Geotechnical Investigation Mill of Kintail Bridge

Transcription

Geotechnical Investigation
Mill of Kintail Bridge Reconstruction
Town of Mississippi Mills, Ontario
Reference No. 60158.005
Prepared for:
Town of Mississippi Mills
3131 Old Perth Road
Almonte, ON K0A 1A0
Attention: Mr. Cory Smith
By:
AME Materials Engineering
104 - 215 Stafford Road West
Ottawa, ON K2H 9C1
Distribution:
3 copies – Town of Mississippi Mills
1 copy – AME Materials Engineering
July 2012
104 - 215 Stafford Rd. West
Ottawa (Nepean), Ontario,
K2H 9C1 Canada
Tel: (613) 726-3039
Fax: (613) 726-3004
E-mail: [email protected]
Report No. 60158.005
July 25, 2012
Town of Mississippi Mills
3131 Old Perth Road
Almonte, ON
K0A 1A0
Attn:
Mr. Cory Smith
Re:
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
MILL OF KINTAIL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
TOWNSHIP OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS, ONTARIO
Dear Mr. Smith:
Please find attached our geotechnical report for the above mentioned project.
We trust that this report provides sufficient information for your purposes. If you have any questions
concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
AME MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Steve Goodman, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Branch Manager
Specialists in Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Engineering and Testing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 1 4.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 2 4.1. FIELD WORK ............................................................................................................................ 2 4.2. LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................................... 3 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 4 5.1. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 4 5.2. ASPHALT .................................................................................................................................. 4 5.3. GRANULAR FILL ...................................................................................................................... 4 5.4. SILTY CLAY FILL...................................................................................................................... 5 5.5. SILTY SAND TILL ..................................................................................................................... 5 5.6. BEDROCK ................................................................................................................................ 6 5.7. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 6 5.8. DEGRADATION OF CONCRETE ............................................................................................. 7 6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 8 6.1. GENERAL ................................................................................................................................. 8 6.2. SITE PREPARATION ............................................................................................................... 8 6.3. EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING ......................................................................................... 8 6.4. FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 10 Geotechnical Investigation – Report No. 60158.005
Mill of Kintail Bridge Reconstruction, Township of Mississippi Mills, Ontario
6.5. SITE COEFFICIENT ............................................................................................................... 12 6.6. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR DESIGN..................................................................... 13 6.7. APPROACH RECONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................... 17 7.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 19 7.1. SITE INSPECTIONS ............................................................................................................... 19 7.2. WINTER CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 19 8.0 LIMITATION OF THE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 20 APPENDIX 1
Site Location Plan
Borehole Location Plan
Drawing No. 60158.005.1
Drawing No. 60158.005.2
APPENDIX 2
Symbols and Terms
Borehole Reports
(BH12-01 to BH12–02)
APPENDIX 3
Laboratory Testing
Grain Size Analysis Report
Rock Core Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Moisture Content Test Results
Paracel Chemical Results
Certificate of Analysis
Geotechnical Investigation – Report No. 60158.005
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report discusses the findings of a geotechnical investigation carried out for the proposed
reconstruction of the Mill of Kintail Bridge. The existing bridge crosses over the Indian River and is located
on Ramsay Concession Road 8 approximately 800m south of Bennies Corners Road in the Township of
Mississippi Mills, Ontario. A Site Location Plan is provided as Drawing 60158.005.1, Appendix 1.
The purpose of the investigation was to advance a limited number of boreholes adjacent to the existing
structure to assess the soil, bedrock and groundwater conditions, and based on an interpretation of the
factual information obtained; provide recommendations with respect to the geotechnical design aspects of
the project, including construction considerations which could influence design decisions.
This report has been prepared based on our Proposal No. P12056 dated May 9, 2012 and authorized
by Mr. Cory Smith.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the replacement of the existing deck truss type structure located on Ramsay
Concession Road 8 approximately 800m south of Bennies Corners Road. The existing structure spans
a length 20.4 metres with an overall width of 5.5 metres that includes abutments, steel girders and
wing-walls (refer to Drawing No. 60158.005.1, Appendix 1 for general layout details). It is expected that
the bridge will be reconstructed in the same location, elevation and will consist of a structure of similar
size and opening. The bridge footing foundations will be located within the same vicinity as the existing
footings. The existing approach embankments will likely remain at similar elevations to the present.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located in a rural setting on the two lane Ramsay Concession Road 8. It consists of an open
/ rigid concrete frame spanning 20.4 metres and 5.5 metres wide. This structure was found to be in
extremely poor condition. Areas of concrete scaling, spalling and exposed reinforcing steel on the
bridge superstructure and substructure were identified. It is assumed that the existing bridge footings
are founded directly on bedrock.
2
The topography surrounding the existing structure slopes downward from both the north and south
towards the watercourse. The surrounding area consists of cultivated farmland to the west and a
forested conservation area to the east. Undulating hills were noted to the west of the site. The roadway
on either side of the bridge is asphalt covered and its surface elevation is approximately 2.0 – 2.5 m
above the existing ground level at the approaches.
The elevation of the stream water level at the time of the field investigation was 3.5 m (Elev. 95.8 m
relative to local datum) below the top of asphalt at the centerline of the bridge. The stream bed was
observed to be comprised of cobbles, boulders and exposed bedrock.
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1. FIELD WORK
The site work consisted of drilling two (2) boreholes and completing a level survey. The field
investigations proceeded once all utility clearances were received, and a tool box safety meeting was
performed. Ramsay Concession Road 8 was closed between Bennies Corners Road and Clayton Road
before any borehole drilling was conducted. The boreholes were advanced to depths of between
approximately 5.7 m and 7.0 m below present site grades. The boreholes were terminated within the
underlying bedrock formation, which were advanced by diamond core sampling techniques 3.1 to 3.8 m
into the bedrock.
The locations of the boreholes are shown on the enclosed Drawing No. 60158.005.2 in Appendix 1, while
a complete description of the stratigraphy encountered at each test location, is presented in Appendix 2.
The boreholes were advanced by means of a truck mounted drilling rig (CME-75) equipped with
continuous flight augers and diamond core sampling equipment. Soil samples were secured at regular
intervals in the overburden with a 51 mm diameter Standard Penetration Test split-spoon sampler.
Sampling procedures were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard D-1586, which provides the
penetration resistance ("N-value") of the soils. Diamond core sampling of the bedrock was carried out
using an NQ wireline retrieval system.
3
Groundwater observations were made in each of the boreholes as they were drilled through the
overburden prior to rock coring.
Ground surface elevations were measured at various points, including the borehole locations. The
elevations were referenced to a temporary local benchmark established as a nail on a guard rail (“TBM”)
located to the north west of the bridge as shown on Drawing No. 60158.005.2. The local elevation of this
temporary benchmark was assumed as 100.00 m.
Additional information regarding the procedures of in-situ testing, as well as information concerning the
borehole logs, may be found in the Appendix 2 of this report.
All retained soil and bedrock core samples were taken to our laboratory, where they were given detailed
visual examination to confirm descriptions and classification for reporting purposes. These samples will be
stored for a six-month period, after which they will be discarded unless we are advised otherwise.
4.2. LABORATORY TESTING
Moisture contents tests were completed on retained soil samples in our laboratory and individual soil
samples were selected for grain size analysis. The results of these tests are presented in Appendix 3,
and the moisture contents are profiled on the individual borehole logs in Appendix 2.
Analytical chemistry testing was carried out on a sample of surface water from the watercourse and two
(2) soil samples (BH12-01 SS-4 and BH12-02 SS-5) to determine the potential for sulphate attack and
degradation on below grade concrete in contact with existing soil. Results are discussed in Section No.
5.8, with laboratory results presented in Appendix 3.
4
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1. SUMMARY
The detailed results of the individual boreholes are recorded on the Boreholes Logs in Appendix 2.
The soils at the site typically consist of an asphalt pavement surface overlying granular fill overlying a
silty gravelly sand fill or a silty clay fill overlying native silty sand till with trace gravel. Boreholes BH1201 and BH12-02 were extended to approximately 3.0 m and 3.8m, respectively, into bedrock by
diamond core sampling for confirmation purposes.
It should be noted that the borehole locations are offset from the existing footing locations by
approximately 9.4 m (refer to Dwg. No. 60158.005.2 in Appendix 1). Subsurface conditions are
confirmed at the borehole locations only and may vary at other locations, particularly with respect to the
thickness and condition of fill and bedrock condition, and possible buried topsoil and organic soils. The
following sections are intended to comment on and amplify the subsurface conditions encountered.
5.2. ASPHALT
A layer of asphaltic concrete pavement with a thickness ranging from 45 mm to 50 mm was
encountered in both Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02.
5.3. GRANULAR FILL
Following the surface layer of asphaltic concrete, a layer of crushed gravel and sand fill was
encountered in BH12-01 with a thickness of 320 mm. In BH12-02, a silty gravelly sand fill was
encountered directly below the asphaltic concrete layer and extended to a depth of 1.77 m. The
granular fill materials were brown to grey in color and moist.
5
Standard Penetration Resistance in the crushed gravel and sand fill had "N”-values of 4 to 11 blows per
305 mm, indicating a loose to compact relative density. The moisture content of the samples taken within
this silty gravelly sand fill ranged from 6.5 to 9.3% by weight.
A gradation analysis carried out for a representative sample of the silty gravelly sand fill designated as
Sample No. SS2 obtained in Borehole BH12-02 revealed a particle size distribution comprised of 21.3%
Gravel, 53.2% Sand and 25.5% Silt and Clay. The maximum particle size was 19 mm.
5.4. SILTY CLAY FILL
Beneath the pavement structure, Borehole BH12-01 penetrated a layer of fill consisting of silty clay,
trace sand and gravel with occasional cobbles and boulders that extended to a depth of approximately
1.9 m below the existing grade. The earth fill was generally brown in color and moist becoming reddish
brown and wet below 1.7 m.
Standard Penetration Resistance in the silty clay earth fill yielded "N”-values that ranged from 6 to 50
blows per 305 mm. The higher blow count of 50 likely represents striking a cobble or boulder embedded
in the silty clay fill. The lower “N”-value of 6 is considered to be representative and indicates a firm
consistency for the material. The moisture content of the samples of the earth fill ranged from 19.3 to
25.4% by weight. The re-use of this fill material is described in section 6.5.
5.5. SILTY SAND TILL
A deposit of native silty sand till with trace gravel was encountered beneath the fill materials in both
Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02 at depths of 1.8 m and 1.9 m (EL. 97.59 m and 97.46 m),
respectively. The thickness of this layer ranged from approximately 0.8 m to 1.4 m. The silty sand till
was generally light brown in colour and moist.
Standard Penetration Resistance in the silty sand till had "N-values" ranging from 17 to more than 100
blows per 305 mm, indicating a compact to very dense relative density. The moisture content of the
samples of the silty sand till ranged from 3.1 to 13.3% by weight. The re-use of this native deposit is
described in Sections 6.5 and 6.6.
6
5.6. BEDROCK
Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02 contacted bedrock at respective depths of 2.69 m (Elev. 96.65 m) and
3.20 m (Elev. 96.16 m), and were extended by NQ diamond core sampling techniques 3.1 m and 3.8 m
into the bedrock. The bedrock consisted of a white to grey granite with pink bands.
The bedrock encountered in BH12-01 on the southern approach was fresh with only a slightly
weathered zone in the upper 200mm. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranged between 70% and
74%, which corresponds to a fair rock mass quality. Core run recoveries in BH12-01 were 77% and
100%.
The bedrock encountered in BH12-02 on the northern approach was highly fractured throughout the
upper 2.7 m with Rock Quality Designation (RQD) ranging between 0% and 13%, indicating a very poor
rock mass quality and moderate weathering. Core run recoveries in BH12-02 ranged between 13% and
88%. Fractures were generally of the bedding plane variety; however, diagonal fractures were noted
below depths of 4.5 m in Borehole BH12-02. Below the upper zone of highly fractured bedrock, good
rock mass quality was found from Elev. 93.49 m down to the vertical limit of investigation at Elev. 92.40
m.
Boreholes BH12-01 and BH12-02 were terminated within the granite bedrock at depths of 5.74 m and
6.96 m below grade corresponding to Elev. 93.60 m and Elev. 92.40 m, respectively.
5.7. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Groundwater observations were made in each of the boreholes as they were drilled and prior to the start
of rock coring. No standing water was observed within the boreholes through the overburden soils. No
standpipes were installed for long future monitoring as part of this mandate. Based on the highly fractured
nature of the upper zone of the bedrock, it is expected that groundwater levels will be similar to the stream
level. The stream elevation at the time of our field investigations on June 25, 2012 was found to be at
Elev. 95.79 m.
7
Groundwater and stream levels can be expected to fluctuate both seasonally and in response to
precipitation events.
5.8. DEGRADATION OF CONCRETE
Two (2) soil samples (BH12-01 SS-4 and BH12-02 SS-5) and one (1) sample of surface water taken
from the river were analysed for Chlorides (Cal -), Sulphates (SO42-), pH and resistivity in order to
evaluate the potential of the existing soil and water to degrade concrete in the future. Table 1 below
presents results for the samples tested.
Table No. 1
Chlorides, Sulphates and pH
Sample No.
Depth
Interval (m)
BH12-01 / SS-4
BH12-02 / SS-5
Surface Water
Parameters Analysed
-
Chlorides (Cl )
(ppm)
Sulphates (SO42-)
(ppm)
pH
Resistivity
(Ohm m)
2.28 – 2.69
76
39
7.78
42.2
3.05 – 3.20
729
205
7.70
11.9
-
12
7
7.70
32.1
According to CSA Standard A23.1-04, Sulphate concentrations in soil should not exceed 1,000 ppm
(less than 0.1 % water soluble sulphate), while it is generally recognised that Chloride concentrations
should be below 250 ppm. Sulphate concentrations in surface water should not exceed 150 ppm.
The analytical chemistry test results indicate that the soil and water samples tested yielded sulphate
concentrations less than the criteria considered damaging to concrete and, therefore, there should be
negligible sulphate attack on concrete at this site. The chloride concentration for the sample of silty
sand till (Borehole 12-02 / SS-5), however, exceeded the generally recognised limit. Therefore, there is
a potential for the chlorides contained in the silty sand till at this site to produce corrosion of embedded
reinforcing steel in concrete.
8
The results of the analytical chemistry are presented in Appendix 3.
6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. GENERAL
Recommendations are given based on the project description as provided in Section 2.0.
Based upon these borehole results and assuming them to be representative of subsoil conditions across
the entire area, the following comments and recommendations are offered for the foundations of the
proposed structure at the test locations only:
6.2. SITE PREPARATION
Prior to reconstruction of the bridge structure the existing bridge will be demolished. Measures must be
taken to ensure minimal disturbance to the creek, bearing surface for the proposed footings and
surrounding area. This will include but is not limited to silt fences to trap eroded sediment run-off,
temporary caissons and water diversion measures. Further details are presented in the following
sections.
6.3. EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING
Based on the existing bridge details, stream channel characteristics and the subsurface information, we
expect the new bridge structure will be supported by spread footings bearing on bedrock. Bedrock was
encountered in Borehole BH12-01 (Southern Approach) at a depth of 2.7 m (EL. 96.65 m) and in
Borehole BH12-02 (Northern Approach) at a depth of 3.2 m (EL. 96.16 m). Due to the weathered and
highly fractured condition of the bedrock in the upper 2.7 m of bedrock encountered in Borehole BH1202, spread foundations will be required to extend to the underlying sound bedrock. The level of sound
bedrock in Borehole BH12-02 was found to occur below the prevailing stream level (Northern
approach).
9
In order to remove the existing foundations and place the new foundations at the required level,
measures will have to be taken to temporarily divert the water flow in the stream or construct a
cofferdam upstream of the works area to reduce the dewatering requirements at the bridge abutment
locations.
All excavations must be carried out in accordance with Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).
With respect to OHSA, the existing fill materials and compact silty sand till are classified as Type 3
Soils. The dense silty sand till is classified as Type 2 Soil and the weathered bedrock should be
considered as Type 1 within the context of planning excavations. Locally, where the soil is very soft to
soft or very loose at shallow depths or within zones of persistent seepage, it may be necessary to
flatten the side slopes. Excavation side slopes should not be unduly left exposed to inclement weather.
Excavations should not extend below an imaginary line drawn downward at 10 horizontal to 7 vertical
from the leading edges of foundations, services or other settlement sensitive structures without
underpinning the structure and / or providing temporary bracing / support of the structure and founding
soil.
Excavations in sound bedrock can be carried out using near vertical side walls, provided all loosened rock
has been scaled prior to entering the excavation. An examination of the slopes should be carried out by
qualified geotechnical personnel for excavations with a height greater than 3 m before any worker enters
the excavation. A minimum 1 m horizontal ledge should be left at the interface between the overburden /
weathered rock excavation and the top of the sound bedrock surface to provide an area to allow for
potential sloughing or to provide a stable base for the overburden shoring system.
Where bedrock excavation is required for small scale excavations, it is expected that line drilling in
conjunction with hoe ramming may be used to excavate the highly fractured and weathered bedrock.
It is not anticipated that blasting operations would be required for this site. If the underlying fresh bedrock
with fair to good rock quality does need to be removed, however, this may require the use of controlled
blasting. Prior to considering blasting operations, the blasting effects on the any existing services,
buildings or other structures located in close proximity to the work area should be addressed. A pre-blast
or pre-construction condition survey of the existing structures should be carried out prior to commencing
10
site activities. The extent of the survey should be determined by the blasting consultant and should be
sufficient to respond to any in inquiries / claims related to the blasting operations. During the blasting,
vibration monitoring should be performed and include monitoring of existing structural defects where
identified. As a general guideline, the peak particle velocities (measured at the structures) should not
exceed 25 mm per second during the blasting program to reduce the risks of damage to the existing
structures.
The blasting operations should be planned and conducted under the supervision of a licensed
professional engineer who is also an experienced blasting consultant.
It is expected that the bridge foundations will be based below the water level in the adjacent river which
was measured at Elev. 95.79 m on June 25, 2012. This will require use of temporary shoring and
proper dewatering techniques to allow excavation to the required elevation.
The rate of groundwater flow into open excavations through the overburden should be low. The hydraulic
conductivity of the sound granite bedrock is in the order of 1 x 10-7 cm / sec, or lower, and therefore the
flow of groundwater into open excavations within the bedrock will be governed by the number and spacing
of joints and fractures within the rock mass. The in-situ hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass will be
higher at locations where a significant degree of jointing or fractured rock exists, especially within the
upper weathered zone. However, it is expected that the amount of groundwater inflow during bulk
excavation will be controllable by pumping from suitably located collector sumps.
It is not expected a temporary MOE permit to take water (PTTW) will be required for this project as the
groundwater pumping rate should not exceed 50,000 litres / day during the construction period. This is
contingent on effective diversion of water flow in the stream or cutoff of flow via a cofferdam constructed
upstream of the works area.
6.4. FOUNDATIONS
Based on the existing bridge details, river channel characteristics and the subsurface information
determined, the bridge structure may be supported by spread footing foundations bearing on bedrock.
Bedrock was encountered in Borehole BH12-01 (Southern approach) at a depth of 2.7 m (EL. 96.65 m)
11
and in Borehole BH12-02 (Northern approach) at a depth of 3.2 m (EL. 96.16 m). Due to the
weathered and highly fractured condition of the bedrock in the upper portion of the bedrock, spread
foundations will be required to extend to the underlying sound bedrock at local elevation of
approximately between 96.4 m (Borehole BH12-01) for the South Abutment and 93.5 m (Borehole 1202) for the North Abutment. Variations in this thickness should be expected and, in this regard, a unit
price allowance for bedrock removal or exclusion should be included in the construction contract.
For protection against frost heave, the foundations must be provided with sufficient earth cover
equivalent to the frost penetration depth. Foundation frost depth for the Site area is 1.8 m according to
OPSD – 3090.101. The requirement for frost protection may be reduced to 50% of the foundation frost
depth where the footings are founded on sound bedrock that is free of soil infill in fractures and joints at
the footing level.
The sound bedrock at this site is considered to have fair to good rock quality with an RQD > 50% (i.e.,
moderately spaced bedding plane fractures). One core sample of sound granite obtained in Borehole
BH12-01 from a depth of 2.9 to 4.2 m was tested for uniaxial compressive strength with a resulting
value of 82.2 MPa, indicative of strong rock strength. Based on the prescribed founding elevation and
the corresponding competency of the sound granite bedrock, it is considered that the foundations of the
bridge structure will have adequate scour protection. Any voids between the new abutment walls /
foundations should be infilled with 25 MPa concrete to minimize future weathering.
Spread footing foundations bearing on the sound granite bedrock may be sized according to the
parameters recommended in Table 3 below.
Table No. 2
Geotechnical Resistance at SLS and ULS
Geotechnical Resistance
Note
Vertical and centric – Factored ULS
2000 KPa
Factor = 0.5
Vertical - SLS
n/a
-
Provided the bedrock surface is properly cleaned of soil at the time of construction, the settlement of
footings sized using the factored Ultimate Limit States (ULS) bearing resistance should be negligible,
and therefore Serviceability Limit States (SLS) need not be considered.
12
The geotechnical bearing resistance provided herein is given under the assumption that the loads will
be applied perpendicular to the surface of the footings. Where the load is not applied perpendicular to
the surface of the footing, inclination of the load should be taken into account in accordance with
Section 6.7.4 of the CHBDC.
The above recommended bearing resistance for foundation design is subject to verification by the
Geotechnical Engineer by field inspection of the excavated foundation bases at the time of
construction. This is to ensure that the founding soils or bedrock exposed at the excavation base are
consistent with the design bearing resistance values intended by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Prior to pouring concrete for the foundations, all footing areas must be cleaned to remove all loose,
fractured rock to expose sound, intact bedrock prior to placement of formwork and concrete. If
construction proceeds during freezing weather conditions, adequate temporary frost protection for the
footing base and concrete must be provided. The rock bearing surface should be inspected by qualified
geotechnical personnel. It is critical that the bearing surface is clear of any debris and the method of
concrete placement is pre-approved in order to ensure good contact between concrete and bedrock.
Resistance to lateral forces / sliding resistance between the concrete footings and bedrock should be
calculated in accordance with Section 6.7.5 of the CHBDC. The coefficient of friction, tan δ, may be
taken as 0.7 for cast-in-place concrete footings constructed on bedrock. This represents an unfactored
value; in accordance with the CHBDC, a resistance factor of 0.8 is to be applied in calculating the
horizontal resistance. The resistance to lateral loading could be increased by keying or dowelling the
footings into bedrock.
Given the weathered nature of the upper bedrock and the potential for disturbance due to excavating
and blasting, the weathered bedrock should not be considered for lateral resistance. Rock anchors
should be considered for uplift and overturning resistance.
6.5. SITE COEFFICIENT
For seismic design purposes, the Site Coefficient, S, for this site in accordance with Section 4.4.6
of the CHBDC may be taken as 1.0, consistent with Soil Profile Type I.
13
6.6. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR DESIGN
The lateral earth pressures acting on the bridge abutments will depend on the type and method of
placement of the backfill materials, the nature of the soils behind the backfill, and the magnitude of
surcharge including construction loadings, the freedom of lateral movement of the structure, and the
drainage conditions behind the walls. Seismic (earthquake) loading must also be taken into account in
the design.
The following recommendations are made concerning the design of the abutment stems and retaining
walls in accordance with the CHBDC:

Select free-draining granular fill meeting the specifications of OPSS Granular ‘A’ or Granular ‘B’
Type II but with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve should be used as backfill behind
the wall. This fill should be compacted in accordance with OPSS 501.

Longitudinal drains and weep holes should be installed to provide positive drainage of the granular
backfill. Other aspects of the granular backfill requirements with respect to subdrains and frost
tapers should be in accordance with OPSD 3101.150, 3190.100, and 3121.150. The outlets for
these subdrains should not be subject to freezing or flooding.

A minimum compaction surcharge of 12 kPa should be included in the lateral earth pressures for
the structure design of the walls, in accordance with CHBDC Section 6.9.3 and Figure 6.6. Care
must be taken during the compaction operation not to overstress the wall. Heavy construction
equipment should be maintained at a distance of at least 1 meter away from walls where the
backfill soils are being placed. Hand-operated compaction equipment should be used to compact
the backfill soils within a 1.0 metre wide zone adjacent to the walls. Other surcharge loadings
should be accounted for in the design, as required.

The granular fill may be placed in a zone with width equal to at least 1.8 metres behind the back of
the abutment stem (Case (a) on Figure C6.20 of the Commentary to the CHBDC) or within the
wedge-shaped zone define by a line drawn at 1.5H:1.0V extending up and back from the rear face
of the footing (Case(b) on Figure C6.20 of the Commentary to the CHBDC).
14
It is not recommended to re-use the silty clay fill with cobbles and boulders described in Section 5.4 since
it is often subject to excessive frost action and swelling when used as wall backfill. The silty gravelly sand
fill and native silty sand till as described in sections 5.3 and 5.5 are generally not recommended for wall
backfill.
Earth pressures acting on the abutment walls should be computed in accordance with Clause 6.9 of the
CHBDC but generally is given by the expression:
where,
P = K [ γ (h-hw) + γ’hw + q ] + γwhw
P = lateral pressure in kPa acting a depth h (m) below ground surface
K = applicable lateral earth pressure coefficient
h = depth below top of fill where pressure is computed in metres
hw = depth below the groundwater level at point of interest (m)
γ = bulk unit weight of backfill (kN / m3)
γ’ = the submerged unit weight (kN / m3) of exterior soil ( γ’ = γ - γw )
γw = unit weight of water, assume a value of 9.8 kN/m3
q = the complete surcharge loading (kPa)
Where the abutment walls can be drained effectively to eliminate hydrostatic pressure on the wall, this
equation can be simplified to:
P = K [ γh + q ]
where,
K=
=
h=
q=
coefficient of lateral earth pressure
unit weight of soil
height at any point along the wall in metres
any surcharge load in kPa
15
Static Lateral Earth Pressures for Design:
The following guidelines and recommendations are provided regarding the lateral earth pressures for
static (i.e., not earthquake) loading conditions:


For the existing materials (Case (a)), the following unfactored lateral earth pressure parameters
may be used based on the retaining of the existing silty clay fill, silty gravelly sand fill and native
silty sand till deposit for this site:
Material
Silty Clay Fill
Silty Gravelly Sand Fill
Silty Sand Till
Soil Unit Weight
22.6 kN / m3
23.4 kN / m3
22.6 kN / m3
Coefficients of static lateral earth pressure:
Active, Ka
At rest, Ko
Passive, Kp
0.36
0.53
2.77
0.35
0.52
2.88
0.31
0.47
3.26
For Case (b), the pressures are based on granular fill materials as placed and the following
unfactored parameters may be assumed:
Material
Granular ‘A’
Granular ‘B’ Type II
Soil Unit Weight
22.8 kN / m3
22.8 kN / m3
Coefficients of static lateral earth pressure:
Active, Ka
At rest, Ko
Passive, Kp
0.27
0.43
3.70
0.27
0.43
3.70
Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure for Design:
Seismic (earthquake) loading must be taken into account in the design in accordance with Section 4.6 of
the CHBDC. In this regard, the following should be included in the assessment of lateral earth pressures:
16

Seismic loading will result in increased lateral pressures acting on the abutment stem. The walls
should be designed to withstand the combined lateral loading for the appropriate static pressure
conditions given above, plus the earthquake-induce dynamic earth pressure. The site-specific
zonal acceleration for the Ottawa area is 0.2. Based on experience, for the subsurface conditions
at this site, no significant amplification of the ground motion is expected. The seismic lateral earth
pressure coefficients given below have been derived based on a design zonal acceleration ratio of
A = 0.2.

In accordance with Sections 4.6.4 and C.4.6.4 of the CHBDC and its Commentary, for structures
which do not allow lateral yielding, the horizontal seismic coefficient, kh, used in the calculation of
the seismic active pressure coefficient is take as 1.5 times the zonal acceleration ration (i.e., kh =
0.3). For structures which allow lateral yielding, kh is taken as 0.5 times the zonal acceleration
ratio (i.e., kh = 0.1).
The following seismic active pressure coefficients (KAE) for the two backfill cases (Case (a) and Case (b))
may be used in design. It should be noted that these seismic earth pressure coefficients assume that the
back of the wall is vertical and the ground surface behind the wall is horizontal. Where sloping ground is
present above the top of the wall, the lateral earth pressure under seismic loading conditions should be
calculated by treating the weight of the backfill located above the top of the wall as a surcharge.
Seismic Active Pressure Coefficients, KAE:
Material
Case (a)
Case (b)
Silty Clay Fill
Silty Gravelly Sand Fill
Silty Sand Till
Granular ‘A’
Granular ‘B’
Yielding wall
0.39
0.38
0.34
0.30
0.30
Non-yielding wall
0.60
0.59
0.54
0.50
0.50

The above KAE values for yielding wall are applicable provided the wall can move up to 250A
(millimetres), where A is the design zonal acceleration ratio of 0.2. This corresponds to
displacements of up to approximately 50 millimetres at this site.
17

The earthquake-induced dynamic pressure distribution, which is to be added to the static earth
pressure distribution, is a linear distribution with maximum pressure at the top of the wall and
minimum pressure at the toe (i.e., an inverted triangular pressure distribution). The total
pressure distribution (static plus seismic) may be determined as follows:
σh(d) = Kγd + (KAE – K) γ (H – d)
where,
σh(d)
Is the (static plus seismic) lateral earth pressure at depth, d, (kPa);
K
Is the static active earth pressure coefficient, Ka (to be used for yielding walls);
K
Is the static at-rest earth pressure coefficient, Ko (to be used for non-yielding walls);
KAE
Is the seismic active earth pressure coefficient;
γ
Is the unit weight of the backfill soil (kN / m3), as given previously.
d
Is the depth below the top of the wall (m); and
H
Is the total height of the wall (m).
The abutment backfill should be benched into the cut slopes in accordance with OPSD 208.010.
6.7. APPROACH RECONSTRUCTION
Backfill to the abutments and wing walls should be completed as recommended previously in Section 6.5
“Lateral Earth Pressure for Design”. Additional fill placed to re-establish the approaches to the bridge up
to the subgrade level of the pavement structure may utilize the existing gravel and sand fill, silty
gravelly sand fill and native silty sand till described in Sections 5.3 and 5.5 provided that these
materials are consistently dry of optimum moisture content during compaction activities and any
oversize cobbles and boulders are removed. If rock fill is used as backfill, a geotextile fabric should be
used to separate the rock from any granular material placed above it to minimize material loss into the
open voids of the rock. The upper surface of the rock fill should also be chinked.
Reconstruction of the bridge approaches should be carried out as follows:
18

Remove the native soils and existing fill materials behind the abutment walls within a wedgeshaped zone extending from 1.2 m behind the base of the abutments and rising upward at an
inclination of 1.0 vertical to 1.5 horizontal, according to OPSD 3101.150.

Further excavate beyond the foundation backfill zone for a frost taper as prescribed by OPSD
3101.150.

Inspect the exposed subsoil checking for any areas of soft material. Remove all areas of soft and
weak material and replace with suitable granular fill compacted to 98% of SPMDD. Replacement
granular fill should consist of OPSS Granular ‘B’Type II.

Place OPSS Granular ‘B’ Type II in thin loose lifts (not exceeding 200 mm thickness) and compact
to 98% of SPMDD within the foundation backfill zone and frost taper.

Place and compact additional fill as required to re-establish the approaches to the bridge up to
the subgrade level of the pavement structure. The existing sand and gravel fill and native silty
sand described in sections 5.3 and 5.5 excavated from the site may be used for this purpose,
provided any oversize cobbles and boulders are excluded from the fill and the material is
consistently dry of optimum moisture content. The fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not
exceeding 200 mm in thickness and compacted to 98% of SPMDD.

The fill placement and compaction operations should be monitored and compaction testing
performed by qualified geotechnical engineering technicians to confirm compliance to project
specifications, and recommendations provided herein.

The backfilling and reconstruction of the bridge approaches should take place under favourable
climatic conditions. If the work is carried out in months where freezing temperatures may occur,
all frost affected material must be removed prior to the placement of frost-free fill.
The pavement structure of the bridge approaches should match the existing, adjacent conditions, or
comply with the engineering standards for the Town of Mississippi Mills.
19
7.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1. SITE INSPECTIONS
It is recommended that all footing excavations be inspected and approved by qualified geotechnical
engineering personnel to ensure that the founding bedrock conditions correspond to those encountered in
the boreholes, that footings are placed within the correct strata and that all excavations are dry and free of
loosened, fracture and any otherwise deleterious materials. All backfilling operations should also be
supervised to ensure that proper material is employed and that the specified compaction is achieved.
7.2. WINTER CONDITIONS
In the event of construction during freezing temperatures, the founding stratum should be protected from
freezing by the use of loose straw, tarpaulins, propane heaters or other suitable means. In this regard, the
base of the excavations should be insulated from sub-zero temperatures immediately upon exposure and
until such time the footings are protected with sufficient soil cover to prevent freezing at the founding level.
20
APPENDIX 1
Site Location Plan
Drawing No. 60158.005.1
Borehole Location Plan
Drawing No. 60158.005.2
APPENDIX 2
Symbols and Terms
Logs of Boreholes
(BH12-01 to BH12–02)
SYMBOLS AND TERMS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SOIL GENISIS
Topsoil
Peat
Till
Fill
: Mixture of soils and humus capable of supporting vegetative growth.
: Mixture of visible and invisible fragments of decayed organic matter
: Unstratified glacial deposit which may range from clay to boulders
: Materials below the surface identified as placed by humans (excluding buried services)
SOIL STRUCTURE
Desiccated
Fissured
Varved
Stratified
Layer
Seam
Parting
: Having visible signs of weathering by oxidization of clay minerals, shrinkage cracks, etc.
: Having cracks and hence a blocky structure
: Composed of regular alternating layers of silt and clay
: Composed of alternating successions of different soil types, e.g. silt and sand
: > 75 mm in thickness
: 2 mm to 75 mm in thickness
: < 2 mm in Thickness
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
MC%
LL
PL
PI
Dxx
: Natural moisture content or water content of sample, %
: Liquid limit, % (water content above which soils behaves as a liquid)
: Plastic limit, % (water content above which soil behaves plastically)
: Plastic index, % (difference between LL and PL)
: Grain size at which xx% of the soil, by weight, is of finer grain sizes. These grain size
0.075 mm grain size.
: Grain size at which 10% of the soil is finer (effective grain size)
: Grain size at which 60% of the soil is finer.
: Concavity coefficient = (D30)² / (D10 X D60)
: Uniformity coefficient = D60 / D10
D10
D60
Cc
Cu
descriptions are not used below
SAMPLE TYPE
SS
ST
DP
PS
BS
WS
HQ, NQ, BQ, etc.
: Spilt spoon sample (obtained by performing the standard penetration test)
: Shelby tube or thin wall tube
: Direct-Push sample (small diameter tube sampler hydraulically advanced)
: Piston Sample
: Bulk Sample
: Wash Sample
: Rock core samples obtained with the use of standard size diamond coring bits
N-VALUE – STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
Numbers in this column are the field results of the Standard Penetration Test(SPT): the number of blows of a 140 pound(64kg) hammer falling 30 inches
(760mm), required to drive a 2 inch (50.8mm) O.D. split spoon sampler one foot (305mm) into the soil. For split spoon samples where insufficient
penetration was achieved and N-values cannot be presented, the number of blows are reported over sampler penetration in millimeters (e.g. 50/75). Some
design methods make use of N-value corrected for various factors such as overburden pressure, energy ratio, borehole diameter, etc. No corrections have
been applied to the N-value presented on the log.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
A)
COHESIONLESS SOILS
Density Index (Relative Density)
Very Loose
Loose
Compact
Dense
Very Dense
B)
(Blows / 300mm or Blows / ft)
0 to 4
4 to 10
10 to 30
30 to 50
Over 50
COHESIVE SOILS
Consistency
Very Soft
Soft
Firm
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
Undrained Shear Strength
Psf
Kpa
0 to 12
0 to 250
12 to 25
250 to 500
25 to 50
500 to 1000
50 to 100
1000 to 2000
100 to 200
2000 to 4000
Over 200
Over 4000
RECOVERY
For soil samples, the recovery is recorded as the length of the soil sample recovered divided by the total length of sampling and is recorded as a percentage
on a per sample basis.
SYMBOLS AND TERMS (CONT’D)
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (DCPT)
Dynamic cone penetration tests are performed using a standard 60 degree apex cone connected to A size drill rods with the same standard fall height and
weight as the standard penetration test. The DCPT is used as a probe to assess soil variability.
CONSOLIDATION TEST
P’ο
P’с
Ccr
Cc
OC ratio
Void Ratio
Wo
: Present effective overburden pressure at sample depth.
: Preconsolidation pressure of (maximum past pressure on) sample.
: Recompression index (in effect at pressures below P’c)
: Compression index (in effect at pressures above P’c)
: Overconsolidation retio = P’c / P’o
: Initial sample void retio = Volume of Voids / Volume of solids
: Initial water content (at start of consolidation test)
ROCK DESCRIPTION
ROCK WEATHERING
Term
Fresh
Slightly Weathered
Moderately Weathered
Highly Weathered
Completely Weathered
Description
: No Visible signs of rock weathering. Slight discoloration along major discontinuities.
: Discoloration indicates weathering of rock on discontinuity surfaces. All the rock material may be discolored.
: Less than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into the soil.
: More than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into the soil.
: All the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into the soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact.
ROCK MASS:
Spacing (mm)
> 6000
2000 – 6000
600 – 2000
200 - 600
60 – 200
20 – 60
< 20
<6
Joint Classification
Extremely Wide
Very Wide
Wide
Moderate
Close
Very Close
Extremely Close
-
Bedding, Laminates, Bands
Very Thick
Thick
Medium
Thin
Very Thin
Laminated
Thinly Laminated
CORE CONDITION
Total Core Recovery (TCR): The percentage of solid drill core recovered regardless of quality or length, measured relative to the length of the total core run
Solid Core Recovery (SCR): The percentage of solid drill core, regardless the length, recovered at the full diameter, measure relative to the length of the
total core run.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD): Rock quality classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage (Rock Quality Designation) RQD in which all
pieces of sound core over 100mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting or
weathering in the mass and are not counted. RQD was originally intended to be done on NW core; however it can be used on different core sizes if the bulk
of the fractures caused by drilling stresses are easily distinguishable from in situ fractures. The terminology describing rock mass quality based on RQD is
subjective and is underlain by the resumption that sound strong rock is of higher engineering value than fractured weak rock.
ROCK QUALITY
RQD
0 to 25
25 to 50
50 to 75
75 to 90
90 to 100
Rock Mass Quality
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
ROCK STRENGTH
Strength Classification
Extremely Weak
Very Weak
Weak
Medium Strong
Strong
Very Strong
Extremely Strong
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)
<1
1–5
5 – 25
25 – 50
50 – 100
100 – 250
> 250
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT
__: Measured in Standpipe,
_
Piezometer, or well
__: Inferred
_
Log of Borehole BH12-01
Project No.
60158.005
Project:
Mill of Kintail Bridge Replacement
Location:
Mississippi Mills, ON
Drawing No.
Split Spoon Sample
Combustible Vapour Reading
Natural Moisture Content
Date Drilled:
06/25/12
Auger Sample
SPT (N) Value
Atterberg Limits
Drill Type:
Hollow Stem Auger / NQ Core
Dynamic Cone Test
Undrained Triaxial at
% Strain at Failure
Local TBM - 100.00m
Datum:
G
W
L
Shelby Tube
S
Y
M
B
O
L
SOIL DESCRIPTION
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (45mm)
FILL: crushed gravel and sand, trace silt,
grey-brown, compact, moist
FILL: silty clay, trace sand and gravel,
occasional cobbles and boulders, brown,
soft to firm, moist
Shear Strength by
Vane Test
ELEV.
m
99.34
99.30
Shear Strength by
Penetrometer Test
S
Standard Penetration Test N Value
D
E
P
T
H
20
50
0
98.98
40
60
Shear Strength
100
150
Combustible Vapour Reading (ppm)
250
500
750
Natural Moisture Content (%)
Atterberg Limits (% Dry Weight)
80
kPa
200
20
SILTY SAND TILL: trace gravel occasional
cobbles, light brown, compact to dense,
moist
60
19.3
6
24.8
R
becoming red-brown and wet
40
S
A
M Additional
P Laboratory
L
E Testing
S
3.9
35
1
2-1
97.46
2
R 3.1
BEDROCK: granite, fair rock mass quality,
slightly weathered, moderately to widely
spaced bedding plane fractures, white with
grey and pink bands
becoming fresh below 96.44 m
96.65
3
REC=77%
RQD=70%
LOG OF BOREHOLE 2 60158.005 BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ AME_ON.GDT 07/24/12
4
REC=100%
RQD=74%
5
End of borehole at 5.74 m
93.60
Terminated at 5.74 m in granite bedrock.
Hammer Type:Automatic Full Weight
Notes:
Sheet No.
1
of
1
Date/Time
Water Depth to
Level
Cave
(m)
(m)
Log of Borehole BH12-02
Project No.
60158.005
Project:
Mill of Kintail Bridge Replacement
Location:
Mississippi Mills, ON
Drawing No.
Split Spoon Sample
Combustible Vapour Reading
Natural Moisture Content
Date Drilled:
06/25/12
Auger Sample
SPT (N) Value
Atterberg Limits
Drill Type:
Hollow Stem Auger / NQ Core
Dynamic Cone Test
Undrained Triaxial at
% Strain at Failure
Local TBM - 100.00m
Datum:
G
W
L
Shelby Tube
S
Y
M
B
O
L
SOIL DESCRIPTION
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (50mm)
FILL: silty gravelly sand, brown, compact to
loose, moist
Shear Strength by
Vane Test
ELEV.
m
99.36
99.31
20
50
0
40
60
Shear Strength
100
150
Combustible Vapour Reading (ppm)
250
500
750
Natural Moisture Content (%)
Atterberg Limits (% Dry Weight)
80
kPa
200
20
97.59
GW
13.3
17
2
3
8.3
96.16
GW
R
10.2
REC=67%
RQD=13%
4
LOG OF BOREHOLE 2 60158.005 BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ AME_ON.GDT 07/24/12
60
9.3
4
40
BEDROCK: granite, very poor rock mass
quality, moderately weathered, grey with
white and pink bands
40
S
A
M Additional
P Laboratory
L
E Testing
S
6.5
11
1
SILTY SAND TILL: trace gravel, occasional
cobbles, light brown, compact to dense,
moist
Shear Strength by
Penetrometer Test
S
Standard Penetration Test N Value
D
E
P
T
H
2-2
25 mm clay infilled seam at 95.17 m
40 mm clay infilled seam at 94.94 m
5
REC=87%
RQD=0%
becoming good rock mass quality and fresh
below 93.49 m
6
REC=95%
RQD=88%
End of borehole at 6.96 m
92.40
Terminated at 6.96 m in granite bedrock.
Hammer Type:Automatic Full Weight
Notes:
Sheet No.
1
of
1
Date/Time
Water Depth to
Level
Cave
(m)
(m)
APPENDIX 3
Grain Size Analysis Report
Rock Core Uniaxial Compressive Strength Report
Moisture Content Test Results
Paracel Chemical Results
#200
#140
#100
#60
#40
#30
#20
#10
#4
3/8 in.
½ in.
¾ in.
1 in.
1½ in.
2 in.
3 in.
100
0
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
60
30
70
20
80
10
90
0
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
PERCENT CORSER
PERCENT FINER
6 in.
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
LL
% +3"
% Gravel
% Sand
0.0
0.0
21.3
9.8
53.2
61.0
PL
% Silt
D85
D60
D50
D30
8.7022
3.2243
0.4552
0.7503
0.2697
0.4010
0.0969
0.0803
D15
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Silty Gravelly Sand
Silty Sand trace Gravel
D10
TEST DATE
Cc
Cu
USCS
June 28,2012
June 28,2012
Project No. 60158.005
Client: Town of Mississippi Mills
Project: RFQ-2012-01 Mill of Kintail Bridge
Source of Sample: BH12-02
Source of Sample: BH12-02
% Clay
25.5
29.2
Depth: 2.5'-4.5'
Depth: 7.5'-9.5'
Remarks:
Sample Number: BH1202SS2
Figure
Tested By: A.Hawkins
Checked By: A.O'Keefe
NM
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Project Number: 60158.005
Location: BH12-02
Depth: 2.5'-4.5'
Material Description: Silty Gravelly Sand
Test Date: June 28,2012
Tested by: A.Hawkins
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
234.99
0.00
Checked by: A.O'Keefe
Sieve Test Data
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Sieve
Opening
Size
0.00
06/28/2012
150.0 mm
26.5 mm
19 mm
16.0 mm
13.2 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
1.18 mm
0.6 mm
0.3 mm
0.15 mm
0.075 mm
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
0.00
0.00
13.30
20.20
23.20
32.50
50.10
62.20
72.40
84.60
112.40
145.60
175.00
Percent
Finer
Percent
Retained
100.0
100.0
94.3
91.4
90.1
86.2
78.7
73.5
69.2
64.0
52.2
38.0
25.5
0.0
0.0
5.7
8.6
9.9
13.8
21.3
26.5
30.8
36.0
47.8
62.0
74.5
Fractional Components
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
0.0
21.3
53.2
D10
D15
D20
Silt
Clay
D30
D50
D60
D80
D85
D90
D95
0.0969
0.2697
0.4552
5.5101
8.7022
12.9697
19.6619
Fineness
Modulus
2.44
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Location: BH12-02
Depth: 7.5'-9.5'
Material Description: Silty Sand trace Gravel
Test Date: June 28,2012
Tested by: A.Hawkins
Dry
Sample
and Tare
(grams)
Tare
(grams)
366.35
0.00
Cumulative
Pan
Tare Weight
(grams)
Checked by: A.O'Keefe
Sieve Test Data
Sieve
Opening
Size
0.00
06/28/2012
150.0 mm
26.5 mm
19 mm
16.0 mm
13.2 mm
9.5 mm
4.75 mm
2.36 mm
1.18 mm
0.6 mm
0.3 mm
0.15 mm
0.075 mm
Cumulative
Weight
Retained
(grams)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.80
35.80
73.00
119.50
159.40
199.20
230.20
259.30
Percent
Finer
Percent
Retained
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.9
90.2
80.1
67.4
56.5
45.6
37.2
29.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
9.8
19.9
32.6
43.5
54.4
62.8
70.8
Fractional Components
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
0.0
9.8
61.0
D10
D15
D20
Silt
Clay
D30
D50
D60
D80
D85
D90
D95
0.0803
0.4010
0.7503
2.3499
3.2243
4.6650
7.1324
Fineness
Modulus
2.25
Uniaxial Compressive Strength
215 Stafford Rd. West, Unit 104
Ottawa, Ontario K2H 9C1
Phone: 613-726-3039
Fax: 613-726-3004
e-mail: [email protected]
Test Report
Rock Core
Project Name: Mill of Kintail Bridge
Core
#
BH12-01
Kilo
Newtons
Diameter
(mm)
Height
(m)
Mass
(kg)
Area
(m 2)
Volume
(m 3 )
128.4
44.6
0.134
0.5480
0.00160
0.00021
Age
Type of Unit Mass Strength
(Years) Fracture (kg/m 3 )
(Mpa)
Vertical
2618
82.2
RC-5
Comments:
CCIL Certified Concrete Testing Laboratory
Reviewed By :
L/D
Ratio
3.0:1
Correction
Corrected
Factor
Strength (MPA)
1
82.2
Moisture Content of Soils and Aggregates (ASTM D-2216)
Job No.:
60158.005
Date Sampled: June 26,2012
Job Name:
Mill of Kintail Bridge
Date Tested:
June 27,2012
Source:
Kintail Bridge
Tested By:
A.Hawkins
BH12-01
BH 12-01
BH 12-01
BH 12-01
BH 12-01
SS-1A
SS-1B
SS-2
SS-3A
SS-3B
0.5'-2.5'
0.5'-2.5'
2.5'-4.5'
5'-7'
5'-7'
1
2
3
4
5
Weight of Tare (t )
46.01
45.40
45.68
45.72
45.94
Weight of tare & wet sample (A )
131.95
126.14
126.10
138.20
113.66
Weight of tare & dry sample (B )
130.07
121.77
113.11
120.03
99.96
Weight of Water = (A-B )
1.88
4.37
12.99
18.17
13.70
Weight of dry sample (C )=(B-t )
84.06
76.37
67.43
74.31
54.02
Moisture Content = (A-B)/C*100
2.2
5.7
19.3
24.5
25.4
Sample Number
Depth (m)
Tare Number
X
- Conforming
- Non Conforming(Attach Report)
- Meets Spec
- Out of Spec
Comments:
Sample Number
BH 12-01
SS-4
Depth (m)
Tare Number
7.5'-9.5'
6
Weight of Tare (t )
45.54
139.00
136.18
2.82
90.64
3.1
X
- Conforming
- Meets Spec
- Out of Spec
Comments:
Page 1 of 2
Moisture Content of Soils and Aggregates (ASTM D-2216)
Job No.:
Job Name:
Source:
60158.005
Mill of Kintail Bridge
Kintail Bridge
Date Sampled: June 26,2012
Date Tested:
June 27,2012
Tested By:
A.Hawkins
BH12-02
BH12-02
BH12-02
BH12-02
BH12-02
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3A
SS-3B
SS-4
0.5'-2.5
2.5'-4.5'
5'-7'
5'-7'
7.5'-9.5'
1
2
3
4
5
Weight of Tare (t )
45.97
250.44
46.37
45.67
252.08
152.60
507.26
156.84
118.69
652.32
146.07
485.43
143.83
116.16
618.43
6.53
21.83
13.01
2.53
33.89
100.10
234.99
97.46
70.49
366.35
6.5
9.3
13.3
3.6
9.3
Sample Number
Depth (m)
Tare Number
X
- Conforming
- Meets Spec
- Out of Spec
Comments:
Sample Number
BH12-02
SS-5
Depth (m)
Tare Number
10'-12'
6
Weight of Tare (t )
45.73
131.18
123.25
7.93
77.52
10.2
X
- Conforming
- Meets Spec
- Out of Spec
Comments:
Page 2 of 2
215 Stafford Rd. West Suite 104
Ottawa, ON K2H9C1
Attn: Andrew Inouye
Client PO: 60158.005
Project: 60158.005
Custody: 93511
Phone: (613) 726-3039
Fax: (613) 726-3004
Report Date: 28-Jun-2012
Order Date: 27-Jun-2012
Order #: 1226170
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:
Paracel ID
Client ID
1226170-01
Surface Sample
Approved By:
Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BSc
Laboratory Director
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you
for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work
Page 1 of 7
Order #: 1226170
CerƟficate of Analysis
Client: AME Materials Engineering
Report Date: 28‐Jun‐2012
Order Date:27‐Jun‐2012 Project Descrip on: 60158.005
Analysis Summary Table
Analysis
Anions
pH
Resistivity
Method Reference/Description
EPA 300.1 - IC
EPA 150.1 - pH probe @25 °C
EPA 120.1 - probe
Extraction Date Analysis Date
28-Jun-12
28-Jun-12
28-Jun-12
28-Jun-12
28-Jun-12
28-Jun-12
Page 2 of 7
Order #: 1226170
Order Date:27‐Jun‐2012 Client: AME Materials Engineering
Project Descrip on: 60158.005
Client ID:
Sample Date:
Sample ID:
MDL/Units
Surface Sample
25-Jun-12
1226170-01
Water
-
-
-
General Inorganics
pH
0.1 pH Units
7.7
-
-
-
Resistivity
0.01 Ohm.m
32.1
-
-
-
Chloride
1 mg/L
12
-
-
-
Sulphate
1 mg/L
7
-
-
-
Anions
Page 3 of 7
Order #: 1226170
Method Quality Control: Blank
Analyte
Result
Reporting
Limit
Units
ND
ND
1
1
mg/L
mg/L
Source
Result
%REC
%REC
Limit
RPD
RPD
Limit
Notes
Anions
Chloride
Sulphate
Page 4 of 7
Order #: 1226170
Method Quality Control: Duplicate
Analyte
Result
Reporting
Limit
Units
Source
Result
%REC
%REC
Limit
RPD
RPD
Limit
Notes
Anions
Chloride
Sulphate
1680
3.55
10
1
mg/L
mg/L
1710
3.43
2.3
3.4
10
10
8.3
32.2
0.1
0.01
pH Units
Ohm.m
8.3
32.1
0.2
0.5
10
20
General Inorganics
pH
Resistivity
Page 5 of 7
Order #: 1226170
Method Quality Control: Spike
Analyte
Result
Reporting
Limit
Units
Source
Result
%REC
%REC
Limit
mg/L
mg/L
ND
3.43
105
102
78-112
75-111
RPD
RPD
Limit
Notes
Anions
Chloride
Sulphate
10.5
13.7
Page 6 of 7
Order #: 1226170
Client: AME Materials Engineering
Qualifier Notes :
None
Sample Data Revisions
None
Work Order Revisions / Comments :
None
Other Report Notes :
n/a: not applicable
MDL: Method Detection Limit
Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples
%REC: Percent recovery.
RPD: Relative percent difference.
Page 7 of 7
AME Materials Engineering (Ottawa)
215 Stafford Rd. West Suite 104
Ottawa, ON K2H9C1
Attn: Andrew Inouye
Project: 60158.005
Custody: 93511
Phone: (613) 726-3039
Fax: (613) 726-3004
Report Date: 4-Jul-2012
Order Date: 27-Jun-2012
Order #: 1226171
This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:
Paracel ID
Client ID
1226171-01
1226171-02
BH12-01 SS-4
BH12-02 SS-5
Approved By:
Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BSc
Laboratory Director
Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you
for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work
Page 1 of 7
Order #: 1226171
Client: AME Materials Engineering (OƩawa)
Report Date: 04‐Jul‐2012
Analysis Summary Table
Analysis
Anions
pH
Resistivity
Solids, %
Method Reference/Description
EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction
EPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext.
EPA 120.1 - probe, water extraction
Gravimetric, calculation
Extraction Date Analysis Date
30-Jun-12
30-Jun-12
28-Jun-12
29-Jun-12
29-Jun-12
29-Jun-12
29-Jun-12
29-Jun-12
Page 2 of 7
Order #: 1226171
BH12-01 SS-4
25-Jun-12
1226171-01
Soil
BH12-02 SS-5
25-Jun-12
1226171-02
Soil
-
-
0.1 % by Wt.
96.7
89.8
-
-
pH
0.05 pH Units
7.78
7.70
-
-
Resistivity
0.10 Ohm.m
42.2
11.9
-
-
Chloride
5 ug/g dry
76
729
-
-
Sulphate
5 ug/g dry
39
205
-
-
Client ID:
Sample Date:
Sample ID:
MDL/Units
Physical Characteristics
% Solids
General Inorganics
Anions
Page 3 of 7
Order #: 1226171
Order Date:27‐Jun‐2012 Client: AME Materials Engineering (OƩawa)
Method Quality Control: Blank
Analyte
Result
Reporting
Limit
Units
ND
ND
5
5
ug/g
ug/g
Source
Result
%REC
%REC
Limit
RPD
RPD
Limit
Notes
Anions
Chloride
Sulphate
Page 4 of 7
Order #: 1226171
Method Quality Control: Duplicate
Analyte
Result
Reporting
Limit
Units
Source
Result
%REC
%REC
Limit
RPD
RPD
Limit
Notes
Anions
Chloride
Sulphate
7.6
66.8
5
5
ug/g dry
ug/g dry
7.5
67.3
1.8
0.7
20
20
7.43
29.3
0.05
0.10
pH Units
Ohm.m
7.39
29.6
0.5
0.9
10
20
89.6
0.1
% by Wt.
87.6
2.3
25
General Inorganics
pH
Resistivity
Physical Characteristics
% Solids
Page 5 of 7
Order #: 1226171
Method Quality Control: Spike
Analyte
Result
Reporting
Limit
Units
Source
Result
%REC
%REC
Limit
mg/L
mg/L
0.7
6.73
109
108
78-113
78-111
RPD
RPD
Limit
Notes
Anions
Chloride
Sulphate
11.6
17.6
Page 6 of 7
Order #: 1226171
Qualifier Notes:
None
Sample Data Revisions
None
Work Order Revisions / Comments:
None
Other Report Notes:
n/a: not applicable
MDL: Method Detection Limit
Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples
%REC: Percent recovery.
RPD: Relative percent difference.
Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'.
Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.
Page 7 of 7

Geotechnical Investigation Mill of Kintail Bridge

Transcription

Similar documents

info! - American Senior Communities

m8 harthill bridge lanarkshire, uk

Salginatobel Bridge

Suspension Wire 2

Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge Charleston, SC

covered bridge tour

The Bridge Builder

The Mermaid Bridge / ATELIER MARIJKE DE GOEY

Who is eligible? - Westmoreland County Community College