Geotechnical Investigation, Revision 2 - CivicPlus

Prepared for:

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87

4905 - 50 Avenue, Bag 1010, Bonnyville, AB T9N 2J7 8-Sep-20

Geotechnical Investigation, Revision 2

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 - Cold Lake M.D

Campground

Cold Lake, Alberta

Project # ET200011


Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 - Cold Lake M.D. Campground

Cold Lake, Alberta

Project # ET200011

Prepared for:


4905 – 50 Avenue, Bag 1010, Bonnyville, AB T9N 2J7

Prepared by:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions

2B-5803 63 Avenue

Lloydminster, Alberta T9V 3T7

Canada

T: 780-875-8975

8-Sep-20

Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions).

save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Wood under license. To the extent

that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than

the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not

be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may constitute

an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this

report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and

for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access

it by any means. Wood excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever

arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death

resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.



Project # ET200011 | 9/8/2020 Page ii

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General .................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Site and Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Subsurface Soil Conditions .............................................................................................................................................. 2

3.1 General Stratigraphy .......................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1.1 Topsoil .................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.1.2 Gravel Fill ............................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1.3 Surficial Sand ........................................................................................................................................ 3

3.1.4 Organic Clay ......................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1.5 Clay Till.................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1.6 Lower Sand ........................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Groundwater and Sloughing Conditions ................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Water Soluble Sulphates .................................................................................................................................. 4

4.0 Frost Action ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5

5.0 Geotechnical Appraisal ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

6.0 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

6.1 Site Preparation, Grading and Drainage .................................................................................................... 5

6.1.1 Subgrade Preparation ....................................................................................................................... 5

6.1.2 Engineered Fill ..................................................................................................................................... 6

6.1.3 Drainage ................................................................................................................................................. 6

6.1.4 Winter Construction .......................................................................................................................... 7

6.2 Shallow Foundations .......................................................................................................................................... 7

6.2.1 Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

6.2.2 Footing Construction ........................................................................................................................ 7

6.3 Screw Piles ............................................................................................................................................................. 8

6.3.1 Screw Pile Design ............................................................................................................................... 8

6.3.2 Installation and Monitoring of Screw Piles .............................................................................. 9

6.3.3 Frost Design Consideration for Piles .......................................................................................... 9

6.3.4 Pile Caps and Grade Beams ..........................................................................................................10

6.4 Excavations ..........................................................................................................................................................10

6.5 Backfill Settlement ............................................................................................................................................10

6.6 Frost Protection for Buried Utilities............................................................................................................11

6.7 Concrete Slabs ....................................................................................................................................................11

6.7.1 Subgrade Preparation for Heated Structures ........................................................................11

6.7.2 Exterior Grade Supported or Unheated Concrete Slabs ...................................................12

6.8 Pavements ............................................................................................................................................................12

6.9 Concrete Type ....................................................................................................................................................13

6.10 Seismic Site Classification ..............................................................................................................................14

7.0 Geotechnical Testing and Inspection .........................................................................................................................14

8.0 Closure ...................................................................................................................................................................................15



Project # ET200011 | 9/8/2020 Page iii

List of tables

Table 1: Measured Slough and Groundwater Levels .............................................................................................................. 4

Table 2: Water Soluble Sulphate Concentrations .................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Gradation of Pit Run Gravel ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Table 4: Gradation Requirement for Granular Backfill ........................................................................................................ 11

Table 5: Preliminary Pavement Sections ................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 6: Spectral Acceleration (5% Damped) – NBCC 2015 ............................................................................................. 14

List of appendices

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 – Borehole Location Plan

Borehole Logs (BH20-01 to BH20-05)

Explanation of Terms and Symbols

APPENDIX B

Limitations



Project # ET200011 | 9/8/2020 Page 1 of 15

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions (Wood) was retained by the Municipal District of Bonnyville

No. 87 to conduct a geotechnical investigation at Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 Cold Lake M.D.

Campground Site.

This report summarizes the results of the field and laboratory work and provides a discussion and

recommendations for the development.

Authorization to proceed with the scope of work was received from Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87

on 6 May 2020.

This revision includes revised pavement structure recommendations and supersedes the previous report

dated June 12, 2020.

1.2 Site and Project Description

The Cold Lake M.D. Campground Site is located at 230 – 1st Avenue within the town of Cold Lake, Alberta.

The Cold Lake M.D. Campground Site is bounded by 23 Street to the east, 1 Avenue to the south, and Cold

Lake to the north.

There are 72 existing campsites along the shore of Cold Lake. The Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 is

planning to expand the campground southwest of the existing campsites. The proposed expansion area is

about 26.9 hectare. At the time of the investigation, the site was generally tree covered and gently sloping

northeast towards Cold Lake. In the middle of the site, a portion of the land was shrubby swamp.

It is understood that the new expansion development consists of the following components:

• 61 new campsite lots and some of the existing campsites to be converted to pull-through lots to

accommodate larger units;

• 21 new tent sites;

• New access roads and parking lots;

• Existing road maintenance and repair;

• A playground;

• 3 shower and washroom sites;

• a picnic shelter; and

• Underground utility upgrading and new installation.

2.0 Geotechnical Investigation Prior to borehole drilling, Wood conducted necessary underground utility clearances in the vicinity of the

borehole locations through Alberta One Call.

On the 12th of May 2020, five (5) boreholes (BH20-01 to BH20-05) were drilled to a depth of about 6.6 m

below existing grade at pre-determined locations. No tree clearing was carried out during this investigation.

The borehole locations were selected to be in the accessible areas of the site.

Borehole locations were recorded in the field by Wood personnel using a hand-held GPS unit. The GPS

coordinates were referenced to NAD 83, Zone 12U. The recorded approximate borehole coordinates are

noted on the borehole logs. A site plan showing the locations of the boreholes advanced during this

investigation is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.




The boreholes were drilled using a truck-mounted drill rig with 150 mm diameter continuous flight solid-

stem augers. Supervision of drilling, soil sampling, and logging of the soil strata was performed by Wood

geotechnical personnel. Detailed borehole logs summarizing the sampling, field and laboratory testing,

groundwater and subsurface conditions encountered at the borehole locations are presented in Appendix

A.

The soil conditions encountered during drilling were described in accordance with the Modified Unified Soil

Classification System (MUSCS) as per the Explanation of Terms & Symbols in Appendix A. Soil sampling and

evaluation of in-situ soil consistency and relative density consisted of the following:

• Disturbed auger samples were obtained at depth intervals varying from 0.3 m to 1.5 m for moisture

content determinations (labeled G#). The moisture content profiles are shown on the borehole logs.

• Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were conducted in the boreholes at 1.5 m depth intervals to evaluate

the consistency of the various soil strata (labeled D#). SPT results, defined as the number of blows

required to drive the standard SPT split-spoon sampler 300 mm into the soil, were recorded and are

noted on the borehole logs as the SPT ‘N’ values.

• Pocket penetrometer (PP) readings were taken on disturbed soil samples to aid in determining the

relative consistency of the cohesive soils.

A 25 mm diameter PVC standpipe was installed in boreholes BH20-02 and BH20-05 for monitoring short

term groundwater levels. The boreholes were backfilled with drill cuttings and sealed with bentonite caps

at ground surface.

The depth to slough (collapsed soil) and groundwater levels in all boreholes were measured upon drilling

completion. The water levels in the standpipes were measured again on the 29th of May 2020, 17 days after

drilling completion.

Following completion of the field drilling program, a laboratory testing program was conducted on selected

soil samples. The laboratory tests consisted of moisture content determinations, Atterberg limits, and

soluble sulphate content analyses. The results of the laboratory program are noted on the borehole logs.

3.0 Subsurface Soil Conditions

3.1 General Stratigraphy

Since the majority of the site was covered with trees, organic topsoil is expected at the ground surface over

most of the site. No tree clearing was carried out during the investigation and the boreholes were drilled in

accessible areas of the site. Topsoil, gravel fill, sand, and organic clay were encountered at or near the

ground surface at the borehole locations. The organic clay encountered in borehole BH20-05 in the swamp

area extended to a depth of about 2.1 m. In general, clay till was encountered below the surficial soils. In

borehole BH20-01 to BH20-03, very dense sand was encountered below the clay till at depths varying from

3.4 m to 5.3 m. Detailed descriptions of the soil conditions encountered in the boreholes are provided on

the borehole logs attached in Appendix A.

For discussion purposes, a general description of soil types encountered at the borehole locations is

presented in the succeeding subsections.

3.1.1 Topsoil

A layer of topsoil with a thickness of about 150 mm was encountered at the ground surface in borehole

BH20-01.

Since the majority of the site was covered with trees, organic topsoil is expected at the ground surface over

most of the site. Conceivably, greater thicknesses of topsoil may be present on the site. If accurate topsoil




or organics thicknesses are required for a stripping volume estimate, it is recommended that additional

shallow probe holes or test pits be excavated on a more closely spaced grid across the site.

3.1.2 Gravel Fill

A layer of gravel fill with a thickness of about 150 mm was encountered at the ground surface in borehole

BH20-03 and BH20-04.

3.1.3 Surficial Sand

A layer of sand with a thickness of about 0.76 m was encountered at the ground surface in borehole BH20-

02. Sand was encountered below the gravel fill in borehole BH20-04 and extended to a depth of about 1.5

m below existing ground surface. The sand was compact, fine grained, light brown, and contained trace

gravel, and trace silt and clay. Properties measured in the clay till were:

• Moisture Content: varied between 9 and 17 percent.

3.1.4 Organic Clay

A layer of organic clay was encountered at the ground surface in borehole BH20-05 located in the shrubby

swamp area and extended to a depth of about 2.1 m below existing grade. The organic clay was black, and

contained trace organic inclusions and peat. Properties measured in the clay till were:

• Moisture Content:

Varied between 18 and 57 percent. The average moisture content of the organic clay samples was

36 percent.

• SPT ‘N’ Value:

One value of 7 measured at 1.7 m depth indicating a firm consistency.

3.1.5 Clay Till

Clay till was encountered below the surficial topsoil, sand, gravel fill or organic clay in all boreholes and

extended to depths ranging from 3.4 m to the maximum investigation depth of 6.6 m below existing grade.

The clay till was generally medium plastic, stiff to hard, greyish brown to dark grey, and contained trace

amounts of gravel and sand, and trace amounts of silt lenses and pockets, occasional to frequent oxide

inclusions. The clay till contained some silt at the top of the layer. Properties measured in the clay till were:


Varied between 8 and 28 percent, with the majority of values ranging between 9 and 21 percent.

The average moisture content of the clay till samples was about 15 percent.

• SPT ‘N’ Values:

Generally varied between 13 and 47, indicating a stiff to hard consistency. SPT ‘N’ values generally

increased with depth.

• Three (3) Atterberg limit tests:

Liquid Limit: 35 to 57 percent.

Plastic Limit: 13 to 21 percent.

Indicative of a medium to high plastic clay till.




3.1.6 Lower Sand

Sand was also encountered below the clay till in BH20-01 to BH20-03 and extended to the maximum

investigation depth of 6.6 m. The sand was very dense, fine grained, poorly graded, brown, contained trace

gravel, silt, and clay. Soil properties measured in the sand were:


Varied between 15 and 19 percent.

• SPT ‘N’ Values:

Varied between 71 and over 100, indicating a very dense relative density.

3.2 Groundwater and Sloughing Conditions

Accumulations of collapsed soils (slough) and groundwater levels were measured approximately ten

minutes following drilling completion at each of the borehole locations. Moderate sloughing was

encountered in all the boreholes. Negligible seepage was observed in boreholes BH20-01 and BH20-04.

Moderate seepage was encountered in boreholes BH20-02, BH20-03, and BH20-05. Groundwater levels in

the standpipes were also measured 17 days following drilling. Measured slough and groundwater levels are

summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Measured Slough and Groundwater Levels

Borehole

(m)

Depth to Top of

Slough at Drilling

Completion (m)

Groundwater

Level at Drilling

Completion (m)

Groundwater

Level on 29 May

2020 (m)

Well Screen Interval

(m bgs)

BH19-01 5.8 Negligible No Standpipe -

BH19-02 5.5 5.0 4.7 2.4 – 5.5

BH19-03 4.0 1.3 No Standpipe -

BH19-04 5.9 Negligible No Standpipe -

BH19-05 5.9 3.4 2.1 2.8 – 5.9

bgs= below ground surface

It should be recognized that the groundwater level is dependent on meteorological cycles and surface

drainage on a regional scale. Higher groundwater levels than those observed in this investigation may be

encountered following spring thaw and periods of prolonged precipitation. Seasonal fluctuations under

normal conditions are expected to be ±1.0 m from the observed groundwater level although greater

fluctuations are also possible.

3.3 Water Soluble Sulphates

Two (2) water soluble sulphate content tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the site. Table

2 below summarizes the results of the water soluble sulphate tests, indicating percent water soluble

sulphates by dry weight of soil.

Table 2: Water Soluble Sulphate Concentrations

Borehole Depth (m) Material Type Water-Soluble Sulphate

(%)

BH20-01 2.3 Clay Till 0.00

BH20-02 1.5 Clay Till 0.00




The values in boreholes BH20-01 and BH20-02 are considered negligible and indicate a low potential for

sulphate attack on concrete that comes in contact with native soils in these areas of the site.

4.0 Frost Action The clay till and surficial sand encountered at the site is expected to be moderately frost susceptible. The

estimated average depth of frost penetration for the near surface clay till is 2.2 m for a mean annual Air

Freezing Index (AFI) of 1,550 degree-days Celsius and 2.6 m for a 50 year return period AFI of 2,140 degree-

days. The estimated average depth of frost penetration for the surficial sand is 2.9 m for a mean annual Air

Freezing Index (AFI) of 1,550 degree-days Celsius and 3.4 m for a 50 year return period AFI of 2,140 degree-

days.

The 50-year return period frost penetration depth is generally used for design purposes.

The estimated frost penetration depth is for a uniform soil type with no insulative cover. If the area is covered

with turf or significant snow cover, the frost penetration depth will be less.

5.0 Geotechnical Appraisal It is understood that the development will not be located in the swamp areas. The subsurface soil conditions

encountered in this investigation are considered to be favorable for the proposed development.

For the proposed structures, the structural components may be supported on shallow foundations

(footings) bearing on the very stiff clay till, or on screw piles.

Cast-in-place concrete piles are not recommended due to the presence of sand and shallow groundwater

table on this site. Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles may be used to support relatively heavy structure

loads. However, since no relatively heavy loads are expected for this development, the recommendations

for CFA piles are not provided in this report and can be provided upon request.

For the proposed access roads, trails and parking lots, the subgrade support conditions are generally

favorable, with minimal stripping of organics. Moist clay till was encountered near ground surface at some

borehole locations, and moisture conditioning to dry subgrade soil for roadway and parking lot construction

should be expected.

6.0 Recommendations

6.1 Site Preparation, Grading and Drainage

6.1.1 Subgrade Preparation

The areas for the proposed structures, access roads, trail, and parking lots should be stripped of all organic

soils. Fill required to achieve the required top-of-subgrade elevation should consist of an engineered fill as

described in Subsection 6.1.2. Where loose, soft or disturbed areas are identified, the area should be

excavated to expose a stable subgrade and then should be backfilled with engineered fill.

The existing clay till or sand can be used for subgrades in all areas of the project. The subgrades should be

proof-rolled to check for soft spots. The proof-roll should be conducted with non-vibratory machinery with

an axle load of 80 kN to check for soft, loose or non-uniform areas. Any such areas detected should be

over-excavated to a maximum depth of 300 mm and replaced with engineered fill material. Alternatively, if

high groundwater tables do not allow for area to be over excavated, geotextile and/or geogrid may be

required.




6.1.2 Engineered Fill

Engineered fill may be required to bring the development areas up to design grade. Engineered fill should

preferably consist of well-graded gravel, or alternatively, low to medium plastic clay. The native clay till and

sand present on the site is suitable for engineered fill, subject to any requirements for moisture conditioning.

The engineered fill under concrete slabs should be placed in compacted lift thicknesses not exceeding 150

mm, with each lift compacted to 100 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD) at moisture

contents within ±2 percent of the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) at the time of compaction.

General fill for site grading should be placed in compacted lift thicknesses not exceeding 150 mm, with each

lift compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of SPMDD at moisture contents within ±2 percent of the OMC

at the time of compaction.

If gravel is to be used for engineered fill, as a minimum it should consist of 80 mm minus pit run gravel

meeting the gradation requirements outlined in Table 3 below. Other gravels may be considered, and

should be reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer.

Table 3: Gradation of Pit Run Gravel

Sieve Percent Passing

80 mm 100

50 mm 55-100

25 mm 38-100

16 mm 32-85

4.75 mm 20-65

0.315 mm 6-30

0.08 mm 2-10

All fill soils should be free from any organic materials, contamination, deleterious construction debris, and

stones greater than 80 mm in diameter. Environmental screening should be conducted on any fill source

of unknown origin and history. Fill construction and compaction should be monitored on a full-time basis,

including regular field density testing during placement at a frequency of a minimum of 1 test per 300 m2

per lift.

The engineered fill should extend at least 1 m beyond the footprint of any supported foundations or

pavement. Fill soils should be compacted uniformly over areas that will provide support for structural

elements or pavement in order to reduce potential for differential settlement. Fill should not be frozen at

the time of placement; nor should the fill be placed on a frozen subgrade or allowed to freeze during

construction.

6.1.3 Drainage

The prepared subgrade should be shaped to reduce the potential for ponding of water on the site. Excess

water should be drained or pumped from the site as quickly as possible, both during construction and over

the long-term use of the site.

Design finished grades within 2 m of building perimeters should provide surface drainage at approximately

a 2.0 percent grade away from the buildings. The upper 0.3 m of backfill around the buildings should

consist of compacted clay, or other impervious materials such as concrete or asphalt, to act as a seal against

the ingress of runoff water. The clay should extend for a distance of 3 m around the building and should




be graded at a slope of 2 percent away from the building. Roof and other drains should discharge at least

2 m clear of the building perimeter.

Permanent site surface drainage should be developed at early stages of construction to improve site

trafficability and reduce future frost effects in the subgrade. It is recommended that the finished subgrade

be sloped at a minimum gradient of 1 percent toward catch basins or adjacent roadways to drain any surface

water away from the structures.

6.1.4 Winter Construction

Fill placement and compaction during the winter months is not recommended since the required degree of

compaction cannot be attained using frozen fill soils or fill which appears to be unfrozen but is at

subfreezing temperatures. Even gravels, which give an appearance of being not affected by frozen

conditions, can contain ice crystals which limit the degree of compaction that could be attained. A high

degree of compaction during the winter months can only be achieved in fill soils that are unfrozen and are

not allowed to freeze during placement and compaction. This would necessitate that all fill soils are

unfrozen.

It should also be noted that unless the fill placement area is hoarded and heated, the addition of water to

the fill to promote its compaction would not be possible at freezing temperatures.

6.2 Shallow Foundations

6.2.1 Design

The native stiff to very stiff clay till is considered to be a suitable bearing medium to support strip and

square footings for the proposed structures.

Perimeter footings supporting heated structures should be founded with a minimum soil cover of 1.5 m

below finished grade to provide adequate protection against frost. Interior footings should be founded at

a minimum depth of 1 m below site grade.

Footings supporting unheated structures should have a minimum foundation depth of 3.0 m to minimize

frost heave effects. Alternatively, the foundations may be placed at shallower depths and insulated with

rigid Styrofoam (e.g. Styrofoam SM or equivalent).

Footings founded on the native stiff to very stiff clay till may be designed using recommended serviceability

limit state (SLS) bearing pressure values of 150 kPa and 180 kPa for strip and square footings respectively.

The corresponding unfactored ultimate limit state (ULS) bearing pressure values are 450 kPa and 540 kPa

for strip and square footings, respectively. The unfactored ULS bearing pressure should be multiplied by a

geotechnical resistance factor of 0.5 to obtain the factored ULS bearing values, per the recommendations

in the current Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual.

The recommended serviceability bearing resistance values are based on limiting the settlement to less than

25 mm, and are applicable to strip footings to a maximum dimension of 1.2 m wide or square footings

measuring up to 2 m x 2 m. If very strict settlement tolerances are required, or if larger footings are

proposed, the footing sizes and settlement potential should be reviewed by Wood.

6.2.2 Footing Construction

The following geotechnical recommendations are provided for the construction of shallow footings:

• The footings should be based on undisturbed native stiff to very stiff clay till.

• The bearing surface of each footing should be excavated in a manner to minimize disturbance of the

subgrade. Any loose soils on the bearing surfaces should be removed.




• It is possible that the clay till, being a heterogeneous material, may contain cobbles. Where these

obstructions are located above or near the bearing surface they should be removed and backfilled with

engineered fill during preparation of the bearing surface.

• The bearing surfaces should be protected from rain, snow and the ingress of free water, as the

foundation soils may experience loss of bearing strength should they be subjected to increases in

moisture. In this case, softened soils would have to be removed and the footings extended to suitable

bearing soils.

• The foundation soils beneath the footings must not be allowed to freeze during construction or during

the service life of the building. Footings founded on frozen soil during construction may settle when

the founding soils thaw. Bearing soils that become frozen during construction should be removed and

replaced with concrete fill, or the embedment depths should be extended to unfrozen native soils.

• It is possible that during construction, groundwater seepage or rainfall may be encountered. In either

of these cases, drainage of footing excavations will be required to facilitate footing construction. It is

anticipated that dewatering can be achieved by gravity drainage into small sumps or perimeter ditches

within the excavations, which could be pumped out as required. The crests of the foundation

excavations should be graded such as to direct surface water runoff away from the excavations.

• A geotechnical engineer or qualified technician should observe the exposed bearing surface prior to

placement of foundation concrete to check that the exposed subgrade is competent soil as identified

in the geotechnical report, and is suitably prepared, as discussed above.

6.3 Screw Piles

6.3.1 Screw Pile Design

Screw piles are also considered as a suitable foundation type for this development, especially for lightly

loaded structures or structures carrying uplift loads. The screw piles can be installed in the clay till, however

it could be challenging to install the screw piles in the very dense sand that was encountered below the clay

till.

For a single helix screw pile founded in the very stiff to hard clay till below 4 m depth, the unfactored

ultimate axial capacity on compression Quc, may be estimated by the following:

𝑄𝑢𝑐 = 𝑁𝑐 𝐶𝑢𝜋 𝐷2

4 [6-1]

For a single helix screw pile founded in stiff to hard clay till below 4 m depth, the unfactored ultimate axial

capacity in tension Qut, may be estimated by the following:

𝑄𝑢𝑡 = 𝑁𝑢 𝐶𝑢𝜋 (𝐷2− 𝑑2)

4 [6-2]

Where: Cu = undrained shear strength at the depth of the helix plate

(use 180 kPa below 4 m depth from the existing ground surface)

Nc = 9 when D ≤ 0.5 m; 7 when D > 0.5 m

Nu = 1.2ּH/D ≤ 9

H = depth of the helix

D = diameter of the helix

d = diameter of the shaft

Multiple helices should be spaced a minimum of 3 helix diameters apart along the pile shaft, at increments

of the helix pitch; in this case, the ultimate geotechnical resistance may be taken as the summation of the

capacities of the individual helices. For piles in compression, the ultimate capacity of the bottom helix should




be calculated by Equation [6-1], and the ultimate capacity of each additional helix by Equation [6-2] but

using Nc rather than Nu.

Shaft friction should generally be ignored in design for small diameter shafts due to potential effects of

disturbance and loss of shaft adhesion.

It should be recognized that helical pile capacities are highly dependent on the pile design geometry and

method of installation. It is therefore generally industry practice for the piling contractor to design and

warrant the pile designs based on the design loads and expected soil conditions. The helical pile design

should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. In addition, the structural capacity should be checked for

the applied loading conditions.

Helical piles should not be installed at spacing closer than three times the largest helix diameter, center to

center.

To determine the factored Ultimate Limit States (ULS) compressive resistance of a screw pile, a resistance

factor of 0.4 should be applied to the unfactored compressive resistance (Qu). To determine the factored

ULS uplift resistance of a screw pile, a resistance factor of 0.3 should be applied to the unfactored uplift

resistance.

6.3.2 Installation and Monitoring of Screw Piles

The penetration rate of a screw pile as it is rotated into the ground during installation should be equal to

the pitch of the helix plate. The spacing between the helix plates should be in even multiples of the pitch,

such that the paths travelled by upper helices are coincidental with the path of the lower-most helix.

Monitoring of the pile installations by qualified personnel is recommended to confirm that the screw piles

are installed in accordance with acceptable installation procedures. To provide an indication of the vertical

load resistance, the monitoring should include measurement and recording of the torques applied for each

pile. The use of torque measurement as the sole basis for design is not recommended since there are

considerable differences between the actual load resistances and those derived from empirical relationships

between torque and pile resistances.

6.3.3 Frost Design Consideration for Piles

Piles supporting components that will be outside the influence of any beneficial heat transfer may be subject

to upward frost jacking forces, if they are located within the frost depth. For those foundation components

within the depth of frost penetration, adfreeze stress are likely to develop along pile shafts, and along the

sides of the pile caps and grade beams. Void form should be provided below grade beams and pile caps in

areas subject to subgrade freezing either during or after construction.

Resistance to adfreeze stresses on piles will be provided by the shaft resistance below the depth of frost

penetration, the weight of the pile and by the sustained compressive loads. For foundation design purposes,

an unfactored adfreeze uplift pressure of 100 kPa for steel piles applied over a depth of frost penetration

of 3.0 m should be used. For perimeter piles supporting heated and insulated structures, the depth for frost

cover may be reduced to 1.5 m. To determine the factored uplift resistance against frost jacking in terms of

ULS, a resistance factor, Ф, of 0.8 should be applied to the unfactored ultimate shaft resistance values for

the unfactored uplift resistance for screw piles.

In the case of piles subjected to live uplift loads as well as to frost jacking forces, the live uplift load need

not be additive to the frost jacking forces. The potential for frost jacking of pile caps due to adfreeze forces

along the sides of the pile caps can be reduced by wrapping the pile caps through the frost zone with a

minimum of two layers of 10 mm polyethylene sheeting.




6.3.4 Pile Caps and Grade Beams

Precautions should be taken to reduce the potential for heaving of the pile caps and grade beams due to

frost penetration. The potential for frost heaving forces can be greatly reduced by the placement of a

compressible material or by providing a void between the underside of the pile cap and the soil. A product

such as Voidform (or equivalent) is recommended. The minimum thickness of the void should be 150 mm.

Should a compressible material be used as an alternative to Voidform, the uplift pressure acting on the

underside of the pile caps may be taken as the crushing strength of the compressible medium.

The finished grade adjacent to each pile cap should be capped with clay and sloped away so that surface

runoff is not allowed to accumulate in the void space or in the compressible medium. If water can

accumulate in the void spaces, the beneficial effect of the void space will be negated and frost-heaving

pressures acting on the underside of the pile caps will occur.

Adfreeze stresses along the sides of pile caps and buried substructures can be reduced by the installation

of a “bond-break” within the zone of frost penetration. For grade beams, pile caps and most substructures,

a suitable bond-break medium could consist of a Dow Ethafoam product, or polyethylene wrapping as

discussed previously. A smooth geosynthetic liner material, fixed to the shaft of the pile or to the sides of

the pile cap would also be a suitable bond-break.

6.4 Excavations

For this project, it is envisaged that excavations will be required for service trenches. The following

recommendations are provided, assuming that the excavation depth will not exceed 4 m below existing

grade. Based on this assumed excavation depth and the soil conditions encountered at the borehole

locations, such excavations will primarily extend into surficial sand and clay till. Under the terms of current

Alberta Occupational Health and Safety regulations, the site soils should be considered as ‘soils likely to

crack and crumble’. Accordingly, for open short term excavations, less than 1.5 m in depth, near-vertical

excavation side slope may be considered in clay till. For open unsupported short term excavations, deeper

than 1.5 m, the side slopes should be cut back at inclinations not steeper than 1H:1V in clay till and not

steeper than 2H:1V in sand. Flatter inclinations may be required in localized zones if sloughing conditions

are encountered. Short term excavations are those which will remain open for a period of 2 months or less.

As a minimum, excavations should comply with Regulations set forth by the Alberta Occupational Health

and Safety Act. The stability of all excavations should be monitored by the excavation contractor on an on-

going basis. Where tension cracks, or ravelling soils are detected, these conditions should be brought to

the immediate attention of Wood so that engineered solutions to the problem areas can be appropriately

determined.

It is expected that groundwater seepage may be encountered in some areas during excavation. Seepage

volumes should be relatively low, and controllable with shallow sumps and submersible pumps. Fill

placement to replace excavated soil should be done on a dry surface free of standing water and on

undisturbed native soil.

Stockpiles of materials and excavated soil should be placed away from the slope crest by a distance equal

to the depth of excavation. Similarly, wheel loads should be kept back at least 1 m from the crest of the

excavation. Surface drainage should be directed away from crest of the excavation.

The stability of excavation slopes through clay soils decreases with time and therefore construction should

be directed at minimizing the length of time the excavation is left open.

6.5 Backfill Settlement

In areas where subgrade support is required (for example below floor slabs, pavements, etc.) the backfill

should consist of engineered fill in accordance with the recommendations given in Section 6.1.2. For clay




fill compacted to 100 percent of the SPMDD, the settlement due to re-orientation of soil particles (i.e. self-

weight) would be in the range of 0.5 to 1 percent of the height of fill. Where settlement of surface facilities

can be tolerated, the degree of compaction for backfill may be reduced. For backfill compacted to between

90 and 95 percent of the SPMDD, settlements in the range of 5 percent to 1.5 percent, respectively, of the

fill height may occur.

6.6 Frost Protection for Buried Utilities

As indicated in Section 4.0, the estimated 1 in 50-year return period of frost penetration depth in the Cold

Lake area is approximately 2.6 m in clay till and 3.4 m in sand assuming no snow cover.

The burial depths for water lines should be established on the basis of the 50-year return period with an

added embedment depth as a safety margin since the trench backfill may not consist entirely of clay, and

moisture contents are likely to change over the long term. Where the water lines will be covered with

primarily clay backfill, the minimum burial depth should be taken as 3 m and where the water lines will be

buried in the sand or covered with primarily sand backfill, the minimum burial depth should be taken as 3.6

m.

6.7 Concrete Slabs

6.7.1 Subgrade Preparation for Heated Structures

Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on the native clay till or sand or engineered fill underlain by native

competent soils. Preparation of the exposed clay till or sand subgrade should be undertaken as described

is Subsection 6.1.1.

The slab-on-grade should be allowed to move independently of footings, columns and exterior slabs. A

minimum thickness of 200 mm of clean, well-graded crushed gravel is recommended beneath grade

supported concrete slab. Coarse material greater than 50 mm in diameter should be avoided directly

beneath the floor slab to prevent stress concentrations in the slab. The gravel base course should be

compacted to a uniform density of 100 percent of SPMDD within ±2% of the OMC. A recommended typical

gradation for stable granular material, for use as base course under floor slabs is provided in Table 4.

Table 4: Gradation Requirement for Granular Backfill

Sieve Designation

(mm)

Percent Passing By Weight

(by dry mass)

20 mm 100

10 mm 35-77

5 mm 15-55

1.25 mm 0-30

0.08 mm 0-10

The percent fracture by weight (2 faces) should be at least 40 percent. Other appropriate materials, which

fall outside the above recommended gradation limits, may be suitable and should be evaluated by a

geotechnical engineer prior to use.

Grade supported floor slabs should be allowed to “float” on a prepared subgrade and be independent of

structural components supported by building foundations. Equipment and piping supports placed on floor

slabs should be designed to allow re-levelling if the equipment is sensitive to settlement. Provisions to

provide flexibility in piping and electrical conduit connections are recommended.




6.7.2 Exterior Grade Supported or Unheated Concrete Slabs

Subgrade preparation for exterior concrete slabs and slabs for unheated structures should be carried out

as recommended in Subsection 6.1.1. The clay till or sand subgrade is considered to be moderately frost

susceptible given access to water and may develop ice lenses and undergo volume change (heave).

Therefore, it will be important to provide adequate site drainage as per Subsection 6.1.3. Exterior sidewalks

and apron slabs and slabs for unheated structures should be free-floating and should not be dowelled into

grade beams, or interior slabs.

Consideration can be given to installing rigid insulation below the slabs if frost heave is a concern.

Additional measures to reduce the risk of frost heave include sloping the aprons or sidewalks away from

structures and sealing the interface between the grade beams or foundation walls and the exterior concrete

flatwork to limit seepage of surface runoff into the subgrade soils. Where pavement areas are adjacent to

walls or grade beams, a separation strip should be installed at the interface.

For slabs where potential movements due to frost heave are unacceptable, Rigid extruded polystyrene

insulation (e.g. Dow Chemical, HI-40 or HI-60 Styrofoam), can be used to limit the depth of frost penetration

below exterior slabs, and thus minimize potential for frost heave. On a preliminary basis, a 150 mm thickness

of rigid insulation beneath the slab is recommended to minimize frost penetration below the slab. The

insulation would also need to extend to approximately 2.0 m beyond the edge of the slab to prevent frost

penetration below the edge of the slab. The insulation should be installed in accordance with the

manufacture’s recommendations, including sand or geotextile padding for the insulation, and provision of

adequate soil cover for insulation that extends beyond the edge of the slab.

For floor slabs inside unheated structures, a minimum thickness of 200 mm of clean, well-graded crushed

gravel beneath the under-slab insulation is recommended as in Section 6.7.1.

Polystyrene insulation is soluble in light hydrocarbon liquids including gasoline and must be protected if

there is potential for contact with such liquids. Alternatively, other rigid insulation products such as glass-

foam or foamed concrete can be used for hydrocarbon-rich environments.

6.8 Pavements

It is understood the main access road will be asphalt paved and the other access roads will be gravel roads.

The pavement structures and construction recommendations provided in this section are applicable for

access roadways and parking areas subjected to cars and light trucks, as well as heavier trucks such as single

axle delivery trucks, waste disposal trucks, etc. The pavement structural sections provided in Table 5 below

are for the access roadways and parking areas.

Prior to placing subbase-course for gravel road or base-course gravel for asphalt paved road, the subgrade

should be prepared as outlined in Subsection 6.1. If soft subgrades were to be encountered, some subgrade

improvement for paving areas would typically include using thicker gravel fill and/or geotextiles or geogrids,

the extent of which would be best determined during construction.




Table 5: Preliminary Pavement Sections

Pavement Component Minimum Thicknesses (mm)

Asphalt Pavement (assumed 3 x 105 ESAL’s1)

Hot Mix Asphalt 120

Base Course Crushed Granular2

(25 mm minus) 275

Gravel Pavement (assumed 2.5 x 103 ESAL’s)

Base Course Crushed Granular2

(25 mm minus) 125

Subbase Course3

(80 mm minus) 210

Notes:

Alberta Transportation Specifications:

1. Equivalent Single Axle Loads over 20-year design period

2. AT Designation 2 Class 25 or Equivalent

3. AT Designation 6 Class 80 or Equivalent

Outlined below are additional construction recommendations pertaining to pavement sections:

• Adequate surface drainage is essential to good long-term performance of pavement structures.

Ideally, pavement subgrades and pavement surfaces should be provided with drainage grades of

2.0 percent or more. Site conditions do not always allow for 2.0 percent grades, and flatter grades,

such as 1.0 percent can be used, recognizing that there is greater likelihood of having poorly

drained areas on pavement, due to the tolerances available with standard earthmoving and paving

equipment. Positive surface drainage for collected runoff must be provided via drainage ditches or

storm sewers.

• The granular base course should be placed in maximum 150 mm thick lifts (or reduced lift

thicknesses as governed by the compaction equipment) and uniformly compacted to a minimum

100 percent of SPMDD at ± 2 percent of OMC to the bottom of the asphalt design elevation.

• The granular subbase course should be placed in maximum 150 mm thick lifts (or reduced lift

thicknesses as governed by the compaction equipment) and uniformly compacted to a minimum

98 percent of SPMDD at ± 2 percent of OMC.

• All asphalt should conform to, and be placed in accordance with, the current applicable Alberta

Transportation asphalt concrete pavement and asphalt mix specifications or equivalent.

Areas, such as dumpsters and garbage pickup, will be subjected to greater stresses, particularly under the

front axles that may cause premature asphalt concrete pavement failures and/or other exhibit adverse

structural distresses such as pavement pushing/shoving, rutting or various types of cracking. To avoid early

asphalt concrete pavement failures, it is recommended that in such areas the concrete pavement be

constructed.

6.9 Concrete Type

As indicated in Subsection 3.3, the degree of exposure to sulphate attack on subsurface concrete was rated

as ‘negligible", as defined by CAN/CSA A23.1-09. Based on the testing results, General Use (GU) cement

may be used in the manufacture of concrete in contact with soil at this site.




All concrete design and construction should be carried out in accordance with current CAN/CSA A23.1

specifications. Air entrainment is recommended for all concrete exposed to freeze-thaw cycles or

groundwater to enhance durability.

If imported material is required to be used at the site and will be contact with concrete, it is recommended

that the fill soil be tested for sulphate concentration to determine whether the above-stated

recommendations remain valid.

6.10 Seismic Site Classification

In the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2015), the seismic hazard is described by spectral

acceleration values at various periods and the peak ground acceleration (PGA). The spectral acceleration is

a measure of ground motion that takes into account the sustained shaking energy produced by an

earthquake at a particular period. The spectral acceleration values for Cold Lake under a 1 in 2,475-year

earthquake were obtained by using the Online Seismic Hazard Interpolator provided by Natural Resources

Canada. Table 6 summarizes the spectral acceleration for firm ground at the subject site.

Table 6: Spectral Acceleration (5% Damped) – NBCC 2015

Period (s) PGA Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(2.0) Sa(5.0) Sa(10.0)

Acceleration 0.032 g 0.055 g 0.034 0.008 0.002 0.001

For foundation effects, the NBCC incorporates site effects by categorizing the subsoil into six types based

on the average shear wave velocity (Vs) or standard penetration resistance (N60) for the upper 30 m.

A site class C may be used for the design of the proposed structures. Shear wave velocity data was not

obtained from this site, and borings were not advanced to 30 m depth. This seismic classification is based

on the SPT ‘N’ values within the depths drilled at the site, as well as on the assumption that the soil strength

below the depths drilled is at least as high as that encountered at the borehole termination depths.

7.0 Geotechnical Testing and Inspection All engineering design recommendations presented in this report are based on the limited number of

boreholes advanced on the site, and on the assumption that an adequate level of inspection will be provided

during construction and that all construction will be carried out by a suitably qualified contractor

experienced in foundation and earthworks construction. An adequate level of inspection is considered to

be:

• for earthworks, including backfill, full time monitoring and compaction testing;

• for footings and grade supported slabs, observation of supporting subgrade prior to concrete

placement; and

• for pile foundations, review of the foundation design and full-time monitoring of pile installation.

Wood requests the opportunity to review the design drawings and monitor the installation of the new

foundation to confirm that the recommendations have been correctly interpreted. Wood would be pleased

to provide any further information that may be needed during design and to advise on the geotechnical

aspects of specifications in contract documents.

Geotechnical lnvestigation, Revision 2


8.0 ClosureRecommendations presented herein are based on a geotechnical evaluation of the findings in the five

boreholes drilled during the field investigation on the site. lf conditions other than those reported are noted

during subsequent phases of the work Wood should be notified and given the opportunity to review the

current recommendations considering any new findings. Recommendations presented herein may not be

valid if an adequate level of inspection is not provided during construction, or if relevant building code

requirements are not met.

Soil conditions, by their nature, can be highly variable across a construction site. A contingency amount

should be included in the construction budget to allow for the possibility of variations in soil conditions,

which may result in modifications of the design, and/or changes in construction procedures.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 for specific

application to the development described within this report. Any use that a third party makes of this report,

or any reliance or decisions based on this report are the sole responsibility of those parties. This report has

been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices and issubject to the limitations outlined in Appendix B; no other warranty is expressed or implied.

Respectfu lly su bm itted,

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions,a division of Wood Canada Limited

8,n>aM.Sc., P.Eng.e,Ryan Jacula, G.l.T.

Lloydminster/Bonnyville Team Lead

Reviewed by:

Kevin Spencer, M.Eng., P.Eng.

Senior Associate, Geotechnical Engineer

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

EtdrB@@Lwtat \vood.

Appendix A

PROJECT:

JOB No.: FIGURE No.: REV.

ET200011 1 -May 2020

Pri

nte

d:

06

/10

/20

1

1:1

1 A

MP

:\P

roje

ct F

iles\

No

n-L

loyd

min

ste

r P

roje

cts\

ET

Pro

ject

s\E

T2

00

00

0 t

o E

T2

99

99

9\E

T2

00

01

1\R

ep

ort

\[F

igu

re 1

.xls

x]F

IGU

RE

1

TITLE:

Borehole LocationsCLIENT:

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87DATE:

N

BH18-02

Borehole Location (sp) standpipe

BH20-01

BH20-02 (sp)

BH20-03

BH20-04

BH20-05 (sp)


linzeii.selk

Typewritten text

TOP SOIL150 mm thickCLAY TILLsome silt, trace gravel, trace sand, very stiff, medium plastic, greyishbrown, moist, occasional oxide inclusions

...mottled, frequent oxide inclusions below 1.5 m

...occasional silt pockets below 1.8 m

...frequent oxide inclusions below 2.3 m

...not mottled below 3.0 m

...sandy below 3.4 m

...hard below 4.5 m

SANDtrace gravel, trace silt, trace clay, fine grained, poorly graded, verydense, light brown, saturated

BOREHOLE TERMINATED AT 6.6 M BELOW EXISTING GRADE.

Notes:Minor seepage and sloughing was encountered between 5.3 m to 6.6 mbelow existing grade during drilling. Borehole remained open to 5.8 mwith negligible water accumulation 10 minutes after the completion ofdrilling. Borehole backfilled with bentonite and auger cuttings.

SAMPLE G3Atterberg Limits:Liquid Limit = 46%Plastic Limit = 16%Plasticity Index = 30%Soil Classification: CISO4 = 0.00%

24

19

50/5

90/11

G1

G2

G3

D1

G4

G5

D2

G6

D3

G7

G8

D4

5/12/2020

COMPLETION DEPTH: 6.6 mCOMPLETION DATE: 12/5/20

BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

8.2

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

0

ENTERED BY: RJLOGGED BY: JMREVIEWED BY: YY

Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE

BOREHOLE NO.: BH20-01

PROJECT NO.: ET200011

ELEVATION:

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel

Environment & Infrastructure Solutions5681 - 70 Street NW

Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 3P6P:\

PR

OJE

CT

FIL

ES

\NO

N-L

LO

YD

MIN

ST

ER

PR

OJE

CT

S\E

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\ET

20

00

00

TO

ET

299

99

9\E

T2

00

01

1\G

INT

\ET

20

00

11

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

6/1

0 1

1:0

3 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)100 200 300 400

POCKET PEN (kPa)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

50/5

90/11

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87All Service Drilling

Solid Stem Auger

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 - Cold Lake M.D. Campground GeoSITE: Cold Lake, AB

NAD83(CSRS) / UTM zone 12N N:6036923 E:551796

SANDtrace gravel, trace silt, trace clay, fine grained, poorly graded,compact, saturated, light brown

CLAY TILLsome silt, trace gravel, trace sand, very stiff, medium plastic,greyish brown, moist, mottling, occasional oxide inclusions

...frequent oxide inclusions below 1.5 m

SANDtrace gravel, trace silt, trace clay, fine grained, poorly graded,very dense, saturated, light brown

BOREHOLE TERMINATED AT 6.6 M BELOW EXISTINGGRADE.

Notes:Moderate seepage and sloughing was encountered between 4.9m to 6.1 m below existing grade during drilling. Boreholeremained open to 5.5 m with water accumulation to 5.0 m belowexisting grade 10 minutes after the completion of drilling.Borehole was installed with a 25 mm diamter PVC standpipe.Groundwater level measured 29 May 2020 was 4.7 m belowexisting grade.

SO4 = 0.00%

16

19

71

85/10

G1

G2

G3

D1

G4

G5

D2

G6

D3

G7

D4

5/29/2020

5/12/2020


BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

8.2

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

0


Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE



ELEVATION:

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel



PR

OJE

CT

FIL

ES

\NO

N-L

LO

YD

MIN

ST

ER

PR

OJE

CT

S\E

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\ET

20

00

00

TO

ET

299

99

9\E

T2

00

01

1\G

INT

\ET

20

00

11

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

6/1

0 1

1:0

3 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)100 200 300 400

POCKET PEN (kPa)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

85/10

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87All Service Drilling

Solid Stem Auger

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 - Cold Lake M.D. Campground GeoSITE: Cold Lake, AB NAD83(CSRS) / UTM zone 12N N:6036742 E:551862

GRAVEL FILL150 mm thickCLAY TILLsome silt, trace gravel, trace sand, very stiff, medium plastic, greyishbrown, moist, mottling, occasional oxide inclusions

...dark grey below 1.5 m

...silt lenses at 3.2 mSANDtrace gravel, trace silt, trace clay, fine grained, poorly graded, verydense, light brown, saturated


Notes:Moderate seepage and sloughing was encountered between 3.4 m to6.6 m below existing grade during drilling. Borehole remained open to4.0 m with water accumulation to 1.3 m below existing grade 10 minutesafter the completion of drilling. Borehole backfilled with bentonite andauger cuttings.

SAMPLE D1Atterberg Limits:Liquid Limit = 57%Plastic Limit = 21%Plasticity Index = 36%Soil Classification: CI

13

33

50/5

89/10

G1

G2

G3

D1

G4

G5

D2

G6

D3

D4

5/12/2020


BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

8.2

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

0


Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE



ELEVATION:

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel



PR

OJE

CT

FIL

ES

\NO

N-L

LO

YD

MIN

ST

ER

PR

OJE

CT

S\E

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\ET

20

00

00

TO

ET

299

99

9\E

T2

00

01

1\G

INT

\ET

20

00

11

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

6/1

0 1

1:0

3 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)100 200 300 400

POCKET PEN (kPa)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

50/5

89/10

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87All Service DrillingSolid Stem Auger



GRAVEL FILL150 mm thickSANDtrace gravel, trace silt, trace clay, fine grained, poorly graded, compact,light brown, moist

CLAY TILLsome silt, trace gravel, trace sand, very stiff, medium plastic, greyishbrown, moist, mottling, frequent oxide inclusions

...hard below 3.0 m

...some sand below 3.7 m

...dark grey below 6.1 m


Notes:Minor seepage and sloughing was encountered at 6.1 m below existinggrade during drilling. Borehole remained open to 5.9 m with negligiblewater accumulation 10 minutes after the completion of drilling. Boreholebackfilled with bentonite and auger cuttings.

SAMPLE G5Atterberg Limits:Liquid Limit = 35%Plastic Limit = 13%Plasticity Index = 22%Soil Classification: CI

15

35

42

G1

G2

G3

D1

G4

G5

D2

G6

D3

G7

D4

5/12/2020


BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

8.2

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

0


Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE



ELEVATION:

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel



PR

OJE

CT

FIL

ES

\NO

N-L

LO

YD

MIN

ST

ER

PR

OJE

CT

S\E

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\ET

20

00

00

TO

ET

299

99

9\E

T2

00

01

1\G

INT

\ET

20

00

11

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

6/1

0 1

1:0

3 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)100 200 300 400

POCKET PEN (kPa)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE


All Service Drilling

Solid Stem Auger

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87 - Cold Lake M.D. Campground Geo

SITE: Cold Lake, AB


ORGANIC CLAYsilty, trace organic inclusions, trace gravel, firm, black, wet

...ocassional peat pockets below 0.9 m

...some silt, firm below 1.5 m

CLAY TILLsome silt, trace gravel, trace sand, medium plastic, very stiff,greyish brown, occasional sand and silt pockets, occasional oxideinclusions

...hard below 3.0 m

BOREHOLE TERMINATED AT 6.6 M BELOW EXISTINGGRADE.

Notes:Moderate seepage and sloughing was encountered between 3.4m to 6.6 m below existing grade during drilling. Boreholeremained open to 5.9 m with water accumulation to 3.4 m belowexisting grade 10 minutes after the completion of drilling.Borehole was installed with a 25 mm diamter PVC standpipe.Groundwater level measured on 29 May 2020 was 2.1 m belowexisting grade.

7

48

35

30

G1

G2

G3

G4

D1

G5

G6

D2

G7

D3

G8

D4

5/29/2020

5/12/2020


BLOW COUNT (N)

20 40 60 80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

20 40 60 80

Page 1 of 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

M.C.PLASTIC

SOILDESCRIPTION D

epth

(m)

SOIL

SYM

BOL

Dep

th (m

)

8.2

LIQUID

OTHER TESTSCOMMENTS

0


Grab Sample

Grout

SPT Test (N)

Slough

CoreSAMPLE TYPE



ELEVATION:

BACKFILL TYPE

Split-Pen

Drill Cuttings

Shelby Tube



PR

OJE

CT

FIL

ES

\NO

N-L

LO

YD

MIN

ST

ER

PR

OJE

CT

S\E

T P

RO

JEC

TS

\ET

20

00

00

TO

ET

299

99

9\E

T2

00

01

1\G

INT

\ET

20

00

11

BH

LO

GS

.GP

J 2

0/0

6/1

0 1

1:0

3 A

M

(BO

RE

HO

LE

RE

PO

RT

; W

OO

D G

EO

.GL

B)

SPT

(N)100 200 300 400

POCKET PEN (kPa)

SAM

PLE

NO

SAM

PLE

TYPE

Municipal District of Bonnyville No. 87All

Service Drilling

Solid Stem Auger

Bentonite Sand

No Recovery

Pea Gravel



EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS

The terms and symbols used on the borehole logs to summarize the results of field investigation and subsequent laboratory testing are described in these pages. It should be noted that materials, boundaries and conditions have been established only at the borehole locations at the time of investigation and are not necessarily representative of subsurface conditions elsewhere across the site. TEST DATA

Data obtained during the field investigation and from laboratory testing are shown at the appropriate depth interval. Abbreviations, graphic symbols, and relevant test method designations are as follows:

*C Consolidation test *ST Swelling test DR Relative density TV Torvane shear strength *k Permeability coefficient VS Vane shear strength *MA Mechanical grain size analysis w Natural Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) and hydrometer test wl Liquid limit (ASTM D 423) N Standard Penetration Test

(CSA A119.1-60) wp Plastic Limit (ASTM D 424)

Nd Dynamic cone penetration test Ef Unit strain at failure NP Non plastic soil γ Unit weight of soil or rock pp Pocket penetrometer strength (kg/cm²) γd Dry unit weight of soil or rock *q Triaxial compression test ρ Density of soil or rock qu Unconfined compressive strength ρd Dry Density of soil or rock *SB Shearbox test Cu Undrained shear strength SO4 Concentration of water-soluble sulphate → Seepage ▼ Observed water level

* The results of these tests are usually reported separately

Soils are classified and described according to their engineering properties and behaviour. The soil of each stratum is described using the Unified Soil Classification System1

modified slightly so that an inorganic clay of “medium plasticity” is recognized.

The modifying adjectives used to define the actual or estimated percentage range by weight of minor components are consistent with the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual2

.

Relative Density and Consistency:

Cohesionless Soils Cohesive Soils Relative Density SPT (N) Value Consistency Undrained Shear Approximate Strength cu (kPa) SPT (N) Value Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-12 0-2 Loose 4-10 Soft 12-25 2-4 Compact 10-30 Firm 25-50 4-8 Dense 30-50 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30

The number of blows by a 63.6kg hammer dropped 760 mm to drive a 50 mm diameter open sampler attached to “A” drill rods for a distance of 300 mm.

Standard Penetration Resistance (“N” value)

1 “Unified Soil Classification System”, Technical Memorandum 36-357 prepared by Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

Mississippi, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. Vol. 1 March 1953. 2 ”Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual”, 4th Edition, Canadian Geotechnical Society, 2006.

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

S

(MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

BY

WE

IGH

T S

MA

LL

ER

TH

AN

75

µm)

OR

GA

NIC

SIL

TS

& C

LA

YS

BE

LO

W "

A"

LIN

E

CLA

YS

AB

OV

E "

A"

LIN

E

NE

GL

IGIB

LE

OR

GA

NIC

CO

NT

EN

T

SIL

TS

BE

LO

W "

A"

LIN

E

NE

GL

IGIB

LE

OR

GA

NIC

CO

NT

EN

T

SA

ND

S

MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

TH

E

CO

AR

SE

FR

AC

TIO

N

SM

ALL

ER

TH

AN

4.7

5m

m

GR

AV

ELS

MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

TH

E

CO

AR

SE

FR

AC

TIO

N

LA

RG

ER

TH

AN

4.7

5m

m

CO

AR

SE

GR

AIN

ED

SO

ILS

(MO

RE

TH

AN

HA

LF

BY

WE

IGH

T L

AR

GE

R T

HA

N 7

5µm

)MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL DESCRIPTION

MODIFIED UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

MH

CL

CI

CH

OL

OH

PtHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

LIMESTONE

SANDSTONE

OILSAND

SHALE

FILL (UNDIFFERENTIATED)SILTSTONE

SOIL COMPONENTS

SPECIAL SYMBOLS

FRACTION

PASSING PERCENT

DEFINING RANGES OF

PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF

MINOR COMPONENTS

DESCRIPTORGRAVEL

COARSE

FINE

SAND

COARSE

MEDIUM

FINE

35-50

20-35

10-20

1-10

76mm 19mm

19mm 4.75mm

4.75mm 2.00mm

2.00mm

OVERSIZED MATERIAL

ROUNDED OR SUBROUNDED:

COBBLES 76mm TO 200mm

BOULDERS > 200mm

NOT ROUNDED:

ROCK FRAGMENTS > 76mm

ROCKS > 0.76 CUBIC METRE IN VOLUME

AND

Y/EY

SOME

TRACE

ALL SIEVE SIZES MENTIONED ON THIS CHART ARE U.S. STANDARD A.S.T.M. E.11

RED

RED

YELLOW

YELLOW

RED

RED

YELLOW

YELLOW

SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES

GREEN

BLUE

GREEN

BLUE

GREEN

BLUE

ORANGE

ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

60

W < 50%L

W < 50%L

W < 30%L

30% <W < 50%L

W > 50%L

W < 50%L

W > 50%L

D (D )

D10

CU >6; CC D DX10 60

602

= = = 1 to 3

60D (D )

D10

CU >4; CCD DX10 60

302

= =

75µm

425µm 75µm

425µm

FINES (SILT OR CLAY

BASED ON

PLASTICITY)

1.

2. COARSE GRAIN SOILS WITH 5 TO 12% FINES GIVEN COMBINED GROUP SYMBOLS,

E.G. GW-GC IS A WELL GRADED GRAVEL SAND MIXTURE WITH CLAY BINDER

BETWEEN 5 AND 12% FINES.

CL - ML

CL

CI

CH

OH & MH

ML & OL

0

4

7

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

'' A ''

LINE

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X (%

)

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

PLASTICITY CHART FOR

SOILS PASSING 425 µm SIEVE

ATTERBERG LIMITS

BELOW "A" LINE OR

P.I. LESS THAN 4

ATTERBERG LIMITS

ABOVE "A" LINE

P.I. MORE THAN 7

ATTERBERG LIMITS

BELOW "A" LINE OR

P.I. LESS THAN 4

ATTERBERG LIMITS

ABOVE "A" LINE

P.I. MORE THAN 7

= 1 to 3

STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR, AND OFTEN

FIBEROUS TEXTURE

NOT MEETING ABOVE

REQUIREMENTS

NOT MEETING ABOVE

REQUIREMENTS

CLASSIFICATION IS

BASED UPON

PLASTICITY CHART

(SEE BELOW)

WHENEVER THE NATURE OF THE FINES

CONTENT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, IT

IS DESIGNATED BY THE LETTER "F", E.G. SF

IS A MIXTURE OF SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY

PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY

ORGANIC SOILS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY

CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM

PLASTICITY, SILTY CLAYS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW

PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY

OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDS OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS,

ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT

PLASTICITY

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY

MIXTURES

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-

CLAY MIXTURES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT

MIXTURES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND

MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

CONTENT

OF FINES

EXCEEDS

12 %

CONTENT

OF FINES

EXCEEDS

12 %

GROUP

SYMBOL

GRAPH

SYMBOL

COLOUR

CODE

LABORATORY

CLASSIFICATION

CRITERIA

U.S. STANDARD

SIEVE SIZE

RETAINED

GREEN-

BLUE

CLEAN GRAVELS

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

DIRTY GRAVELS

(WITH SOME

FINES)

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

DIRTY SANDS

(WITH SOME

FINES)

NOTES:

Appendix B

Limitations

The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented herein are subject to the

following:

a) The contract between Wood and the Client, including any subsequent written amendment or

Change Order dully signed by the parties (hereinafter together referred as the “Contract”);

b) Any and all time, budgetary, access and/or site disturbance, risk management preferences,

constraints or restrictions as described in the contract, in this report, or in any subsequent

communication sent by Wood to the Client in connection to the Contract; and

c) The limitations stated herein.

Standard of care: Wood has prepared this report in a manner consistent with the level of skill and care ordinarily

exercised by reputable members of Wood’s profession, practicing in the same or similar locality at the time

of performance, and subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to the scope of work, and

terms and conditions for this assignment. No other warranty, guarantee, or representation, expressed or

implied, is made or intended in this report, or in any other communication (oral or written) related to this

project. The same are specifically disclaimed, including the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness

for a particular purpose.

Limited locations: The information contained in this report is restricted to the site and structures evaluated by

Wood and to the topics specifically discussed in it, and is not applicable to any other aspects, areas or

locations.

Information utilized: The information, conclusions and estimates contained in this report are based exclusively

on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) the accuracy and completeness of data supplied by

the Client or by third parties as instructed by the Client, and iii) the assumptions, conditions and

qualifications/limitations set forth in this report.

Accuracy of information: No attempt has been made to verify the accuracy of any information provided by the

Client or third parties, except as specifically stated in this report (hereinafter “Supplied Data”). Wood cannot

be held responsible for any loss or damage, of either contractual or extra-contractual nature, resulting from

conclusions that are based upon reliance on the Supplied Data.

Report interpretation: This report must be read and interpreted in its entirety, as some sections could be

inaccurately interpreted when taken individually or out-of-context. The contents of this report are based

upon the conditions known and information provided as of the date of preparation. The text of the final

version of this report supersedes any other previous versions produced by Wood.

No legal representations: Wood makes no representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its

findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including but not limited to, ownership of any

property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory compliance

issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and change. Such interpretations and regulatory

changes should be reviewed with legal counsel.

Decrease in property value: Wood shall not be responsible for any decrease, real or perceived, of the property

or site’s value or failure to complete a transaction, as a consequence of the information contained in this

report.

No third-party reliance: This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless expressly

stated otherwise in the report or Contract. Any use or reproduction which any third party makes of the

report, in whole or in part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any information or

conclusions in the report is the sole responsibility of such third party. Wood does not represent or warrant

the accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness for purpose or usefulness of this document, or any

information contained in this document, for use or consideration by any third party. Wood accepts no

responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a

result of actions taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on this report or anything set out therein.

including without limitation, any indirect, special, incidental, punitive or consequential loss, liability or

damage of any kind.

Assumptions: Where design recommendations are given in this report, they apply only if the project

contemplated by the Client is constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report. It

is the sole responsibility of the Client to provide to Wood changes made in the project, including but not

limited to, details in the design, conditions, engineering or construction that could in any manner

whatsoever impact the validity of the recommendations made in the report. Wood shall be entitled to

additional compensation from Client to review and assess the effect of such changes to the project.

Time dependence: If the project contemplated by the Client is not undertaken within a period of 18 months

following the submission of this report, or within the time frame understood by Wood to be contemplated

by the Client at the commencement of Wood’s assignment, and/or, if any changes are made, for example, to

the elevation, design or nature of any development on the site, its size and configuration, the location of any

development on the site and its orientation, the use of the site, performance criteria and the location of any

physical infrastructure, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein should not be considered

valid unless the impact of the said changes is evaluated by Wood, and the conclusions of the report are

amended or are validated in writing accordingly.

Advancements in the practice of geotechnical engineering, engineering geology and hydrogeology and

changes in applicable regulations, standards, codes or criteria could impact the contents of the report, in

which case, a supplementary report may be required. The requirements for such a review remain the sole

responsibility of the Client or their agents.

Wood will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any events or emergent

circumstances or facts occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.

Limitations of visual inspections: Where conclusions and recommendations are given based on a visual

inspection conducted by Wood, they relate only to the natural or man-made structures, slopes, etc.

inspected at the time the site visit was performed. These conclusions cannot and are not extended to include

those portions of the site or structures, which were not reasonably available, in Wood’s opinion, for direct

observation.

Limitations of site investigations: Site exploration identifies specific subsurface conditions only at those points

from which samples have been taken and only at the time of the site investigation. Site investigation

programs are a professional estimate of the scope of investigation required to provide a general profile of

subsurface conditions.

The data derived from the site investigation program and subsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by

trained personnel and extrapolated across the site to form an inferred geological representation and an

engineering opinion is rendered about overall subsurface conditions and their likely behaviour with regard

to the proposed development. Despite this investigation, conditions between and beyond the borehole/test

hole locations may differ from those encountered at the borehole/test hole locations and the actual

conditions at the site might differ from those inferred to exist, since no subsurface exploration program, no

matter how comprehensive, can reveal all subsurface details and anomalies.

Final sub-surface/bore/profile logs are developed by geotechnical engineers based upon their interpretation

of field logs and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Customarily, only the final bore/profile logs are

included in geotechnical engineering reports.

Bedrock, soil properties and groundwater conditions can be significantly altered by environmental

remediation and/or construction activities such as the use of heavy equipment or machinery, excavation,

blasting, pile-driving or draining or other activities conducted either directly on site or on adjacent terrain.

These properties can also be indirectly affected by exposure to unfavorable natural events or weather

conditions, including freezing, drought, precipitation and snowmelt.

During construction, excavation is frequently undertaken which exposes the actual subsurface and

groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations, which may differ from those encountered at

the test locations. It is recommended practice that Wood be retained during construction to confirm that the

subsurface conditions throughout the site do not deviate materially from those encountered at the test

locations, that construction work has no negative impact on the geotechnical aspects of the design, to adjust

recommendations in accordance with conditions as additional site information is gained and to deal quickly

with geotechnical considerations if they arise.

Interpretations and recommendations presented herein may not be valid if an adequate level of review or

inspection by Wood is not provided during construction.

Factors that may affect construction methods, costs and scheduling: The performance of rock and soil

materials during construction is greatly influenced by the means and methods of construction. Where

comments are made relating to possible methods of construction, construction costs, construction

techniques, sequencing, equipment or scheduling, they are intended only for the guidance of the project

design professionals, and those responsible for construction monitoring. The number of test holes may not

be sufficient to determine the local underground conditions between test locations that may affect

construction costs, construction techniques, sequencing, equipment, scheduling, operational planning, etc.

Any contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should draw their own conclusions as to how the

subsurface and groundwater conditions may affect their work, based on their own investigations and

interpretations of the factual soil data, groundwater observations, and other factual information.

Groundwater and Dewatering: Wood will accept no responsibility for the effects of drainage and/or dewatering

measures if Wood has not been specifically consulted and involved in the design and monitoring of the

drainage and/or dewatering system.

Environmental and Hazardous Materials Aspects: Unless otherwise stated, the information contained in this

report in no way reflects on the environmental aspects of this project, since this aspect is beyond the Scope

of Work and the Contract. Unless expressly included in the Scope of Work, this report specifically excludes

the identification or interpretation of environmental conditions such as contamination, hazardous materials,

wild life conditions, rare plants or archeology conditions that may affect use or design at the site. This report

specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of conditions that can contribute

to moisture, mold or other microbial contaminant growth and/or other moisture related deterioration, such

as corrosion, decay, rot in buildings or their surroundings. Any statements in this report or on the boring

logs regarding odours, colours, and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational

purposes

Sample Disposal: Wood will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and rock samples after 30 days following the

release of the final geotechnical report. Should the Client request that the samples be retained for a longer

time, the Client will be billed for such storage at an agreed upon rate. Contaminated samples of soil, rock or

groundwater are the property of the Client, and the Client will be responsible for the proper disposal of

these samples, unless previously arranged for with Wood or a third party.

Documents

Geotechnical Investigation, Revision 2 - CivicPlus