TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 1 DONALD TO FORDE · PDF filepotential material reuse, ... The hard silty clay is interpreted to be a glacio-lacustrine deposit while ... the project site indicate

900, 1281 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3J7 T: 604 684 4384 F: 604 684 5124thurber.ca

July 19, 2013 File: 17-610-171A Urban Systems Ltd. Suite 304 - 1353 Ellis Street Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 1Z9 Attention: Mr. Tim Blackburn, P.Eng.

TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 1 DONALD TO FORDE STATION ROAD FOUR LANING, PROJECT NO. 23470-0000

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT, REVISION 3

Dear Tim: As requested, this report summarizes Thurber Engineering Ltd. (TEL)’s geotechnical design recommendations for the Highway 1 4-Laning Project near Golden. Due to the fast track nature of the design schedule, preliminary recommendations have been provided by email. This report has been prepared for the Tender Submission. Recommendations provided within this report supersede those provided previously. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Urban System Ltd. (Urban) and MoTI. Use of this report is subject to the attached Statement of Limitations and Conditions that are an integral part of this report. Any use that a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on decisions based on it are the responsibility of such third parties. TEL accepts no responsibility for damage incurred by third parties as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. 1. INTRODUCTION The Highway 1 (Trans-Canada Highway, TCH) JUVIS to Forde Station Road Project involves widening of an approximately 2 km segment of the existing Highway east of Donald, BC from two to four lanes. The new lanes will generally be constructed downslope, or south, of the existing alignment and extend from approximately the eastern limit of the median weigh scale and vehicle inspection facility, (Joint Use Vehicle Inspection Station, JUVIS) to about 700 m west of the Forde Station Road intersection. Geotechnical design for the project includes cuts and fills, pavement structure, an evaluation of potential material reuse, a new approach for the westbound JUVIS Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) sensor and four downslope retaining walls using interlocking concrete blocks. 2. GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION This design report should be read in conjunction with the Factual Geotechnical Report dated April 16, 2013.

Client: Urban Systems Ltd. Date: July 19, 2013 File No.: 17-610-171A E-File: g_pke_let_Geotechnical Design Report_Hwy #1 4-Laning near Golden (July19-13) Page 2 of 12

2.1 Geotechnical Interpretation In general, the soil conditions across the project site comprise dense silty sandy gravel overlying stiff to hard silty clay. The hard silty clay is interpreted to be a glacio-lacustrine deposit while the overlying granular material is interpreted to be a fluvial deposit of the nearby Columbia River. The geologic contact between the two units within the project area varies between about El. 782 and 790 m. The silty clay is present at or near the design profile elevation west of approximately Sta. 104+00, and the dense silty sandy gravel is present at or near design profile elevation east of Sta. 104+00. Proposed cut slopes on the north side of the alignment will generally be in the silty sandy gravel and embankments on the south side of the alignment, west of about Sta. 108+00 will be founded on the stiff silty clay. Groundwater measurements across the project site indicate that the groundwater elevation ranges between about El. 780 m and 797 m. Generally, the ground water was measured to be just above the silty clay – sandy gravel contact. 2.2 Site Seismicity The Natural Resources Canada (NRC)’s seismic hazard calculation website was used to determine design peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the project site located at 51.469° North, 117.13° West. The NRC calculator indicates that the firm-ground PGA for the design 1:475 year earthquake is 0.064g. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations have been made in consideration of the MoTI Geotechnical Design Criteria (GDC). 3.1 Pavement Structure

Existing Pavement 3.1.1 As detailed in the Final Factual Report, the average thickness of the existing pavement structure is about 450 mm. The existing pavement generally comprises two asphalt layers with a probable cement-treated base course layer in between. As the structural properties of the existing pavement structure are significantly different than the new pavement structure proposed below, the performance of the existing pavement cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the future performance of the new pavement structure. As the geotechnical investigation was completed during winter, deflection testing of the existing pavement structure was not feasible. To properly assess the existing pavement condition, Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing should be completed. Due to the varying thickness of the existing pavement structure, there may be some challenges matching the new pavement with the existing. To ensure proper drainage of the new pavement structure, the pavement subgrade should be sloped away from the existing pavement structure


at a minimum grade of 2%. Stepped lap joint detailing should also be considered. Where possible, joints should match lane lines or the centre of the lanes.

New Pavement 3.1.2 Design Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) values for the travelled highway lanes have been calculated using traffic volumes provided by Urban via email on January 2nd, 2013. These values include an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 4772, a Seasonal Average Daily Traffic of 9048, 26% heavy trucks, a growth rate of between 1.2 and 1.5% and a design life of 25 years. Additionally, we assumed a lane distribution factor of 0.8, a heavy truck distribution of 10/55/35 % of Class 5/9/13 respectively, and that all the trucks were loaded to 100% of their licensed Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW). Based on the information provided, and our assumptions, design ESAL values for the travelled highway lanes are calculated to be between 20 and 23 million. These approximate ESAL values and the recommended inputs provided in the MoTI Pavement Structure Guidelines Technical Circular T-01/04 were used with the AASHTO (1993) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures to determine the appropriate pavement structure. The following pavement structure is calculated for the travelled lanes: 210 mm Asphalt Pavement (AP) 300 mm Crushed Base Course (CBC) 300 mm Select Granular Sub-Base (SGSB) MoTI has decided to use the following alternative pavement structure to that described above for both the travelled lanes: 125 mm AP 300 mm CBC 500 mm SGSB Using the composite structural number of this pavement structure, and the reliability, standard deviation and serviceability limits provided in T-01/04, and assuming a pavement subgrade Resilient Modulus of 40 MPa, a design ESAL value for the entire pavement structure of about 13 million is calculated. It should be noted that the design ESAL value for the AP layer only, is approximately 1 million. The 125 mm AP design is anticipated to have less favourable life-cycle performance relative to the 210 mm AP design. To compare the life cycle performance, the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design program (Pavement ME), which employs a mechanistic empirical design approach, was utilized to provide a preliminary estimate of life cycle performance. Traffic inputs to the analyses utilized information provided by Urban and general recommendations provided in the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO)’s Report, “Ontario’s Default Parameters for AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design, Interim Report”. An asphalt mix design for the Coquihalla


Highway at Zopkius brake check was provided by MoTI and was input into the software. Performance Criteria Target Values in the MTO Report were used to compare the relative performance of the pavement structures. Detailed results from the Pavement ME analyses are attached and a comparison is provided in the table below. The results of the Pavement ME analysis indicate that reducing the asphalt thickness from 210 mm to 125 mm results in an increase in the amount of predicted distresses for all distress types except smoothness and thermal cracking. The amount of predicted smoothness related distress was estimated to be nominally the same. Total pavement rutting for the 125 mm AP design is estimated to reach the 19 mm threshold within 10 years, with a 5 year service life extension for the 210 mm AP design. The more significant issue relates to the service life reduction associated with fatigue cracking. Top down fatigue cracking is estimated to exceed the target threshold of 378.8 m/km in 13 years for the 125 mm AP design, while the target threshold is not expected to be exceeded for the 210 mm AP design over the 25-year analysis period. The 210 mm AP design is expected to resist bottom-up fatigue cracking. Bottom-up fatigue cracking for the 125 mm AP design is estimated to occur starting around year 5 and within 18% of the wheel-path area (at 85% reliability) at the end of the 25-year design life.

Table 1 – Pavement ME Design Comparison

Predicted Satisfied?Years to

TargetPredicted Satisfied?

Years to

Target

Predicted Terminal IRI (m/km) 1.80 2.61 Fail 11 2.73 Fail 7

Permanent Deformation - Total Pavement (mm) 19.00 26.60 Fail 10 23.40 Fail 15

AC Bottom-up Fatigue Cracking (%) 25.00 17.79 Pass - 1.50 Pass -

AC Thermal Fracture (m/km) 189.40 4.08 Pass - 4.32 Pass -

AC top-down Fatigue Cracking (m/km) 378.80 508.19 Fail 13 277.33 Pass -

Permanent Deformation - AC only (mm) 6.00 16.60 Fail 6 15.83 Fail 7

210 mm AP Thickness

Target ValuesDistress Prediction Summary

125 mm AP Thickness

Prediction of asphalt pavement thermal cracking is a function of the low temperature condition of the project site. Based on the available climate data, a minimum pavement temperature of about minus 35° can be anticipated. Consideration of this minimum should be given when selecting the performance grade (PG) of the asphalt binder.

Weight In Motion Sensor (WIM Pad) Approach 3.1.3 We understand that the existing WIM Sensor near the east end of JUVIS has suffered some cracking and damage at the concrete-asphalt interface. It is proposed that an 8 m concrete approach slab be constructed below the asphalt pavement to minimize future damage. Beneath the proposed WIM Pad approach, the following pavement structure is recommended: 300 mm Well Graded or Open Graded Base Course (WGBC or OGBC) 300 mm SGSB


We also recommend an approximately 8 m long transition zone from the standard pavement structure to the concrete approach slab. Within this transition zone, we recommend that the SGSB thickness taper from 500 mm to about 300 mm and that the WGBC thickness taper from 300 mm to about 600 mm. The asphalt thickness should remain 125 mm thick. We also recommend that the pavement gravels (both SGSB and WGBC) be compacted to 100% Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density (MPMDD). A perforated 150 mm diameter sub-drain should be located below the SGSB beneath the WIM pad approach slab and adjacent to the WIM pad. The sub-drain should be wrapped in drain rock, wrapped in non-woven geotextile and either connected to the storm sewer system or day-lighted to the ditch. 3.2 Stripping Generally, the topsoil or organic layer encountered on the ground surface ranged between 0 and 450 mm thick at the test pit locations. Based on the results of the test pit investigation, the following table provides stationing and estimated stripping depths. Note that in some areas deeper local sub-excavation of materials will be required. This will need to be excavated/stripped prior to placement of fill or re-use of materials.

Table 2 – Estimated Stripping Requirements

From To

200+00 204+78 Westbound (150)

100+00 104+00 Westbound (150)

104+00 110+50 Westbound 300

110+50 112+00 Westbound 450

112+00 116+20 Westbound 300 500-1500 Deeper sub-excavation required in certain areas

116+20 116+60 Westbound (300) 1500 Depression of soft soil.

116+60 122+01 Westbound 150

300+00 314+15 Eastbound (150)

100+00 104+80 Eastbound 300

104+80 107+00 Eastbound (300)

107+00 108+00 Eastbound 450 1300 Deeper sub-excavate required around 107+40

108+00 109+00 Eastbound 150

109+00 111+00 Eastbound 450

111+00 112+00 Eastbound 150

112+00 113+50 Eastbound 450 1000 Deeper sub-excavation required in certain areas

113+50 118+50 Eastbound 150

118+50 122+01 Eastbound 300 Localized areas may require stripping to 450 mm

Station Range Westbound /

Eastbound

lanes?

Est.

Stripping

Thickness

(mm)

Possible Sub-

Excavation

(mm)

Notes


3.3 Material Reuse Characterization In general, with the exception of the above identified stripping and localized sub-excavation requirements, it is anticipated that the majority of the cut materials can be reused as fill material, subject to moisture conditioning. Based on our investigation, most of the cut material will be silty sandy gravel and is acceptable for embankment fill, but will need some processing to be used as SGSB or retaining wall backfill. Processing may include washing or crushing to reduce the relative fines content (percent passing the #200 sieve). It is recommended that the following shrinkage/swell factors be used to estimate cut and fill quantities:

Table 3 – Estimated Shrinkage and Swell Factors

Material Type Natural Loose Compacted

Clay and Silt 1.0 1.2 – 1.4 0.9 – 1.0

Sand and Gravel 1.0 1.1 – 1.2 0.9 – 1.0

3.4 Cut Slopes Cut slopes are required throughout the project area and are typically located on the upslope or north side of the existing Highway alignment. Generally, the cuts will be completed into the dense silty sandy gravel. Lab testing estimated a friction angle of about 39° for this material. Slopes cut into this material at 1.75H:1V are anticipated to satisfy the MoTI GDC’s minimum static factor of safety of 1.5. Slopes cut at 1.5H:1V, will likely have a static factor of safety of about 1.3. We understand that the MoTI has accepted this reduced factor of safety for cut slope design. It should be anticipated that some surface sloughing will occur on slopes constructed at 1.5H:1V and slope/ditch maintenance will be required. Deep rooted vegetation should be considered to reduce the risk of surface instability. 3.5 Fill Slopes It is anticipated that embankment fills will be constructed of material excavated from the cut areas and compacted to 95% Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) as per MoTI Standard Specifications. Given these assumptions, we anticipate that fill slopes constructed at 1.75H:1V will satisfy the MoTI GDC’s minimum factor of safety of 1.5. Slopes constructed at 1.5H:1V will have a static factor of safety of about 1.3. The embankment widening in some areas require sliver fill geometry. Techniques and sequencing used for construction of sliver fills are critical to fill stability to reduce the potential for a weak layer between the existing ground and new fill. The subgrade at the toe of embankments should be free from deleterious, loose or otherwise unsuitable soils and should be compacted with a large steel drum vibratory roller where possible. The toe subgrade should be inspected prior to fill placement and any subexcavation operations completed, if required. As


the fill operations proceed upslope against the existing slope, the original ground should be terraced in a continuous series of steps a minimum of 1.5 m wide as the embankment rises, as per MoT SS201.37. Additional excavation into the existing slope may be required in some areas to provide a sufficient width for compaction equipment access. The material from the stepped excavation should be spread and compacted into the adjoining embankment subject to inspection and approval by the geotechnical engineer or Ministry Representative for material suitability. To maintain embankment stability a minimum constructed embankment width is required and is summarized in the table below.

Table 4 – Minimum Constructed Embankment Width

Embankment Height Min. Constructed

Embankment Width

Less than 1 m 1 m

Between 1 and 3 m 3 m

Greater than 3 m 5 m

3.6 Retaining Walls

General 3.6.1 Four retaining walls are proposed for construction within the existing project area and are to be constructed south, or downslope of the Highway alignment. The walls have been designed as either MSE walls with interlocking concrete block facing or gravity walls using interlocking concrete blocks. General geometric details are summarized in the table below.

Table 5 – Geometric Retaining Wall Summary

Wall No.

Wall Type Begin Sta.

End Sta. Length

(m)

Maximum Height at Wall Face

(m)

Approximate Height of Sloping

Surcharge (m)

9093R MSE/Gravity 104+40 104+97.75 57.5 4.5 4

9094R MSE/Gravity 113+01.5 113+34.5 33 3.0 2.5

9095R MSE/Gravity 116+60.75 117+03.5 42.75 5.25 2

9096R Gravity 119+45 119+55.5 10.5 2.25 5 Note: Maximum sloping surcharge angle of 1.75H:1V

Design Methodology 3.6.2

Design for all four retaining walls follow the methods and guidelines provided in “AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition” (AASHTO-2002). For items not covered by AASHTO-2002, the US Federal Highway Administration’ publication “Mechanically


Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines (FHWA-NHI-00-043) provided guidance. Internal stability of the retaining walls was assessed using Adama Engineering’s MSEW v.3.0 MSE wall design program. External stability was assessed using an in-house spreadsheet following the AASHTO-2002 methodology. Global stability was assessed using GeoSlope’s Slope/W limit equilibrium slope stability software.

Design Criteria 3.6.3 The minimum factors of safety used for the design are shown in the table below. The factors are consistent with the most stringent provided by the GDC, AASHTO-2002 or FHWA-NHI-00-043.

Table 6 – Target Minimum Factors of Safety

Static Seismic (1:475)

Internal Stability

Geogrid Tensile Strength 1.5 1.2

Geogrid Pullout Capacity 1.5 1.2

Geogrid Connection Strength 1.5 1.2

Sliding at Lowest Geogrid 1.5 1.2

External Stability

Sliding at Wall Base 1.5 1.2

Overturning 2.0 1.5

Eccentricity at Wall Base (e/L) 0.167 0.33

Bearing Capacity 2.5 1.5

Global Stability

Drained Loading 1.5 n/a

Undrained Loading 1.5 1.2

Geogrid Design 3.6.4

Uniaxial geogrid has been used as reinforcement where required to satisfy internal stability requirements. Geogrid requirements are summarized in the table below.


Table 7 – Geogrid Design Strengths

Wall No. Station Range

Required Geogrid

Ultimate Tensile Strength1 (kN/m)

Maximum Allowable Design Strength2 (kN/m)

W 9093R 104+73.00 to 104+95.50 144 52.7

W 9094R 113+20.25 to 113+29.25 144 52.7

W 9095R

116+71.25 to 116+84.00 144 52.7

116+90.00 to 116+96.75 144 52.7

116+84.00 to 116+90.00 210 74.1 Notes: 1 - Based on minimum average roll value determined in accordance with ASTM D4759-02 2 - For a 120-year design life

Where a sloping surcharge exists on top of the wall, a minimum reinforcement length of 1.0 x H or 2.4 m, whichever is greater, is required. The geogrid should be connected to the concrete block facing either by casting the geogrid into the concrete block or by sandwiching the geogrid between the concrete blocks. If casting is used, the geogrid must have a minimum of one rib fully embedded into each block. If sandwiching is used, all geogrid sheets should extend over the concrete blocks to within 50 mm of the wall face. In either case, the design geogrid length is measured from the back of the concrete block to the end of the exposed length of geogrid. Geogrids should be pulled tight prior to placing overlying backfill. Backfill should be placed behind the facing blocks first and spread towards the back of the geogrid to avoid excessive wall face deformation.

Foundation Preparation 3.6.5 Based on the available test hole information and the drawings provided by Urban, all three retaining walls are anticipated to be founded in the silty sandy gravel, although local zones of silt and clay may be encountered. Where granular subgrade is encountered, the exposed subgrade surface should be heavily compacted to dense and unyielding conditions prior to wall construction. Where silt/clay is encountered at subgrade level, no compaction is required and a smooth cleanout bucket should be utilized during subgrade preparation to minimize disturbance. It should be noted that the silt/clay is sensitive to changes in moisture content and is susceptible to disturbance, especially in wet weather conditions. Accordingly, foot and equipment traffic on the silt/clay should be avoided until it is covered with a skim coat of lean-mix concrete or a nominal thickness of granular fill for protection. Any soft, loose, wet, organic, deleterious and/or other unsuitable materials encountered at subgrade level should be subexcavated. Prior to fill placement or wall construction, the wall subgrade must be inspected by TEL or the Ministry Representative to confirm the conditions are consistent with those assumed for design.


Bearing Capacity / Pressure 3.6.6 Based on the above recommended foundation preparation, we anticipate that all three walls will be founded on relatively competent ground. Given the minimum required reinforcement length, we estimate that a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 200 kPa can be used for wall design under static loading conditions. This can be increased to 330 kPa for the 1:475 year earthquake. The total settlement under static loading is estimated to be approximately 25 mm. Calculated bearing pressures for each wall are summarized in the table below. In all cases the estimated applied bearing pressure is less than the allowable bearing capacity.

Table 8 - Calculated Bearing Pressures

Wall No.

Static (kPa) Seismic (kPa) Static Eccentricity

(e/L) Seismic Eccentricity

(e/L)

9093R 165 250 0.041 0.15

9094R 140 160 0.072 0.14

9095R 180 205 0.06 0.12

9096R 120 140 0.045 0.17

Wall Backfill 3.6.7

Wall backfill should be consistent with the guidelines presented within FHWA-NHI-00-043 for select granular fill material. The backfill used should be reasonably free from organic materials and should conform to the gradation limits in the table below as determined by AASHTO T-27. Within 1 m of the concrete blocks, the wall backfill should be non-frost susceptible and have less than 5% passing the 0.075 mm sieve.

Table 9 – Wall Backfill Gradation Limits

Sieve Size Percent Passing Outside Frost-

Susceptible Zone

Percent Passing in Non-Frost Susceptible

Zone

100 mm (4 inch) 100 100

0.425 mm (#40) 0 – 60 0 – 60

0.075 mm (#200) 0 – 15 0 – 5

Wall backfill should be compacted to 95% SPMDD. Lift thickness should not exceed 300 mm in loose thickness. It is anticipated that all wall backfill will be generated by processing of material excavated from cut areas within the project. As such, we have assumed a conservative friction angle of 35°. Material testing of post-processed wall backfill should confirm this minimum friction angle at the time of construction as part of the Constructor’s QC/QA testing program.


Embedment / Frost Protection 3.6.8 The minimum embedment depth for walls from adjoining finished grade to the top of the levelling pad is typically based on bearing capacity, global stability and frost protection considerations. Current practice recommends embedment depths between H/20 and H/5 (where H is the height of the wall) depending on the slope in front of the wall. Larger values may be required, depending on depth of frost penetration, shrinkage and swelling of foundation soils and seismic activity at the wall location. The recommended embedment depth for all three retaining walls, based on required frost protection, is 1.5 m. We understand that MoTI’s local retaining wall experience suggests that this depth of frost cover is not necessary. MoTI has thus decided to limit frost cover to about 0.6 m. There is a risk that this amount of frost protection is inadequate given the frost susceptibility of the foundation soils and that frost heave may occur. Frost heave of the foundation soils could result in vertical and horizontal deformation of the wall face and reinforcing elements and may compromise the structural integrity of the walls.

Global Stability 3.6.9 Composite global stability for all walls was assessed using GeoSlope’s Slope/W limit equilibrium slope stability software. Static and pseudo-static stability analyses were conducted through representative sections, typically taken at the maximum wall height. The global stability analyses were run using the actual MSE reinforcement lengths, strengths and pullout resistances. The results for the cases are presented in the table below and selected plots are shown in Figures 1 through 8. Analyses were checked to fully understand the sensitivity to changes in the water table elevation.

Table 10 – Calculated Global Stability Factors of Safety

Wall Design Section Static Loading Seismic Loading

9093R Sta. 104+90 1.56 1.47

9094R Sta. 113+25 1.74 1.69

9095R Sta. 116+85 1.61 1.91

9096R Sta. 119+45 1.56 1.47

Drainage 3.6.10

Drainage should comprise a continuous perforated 150 mm diameter PVC pipe both immediately behind the concrete blocks and at the rear of the reinforced zone (where applicable). The PVC pipe should be encased in about 150 mm of type 1 filter gravel (MoTI Standard Specifications SP303-06) and wrapped in non-woven geotextile filter fabric. Front and rear drainage should be connected approximately every 50 m with a 150 mm diameter solid PVC pipe sloped at a minimum of 2% towards the front of the wall. Drain pipes should outlet below the wall approximately every 50 m and drain positively away from the wall.

Design Inputs

Age (year) Heavy Trucks (cumulative)

2014 (initial) 1,2502026 (12 years) 4,981,6502039 (25 years) 10,980,500

TrafficDesign Structure

Layer type Material Type Thickness(mm):

Flexible 16 mm Medium Mix 50.0

Flexible 19 mm Medium Mix - Class 1 75.0

NonStabilized Crushed Base Course - 25 mmm 300.0

NonStabilized SGSB 500.0Subgrade A-3 Semi-infinite

Volumetric at Construction:Effective binder content (%) 12.4

Air voids (%) 5.0

Distress TypeDistress @ Specified

Reliability Reliability (%) Criterion Satisfied?

Target Predicted Target AchievedTerminal IRI (m/km) 1.80 2.61 85.00 32.90 Fail

Permanent deformation - total pavement (mm) 19.00 26.60 85.00 19.72 Fail

AC bottom-up fatigue cracking (percent) 25.00 17.79 85.00 94.01 Pass

AC thermal fracture (m/km) 189.40 4.08 85.00 100.00 Pass

AC top-down fatigue cracking (m/km) 378.80 508.19 85.00 75.98 Fail

Permanent deformation - AC only (mm) 6.00 16.60 85.00 2.63 Fail

Distress Prediction Summary

Distress Charts

Flexible PavementDesign Type:25 yearsDesign Life:

September, 2014Traffic opening:Pavement construction: August, 2014

July, 2014Base construction: Climate Data Sources (Lat/Lon)

49.733, -115.783

Design Outputs

AP125 - 24MFile Name: D:\1 My Darwin ME\Projects\1 Vancouver\Hwy 1 - Golden\AP125 - 24M.dgpx

Report generated on: 22/03/2013 11:29 AM Page 1 of 22

by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM

by: Created Approved

Traffic Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors

Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class 10 Class 11 Class 12 Class 13

Graphical Representation of Traffic Inputs

Traffic Inputs

Operational speed (kph) 80.0

Percent of trucks in design direction (%): 100.080.02 Percent of trucks in design lane (%):Number of lanes in design direction:

1,250Initial two-way AADTT:



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Traffic WanderMean wheel location (mm)

Traffic wander standard deviation (mm)Design lane width (m)

460

2543.75

Axle ConfigurationAverage axle width (m) 2.59

Dual tire spacing (mm)Tire pressure (kPa)

305827.4

Average Axle SpacingTandem axle spacing (m)Tridem axle spacing (m)Quad axle spacing (m)

1.45

1.68

1.32

Wheelbase does not apply

Number of Axles per Truck

Vehicle Class

Single Axle

Tandem Axle

Tridem Axle

Quad Axle

Class 4 1.62 0.39 0 0Class 5 2 0 0 0Class 6 1 1 0 0Class 7 1.125 0.125 0.875 0Class 8 2 1 0 0Class 9 1.025 1.959 0.02 0

Class 10 1.064 1.007 0.972 0.028Class 11 2 0 0 0Class 12 3.25 1.25 0 0Class 13 1.058 2.07 0.919 0

Axle Configuration

Volume Monthly Adjustment Factors Level 1 - Site Specsific MAF

Month Vehicle Class4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

January 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0February 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0March 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0April 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0May 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0June 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0July 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0August 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0September 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0October 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0November 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0December 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Distributions by Vehicle Class

Growth Factor

Rate (%) Function1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound1.5% Compound

Vehicle ClassAADTT

Distribution (%) (Level 1)

Class 4 0%Class 5 10%Class 6 0%Class 7 0%Class 8 0%Class 9 55%Class 10 0%Class 11 0%Class 12 0%Class 13 35%

Truck Distribution by Hour

Hour Distribution (%)

12 AM 2.3%1 AM 2.3%2 AM 2.3%3 AM 2.3%4 AM 2.3%5 AM 2.3%6 AM 5%7 AM 5%8 AM 5%9 AM 5%10 AM 5.9%11 AM 5.9%


12 PM 5.9%1 PM 5.9%2 PM 5.9%3 PM 5.9%4 PM 4.6%5 PM 4.6%6 PM 4.6%7 PM 4.6%8 PM 3.1%9 PM 3.1%10 PM 3.1%11 PM 3.1%Total 100%

Tabular Representation of Traffic Inputs



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


AADTT (Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic) Growth* Traffic cap is not enforced



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Climate Inputs

Climate Data Sources:

Climate Station Cities: Location (lat lon elevation(m))49.73300 -115.78300 914KIMBERLEY, BC

Monthly Climate Summary:

Annual Statistics:

Mean annual air temperature (ºC) 5.08Mean annual precipitation (mm) 367.03Freezing index (ºC - days) 847.31Average annual number of freeze/thaw cycles: 115.91



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


< -25ºC

Hourly Air Temperature Distribution by Month:

-25ºC to -20ºC -20ºC to -15ºC -15ºC to -10ºC -10ºC to -5ºC -5ºC to 0ºC 0ºC to 5ºC 5ºC to 10ºC

15ºC to 20ºC10ºC to 15ºC 20ºC to 25ºC 25ºC to 30ºC 30ºC to 35ºC 35ºC to 40ºC 40ºC to 45ºC > 45ºC



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


HMA Design Properties

Layer Name Layer Type Interface Friction

Layer 1 Flexible : 16 mm Medium Mix Flexible (1) 1.00

Layer 2 Flexible : 19 mm Medium Mix - Class 1 Flexible (1) 1.00

Layer 3 Non-stabilized Base : Crushed Base Course - 25 mmm

Non-stabilized Base (4) 1.00

Layer 4 Non-stabilized Base : SGSB


Layer 5 Subgrade : A-3 Subgrade (5) -

Using G* based model (not nationally calibrated) False

Is NCHRP 1-37A HMA Rutting Model Coefficients True

Endurance Limit - Use Reflective Cracking True

Structure - ICM PropertiesAC surface shortwave absorptivity 0.85

Design Properties



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Thermal Cracking (Input Level: 3)

Indirect tensile strength at -10 ºC (MPa) 3.23Creep Compliance (1/GPa)

Loading time (sec) -20 ºC1 8.21e-0022 9.13e-0025 1.05e-00110 1.17e-00120 1.30e-00150 1.50e-001100 1.67e-001

-10 ºC1.04e-0011.23e-0011.54e-0011.83e-0012.17e-0012.72e-0013.22e-001

0 ºC1.31e-0011.74e-0012.54e-0013.38e-0014.50e-0016.55e-0018.72e-001

Thermal ContractionIs thermal contraction calculated? True

Mix coefficient of thermal contraction (mm/mm/ºC) - Aggregate coefficient of thermal contraction (mm/mm/ºC) 9.0e-006

Voids in Mineral Aggregate (%) 17.4



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


HMA Layer 1: Layer 1 Flexible : 16 mm Medium Mix



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


HMA Layer 2: Layer 2 Flexible : 19 mm Medium Mix - Class 1



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Analysis Output Charts



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Layer InformationLayer 1 Flexible : 16 mm Medium Mix

Parameter ValueGrade Superpave Performance GradeBinder Type 64-34A 9.461VTS -3.134

Asphalt Binder

Gradation Percent Passing19 mm-inch sieve 1009.5 mm sieve 84.24.75 mm sieve 58.80.075mm sieve 5.79

Asphalt Dynamic Modulus (Input Level: 3)

AsphaltThickness (mm) 50.0Unit weight (kg/m^3) 2469.0Poisson's ratio Is Calculated? False

Ratio 0.35Parameter A - Parameter B -

General Info

Name ValueReference temperature (ºC) 21.1Effective binder content (%) 12.4Air voids (%) 5Thermal conductivity (watt/meter-kelvin) 1.16

Heat capacity (joule/kg-kelvin ) 963

Field ValueDisplay name/identifier 16 mm Medium Mix

Description of object Kamploops, BC

AuthorDate Created 1/18/2013 12:00:00 AMApproverDate approved 1/18/2013 12:00:00 AMStateDistrictCountyHighwayDirection of TravelFrom station (km)To station (km)ProvinceUser defined field 2User defined field 3Revision Number 0

Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Layer 2 Flexible : 19 mm Medium Mix - Class 1


Asphalt Binder

Gradation Percent Passing19 mm-inch sieve 99.59.5 mm sieve 79.44.75 mm sieve 61.40.075mm sieve 5.2




General Info



Field ValueDisplay name/identifier 19 mm Medium Mix - Class 1

Description of object Port Kells Plant


Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM



Liquid LimitPlasticity Index 0.0

6.0

Sieve Size % Passing0.001mm0.002mm0.020mm0.075mm 0.80.150mm 2.00.180mm0.250mm0.300mm 7.90.425mm0.600mm 23.10.850mm1.18mm 30.02.0mm2.36mm 45.04.75mm 64.29.5mm 73.412.5mm19.0mm 86.225.0mm 100.037.5mm50.0mm63.0mm75.0mm90.0mm

Is User Defined? Falseaf 3.6376bf 3.5355cf 1.0431hr 100.0000

Sieve

Is User Defined? Value

Maximum dry unit weight (kg/m^3) False 2048.8

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (m/hr) False 1.095e-01

Specific gravity of solids False 2.7Optimum gravimetric water content (%) False 8.1

User-defined Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC)

TrueIs layer compacted?

UnboundLayer thickness (mm) 300.0Poisson's ratio 0.35Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.5

Based on PI and Gradation -

Modulus (Input Level: 2)

Analysis Type: Modify input values by temperature/moisture

Method: Resilient Modulus (MPa)

Resilient Modulus (MPa)205

Use Correction factor for NDT modulus? - NDT Correction Factor: -

Field ValueDisplay name/identifier Crushed Base Course - 25 mmm

Description of object BCMoT Typical Gradations


Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




6.0

Sieve Size % Passing0.001mm0.002mm0.020mm0.075mm 0.80.150mm 2.00.180mm0.250mm0.300mm 7.90.425mm0.600mm 23.10.850mm1.18mm 44.72.0mm2.36mm 55.64.75mm 64.29.5mm 73.412.5mm19.0mm 86.225.0mm37.5mm 100.050.0mm63.0mm75.0mm90.0mm


Sieve














Field ValueDisplay name/identifier SGSB

Description of object BCMoT Example Gradations

Author AASHTODate Created 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AMApproverDate approved 1/1/2011 12:00:00 AMStateDistrictCountyHighwayDirection of TravelFrom station (km)To station (km)ProvinceUser defined field 2User defined field 3Revision Number 0

Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Layer 5 Subgrade : A-3


22.0



Sieve







UnboundLayer thickness (mm) Semi-infinitePoisson's ratio 0.3Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (k0) 0.68







Field ValueDisplay name/identifier A-3

Description of object Default material


Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Calibration Coefficients

k1: 0.007566k2: 3.9492k3: 1.281Bf1: 1Bf2: 1Bf3: 1

AC Fatigue

K1: -3.35412 K2: 1.5606 K3: 0.4791Br1: 1Br2: 1 Br3: 1

0.24*Pow(RUT,0.8026)+0.001

AC Rutting

AC Rutting Standard Deviation

Level 1 K: 1.5Level 2 K: 0.5Level 3 K: 1.5

Level 1 Standard Deviation: 0.1468 * THERMAL + 65.027Level 2 Standard Deviation: 0.2841 *THERMAL + 55.462 Level 3 Standard Deviation: 0.3972 * THERMAL + 20.422

Thermal Fracture

k1: 1 k2: 1 Bc1: 1 Bc2:1

CSM Fatigue



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Subgrade Rutting

Granular Finek1: 2.03 Bs1: 1 k1: 1.35 Bs1: 1Standard Deviation (BASERUT)0.1477*Pow(BASERUT,0.6711)+0.001

Standard Deviation (BASERUT)0.1235*Pow(SUBRUT,0.5012)+0.001

c1: 7 c2: 3.5

200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*LOG10(TOP+0.0001)))

AC Cracking

1.13+13/(1+exp(7.57-15.5*LOG10(BOTTOM+0.0001)))

AC Top Down Cracking AC Bottom Up Cracking

c3: 0 c4: 1000 c3: 6000c2: 1c1: 1AC Cracking Top Standard Deviation AC Cracking Bottom Standard Deviation

C1: 1 C2: 1

CSM Cracking

C4: 1000C3: 0

CTB*1CSM Standard Deviation

IRI Flexible Pavements

C3: 0.008 C4: 0.015C1: 40 C2: 0.4



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Design Inputs










Air voids (%) 5.0







AC top-down fatigue cracking (m/km) 378.80 387.14 85.00 84.42 Fail



Distress Charts




49.733, -115.783

Design Outputs



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





Traffic Inputs






by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




460

2543.75



305827.4


1.45

1.68

1.32



Vehicle Class

Single Axle

Tandem Axle

Tridem Axle

Quad Axle



Axle Configuration





Growth Factor


Vehicle ClassAADTT











by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Climate Inputs




Annual Statistics:




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


< -25ºC






by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM















Design Properties



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





-10 ºC1.04e-0011.23e-0011.54e-0011.83e-0012.17e-0012.72e-0013.22e-001

0 ºC1.31e-0011.74e-0012.54e-0013.38e-0014.50e-0016.55e-0018.72e-001






by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




Asphalt Binder





General Info






Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




Asphalt Binder





General Info






Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




6.0



Sieve

















Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




6.0



Sieve

















Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




22.0



Sieve















Description of object Provided Gradation - MTO Limits SC


Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM



k1: 0.007566k2: 3.9492k3: 1.281Bf1: 1Bf2: 1Bf3: 1

AC Fatigue

K1: -3.35412 K2: 1.5606 K3: 0.4791Br1: 1Br2: 1 Br3: 1

0.24*Pow(RUT,0.8026)+0.001

AC Rutting




Thermal Fracture

k1: 1 k2: 1 Bc1: 1 Bc2:1

CSM Fatigue



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Subgrade Rutting



c1: 7 c2: 3.5

200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*LOG10(TOP+0.0001)))

AC Cracking

1.13+13/(1+exp(7.57-15.5*LOG10(BOTTOM+0.0001)))



C1: 1 C2: 1

CSM Cracking

C4: 1000C3: 0



C3: 0.008 C4: 0.015C1: 40 C2: 0.4



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Design Inputs










Air voids (%) 5.0







AC top-down fatigue cracking (m/km) 378.80 277.33 85.00 92.37 Pass



Distress Charts




49.733, -115.783

Design Outputs


Report generated on: 22/03/2013 12:12 PM Page 1 of 22

by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





Traffic Inputs






by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




460

2543.75



305827.4


1.45

1.68

1.32



Vehicle Class

Single Axle

Tandem Axle

Tridem Axle

Quad Axle



Axle Configuration





Growth Factor


Vehicle ClassAADTT











by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Climate Inputs




Annual Statistics:




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


< -25ºC






by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM















Design Properties



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





-10 ºC1.04e-0011.23e-0011.54e-0011.83e-0012.17e-0012.72e-0013.22e-001

0 ºC1.31e-0011.74e-0012.54e-0013.38e-0014.50e-0016.55e-0018.72e-001






by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM





by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




Asphalt Binder





General Info






Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




Asphalt Binder





General Info






Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




6.0



Sieve

















Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




6.0



Sieve

















Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM




22.0



Sieve















Description of object Provided Gradation - MTO Limits SC


Identifiers



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM



k1: 0.007566k2: 3.9492k3: 1.281Bf1: 1Bf2: 1Bf3: 1

AC Fatigue

K1: -3.35412 K2: 1.5606 K3: 0.4791Br1: 1Br2: 1 Br3: 1

0.24*Pow(RUT,0.8026)+0.001

AC Rutting




Thermal Fracture

k1: 1 k2: 1 Bc1: 1 Bc2:1

CSM Fatigue



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Subgrade Rutting



c1: 7 c2: 3.5

200 + 2300/(1+exp(1.072-2.1654*LOG10(TOP+0.0001)))

AC Cracking

1.13+13/(1+exp(7.57-15.5*LOG10(BOTTOM+0.0001)))



C1: 1 C2: 1

CSM Cracking

C4: 1000C3: 0



C3: 0.008 C4: 0.015C1: 40 C2: 0.4



by: on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM on: 07/09/2012 11:12 AM


Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure – Southern Interior Region

THURBER ENGINEERING LTD. GEOTECHNICAL – ENVIRONMENTAL - MATERIALS

Retaining Wall 1 (9093R) – Global Stability Static (Drained) Loading

ENG: PKE DWN: CJC SCALE: N.T.S

Donald to Forde Station Road Four Laning

Donald, B.C. DATE: July 16,

2013 FIGURE: 1



Retaining Wall 1 (9093R) – Global Stability Seismic (Undrained) Loading




2013 FIGURE: 2






Donald, B.C.. DATE: July 16,

2013 FIGURE: 3





Donald to Forde Station Road Four Laning Donald, B.C.

DATE: July 16, 2013

FIGURE: 4







2013 FIGURE: 5






DATE: July 16, 2013

FIGURE: 6






DATE: July 16, 2013

FIGURE: 7







2013 FIGURE: 8

Documents

TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY 1 DONALD TO FORDE · PDF filepotential material reuse, ... The hard silty clay is interpreted to be a glacio-lacustrine deposit while ... the project site indicate