CHBDC but generally is given by the expression:

P = K [ γ (h-hw) + γ’hw + q ] + γwhw

where,

P = lateral pressure in kPa acting a depth h (m) below ground surface K = applicable lateral earth pressure coefficient h = depth below top of fill where pressure is computed in metres hw = depth below the groundwater level at point of interest (m) γ = bulk unit weight of backfill (kN / m3) γ’ = the submerged unit weight (kN / m3) of exterior soil ( γ’ = γ - γw ) γw = unit weight of water, assume a value of 9.8 kN/m3 q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)

Where the abutment walls can be drained effectively to eliminate hydrostatic pressure on the wall, this

equation can be simplified to:

P = K [ γh + q ]

where, K = coefficient of lateral earth pressure = unit weight of soil h = height at any point along the wall in metres q = any surcharge load in kPa


15

Static Lateral Earth Pressures for Design: The following guidelines and recommendations are provided regarding the lateral earth pressures for

static (i.e., not earthquake) loading conditions:

For the existing materials (Case (a)), the following unfactored lateral earth pressure parameters

may be used based on the retaining of the existing silty clay fill, silty gravelly sand fill and native

silty sand till deposit for this site:

Material Silty Clay Fill Silty Gravelly Sand Fill Silty Sand Till

Soil Unit Weight 22.6 kN / m3 23.4 kN / m3 22.6 kN / m3

Coefficients of static lateral earth pressure: Active, Ka At rest, Ko

Passive, Kp

0.36 0.53 2.77

0.35 0.52 2.88

0.31 0.47 3.26

For Case (b), the pressures are based on granular fill materials as placed and the following

unfactored parameters may be assumed:

Material Granular ‘A’ Granular ‘B’ Type II

Soil Unit Weight 22.8 kN / m3 22.8 kN / m3

Coefficients of static lateral earth pressure: Active, Ka At rest, Ko

Passive, Kp

0.27 0.43 3.70

0.27 0.43 3.70

Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure for Design: Seismic (earthquake) loading must be taken into account in the design in accordance with Section 4.6 of

the CHBDC. In this regard, the following should be included in the assessment of lateral earth pressures:


16

Seismic loading will result in increased lateral pressures acting on the abutment stem. The walls

should be designed to withstand the combined lateral loading for the appropriate static pressure

conditions given above, plus the earthquake-induce dynamic earth pressure. The site-specific

zonal acceleration for the Ottawa area is 0.2. Based on experience, for the subsurface conditions

at this site, no significant amplification of the ground motion is expected. The seismic lateral earth

pressure coefficients given below have been derived based on a design zonal acceleration ratio of

A = 0.2.

In accordance with Sections 4.6.4 and C.4.6.4 of the CHBDC and its Commentary, for structures

which do not allow lateral yielding, the horizontal seismic coefficient, kh, used in the calculation of

the seismic active pressure coefficient is take as 1.5 times the zonal acceleration ration (i.e., kh =

0.3). For structures which allow lateral yielding, kh is taken as 0.5 times the zonal acceleration

ratio (i.e., kh = 0.1).

The following seismic active pressure coefficients (KAE) for the two backfill cases (Case (a) and Case (b))

may be used in design. It should be noted that these seismic earth pressure coefficients assume that the

back of the wall is vertical and the ground surface behind the wall is horizontal. Where sloping ground is

present above the top of the wall, the lateral earth pressure under seismic loading conditions should be

calculated by treating the weight of the backfill located above the top of the wall as a surcharge.

Seismic Active Pressure Coefficients, KAE:

Material Case (a) Case (b)

Silty Clay Fill Silty Gravelly Sand Fill Silty Sand Till Granular ‘A’ Granular ‘B’

Yielding wall 0.39 0.38 0.34 0.30 0.30

Non-yielding wall 0.60 0.59 0.54 0.50 0.50

The above KAE values for yielding wall are applicable provided the wall can move up to 250A

(millimetres), where A is the design zonal acceleration ratio of 0.2. This corresponds to

displacements of up to approximately 50 millimetres at this site.


17

The earthquake-induced dynamic pressure distribution, which is to be added to the static earth

pressure distribution, is a linear distribution with maximum pressure at the top of the wall and

minimum pressure at the toe (i.e., an inverted triangular pressure distribution). The total

pressure distribution (static plus seismic) may be determined as follows:

σh(d) = Kγd + (KAE – K) γ (H – d)

where, σh(d) Is the (static plus seismic) lateral earth pressure at depth, d, (kPa);

K Is the static active earth pressure coefficient, Ka (to be used for yielding walls);

K Is the static at-rest earth pressure coefficient, Ko (to be used for non-yielding walls);

KAE Is the seismic active earth pressure coefficient;

γ Is the unit weight of the backfill soil (kN / m3), as given previously.

d Is the depth below the top of the wall (m); and

H Is the total height of the wall (m).

The abutment backfill should be benched into the cut slopes in accordance with OPSD 208.010.

6.7. APPROACH RECONSTRUCTION

Backfill to the abutments and wing walls should be completed as recommended previously in Section 6.5

“Lateral Earth Pressure for Design”. Additional fill placed to re-establish the approaches to the bridge up

to the subgrade level of the pavement structure may utilize the existing gravel and sand fill, silty

gravelly sand fill and native silty sand till described in Sections 5.3 and 5.5 provided that these

materials are consistently dry of optimum moisture content during compaction activities and any

oversize cobbles and boulders are removed. If rock fill is used as backfill, a geotextile fabric should be

used to separate the rock from any granular material placed above it to minimize material loss into the

open voids of the rock. The upper surface of the rock fill should also be chinked.

Reconstruction of the bridge approaches should be carried out as follows:


18

Remove the native soils and existing fill materials behind the abutment walls within a wedge-

shaped zone extending from 1.2 m behind the base of the abutments and rising upward at an

inclination of 1.0 vertical to 1.5 horizontal, according to OPSD 3101.150.

Further excavate beyond the foundation backfill zone for a frost taper as prescribed by OPSD

3101.150.

Inspect the exposed subsoil checking for any areas of soft material. Remove all areas of soft and

weak material and replace with suitable granular fill compacted to 98% of SPMDD. Replacement

granular fill should consist of OPSS Granular ‘B’Type II.

Place OPSS Granular ‘B’ Type II in thin loose lifts (not exceeding 200 mm thickness) and compact

to 98% of SPMDD within the foundation backfill zone and frost taper.

Place and compact additional fill as required to re-establish the approaches to the bridge up to

the subgrade level of the pavement structure. The existing sand and gravel fill and native silty

sand described in sections 5.3 and 5.5 excavated from the site may be used for this purpose,

provided any oversize cobbles and boulders are excluded from the fill and the material is

consistently dry of optimum moisture content. The fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not

exceeding 200 mm in thickness and compacted to 98% of SPMDD.

The fill placement and compaction operations should be monitored and compaction testing

performed by qualified geotechnical engineering technicians to confirm compliance to project

specifications, and recommendations provided herein.

The backfilling and reconstruction of the bridge approaches should take place under favourable

climatic conditions. If the work is carried out in months where freezing temperatures may occur,

all frost affected material must be removed prior to the placement of frost-free fill.

The pavement structure of the bridge approaches should match the existing, adjacent conditions, or

comply with the engineering standards for the Town of Mississippi Mills.


19

7.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1. SITE INSPECTIONS

It is recommended that all footing excavations be inspected and approved by qualified geotechnical

engineering personnel to ensure that the founding bedrock conditions correspond to those encountered in

the boreholes, that footings are placed within the correct strata and that all excavations are dry and free of

loosened, fracture and any otherwise deleterious materials. All backfilling operations should also be

supervised to ensure that proper material is employed and that the specified compaction is achieved.

7.2. WINTER CONDITIONS

In the event of construction during freezing temperatures, the founding stratum should be protected from

freezing by the use of loose straw, tarpaulins, propane heaters or other suitable means. In this regard, the

base of the excavations should be insulated from sub-zero temperatures immediately upon exposure and

until such time the footings are protected with sufficient soil cover to prevent freezing at the founding level.

deanl

Typewritten Text

20

deanl

Typewritten Text

deanl

Typewritten Text


APPENDIX 1

Site Location Plan

Drawing No. 60158.005.1

Borehole Location Plan

Drawing No. 60158.005.2


APPENDIX 2

Symbols and Terms

Logs of Boreholes

(BH12-01 to BH12–02)

SYMBOLS AND TERMS SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL GENISIS Topsoil : Mixture of soils 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 : Materials below the surface identified as placed by humans (excluding buried services) 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 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MC% : Natural moisture content or water content of sample, % LL : Liquid limit, % (water content above which soils behaves as a liquid) PL : Plastic limit, % (water content above which soil behaves plastically) PI : Plastic index, % (difference between LL and PL) Dxx : Grain size at which xx% of the soil, by weight, is of finer grain sizes. These grain size descriptions are not used below

0.075 mm grain size. D10 : Grain size at which 10% of the soil is finer (effective grain size) D60 : Grain size at which 60% of the soil is finer. Cc : Concavity coefficient = (D30)² / (D10 X D60) Cu : Uniformity coefficient = D60 / D10 SAMPLE TYPE SS : Spilt 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 WS : Wash Sample HQ, NQ, BQ, etc. : Rock core samples obtained with the use of standard size diamond coring bits N-VALUE – STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE Numbers in this column are the field results of the Standard Penetration Test(SPT): the number of blows of a 140 pound(64kg) hammer falling 30 inches (760mm), required to drive a 2 inch (50.8mm) O.D. split spoon sampler one foot (305mm) into the soil. 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 millimeters (e.g. 50/75). Some design methods make use of N-value corrected for various factors such as overburden pressure, energy ratio, borehole diameter, etc. No corrections have been applied to the N-value presented on the log. SOIL DESCRIPTION

A) COHESIONLESS SOILS Density Index (Relative Density) (Blows / 300mm or Blows / ft) Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense Over 50

B) COHESIVE SOILS Consistency Undrained Shear Strength

- Kpa Psf Very Soft 0 to 12 0 to 250 Soft 12 to 25 250 to 500 Firm 25 to 50 500 to 1000 Stiff 50 to 100 1000 to 2000 Very Stiff 100 to 200 2000 to 4000 Hard Over 200 Over 4000 RECOVERY For soil samples, the recovery is recorded as the length of the soil sample recovered divided by the total length of sampling and is recorded as a percentage on a per sample basis.

SYMBOLS AND TERMS (CONT’D) 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 is used as a probe to assess soil variability. CONSOLIDATION TEST P’ο : Present effective overburden pressure at sample depth. P’с : Preconsolidation pressure of (maximum past pressure on) sample. Ccr : Recompression index (in effect at pressures below P’c) Cc : Compression index (in effect at pressures above P’c) OC ratio : Overconsolidation retio = P’c / P’o Void Ratio : Initial sample void retio = Volume of Voids / Volume of solids Wo : Initial water content (at start of consolidation test) ROCK DESCRIPTION ROCK WEATHERING Term Description Fresh : No Visible signs of rock weathering. Slight discoloration along major discontinuities. Slightly Weathered : Discoloration indicates weathering of rock on discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored. Moderately Weathered : Less than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into the soil. Highly Weathered : More than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into the soil. Completely Weathered : All the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into the soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact. ROCK MASS: Spacing (mm) Joint Classification Bedding, Laminates, Bands > 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 CORE CONDITION Total Core Recovery (TCR): The percentage of solid drill core recovered regardless of quality or length, measured relative to the length of the total core run Solid Core Recovery (SCR): The percentage of solid drill core, regardless the length, recovered at the full diameter, measure relative to the length of the total core run. Rock Quality Designation (RQD): Rock quality classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage (Rock Quality Designation) RQD in which all pieces of sound core over 100mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting or weathering in the mass and are not counted. RQD was originally intended to be done on NW core; however it can be used on different core sizes if the bulk of the fractures caused by drilling stresses are easily distinguishable from in situ fractures. The terminology describing rock mass quality based on RQD is subjective and is underlain by the resumption that sound strong rock is of higher engineering value than fractured weak rock. ROCK QUALITY RQD Rock Mass Quality 0 to 25 Very Poor 25 to 50 Poor 50 to 75 Fair 75 to 90 Good 90 to 100 Excellent ROCK STRENGTH Strength Classification Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) Extremely Weak < 1 Very Weak 1 – 5 Weak 5 – 25 Medium Strong 25 – 50 Strong 50 – 100 Very Strong 100 – 250 Extremely Strong > 250 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT __: Measured in Standpipe, __: Inferred _ Piezometer, or well _

99.30

98.98

97.46

96.65

93.60

REC=77%RQD=70%

REC=100%RQD=74%

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (45mm)FILL: crushed gravel and sand, trace silt,grey-brown, compact, moistFILL: silty clay, trace sand and gravel,occasional cobbles and boulders, brown,soft to firm, moist

becoming red-brown and wet

SILTY SAND TILL: trace gravel occasionalcobbles, light brown, compact to dense,moist

BEDROCK: granite, fair rock mass quality,slightly weathered, moderately to widelyspaced bedding plane fractures, white withgrey and pink bandsbecoming fresh below 96.44 m

End of borehole at 5.74 m

Terminated at 5.74 m in granite bedrock.

Shear Strength byPenetrometer Test

06/25/12

Hollow Stem Auger / NQ Core

Local TBM - 100.00m

Mississippi Mills, ON

S

Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:Shelby Tube

Shear Strength by

Undrained Triaxial at% Strain at Failure

Split Spoon Sample

Location:

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Combustible Vapour Reading

Natural Moisture Content

Atterberg Limits

Vane Test

Dynamic Cone Test

20 40 60 80

DEPTH

60158.005

of

Depth toCave(m)

Date/Time

1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0

1

2

3

4

5

50 100 150 200

Combustible Vapour Reading (ppm)Standard Penetration Test N Value

Project: Mill of Kintail Bridge Replacement Drawing No.

WaterLevel(m)

Natural Moisture Content (%)Atterberg Limits (% Dry Weight)kPa

99.34

Log of Borehole BH12-01

Sheet No. 1

Notes:

20 40 60

SYMBOL

Project No.

ELEV.m

GWL

SAMPLES

250 500 750

2-1

Hammer Type:Automatic Full Weight

AdditionalLaboratory

TestingShear Strength

LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE 2

60

158.

005

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S.G

PJ

AM

E_O

N.G

DT

07

/24/

12

3.9

19.3

24.8

3.1

35

6

R

R

99.31

97.59

96.16

92.40

GW

GW

REC=67%RQD=13%

REC=87%RQD=0%

REC=95%RQD=88%

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (50mm)FILL: silty gravelly sand, brown, compact toloose, moist

SILTY SAND TILL: trace gravel, occasionalcobbles, light brown, compact to dense,moist

BEDROCK: granite, very poor rock massquality, moderately weathered, grey withwhite and pink bands

25 mm clay infilled seam at 95.17 m

40 mm clay infilled seam at 94.94 m

becoming good rock mass quality and freshbelow 93.49 m

End of borehole at 6.96 m

Terminated at 6.96 m in granite bedrock.

Shear Strength byPenetrometer Test

06/25/12

Hollow Stem Auger / NQ Core

Local TBM - 100.00m

Mississippi Mills, ON

S

Date Drilled:

Drill Type:

Datum:Shelby Tube

Shear Strength by

Undrained Triaxial at% Strain at Failure

Split Spoon Sample

Location:

Auger Sample

SPT (N) Value

Combustible Vapour Reading

Natural Moisture Content

Atterberg Limits

Vane Test

Dynamic Cone Test

20 40 60 80

DEPTH

60158.005

of

Depth toCave(m)

Date/Time

1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

50 100 150 200

Combustible Vapour Reading (ppm)Standard Penetration Test N Value

Project: Mill of Kintail Bridge Replacement Drawing No.

WaterLevel(m)

Natural Moisture Content (%)Atterberg Limits (% Dry Weight)kPa

99.36

Log of Borehole BH12-02

Sheet No. 1

Notes:

20 40 60

SYMBOL

Project No.

ELEV.m

GWL

SAMPLES

250 500 750

2-2

Hammer Type:Automatic Full Weight

AdditionalLaboratory

TestingShear Strength

LOG

OF

BO

RE

HO

LE 2

60

158.

005

BO

RE

HO

LE L

OG

S.G

PJ

AM

E_O

N.G

DT

07

/24/

12

6.5

9.3

13.3

8.3

10.2

11

4

17

40

R


APPENDIX 3

Grain Size Analysis Report

Rock Core Uniaxial Compressive Strength Report

Moisture Content Test Results

Paracel Chemical Results


Tested By: A.Hawkins Checked By: A.O'Keefe

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Source of Sample: BH12-02 Depth: 2.5'-4.5' Sample Number: BH1202SS2

Source of Sample: BH12-02 Depth: 7.5'-9.5' Sample Number: BH1202SS4

Figure

LL PL D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TEST DATE USCS NM

8.7022 0.4552 0.2697 0.0969

3.2243 0.7503 0.4010 0.0803

Silty Gravelly Sand June 28,2012Silty Sand trace Gravel June 28,2012

60158.005 Town of Mississippi Mills

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T C

OR

SE

R

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay

0.0 21.3 53.2 25.5

0.0 9.8 61.0 29.2

6 in.

3 in.

2 in.

1½

in.

1 in.

¾ in.

½ in.

3/8

in.

#4

#10

#20

#30

#40

#60

#100

#140

#200

Particle Size Distribution Report

RFQ-2012-01 Mill of Kintail Bridge

AME Materials Engineering

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 06/28/2012

Client: Town of Mississippi MillsProject: RFQ-2012-01 Mill of Kintail BridgeProject Number: 60158.005Location: BH12-02Depth: 2.5'-4.5' Sample Number: BH1202SS2Material Description: Silty Gravelly SandTest Date: June 28,2012Tested by: A.Hawkins Checked by: A.O'Keefe

Sieve Test Data

DrySample

and Tare(grams)

Tare(grams)

CumulativePan

Tare Weight(grams)

SieveOpening

Size

CumulativeWeight

Retained(grams)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

234.99 0.00 0.00 150.0 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

26.5 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

19 mm 13.30 94.3 5.7

16.0 mm 20.20 91.4 8.6

13.2 mm 23.20 90.1 9.9

9.5 mm 32.50 86.2 13.8

4.75 mm 50.10 78.7 21.3

2.36 mm 62.20 73.5 26.5

1.18 mm 72.40 69.2 30.8

0.6 mm 84.60 64.0 36.0

0.3 mm 112.40 52.2 47.8

0.15 mm 145.60 38.0 62.0

0.075 mm 175.00 25.5 74.5

Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

21.3

Sand

53.2

Silt Clay

D10 D15 D20 D30

0.0969

D50

0.2697

D60

0.4552

D80

5.5101

D85

8.7022

D90

12.9697

D95

19.6619

FinenessModulus

2.44


GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 06/28/2012

Client: Town of Mississippi MillsProject: RFQ-2012-01 Mill of Kintail BridgeProject Number: 60158.005Location: BH12-02Depth: 7.5'-9.5' Sample Number: BH1202SS4Material Description: Silty Sand trace GravelTest Date: June 28,2012Tested by: A.Hawkins Checked by: A.O'Keefe

Sieve Test Data

DrySample

and Tare(grams)

Tare(grams)

CumulativePan

Tare Weight(grams)

SieveOpening

Size

CumulativeWeight

Retained(grams)

PercentFiner

PercentRetained

366.35 0.00 0.00 150.0 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

26.5 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

19 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

16.0 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

13.2 mm 0.00 100.0 0.0

9.5 mm 7.80 97.9 2.1

4.75 mm 35.80 90.2 9.8

2.36 mm 73.00 80.1 19.9

1.18 mm 119.50 67.4 32.6

0.6 mm 159.40 56.5 43.5

0.3 mm 199.20 45.6 54.4

0.15 mm 230.20 37.2 62.8

0.075 mm 259.30 29.2 70.8

Fractional Components

Cobbles

0.0

Gravel

9.8

Sand

61.0

Silt Clay

D10 D15 D20 D30

0.0803

D50

0.4010

D60

0.7503

D80

2.3499

D85

3.2243

D90

4.6650

D95

7.1324

FinenessModulus

2.25

215 Stafford Rd. West, Unit 104

Ottawa, Ontario K2H 9C1

Phone: 613-726-3039

Fax: 613-726-3004

e-mail: [email protected]

Core Kilo Diameter Height Mass Area Volume Age Type of Unit Mass Strength L/D Correction Corrected

# Newtons (mm) (m) (kg) (m2)

(m3) (Years) Fracture (kg/m

3) (Mpa) Ratio Factor Strength (MPA)

BH12-01

RC-5

Comments:

128.4 44.6 0.134 0.5480

Uniaxial Compressive Strength

Test Report

Rock Core

Project Number: 60158.005

1 82.20.000210.00160 3.0:1Vertical 2618 82.2

CCIL Certified Concrete Testing Laboratory

Reviewed By :

Project Name: Mill of Kintail Bridge

Job No.: Date Sampled:

Job Name: Date Tested:

Source: Tested By:

BH12-01 BH 12-01 BH 12-01 BH 12-01 BH 12-01

SS-1A SS-1B SS-2 SS-3A SS-3B

0.5'-2.5' 0.5'-2.5' 2.5'-4.5' 5'-7' 5'-7'

1 2 3 4 5

Weight of Tare (t ) 46.01 45.40 45.68 45.72 45.94

Weight of tare & wet sample (A ) 131.95 126.14 126.10 138.20 113.66

Weight of tare & dry sample (B ) 130.07 121.77 113.11 120.03 99.96

Weight of Water = (A-B ) 1.88 4.37 12.99 18.17 13.70

Weight of dry sample (C )=(B-t ) 84.06 76.37 67.43 74.31 54.02

Moisture Content = (A-B)/C*100 2.2 5.7 19.3 24.5 25.4

X - Conforming

- Non Conforming(Attach Report)

- Meets Spec

- Out of Spec

Comments:

BH 12-01

SS-4

7.5'-9.5'

6

Weight of Tare (t ) 45.54

Weight of tare & wet sample (A ) 139.00

Weight of tare & dry sample (B ) 136.18

Weight of Water = (A-B ) 2.82

Weight of dry sample (C )=(B-t ) 90.64

Moisture Content = (A-B)/C*100 3.1

X - Conforming


- Meets Spec

- Out of Spec

Comments:

Tare Number

Depth (m)

Sample Number

Tare Number

Depth (m)

Page 1 of 2

Moisture Content of Soils and Aggregates (ASTM D-2216)

Sample Number

June 26,2012

June 27,2012

A.Hawkins

60158.005

Mill of Kintail Bridge

Kintail Bridge

Job No.: Date Sampled:

Job Name: Date Tested:

Source: Tested By:

BH12-02 BH12-02 BH12-02 BH12-02 BH12-02

SS-1 SS-2 SS-3A SS-3B SS-4

0.5'-2.5 2.5'-4.5' 5'-7' 5'-7' 7.5'-9.5'

1 2 3 4 5

Weight of Tare (t ) 45.97 250.44 46.37 45.67 252.08

Weight of tare & wet sample (A ) 152.60 507.26 156.84 118.69 652.32

Weight of tare & dry sample (B ) 146.07 485.43 143.83 116.16 618.43

Weight of Water = (A-B ) 6.53 21.83 13.01 2.53 33.89

Weight of dry sample (C )=(B-t ) 100.10 234.99 97.46 70.49 366.35

Moisture Content = (A-B)/C*100 6.5 9.3 13.3 3.6 9.3

X - Conforming


- Meets Spec

- Out of Spec

Comments:

BH12-02

SS-5

10'-12'

6

Weight of Tare (t ) 45.73

Weight of tare & wet sample (A ) 131.18

Weight of tare & dry sample (B ) 123.25

Weight of Water = (A-B ) 7.93

Weight of dry sample (C )=(B-t ) 77.52

Moisture Content = (A-B)/C*100 10.2

X - Conforming


- Meets Spec

- Out of Spec

Comments:

Tare Number

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Page 2 of 2

Tare Number

June 26,201260158.005

Mill of Kintail Bridge June 27,2012

Kintail Bridge

Sample Number

Depth (m)

Moisture Content of Soils and Aggregates (ASTM D-2216)

A.Hawkins

Order Date: 27-Jun-2012 Report Date: 28-Jun-2012

Fax: (613) 726-3004Phone: (613) 726-3039

Client PO: 60158.005

This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:

Custody: 93511

Attn: Andrew InouyeOttawa, ON K2H9C1215 Stafford Rd. West Suite 104


Paracel ID Client ID


Order #: 1226170Project: 60158.005

1226170-01 Surface Sample

Approved By:Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BScLaboratory Director

Page 1 of 7

Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work

Cer ficate of AnalysisClient:

Report Date: 28‐Jun‐2012Order Date:27‐Jun‐2012

Client PO: 60158.005 Project Descrip on: 60158.005


Order #: 1226170

Analysis Summary TableAnalysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 300.1 - IC 28-Jun-12 28-Jun-12AnionsEPA 150.1 - pH probe @25 °C 28-Jun-12 28-Jun-12pHEPA 120.1 - probe 28-Jun-12 28-Jun-12Resistivity

Page 2 of 7





Order #: 1226170

Client ID: Surface Sample - - -Sample Date: ---25-Jun-12

1226170-01 - - -Sample ID:MDL/Units Water - - -

General InorganicspH ---7.70.1 pH Units

Resistivity ---32.10.01 Ohm.m

AnionsChloride ---121 mg/L

Sulphate ---71 mg/L

Page 3 of 7





Order #: 1226170

Method Quality Control: Blank

Analyte ResultReporting

Limit UnitsSourceResult %REC

%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride ND 1 mg/LSulphate ND 1 mg/L

Page 4 of 7





Order #: 1226170

Method Quality Control: Duplicate



%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 1680 10 mg/L 1710 102.3Sulphate 3.55 1 mg/L 3.43 103.4

General InorganicspH 8.3 0.1 pH Units 8.3 100.2Resistivity 32.2 0.01 Ohm.m 32.1 200.5

Page 5 of 7





Order #: 1226170

Method Quality Control: Spike


Limit Units SourceResult

%REC %RECLimit

RPDRPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 10.5 ND 105 78-112mg/LSulphate 13.7 3.43 102 75-111mg/L

Page 6 of 7





Order #: 1226170

Qualifier Notes :None

Sample Data Revisions

None

Work Order Revisions / Comments :

None

Other Report Notes :

MDL: Method Detection Limitn/a: not applicable

Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples%REC: Percent recovery.RPD: Relative percent difference.

Page 7 of 7

Order Date: 27-Jun-2012 Report Date: 4-Jul-2012

Fax: (613) 726-3004Phone: (613) 726-3039

Client PO: 60158.005

This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:

Custody: 93511

Attn: Andrew InouyeOttawa, ON K2H9C1215 Stafford Rd. West Suite 104


Paracel ID Client ID

AME Materials Engineering (Ottawa)

Order #: 1226171Project: 60158.005

1226171-01 BH12-01 SS-41226171-02 BH12-02 SS-5

Approved By:Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BScLaboratory Director

Page 1 of 7

Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work


Report Date: 04‐Jul‐2012Order Date:27‐Jun‐2012


AME Materials Engineering (O awa)

Order #: 1226171

Analysis Summary TableAnalysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction 30-Jun-12 30-Jun-12AnionsEPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 28-Jun-12 29-Jun-12pHEPA 120.1 - probe, water extraction 29-Jun-12 29-Jun-12ResistivityGravimetric, calculation 29-Jun-12 29-Jun-12Solids, %

Page 2 of 7





Order #: 1226171

Client ID: BH12-01 SS-4 BH12-02 SS-5 - -Sample Date: --25-Jun-1225-Jun-12

1226171-01 1226171-02 - -Sample ID:MDL/Units Soil Soil - -

Physical Characteristics% Solids --89.896.70.1 % by Wt.

General InorganicspH --7.707.780.05 pH Units

Resistivity --11.942.20.10 Ohm.m

AnionsChloride --729765 ug/g dry

Sulphate --205395 ug/g dry

Page 3 of 7





Order #: 1226171

Method Quality Control: Blank



%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride ND 5 ug/gSulphate ND 5 ug/g

Page 4 of 7





Order #: 1226171

Method Quality Control: Duplicate



%RECLimit RPD

RPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 7.6 5 ug/g dry 7.5 201.8Sulphate 66.8 5 ug/g dry 67.3 200.7

General InorganicspH 7.43 0.05 pH Units 7.39 100.5Resistivity 29.3 0.10 Ohm.m 29.6 200.9

Physical Characteristics% Solids 89.6 0.1 % by Wt. 87.6 252.3

Page 5 of 7





Order #: 1226171

Method Quality Control: Spike


Limit Units SourceResult

%REC %RECLimit

RPDRPDLimit Notes

AnionsChloride 11.6 0.7 109 78-113mg/LSulphate 17.6 6.73 108 78-111mg/L

Page 6 of 7





Order #: 1226171

Qualifier Notes :None

Sample Data Revisions

None

Work Order Revisions / Comments :

None

Other Report Notes :

MDL: Method Detection Limitn/a: not applicable

Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples%REC: Percent recovery.RPD: Relative percent difference.Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'.Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.

Page 7 of 7

Date post:	02-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	1 times

Geotechnical Investigation Mill of Kintail Bridge ......Geotechnical Investigation – Report No....

Documents