HIGHWAY 6 – CORTIANA BRIDGE DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL … · considering the construction of a new bridge to provide additional flow capacity at the site. The selected concept for the

November 22, 2019 File: 23783 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 310 Ward Street, 4th Floor Nelson, BC V1L 5S4 Attention: Brad Panton, P.Eng.

HIGHWAY 6 – CORTIANA BRIDGE DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Brad:

We have been retained to provide geotechnical engineering services for the design of a new bridge (or culvert) over Cortiana Creek on Hwy 6 near Cherryville, BC. This report provides geotechnical recommendations for detailed design based on previous investigations conducted by the ministry (MoTI)

This work has been carried out under our existing ‘as and when’ Contract No. 860CS1396 and 862CS1490.

1. BACKGROUND

We understand that the existing culverts were overwhelmed in the Spring of 2018 and MoTI is considering the construction of a new bridge to provide additional flow capacity at the site. The selected concept for the bridge is a single span bridge with spread footings on bedrock.

MoTI originally retained Sea to Sky drilling to collect preliminary subsurface information at the site. We have been provided with the soil and rock samples and the field logs prepared by the drillers. We attended a team site reconnaissance meeting with representatives from MoTI, Allnorth Engineering (structural designer) and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) to familiarize ourselves with the project and interface with the team. We also carried out a bedrock probing investigation to check the depth to bedrock along the proposed bridge and retaining wall foundations

2. DRILL PROBING INVESTIGATION

The results of the Sea to Sky Drilling investigation indicated a generally shallow depth to bedrock across the site. However, the spread footing design depends on consistent rock elevation and additional bedrock surface information was recommended to reduce construction risk. Bedrock probing using a hydraulic drill and blast rig was determined to be the most efficient method to get this information.

2302, 4464 Markham Street, Victoria, BC V8Z 7X8 T: 250 727 2201 F: 250 727 3710 thurber.ca

Client: BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Date: November 22, 2019 File No.: 23783 Page 2 of 8 E-File: 20191122_Detailed Geotechnical Design report_Cortiana Bridge_23783.docx

In accordance with our ground disturbance protocols, we notified BC One Call to identify nearby buried and/or overhead utilities at each proposed probe hole location. Private Eye Utility Locating of Vernon, BC was also contracted to scan the area for underground utilities prior to drilling.

Twenty probe holes (PH19-1 to PH19-20) were drilled on March 27th and 28th, 2019 using a track mounted hydraulic drill and blast rig operated by Jocks Drill and Blasting Ltd of Vernon, BC. This method of drilling does not allow for sampling of the soils or bedrock; the comments of the driller and the drill action alone are used to interpret when bedrock is encountered. The holes are generally advanced at least 1.0 m into inferred rock to confirm its presence. The accuracy of bedrock depths using this method of drilling is typically about 0.3 m, however the results are occasionally unreliable if very steeply dipping bedrock, fractured or weathered bedrock or large boulders are encountered. Probe hole PH19-16 was terminated at 1.82 m depth due to possible bedding sand in cuttings indicating a potential utility or culvert installation. Probe hole PH19-5 did not encounter bedrock and was terminated at 10.97 m depth due to hole collapse of the overburden material resulting in the drill bit and rod couplings continually becoming jammed. Additional probe holes (PH19-19 and PH19-20) were drilled on either side of PH19-5 to provide additional information. The probe holes were generally drilled at the previously marked and surveyed locations, though several were relocated due to the location of underground utilities. The locations of the probe holes are shown on the attached Drawing No. 23873-2, and the probe hole coordinates are presented in Table 3.1 in section 3 of this report. All probe holes were backfilled with local sand and gravel and bentonite seals as required by the BC Groundwater Protection Regulation. Probe holes located within the road surface were reinstated using cold patch asphalt.

3. SITE CONDITIONS

We attended the site on September 19th, 2018 to carry out a site reconnaissance and meet with the project team. While on site it was observed that the existing culverts are constructed through a fill embankment that was built with granular fill (See Photo 1 in Appendix A). The existing rip-rap is variable in size and is generally courser on the downstream side of the highway (see Photos 2 and 3 in Appendix A). A sink hole in the shoulder was observed and is likely due to material migration within the embankment (See Photo 4 in Appendix A). This is likely due to poor grading of the existing embankment fills and significant water flows during flooding.

The existing embankment slopes are slightly steeper than 1.5H:1V and up to about 4 m high. No signs of slope instability were observed.

We were provided with the field logs, and samples (rock and soil) collected by Sea to Sky Drilling Ltd. (STS) and have prepared test hole logs based on this information and our laboratory testing. The test hole locations were surveyed by BCMoTI and provided to us in AutoCAD format. The attached Drawing 23763-1 in Appendix B shows the drill hole locations.


The compiled test hole logs are presented in Appendix C. We were not on site at the time of drilling and have not provided interpretation of the field observations on the logs.

The results of the drilling investigation indicate that bedrock is generally located between about 3 m and 6 m below the existing ground surface at the test hole locations except PH-16 and PH-19 as discussed above. The fill and native granular deposits are loose with SPT blow counts of less than 10. The bedrock core is a slightly weathered to fresh, strong, porphyritic Granite and is considered competent.

Table 3.1 – Inferred Ground Conditions

Probe Hole

Depth of Overburden (m)

Depth of "Weathered Rock"

(m)

Bedrock to Termination (m)

Northing

Easting

PH-1 0 - 3.65 3.65 - 5.48 5.48 - 7.31 542114.3 403541.6 PH-2 0 - 3.35 3.35 - 5.48 5.48 - 7.01 542108.9 403544.2 PH-3 0 - 3.35 3.35 - 4.41 4.41 - 6.70 542103.4 403546.8 PH-4 0 - 4.5 4.5 - 4.87 4.87 - 6.70 542098.0 403549.4 PH-5 0 - 10.97 N/A N/A 542092.7 403552.1 PH-6 0 - 4.5 4.5 - 4.87 4.87 - 6.70 542087.3 403554.8 PH-7 0 - 3.0 N/A 3.0 - 6.70 542081.2* 403558.2* PH-8 0 - 4.41 N/A 4.41 - 6.70 542079.5* 403565.3* PH-9 0 - 3.96 3.96 - 4.26 4.26 - 6.70 542076.2 403572.7

PH-10 0 - 3.65 N/A 3.65 - 6.40 542087.0 403567.6 PH-11 0 - 2.74 N/A 2.74 - 6.70 542059.6 403569.9 PH-12 0 - 4.5 N/A 4.5 - 6.70 542066.3 403572.7 PH-13 0 - 3.65 3.65 - 3.96 3.96 - 6.70 542064.4 403580.2 PH-14 0 - 3.65 3.65 - 4.87 4.87 - 5.48 542059.3 403583.4 PH-15 0 - 2.13 N/A 2.13 - 6.70 542055.3* 403586.0* PH-16 0 - 1.82 N/A N/A 542049.2* 403589.8* PH-17 0 - 2.13 N/A 2.13 - 6.70 542043.9* 403593.1* PH-18 0 - 1.82 N/A 1.82 - 6.70 542035.3* 403598.6* PH-19 0 - 5.63 N/A 5.63 - 8.22 542095.3* 403550.8* PH-20 0 - 8.22 N/A 8.22 - 10.21 542090.6* 403553.1*

*Probe hole not drilled at surveyed location and coordinates are based on offsets measured by hand on site.


4. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

We have provided interim reports for the conceptual design and participated in the detailed design process. The recommendations presented below supersede any previous recommendations.

4.1 Geotechnical Design Criteria

The geotechnical design for the bridge is intended to follow MoTI Technical Circular T-04/17. The design references the following documents when required:

• MoTI technical circulars. • CSA S6-14 (Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CHBDC). • MoTI Supplement to CHBDC S6-14. • AASHTO “LFRD Bridge Design Specifications”, 7th Edition, 2014. • Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024 “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized

Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes” November 2009. • Publication No. FHWA-NHI-14-007 “Soil Nail Walls Reference Manual” February 2015. • BC Supplement to TAC Geometric Design Guide, Figure 440.H. • MoTI Technical Bulletin GM02001 Rock Slope Design. • Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) - Rockfall Catchment Area Design Guide -

Final Report SPR-3(032), Metric Edition, 2001. • Ritchie (1963) Ritchie, A.M., 1963. The evaluation of rock fall and its control. Highway

Record. Vol 17. • AASHTO 1993 Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures or AASHTO (2004) ME

Pavement (Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Method Guide). The previously completed investigation is inferred to obtain a typical degree of understanding for the design criteria. We have assumed that MoTI considers this bridge to be a major route bridge and the short section of highway approaches to be typical consequence (i.e. a target Factor of Safety of 1.54 is required for embankments).

4.2 Site Seismicity and Liquefaction

A site-specific hazard calculation was obtained from the National Resources Canada on-line seismic hazard calculator for the project site. The peak ground acceleration for the 10% in 50 years (1:475) design level earthquake is 0.021 g, 5% in 50 years (1:975) is 0.034g, and the 2% in 50 years (1:2475) is 0.058 g.

The bridge will be founded directly on bedrock and the site class recommended for design is Site Class B.

The drilling investigation included very limited soil sampling and density testing; however, it is noted that the existing granular soils are in a loose condition. We carried out a Cyclic Stress Ratio analysis which indicates that the soils are unlikely to liquify during the 1 in 2475 earthquake;


however, this is based on limited data. Since the bridge is founded on bedrock it was not deemed necessary to carry out additional geotechnical investigation and assessment.

4.3 Dewatering

The site is located directly adjacent to Cortiana Creek and the soils beneath the highway are expected to be highly permeable. It is anticipated that the groundwater table will correlate strongly with the creek elevation and any excavation below the creek level is anticipated to encounter significant groundwater. Dewatering of the excavations may not be possible with sump and pump methods and it might be necessary to divert the creek during construction to reduce the flow of water into the excavations.

4.4 Spread Footing Design Parameters

It is considered possible to found the new bridge / culvert footings on the bedrock surface using spread footings, however, there is some risk that the bedrock surface may drop off in some areas and that excavation to this depth may require significant dewatering. The bedrock surface should be levelled to within 6H:1V and thoroughly cleaned to reveal a clean, intact bedrock surface free of loose debris or highly fractured rock. If the bedrock surface is not level across the footing it should be chipped into a series of steps and may also require dowels. Given the foundation preparation described above, the recommended ULS bearing capacity of the footing is 2 MPa. The SLS bearing conditions for the footing are not limiting.

For sliding resistance at the base of footings, the friction factor for CIP concrete on clean bedrock can be assumed to be 0.7.

4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures on Abutment Walls

The abutment walls should be backfilled with Bridge End Fill (BEF) material meeting the requirements for BEF in Section 202 of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure’s 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Where retaining walls will be constructed along the river to support the highway embankment, SGSB granular fill with is considered suitable for construction. It is assumed that the BEF and SGSB will be a sandy gravel or crushed rock product with at least 30% gravel size particles, and the following material parameters can be assumed:

• total unit weight, γ, of 21 kN/m3, • a friction angle, φ’, of 36 degrees

For static design, an at-rest earth pressure coefficient, Ko, of 0.41 should be used for design of the abutment walls. This assumes level ground at the top of wall and 50% wall friction.

For active earth pressure design, the active earth pressure coefficient is (Ka)h = 0.24 at bottom of triangular distribution.


For seismic design, we recommend using the following seismic earth pressure coefficients (see Table 4.1) and applied either at 1/3 or ½ of the wall height from the base (we recommend checking both points to determine the governing load case).

Table 4.1: Seismic Active Earth Pressure Coefficients Seismic Hazard (Kae)h

1:475 .25

1:975 .26

1:2475 .27 Maximum allowable passive earth pressure to resist bridge displacements (caused by seismic inertial loads combined with active earth pressure on opposite abutment) can be calculated as per the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CAN-CSA S6-14 Commentary, Page 135 “Near-Field Lateral Spring for Bridge Abutments”):

Kabut = Ki * w * [ h / 1.7 ] ; where Ki = 29 MN/m per m width w = width of the abutment h = height of the abutment in metres.

4.6 Dowels and Anchors

Two sets of groups of uplift anchors are required for the wall that spans over the anticipate area of the bedrock dropoff. We understand that the ULS loads are 1000 kN on individual anchors and 3000 kN for the group. Since the anchors are long and closely spaced (900 mm), each group of anchors is anticipated to share the same cone of rock. We understand that the anchors will consist of 46 mm (1035 MPa) DCP threadbar (PTI Class 1 Corrosion Protection). They should be installed in minimum 114 mm diameter holes with a free stressing length (bond breaker) of 3.0 m long (2 m in rock) and a minimum bond length of 4 m. The minimum total anchor length in rock is 6.0 m. For the shear dowels, it is assumed that the rock strength will generally exceed the strength of the concrete used for the wall construction; however, this assumes that all weathered and weaker rock is removed from the base of the footing. The minimum recommended length for shear dowels is 1 m into rock into 75 mm diameter holes. It is likely that the dropoff of the bedrock surface will be different than the surface shown on the drawings. Additional drop-offs and variations of the bedrock surface may also be encountered during construction. The design is based on our current interpretation of the bedrock surface and is considered reasonable for design; however, it should be noted as a risk item for construction. We also understand that 30M stainless steel dowels are required for the CIP concrete walls with a ULS uplift load of about 180 kN each. The dowels will be spaced at 1.0 m centres. We


recommend that the dowels be installed in minimum 75 mm diameter holes at least 2.0 m into intact bedrock. The dowels should be installed using at least two centralizers to maintain its position in the drilled hole during grouting.

4.7 Fill Embankments

We understand that widening of the existing embankment may be completed to shift the alignment, widen the existing shoulders and support the approach barriers. Since the creek runs beside the embankment, it will likely be necessary to protect the embankment from erosion using rip-rap (to be determined by others). The existing embankments are anticipated to be susceptible to internal erosion, and the new embankments require graded filters to reduce the likelihood of material migration through the fills. We understand that NHC has provided the graded filter designs for the project.

It is recommended that earth embankment fill be constructed at a maximum slope angle of 2H:1V. If rock fill is proposed to be used, the maximum recommended slope angle is 1.5H:1V. General fill construction should be carried out in accordance with Sections 201.36 and 201.37 of the BC MoTI 2016 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction.

Once the design subgrade elevation is exposed, the granular fill surface should be compacted with at least 4 passes of a minimum 10 tonne vibratory drum roller. A loaded tandem axle dump truck should then be used to proof-roll the prepared subgrade to check for possible weak subgrade areas. Any weak areas identified during proof-rolling should be sub-excavated and replaced with compacted granular fill that meets the MoTI BEF specification. All fill should be placed and compacted in accordance with Standard Specification Sections 201.37 and 202.25.

All fill slopes should be keyed into the existing embankment slope by excavating horizontal benches into the existing slope as per Standard Specification Sections 201.36 and 201.37.

4.8 Pavement Design

We have carried out a pavement design analysis using the methodology outlined in the 1993 AASHTO “Guide for the Design of Pavement Structure” and a range of traffic loading inputs (ESALs).

We carried out a simple ESAL calculation with the following assumptions: • 20-year design life • 1,300 AADT (50% in each direction) • 2% growth • 5% trucks • 1.7 truck factor

The resulting prediction is about 500,000 ESAL’s.

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS

1. STANDARD OF CARE

This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering or environmental consulting practices in the applicable jurisdiction. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made.

2. COMPLETE REPORT

All documents, records, data and files, whether electronic or otherwise, generated as part of this assignment are a part of the Report, which is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Thurber by the Client, communications between Thurber and the Client, and any other reports, proposals or documents prepared by Thurber for the Client relative to the specific site described herein, all of which together constitute the Report.

IN ORDER TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN, REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT. THURBER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY ANY PARTY OF PORTIONS OF THE REPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE WHOLE REPORT.

3. BASIS OF REPORT

The Report has been prepared for the specific site, development, design objectives and purposes that were described to Thurber by the Client. The applicability and reliability of any of the findings, recommendations, suggestions, or opinions expressed in the Report, subject to the limitations provided herein, are only valid to the extent that the Report expressly addresses proposed development, design objectives and purposes, and then only to the extent that there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the said descriptions provided to Thurber, unless Thurber is specifically requested by the Client to review and revise the Report in light of such alteration or variation.

4. USE OF THE REPORT

The information and opinions expressed in the Report, or any document forming part of the Report, are for the sole benefit of the Client. NO OTHER PARTY MAY USE OR RELY UPON THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF WITHOUT THURBER’S WRITTEN CONSENT AND SUCH USE SHALL BE ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THURBER MAY EXPRESSLY APPROVE. Ownership in and copyright for the contents of the Report belong to Thurber. Any use which a third party makes of the Report, is the sole responsibility of such third party. Thurber accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages suffered by any third party resulting from use of the Report without Thurber’s express written permission.

5. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT

a) Nature and Exactness of Soil and Contaminant Description: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, geological units, contaminant materials and quantities have been based on investigations performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1. Classification and identification of these factors are judgmental in nature. Comprehensive sampling and testing programs implemented with the appropriate equipment by experienced personnel may fail to locate some conditions. All investigations utilizing the standards of Paragraph 1 will involve an inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected and all documents or records summarizing such investigations will be based on assumptions of what exists between the actual points sampled. Actual conditions may vary significantly between the points investigated and the Client and all other persons making use of such documents or records with our express written consent should be aware of this risk and the Report is delivered subject to the express condition that such risk is accepted by the Client and such other persons. Some conditions are subject to change over time and those making use of the Report should be aware of this possibility and understand that the Report only presents the conditions at the sampled points at the time of sampling. If special concerns exist, or the Client has special considerations or requirements, the Client should disclose them so that additional or special investigations may be undertaken which would not otherwise be within the scope of investigations made for the purposes of the Report.

b) Reliance on Provided Information: The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report have been prepared on the basis of conditions in evidence at the time of site inspections and on the basis of information provided to Thurber. Thurber has relied in good faith upon representations, information and instructions provided by the Client and others concerning the site. Accordingly, Thurber does not accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the Report as a result of misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations, or fraudulent acts of the Client or other persons providing information relied on by Thurber. Thurber is entitled to rely on such representations, information and instructions and is not required to carry out investigations to determine the truth or accuracy of such representations, information and instructions.

c) Design Services: The Report may form part of design and construction documents for information purposes even though it may have been issued prior to final design being completed. Thurber should be retained to review final design, project plans and related documents prior to construction to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of the Report. Any differences that may exist between the Report’s recommendations and the final design detailed in the contract documents should be reported to Thurber immediately so that Thurber can address potential conflicts.

d) Construction Services: During construction Thurber should be retained to provide field reviews. Field reviews consist of performing sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions in order to confirm and document that the site conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of the report. Adequate field reviews are necessary for Thurber to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities.

6. RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting projects often have the potential to encounter pollutants or hazardous substances and the potential to cause the escape, release or dispersal of those substances. Thurber shall have no liability to the Client under any circumstances, for the escape, release or dispersal of pollutants or hazardous substances, unless such pollutants or hazardous substances have been specifically and accurately identified to Thurber by the Client prior to the commencement of Thurber’s professional services.

7. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENTS OF CLIENT

The information, interpretations and conclusions in the Report are based on Thurber’s interpretation of conditions revealed through limited investigation conducted within a defined scope of services. Thurber does not accept responsibility for independent conclusions, interpretations, interpolations and/or decisions of the Client, or others who may come into possession of the Report, or any part thereof, which may be based on information contained in the Report. This restriction of liability includes but is not limited to decisions made to develop, purchase or sell land.

HKH/LG_Dec 2014

AP

PE

ND

IXA

Client: BCMoTI Date: October 5, 2018 File No.: 23783 Photo page 1 of 2 E-File: Cortiana Photos_23783.docx

PHOTO 1: View of upstream side of culverts (inlet).

PHOTO 2: View of Cortiana Creek looking upstream.

Client: BCMoTI Date: October 5, 2018 File No.: 23783 Photo page 2 of 2 E-File: Cortiana Photos_23783.docx

PHOTO 3: View of Cortiana Creek looking downstream.

PHOTO 4: View of sink hole in shoulder of Hwy 6 on Upstream

side of embankment.

AP

PE

ND

IXA

AP

PE

ND

IXB

1139

1140

1138

11391137

1137

1140

K

O

O

T

E

N

A

Y

D

I

S

T

R

I

C

T

U

N

S

U

R

V

E

Y

E

D

C

R

O

W

N

L

A

N

D

D

L

1

4

0

2

9

10+160

10+140

10+120

10+180

TH-A

TH-E

TH-D

TH-B

TH-C

This copyrighted draw

ing form

s part of a T

hurber report and its use is subject to T

hurber's S

tatem

ent of Lim

itations and C

onditions

23783-C

AD

001.dw

gP

lotted: O

ctober 05, 2018

1. Test hole locations and digital base plans provided

by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

2. Contour interval is 0.5 metre.

NOTES:

DWG. NO.PROJECT No. REV.DESIGNED DRAWN DATEAPPROVED SCALE

-

- 1237831:250OCTOBER 5, 2018

RRSWRW

NEAR CHERRYVILLE, B.C.GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

HIGHWAY 6; PROPOSED CORTIANA BRIDGE

TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

15 m

SCALE 1:250

2.50 5 7.5 10 12.5

AutoCAD SHX Text

CONC. BAG

AutoCAD SHX Text

15-5

AutoCAD SHX Text

ROCK FILLED GABION

AutoCAD SHX Text

3P

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

=1136.58m

AutoCAD SHX Text

PRESENT WATER

AutoCAD SHX Text

3P

AutoCAD SHX Text

LIDAR SURVEY

AutoCAD SHX Text

FIELD SURVEY

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATERLINE GOES THROUGH CULVERT

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

RIPRAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

NEW CULVERT 1200MM CSPL=17.69m CI=1137.41m CRUSHED CO=1136.89m FAIR

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

T

H

-

C

T

H

-

D

T

H

-

A

T

H

-

E

P

H

1

9

-

1

P

H

1

9

-

2

P

H

1

9

-

3

P

H

1

9

-

6

P

H

1

9

-

1

0

P

H

1

9

-

9

P

H

1

9

-

1

2

P

H

1

9

-

1

1

P

H

1

9

-

1

3

P

H

1

9

-

1

4

P

H

1

9

-

1

6

P

H

1

9

-

5

P

H

1

9

-

4

P

H

1

9

-

7

P

H

1

9

-

8

P

H

1

9

-

1

5

P

H

1

9

-

1

7

P

H

1

9

-

1

8

T

H

1

9

-

1

9

T

H

1

9

-

2

0

T

H

-

B

This copyrighted draw

ing form

s part of a T

hurber report and its use is subject to T

hurber's S

tatem

ent of Lim

itations and C

onditions

23783-C

AD

002.dw

gP

lotted: A

pril 05, 2019

1. Depth to inferred bedrock using hydraulic rock drilling is based on the

action of the drill and the driller's comments. Refer to geotechinical report

for limitations of this drill method.

2. Probe hole locations and digital base plans provided on March 14, 2019,

by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

3. PH19-7, -8, -15, -17, and -18 were moved slightly from original layout to

avoid services; PH19-19 and -20 were added during the investigation.

4. Contour interval is 0.5 metre.

NOTES:

DWG. NO.PROJECT No. REV.DESIGNED DRAWN DATEAPPROVED SCALE

-

- 2237831:300APRIL 5, 2019

RRSWRW

NEAR CHERRYVILLE, B.C.GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

HIGHWAY 6; PROPOSED CORTIANA BRIDGE

BEDROCK PROBING LOCATION PLAN

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

0 4

SCALE 1:300

10 15 20m2 6 8

DRILLING SUMMARY

DEPTH TO INFERRED

WEATHERED BEDROCK (m)

DEPTH TO INFERRED

BEDROCK (m)

PH19-1

PH19-2

PH19-3

PH19-4

PH19-5

PH19-6

PH19-7

PH19-8

PH19-9

PH19-10

PH19-11

PH19-12

PH19-13

PH19-14

PH19-15

PH19-16

PH19-17

PH19-18

PH19-19

PH19-20

3.7

3.4

3.4

4.5

-

4.5

-

-

4.0

-

-

-

3.7

3.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.5

5.5

4.4

4.9

> 11.0

4.9

3.0

4.4

4.3

3.7

2.7

4.5

4.0

4.9

2.1

-

2.1

1.9

5.6

8.2

LEGEND:

2019 Probe Hole

PH19-7

TH-E

2018 Test Hole

AutoCAD SHX Text

CRBx4

AutoCAD SHX Text

FLAGPOLE

AutoCAD SHX Text

102+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

101+80

AutoCAD SHX Text

101+20

AutoCAD SHX Text

101+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

201+08.79

AutoCAD SHX Text

201+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

200+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

200+20

AutoCAD SHX Text

200+40

AutoCAD SHX Text

200+60

AutoCAD SHX Text

200+80

AutoCAD SHX Text

BRIDGE

AutoCAD SHX Text

ROAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

CREEK

AutoCAD SHX Text

CAPPED RIP RAP OUTLINE

AutoCAD SHX Text

101+60

AutoCAD SHX Text

101+40

AutoCAD SHX Text

VOID FILLED BOULDER BED

AutoCAD SHX Text

CLASS 500kg RIP RAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

CLASS 1000kg RIP RAP TYP

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPERTY LINE

AutoCAD SHX Text

1140

AutoCAD SHX Text

1138

AutoCAD SHX Text

1140

AutoCAD SHX Text

1142

AutoCAD SHX Text

1138

AutoCAD SHX Text

1136

AutoCAD SHX Text

1134

AutoCAD SHX Text

1142

AutoCAD SHX Text

1140

AutoCAD SHX Text

1138

AutoCAD SHX Text

BC HYDRO RIGHT OF WAY

AutoCAD SHX Text

TO FAUQUIER

AutoCAD SHX Text

TO VERNON

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXIST BUILDING STRUCTURE

AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text


AutoCAD SHX Text

EXIST BUILDING STRUCTURES

AutoCAD SHX Text

BURIED APPROX ONLY WATER FROM CREEK ABOVE

AutoCAD SHX Text

WATERLINE GOES THROUGH CULVERT

AutoCAD SHX Text

H.P.

AutoCAD SHX Text

WP1

AutoCAD SHX Text

WP2

AutoCAD SHX Text

LINE SUSPENDED OVER CHANNEL

AutoCAD SHX Text

LIGHTNING PEAK ROAD

AutoCAD SHX Text

PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS RE-ALIGNMENT

AutoCAD SHX Text

INONOAKLIN CREEK

AutoCAD SHX Text

PAVEMENT TIE INTO DRIVEWAY

AutoCAD SHX Text

PAVEMENT TIE INTO DRIVEWAY

AutoCAD SHX Text

LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION STA. 100+00

AutoCAD SHX Text

LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION STA. 10+256

AutoCAD SHX Text

30°SKEW

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING CULVERTS AND CONCRETE WALL SHOWN FOR REFERENCE

AutoCAD SHX Text

EXISTING ROAD ALIGNMENT (REF)

AutoCAD SHX Text

NORTH

AP

PE

ND

IXA

AP

PE

ND

IXC

AP

PE

ND

IXB

Symbol Soil Type

GW Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM* Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC* Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW* Well-graded sands or gravelly sands, little to no fines

SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM* Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

SC* Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

MLInorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine

sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity

CLInorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,

silty clays, lean clays

OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low palsticity

MHInorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,

elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts

Pt Peat and other highly organic soils

TS Topsoil with roots, etc.

SB Rock fragments and cobbles, particle size 75mm to 300mm diameter

LB Boulders, particle size over 300mm in diameter

BCMOTI SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Major Divisions

Co

ars

e G

rain

ed

So

ils

Gra

vel and

Gra

velly

Soils

Sand a

nd

Sandy

Soils

Fin

e G

rain

ed

So

ils

Silt

s and

Cla

ys L

L<

50

Silt

s and

Cla

ys L

L>

50

Organic Soils

Topsoil

Cobbles

Boulders

*GP-GM ; GP-GC; SP-SM; SP-SC; 6-12% Passing #200 (0.075mm) Sieve

* GM1; GC1; SM1; SC1; 12-20% Passing #200 (0.075mm) Sieve




RU

DA

CE

OU

SA

RE

NA

CE

OU

S

LIM

ES

TO

NE

(undiff

ere

ntia

ted)

AR

GIL

LA

CE

OU

S o

r LU

TA

CE

OU

S

ROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Descriptions should follow the form “Colour, grain size, textural fabric, weathering, alteration, strength, type”. Example: Da rk bluish grey, fine-grained, crystalline, slightly weathered, moderately strong basalt.

COLOURShade SecondaryPrimarylight pinkish pinkdark reddish red

yellowish yellowbrownish brownolive olivegreenish greenbluish blue

whitegreyish grey

black

GRAIN SIZETerm Particle Retained on Equivalent

Size Sieve Size Soil Grade

Very coarse-grained >60 mm 2 inch Coarse gravel, cobbles, bouldersCoarse-grained 2 - 60 mm No. 8 GravelMedium-grained 60 microns - 2 mm No. 200 SandFine-grained 2 - 60 microns SiltVery fine-grained <2 microns Clay

Note: grains >60 microns are visible to the naked eye.

TEXTURE/ FABRIC

crystallinegranularglassy

WEATHERING / ALTERATIONTerm Description

Fresh No visible sign of rock material weathering.Faintly weathered Discoloration on major discontinuity surfaces.Slightly weathered Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored by weathering and may be somewhat weaker than in its

fresh condition.Moderately weathered Less than half of the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discoloured rock is present either as a continuous framework or as corestones.Highly weathered More than half the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil. Fresh or discoloured rock is present either as discontinuous framework or as corestones.Completely weathered All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.Residual soil All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed. Thhearen gise ain l avrogleu mc e, but the soil has not been significantly transported.

ROCK STRENGTHTerm Grade Unconfined compressive strength Field estimation of strength

(MPa) (psi)Extremely strong rock R6 >250 >36,000 Specimen can only be chipped with a geological hammer.Very strong rock R5 100 - 250 15,000 - 36,000 Specimen requires many blows of a geological hammer to fracture it.Strong rock R4 50 - 100 7,500 - 15,000 Specimen requires more than one blow of geological hammer to fracture it.Medium strong rock R3 25 - 50 3,500 - 7,500 Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife, specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of geological hammer.Weak rock R2 5 - 25 750 - 3,500 Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty, shallow indentations made by firm blow with point of geological hammer.Very weak rock R1 1 - 5 150 - 750 Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife.Extremely weak rock R0 .25 - 1 35 - 150 Indented by thumbnail.Hard clay1 S6 >.50 >70 Indented with difficulty by thumbnail.Very stiff clay1 S5 0.25 - 0.50 35 - 70 Readily indented by thumbnail.Stiff clay1 S4 0.10 - 0.25 15 - 35 Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only with great effort.Firm clay1 S3 0.05 - 0.10 7 - 15 Can be penetrated several inches by thumb with moderate effort.Soft clay1 S2 0.025 - 0.05 4 - 7 Easily penetrated several inches by thumb.Very soft clay1 S1 <0.025 <4 Easily penetrated several inches by fist.

1These soil strengths are as recommended by ISRM but should only be used to describe highly weathered rock, residual soils or rock discontinuity filling; they do not correspond to ASTM D2488 consistencycriteria.

ROCK TYPE

Genetic group Detrital sedimentary Pyroclastic Chemicalorganic

Metamorphic Igneous

Usual Structure BEDDED BEDDED FOLIATED MASSIVE MASSIVE

COMPOSITION

Grainsize

(mm)

Grains of rock,quartz. feldspar

and minerals

At least 50% ofgrains are of

carbonate

At least 50% of grainsare of fine-grained

volcanic rock

Quartz, feldspars,micas, aciculardark minerals

Verycoarsegrained

Coarsegrained

60

2

Grains are of rockfragments

Rounded grains:CONGLOMERATE

Angular grains:BRECCIA

CALCI-RUDITE

Rounded grainsAGGLOMERATE

Angular grainsVOLCANICBRECCIA

MIGMATITE HORNFELS

SALINEROCKSHalite

AnhydriteGypsum

GNEISS MARBLE

Mediumgrained

0.06

0.002

SANDSTONE Grains aremainly mineral fragmentsQUARTZ SANDSTONE:

95% quartz, voidsempty or cemented

ARKOSE: 75% quartz,up to 25% feldspar: voids

empty or cementedARGILLACEOUS

SANDSTONE: 75%quartz, 15% + fine

detritalmaterial

CALC-ARENITE

TUFF

Alternate layersof granular andflakey minerals

SCHIST

PHYLLITE

GRANULITE

QUARTZITE

AMPHIBOLITE

Finegrained

Veryfine

grained

MUDSTONESHALE: fissile

mudstoneSILTSTONE: 50%

fine-grained particlesCLAYSTONE: 50%

very fine-grainedparticles

CALCAREOUSMUDSTONE

CALCI-SILTITE

CALCI-LUTITE

Fine-grained TUFF

Very fine-grainedTUFF

CHERT

FLINT

COAL

OTHERS

SLATE

MYLONITE

GLASSY

References: Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party (1977), The Description of Rock Masses For Engineering Purposes, Quaterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 10; Rock Chracterization Testing and Monitoring, ISRM Suggested Methods, E. Brown, Pergamon Press; Manual of Mineralogy, 20th Editi on, C. Klein and C. Hurlbut, Wiley; Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 2nd Edition, 1985, Canadian Geotechnical Society; Foundations on Rock, D. Wyllie, E & FN Spon.

ROCK MASS DESCRIPTION

Descriptions of rock mass should include detailed description of the discontinuities and the state of weathering and alteration. Discontinuity description should include type, number of sets, location, orientation(dip/dip direction), fracture spacing, separation of fracture surfaces, infilling, persistence (continuous length) and surface roughness and shape. Example: “Columnar jointed with vertical columns and one setof horizontal joints, spacing of vertical joints is very wide, spacing of horizontal joints wide, joints lengths are 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) vertically and 0.5 to 1m (1.5 to 3 ft) horizontally; joint aperture is open and thefracture infilling is very soft clay. The vertical columnar joints are smooth, while the horizontal joints are very rough.”

TYPEJoint - break with no visible displacementFault - fracture with recognizable displacementCleavage planeBedding planeSchistocity planeWeakness zoneFissureTension crackFoliation

SPACINGPerpendicular distance between adjacentdiscontinuitiesExtremely wide >6 mVery wide 2 m - 6 mWide 600 - 2 mModerate 200 - 600 mmClose 60 - 200 mmVery close 20 - 60 mmExtremely close <20 mm

ORIENTATIONDip, dip direction and trend of lineationexpressed as degrees

PERSISTENCEModal trace length for each setVery low <1 mLow 1 - 3 mMedium 3 - 10 mHigh 10 - 20 mVery high >20 m

BLOCK SIZE

Term Block size

Very large >8 m3

Large 0.2 - 8 m3

Medium 0.008 - 0.2 m3

Small 0.0002 - 0.008 m3

Very small <0.0002 m3

Equivalent discontinuityspacings in blocky rock

Very wide to extremely wideWideModerateCloseLess than close

APERTURE<0.1 mm Very tight0.1 - 0.25 mm Tight “Closed” features0.25 - 0.5 mm Partly open0.5 - 2.5 mm Open2.5 - 10 mm Moderately wide “Gapped” features>10 mm Wide1 - 10 cm Very wide10 - 100 cm Extremely wide “Open” features>1 m Cavernous

FORMOverall shape of the discontinuity

PlanarUndulatingSteppedIrregular

ROUGHNESSPolished Shiny smooth and slippery in all directionsSlickensided Polished in one direction and showing evidence of significant movementSmooth Smooth to the touchSlightly rough Asperities on the fracture surfaces are visible and can be distinctly feltMedium rough Asperities are clearly visible and fracture surface feels abrasiveRough Large angular asperities can be seen and distantly feltVery rough Highly irregular jagged surfacesDefined ridges Supplemental - used with above termsSmall steps Supplemental - used with above terms

JRC - joint roughness coefficient0 - 22 - 4

4 - 1010 - 1212 - 1616 - 20

>20

Mapping Symbols

Joint dip and strike direction

Horizontal joint

Vertical joint and strike direction

Bedding dip and strike direction

Foliation dip and strike direction

Rock Mass Descriptive Terms

massive = few joints or very wide spacingblocky = approximately equidimensionaltabular = one dimension considerably smaller

than the other twocolumnar = one dimension considerably larger than

the other twoirregular = wide variations of block size and shapecrushed = heavily jointed to “sugar cube”

aperture = the perpendicular distance separatingthe adjacent rock walls of an opendiscontinuity

width = the perpendicular distance separatingthe adjacent rock walls of a filleddiscontinuity

Drill Core Descriptive Terms (all measurements on rockcore are taken along the centreline axis of the core )

recovery = summed length of all pieces ofrecovered core expressed as a % oflength drilled

frequency = number of natural discontinuitiesintersecting a length of core (expressedfor each metre of core unless otherwisedescribed)

RQD = Rock Quality Designation, a modifiedcore recovery percentage in which allthe pieces of sound core over 10 cmlong are counted as recovery and areexpressed as a percentage of the

length drilled

TYPICAL ROUGHNESS PROFILES JRC range

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6

6 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 12

12 - 14

14 - 16

16 - 18

18 - 20

Scale

Start NQcoring at4.27mdepth.

GP

SP

BR

2.2m

3.5m

8.23m

1

2

17

Loose, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL(probable FILL); poorly graded; gravel to75 mm diameter

Loose, wet, grey-brown, gravelly SAND;trace silt; gravel to 25 mm diameter

BEDROCK(see Rock Core logs)

End of Test Hole at 8.23 m depth.

Note 1: Logging carried out by Sea to SkyDrilling for MoTI. The field logs wereprovided to Thurber Engineering Ltd. fordrafting.

Note 2: Test Hole closure summary wasnot provided.

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube

C-CoreA-Auger G-Grab V-Vane

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Driller: Chad Brown

Drill Make/Model: Mobile B-53

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

Location: Near Cherryville, B.C.

Date(s) Drilled: May 16, 2018

Drilling Method: Wash RotaryCoordinates Surveyed

Project: Cortiana Bridge

L#-Lab SampleW-Wash(mud return)

1138

1137

1136

1135

1134

1133

1132

1131

1130

Thurber Engineering Ltd. / Sea toSky Drilling

Prepared by:

Logged by: Reviewed by: WRW

SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: TH18-A

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment:

10

0

Final Depth of Hole: 8.2 mDepth to Top of Rock: 3.5 m

Station/Offset:

COMMENTSTESTING

Drillers Estimate{G % S % F %}

Drilling Company: Sea to Sky Drilling

23783

SUMMARY LOG

Datum: UTM Nad 83, Zone 11

Northing/Easting: 5539703.29 , 403384.76

Elevation: 1139.01 m

DYNAMIC CONE (BLOWS/300 mm)

MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2-

TE

L M

OD

237

83_C

OR

TIA

NA

BR

IDG

E_2

018

TE

ST

HO

LES

_MO

TI F

OR

MA

T.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2.

GD

T 5

/10/

18

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%

SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm) Natural Vane (KPa) Remold Vane (KPa)

100 200 300 400 Pocket Penetrometer Shear Strength (kPa)

4

8

4222

31722

SPT

R5

R4-R5

R5

4

5

2

0

3

Joints; undulating to stepped,rough, infilled

Joints; undulating, moderatelyrough, infilledDiscontinuity; planar to undulating,moderately rough, infilledJoints; planar to curved, rough,infilled

Discontinuity; planar, moderatelyrough, infilled

Joints; planar, smooth to rough,infilled

Very coarse, PORPHYRITICGRANITE; strong to verystrong; slightly weathered tofresh

ANDESITE


ANDESITE


End of Test Hole at 8.23 mdepth.

Note 1: Logging carried out bySea to Sky Drilling for MoTI.The field logs were provided toThurber Engineering Ltd. fordrafting.

Note 2: Test Hole closuresummary was not provided.

1

2

3

Fair

Fair

Excellent

F-SW

F-SW

F-SW

4.57

1.26

6.13

4.96

6.24


DIS

CO

NT

INU

ITY

SP

AC

ING

RECOVERY %

RQD %

Alignment:



14

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

STRUCTURALDISCONTINUITYDESCRIPTION


4


Driller: Chad Brown

Drilling Method: Wash Rotary

ROCK CORE LOG

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1134

1133

1132

1131

1130

1129

1128

1127

1126

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

44

Page 1 of 1



DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

CO

RE

RU

N N

O

RO

CK

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

# O

F JO

INTS


ROCK MASSDESCRIPTION

Prepared by:

HW HighlyCW CompletelyRS Residual Soil

F FreshSW SlightlyMW Moderately

WeatheringR3 Medium Strong 25-50R4 Strong 50-100R5 Very Strong 100-250R6 Extremely Strong >250

Rock Strength (MPa)R0 Extremely Weak >1R1 Very Weak 1-5R2 Weak 5-25

INT

AC

T R

OC

KS

TR

EN

GT

H

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G

Discontinuity Spacing:No. of fractures/m


Drill Hole #: TH18-A

Coordinates Surveyed




Station/Offset:

23783

CO

RE

QU

ALI

TY

I s(5

0)(M

pa)

INST

ALLA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80

MO

T-R

OC

K-R

EV

2B-M

OD

BY

TE

L 2

3783

_CO

RT

IAN

A B

RID

GE

_201

8 T

ES

T H

OLE

S_M

OT

I FO

RM

AT

.GP

J M

OT

-DR

AF

T-R

EV

2B.G

DT

5/1

0/18

GP

CB/SB

GP

BR

1.07m

2.9m

3.66m

4.57m

Sandy GRAVEL (FILL)

GRAVEL and BOULDERS (probable FILL)

GRAVEL

BEDROCK




ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Driller: Chad Brown


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






1138

1137

1136

1135

1134

1133

1132

1131

1130

1129


Prepared by:


SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: TH18-B

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment:

10

0


Station/Offset:

COMMENTSTESTING



23783

SUMMARY LOG





MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2-

TE

L M

OD

237

83_C

OR

TIA

NA

BR

IDG

E_2

018

TE

ST

HO

LES

_MO

TI F

OR

MA

T.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2.

GD

T 5

/10/

18

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%



SPT


AS

GP

GP/SB

BR

0.2m

2.74m

3.35m

8.38m

1 13

ASPHALT

Loose, wet, brown, sandy GRAVEL (FILL)

GRAVEL and COBBLES

BEDROCK(see Rock Core logs)




ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Driller: Chad Brown


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






1138

1137

1136

1135

1134

1133

1132

1131

1130

1129


Prepared by:


SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: TH18-C

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment:

10

0


Station/Offset:

COMMENTSTESTING



23783

SUMMARY LOG





MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2-

TE

L M

OD

237

83_C

OR

TIA

NA

BR

IDG

E_2

018

TE

ST

HO

LES

_MO

TI F

OR

MA

T.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2.

GD

T 5

/10/

18

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%



84443

SPT

R5

R5

R3

2

2

10

10

3

Joints; planar to undulating,moderately rough, infilled

Joints; planar to undulating,rough, infilled

Joints; irregular, rough

Joints; irregular, rough

Joints; planar to undulating,moderately rough, infilled


End of Test Hole at 8.38 mdepth.

Note 1: Logging carried out bySea to Sky Drilling for MoTI.The field logs were provided toThurber Engineering Ltd. fordrafting.

Note 2: Test Hole closuresummary was not provided.

1

2

3

Excellent

Good

Fair

F-SW

F-SW

F-SW

6.05

4.71

0.63

6.33


DIS

CO

NT

INU

ITY

SP

AC

ING

RECOVERY %

RQD %

Alignment:



13.7

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

STRUCTURALDISCONTINUITYDESCRIPTION


3.7


Driller: Chad Brown

Drilling Method: Wash Rotary

ROCK CORE LOG

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1134

1133

1132

1131

1130

1129

1128

1127

1126

1125

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

3.73.7

Page 1 of 1



DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

CO

RE

RU

N N

O

RO

CK

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION

# O

F JO

INTS


ROCK MASSDESCRIPTION

Prepared by:

HW HighlyCW CompletelyRS Residual Soil

F FreshSW SlightlyMW Moderately

WeatheringR3 Medium Strong 25-50R4 Strong 50-100R5 Very Strong 100-250R6 Extremely Strong >250

Rock Strength (MPa)R0 Extremely Weak >1R1 Very Weak 1-5R2 Weak 5-25

INT

AC

T R

OC

KS

TR

EN

GT

H

WE

AT

HE

RIN

G

Discontinuity Spacing:No. of fractures/m


Drill Hole #: TH18-C

Coordinates Surveyed




Station/Offset:

23783

CO

RE

QU

ALI

TY

I s(5

0)(M

pa)

INST

ALLA

TIO

N

20 40 60 80

MO

T-R

OC

K-R

EV

2B-M

OD

BY

TE

L 2

3783

_CO

RT

IAN

A B

RID

GE

_201

8 T

ES

T H

OLE

S_M

OT

I FO

RM

AT

.GP

J M

OT

-DR

AF

T-R

EV

2B.G

DT

5/1

0/18

AS

GP/SB

GP/SB

BR

0.13m

0.91m

5.18m

6.1m

ASPHALT

Compact GRAVEL

GRAVEL and COBBLES

- contains boulders

BEDROCK




ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Driller: Chad Brown


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






1138

1137

1136

1135

1134

1133

1132

1131

1130

1129


Prepared by:


SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: TH18-D

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment:

10

0


Station/Offset:

COMMENTSTESTING



23783

SUMMARY LOG





MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2-

TE

L M

OD

237

83_C

OR

TIA

NA

BR

IDG

E_2

018

TE

ST

HO

LES

_MO

TI F

OR

MA

T.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2.

GD

T 5

/10/

18

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%



SPT

GP

GP/SB

GP

GP/SB

BR

1.52m

2.29m

4.27m

6.4m

7.01m

Loose to compact GRAVEL

GRAVEL and COBBLES

Compact GRAVEL

GRAVEL and COBBLES

BEDROCK (Inferred)




ELE

VA

TIO

N (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LegendSample Type:

S-SplitSpoon

O-Odex(air rotary)

T-ShelbyTube


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Driller: Chad Brown


CLA

SSIF

ICAT

ION






1138

1137

1136

1135

1134

1133

1132

1131

1130


Prepared by:


SO

IL S

YM

BO

L

Drill Hole #: TH18-E

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

SA

MP

LE N

O

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION

00

Page 1 of 1

DE

PT

H (

m)

DR

ILLI

NG

DE

TA

ILS

Alignment:

10

0


Station/Offset:

COMMENTSTESTING



23783

SUMMARY LOG





MO

T-S

OIL

-RE

V2-

TE

L M

OD

237

83_C

OR

TIA

NA

BR

IDG

E_2

018

TE

ST

HO

LES

_MO

TI F

OR

MA

T.G

PJ

MO

T-D

RA

FT

-RE

V2.

GD

T 5

/10/

18

LW %W %

20 40 60 80P W%



SPT

Documents

HIGHWAY 6 – CORTIANA BRIDGE DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL … · considering the construction of a new bridge to provide additional flow capacity at the site. The selected concept for the