2014-115 121614816 - Partridge River Bridge - Report

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Partridge River Bridge Abutment

Wingwall Stabilization (HFX178)
Highway No 107 (Near Exit 18,
Mineville / Lake Echo)
Stantec Consulting Ltd. Halifax County, Nova Scotia
40 Highfield Park Drive, Suite 102
Dartmouth NS B3A 0A3
Tel: (902) 468-7777
Fax: (902) 468-9009
Report Prepared for:

Nova Scotia Transportation and
Infrastructure Renewal
107 Perrin Drive
Fall River NS B2T 1J6
File: Project No. 121614816
April 29, 2013

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PARTRIDGE RIVER BRIDGE ABUTMENT WINGWALL
STABILIZATION (HFX178), HIGHWAY NO. 107, HALIFAX COUNTY, NOVA SCOTIA
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 1
3.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE..................................................................................... 2

3.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 BOREHOLES ................................................................................................................. 2
3.3 SURVEYING .................................................................................................................. 2
3.4 LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................................... 3
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 3

4.1 FILL ................................................................................................................................ 3
4.2 TILL ................................................................................................................................ 4
4.3 BEDROCK ..................................................................................................................... 4
4.4 GROUNDWATER........................................................................................................... 4
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 5

5.1 GENERAL ...................................................................................................................... 5
5.1.1 Current Investigation Findings .............................................................................. 5
5.1.2 Original Bridge Design Drawings .......................................................................... 5
5.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 6
5.2.1 Wingwall Replacement ......................................................................................... 7
5.2.1.1 Retaining Walls .................................................................................................... 7
5.2.1.2 Temporary Water Control ..................................................................................... 8
5.2.2 Wingwall Tie-Back Anchoring ............................................................................... 8
5.2.2.1 Dead-Man Anchors .............................................................................................. 8
5.2.2.2 Rock Anchors ....................................................................................................... 8
5.2.3 Material Parameters ............................................................................................. 8
5.2.4 Seismic Site Classification .................................................................................... 9
6.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 9
File: Project No. 121614816 i April 29, 2013

Table of Contents
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Statement of General Conditions

Symbols and Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Records
Borehole Records, BH1 to BH4
Grain Size Analysis Plots
Drawing No. 1, Borehole Location Plan
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4.1 Borehole Summary Table ..................................................................................... 3

TABLE 4.2 Unconfined Compression Testing Results on Bedrock ......................................... 4
TABLE 5.1 Borehole Summary Table ..................................................................................... 6
TABLE 5.2 Unfactored Geotechnical Material Parameters ..................................................... 8
File: Project No. 121614816 ii April 29, 2013

1.0 Introduction
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) acting at the request of Nova Scotia Transportation and
Infrastructure Renewal (NSTIR) has carried out a geotechnical investigation for the proposed
Partridge River Bridge abutment wingwall stabilization located on Highway No. 107 near Exit 18
(Mineville / Lake Echo), Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), Halifax County, Nova Scotia.
The northeastern wingwall has tilted forward and the remaining three wingwalls are showing
minor forward movement. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the subsurface
conditions behind the wingwalls to assist with planning and design of stabilizing measures
against further movement for the wingwalls.
The work was carried out in accordance with the standing offer agreement between Stantec and
NSTIR, dated May 2, 2012. The scope of the work for the investigation consisted of drilling four
boreholes, one behind each of the wingwalls (see appended Drawing No. 1, Borehole Location
Plan), selective laboratory testing and the preparation of this geotechnical report.
This report contains all of our findings and recommendations and has been prepared specifically
and solely for the project described herein.
2.0 Site Description
The site is located on Highway No 107, just west of Exit 18 for Mineville/Lake Echo, HRM,
Halifax County, Nova Scotia.
The existing bridge is a single span, two lane structure comprising prestressed concrete girders,
concrete deck and concrete abutments with spread footings. There are also four concrete
wingwalls on spread footings that are not integral with the bridge abutments.
At the bridge location, the road surface at mid-span is at approximate elevation +/- 28.3 metres.
The water flow in Partridge River is in a southward direction.
The majority of the site is covered by trees and shrubs, with the exception of the developed
asphalt paved road alignment and river. Guiderails are positioned on each side of the road
along the approaches to the bridge. The northeastern wingwall has tilted forward and the
remaining three wingwalls are showing minor forward movement. The backfill behind the
northeastern abutment is lower than the backfill levels of the other three wingwalls possibly
indicating subsidence due to the wall movement and/or removal previously to reduce pressure
on the wall.
File: Project No. 121614816 1 April 29, 2013

Surficial geology mapping indicates a variable thickness of hummock ground moraine

comprising a mixture of gravel, sand and mud glacial till with stony obstructions overlying
bedrock in the general area of the site. Geological mapping indicates the bedrock in the general
area of the site comprises Goldenville Formation greywacke/quartzite.
3.0 Investigative Procedure
3.1 GENERAL
The boreholes were drilled on April 11th and 12th, 2013. A Stantec geotechnical site
representative was onsite to record the geotechnical subsurface conditions encountered within
the four boreholes. A borehole was put down within the road shoulder behind each of the four
wingwalls. Approximate borehole locations are shown on the appended Drawing No. 1,
Borehole Location Plan.
3.2 BOREHOLES
The four boreholes were advanced using a drill equipped for geotechnical sampling and testing.
The total depths of the boreholes ranged from 9.3 m to 10.2 m.
The boreholes were advanced through the overburden using NW casing. Soil sampling was
carried out at regular intervals using conventional split-spoon samplers while performing
Standard Penetration Testing. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) “N-value” is the number of
blows required to advance a 50 mm-outer diameter split-spoon sampler a distance of 300 mm
into the soil using a standardized drop height and weight. N-values generally provide an
indication of soil compactness and may also be used to aid in estimation of other soil
parameters.
Bedrock was cored using an NQ size core barrel. The Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and
recovery of the rock samples were measured and recorded. RQD is the ratio of the sum of the
core length recovered greater than 100 mm to the total core length drilled, expressed as a
percentage.
To allow for groundwater level measurements, standpipes were installed in all four boreholes
upon completion of drilling.
3.3 SURVEYING
The borehole locations and elevations were surveyed by NSTIR. Borehole elevations were
referenced to the Geodetic datum.

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING
Soil samples collected during the drilling program were stored in moisture-tight containers and
rock samples were stored in core boxes. The soil and rock samples were taken to our
Dartmouth, NS laboratory for further classification and testing. Soil classification was based on
procedures described in ASTM D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) and in ASTM D 2488, Standard
Practice for Description and Identification of Soils, Visual-Manual Procedure.
Laboratory testing on soil samples included moisture content determinations and grain size
analyses. Unconfined compressive strength testing of bedrock samples was also performed.
Results of the laboratory testing are provided on the appended Borehole Records, appended
grain size analysis plots and/or Table 4.2.
4.0 Subsurface Conditions
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered and the sampling conducted are
provided on the appended Borehole Records. An explanation of the terminology and graphics
used in this report are also appended (see The Symbols and Terms Used on Borehole and Test
Pit Records).
Similar conditions were encountered in each of the boreholes; fill underlain by glacial till,
underlain by greywacke bedrock. The principal strata encountered at the site are summarized
below in Table 4.1 and the following sub-sections.
TABLE 4.1 Borehole Summary Table

Ground Depth to Layer
Total Layer Thickness (m) (1)
Borehole Surface [Layer Elevation] (m)
(1) Borehole
No. Elevation (1)
Depth (m) FILL TILL Bedrock Groundwater
(m)
BH1 28.12 9.3 4.8 1.8 6.6 [21.5] 4.8 [23.3]
BH2 28.23 9.3 4.1 2.5 6.6 [21.6] 4.8 [23.4]
BH3 28.12 10.2 5.3 0.3 5.6 [22.5] standpipe blocked
BH4 28.22 9.7 4.6 1.9 6.5 [21.7] 4.4 [23.8]
(1) Includes thickness of pavement structure (asphalt and gravels).
(2) Elevations referenced to Geodetic datum.
4.1 FILL
Fill material was encountered from the ground surface in all of the boreholes to depths between
4.1 and 5.3 metres. The fill comprised the asphalt pavement structure underlain with silty gravel
with sand containing occasional cobbles and boulders.
Based on N-values obtained during Standard Penetration Testing, the compactness of the fill is
estimated as loose to dense. Grain size analyses performed on three samples of the silty gravel

with sand fill yielded averages of 46 percent gravel,38 percent sand and 16 percent silt and
clay-sized particles. Several moisture content tests conducted on samples of this material
ranged from 6 to 9 percent.
4.2 TILL
Glacial till comprising silty sand with gravel containing occasional cobbles and boulders was
encountered beneath the fill material at all borehole locations with thickness variation between
0.3 to 2.5 metres.
Based on N-values obtained during Standard Penetration Testing, the compactness of the
glacial till layer is estimated as compact to very dense. Grain size analyses performed on three
samples of till yielded averages of 29 percent gravel, 52 percent sand and 19 percent silt and
clay-sized particles. Moisture content tests conducted on samples of this material were 11 to
25 percent.
4.3 BEDROCK
Bedrock was encountered and cored in all four boreholes underlying the glacial till at depths
between 5.6 and 6.6 metres. The bedrock comprised greywacke with RQD measurements
varying from 0 to 87 percent indicating the bedrock to be very severely fractured to moderately
jointed or sound.
Intact samples of bedrock core were selected for unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
testing. Seven tests were performed and yielded UCS values between 77 and 194 MPa,
indicating strong to very strong rock strength. The detailed results of the UCS testing are shown
in Table 4.2.
TABLE 4.2 Unconfined Compression Testing Results on Bedrock

Depth of Sample Unconfined Compressive Strength
Borehole No. (1)
[Elevation] (m) (MPa)
BH1 7.7 [20.4] 194
BH1 8.0 [20.1] 162
BH2 8.4 [19.8] 137
BH3 6.1 [22.0] 185
BH3 6.2 [21.9] 110
BH4 8.5 [19.7] 115
BH4 8.8 [19.4] 77
(1) Elevations referenced to Geodetic datum.
4.4 GROUNDWATER
Standpipes were installed in all four boreholes prior to backfilling to allow measurement of the
groundwater levels. At the time of the groundwater measurements, the standpipe in BH3 was
blocked and a measurement was not obtained. Readings were taken in the standpipes following

drilling on April 17, 2013 and showed groundwater depths of 4.4 to 4.8 metres, which
correspond to an approximate elevation of +/- 23.5 metres.
It should be noted that groundwater levels will fluctuate with seasonal weather trends and
precipitation events, the river water levels, as well as with site use and construction activities.
5.0 Discussion and Recommendations
5.1 GENERAL
We understand that stabilizing measures against further movement for the wingwalls with
minimal impact on Highway No. 107 traffic are being planned. Stabilizing measures may include
‘deadman’ soil anchors, rock anchors or other approved methods.
5.1.1 Current Investigation Findings
As previously noted, similar conditions were encountered in each of the current boreholes:
 4.1 to 5.3 metres of silty gravel with sand fill underlain by

 0.3 to 2.5 metres of silty sand with gravel glacial till underlain by
 greywacke bedrock at depths from 5.6 to 6.6 metres with corresponding elevations of 22.5
and 21.5 metres.
The topographical site survey date provided by NSTIR indicates that the finished grade at mid-
span of the bridge centerline has an approximate elevation of 28.3 metres.
5.1.2 Original Bridge Design Drawings
The original design drawings for the bridge were provided by NSTIR. Sheet 1 of 6 (File No. B-
72-33, dated 23 December 1972) showed that 8 borehole were conducted with stratigraphy
summarized as follows:

TABLE 5.1 Borehole Summary Table

Compact Quartz Boulder
Borehole Ground Surface Soft Sandy Quartz Bedrock (m)
(1) with Band of Sand (m)
No. Elevation (m) Loam (m)
Elevation Thickness Depth Elevation
BH1 23.3 0.5 22.8 2.5 3.0 20.3
BH2 23.2 0.5 22.7 1.7 2.2 21.0
BH3 23.3 0.5 22.8 2.0 2.5 20.8
BH4 23.3 0.6 22.7 1.6 2.2 21.1
BH5 23.2 0.5 22.7 2.8 3.3 19.9
BH6 23.3 0.6 22.7 2.8 3.4 19.9
BH7 23.3 0.5 22.8 2.0 2.5 20.8
BH8 23.1 0.5 22.6 2.0 2.5 20.6
Elevations were noted to be referenced to Geodetic datum.
Note that this is a summary of the information taken from the noted drawing obtained by others
and we cannot confirm its accuracy. Further, the elevations and thicknesses of the various
layers were scaled from the graphical representation of the boreholes presented on Sheet 1 of 6
and therefore should be considered approximate.
We interpret the stratigraphy descriptions from Sheet 1 of 6 based on the findings of our current
boreholes as follows:
 Soft Sandy Loam: Rootmat/Topsoil

 Compact Quartz Boulder with Band of Sand: Glacial Till
 Broken Quartz Bedrock: Fractured Bedrock
 Solid Quartz Bedrock: Intact Bedrock
Sheet 1 of 6 specifies that all footings for the abutments and wingwalls were to be founded on
bedrock.
5.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In comparing the current survey data provided by NSTIR to the specified design finished grade
at the bridge centerline on Sheet 1 of 6, there is an approximately 1.6 metre difference in
elevation. The current survey data shows an approximate finished grade of the 28.3 metres and
the design elevation on the original drawings show a proposed elevation of 87.5 feet (26.7 m).
This suggests that the bridge was not constructed to the exact elevations specified on the 1972
design drawings that were provided. This discrepancy should be considered as evaluation and
design proceeds.
From the 1972 design drawings provided, including the original borehole findings presented on
these drawings, it appears that the four wingwall footings are founded on bedrock. With the
significant extent of movement that has taken place at the northeastern wingwall, it is likely that
a failure has occurred at the wall – footing connection.

Sieve analyses of the wall backfill in each case show that these materials are frost susceptible.
Assuming the walls were properly designed and constructed and that the footings are founded
directly on bedrock precluding the possibility of scour, the rotation may have been caused by
frost jacking within the backfill. Reinforcing may also have corroded contributing to the failure.
Given the current significant tilt, replacement of the northeastern wingwall is recommended.
Subject to structural engineering considerations, the other three wingwalls could be restrained
from possible further movement with tie back anchors as they are showing some minor forward
movement as well. Since it is likely that frost jacking is a factor in the wall movement we
recommend that the backfill within at least 1 metre or the back of each wall should be replaced
with non-frost susceptible free draining granular material such as NSTIR Type 1 or Type 2
Gravel.
5.2.1 Wingwall Replacement
There are several options that could be considered for wall replacement. To minimize in-stream
work, consideration could be given to replacing the existing cantilevered wall with a soldier pile
wall with timber or concrete lagging and tie-backs installed behind the current wall; the current
wall could be removed during construction of the soldier pile wall. Other more conventional
options would include cantilevered wall, gravity wall, or one of several available segmental walls
and/or reinforced soil type wall systems.
5.2.1.1 Retaining Walls
The following key components would comprise a soldier pile wall:
 Holes would be drilled into the bedrock and H piles would be set in the holes and concreted
in place to form a soldier pile. The H piles will be oriented to accommodate timber or precast
concrete lagging.
 Lagging would consist of timber or precast reinforced concrete units.
 Steel or precast concrete walers spanning across pairs of piles would be used to
accommodate tie-back anchors.
 Double corrosion protected dead-man or rock anchors would be used as tie-backs to
support the upper portion of the pile.
The following provides general recommendations to support design of the more conventional
retaining wall systems such as cantilevered wall, gravity wall, or one of several available
segmental wall and/or reinforced soil type wall systems.
 Spread footings founded on clean intact bedrock may be designed using a ULS bearing
resistance of 2,000 kPa. Elastic settlement associated with spread footings founded on
bedrock is negligible.
 Backfill should consist of free-draining granular fill, such as NSTIR Type 1 Gravel or NSTIR
Type 2 Gravel, and include a drainage system with a positive outlet. The extent of the
granular backfill should be in accordance with the wall design requirements. All backfill

should be placed in lifts and compacted to 95% SPMDD. Compaction immediately adjacent
to a wall should be accomplished with relatively thin soil lifts and light compaction equipment
to prevent over-stressing of the wall.
5.2.1.2 Temporary Water Control
To permit construction, temporary water control in the form of stream diversion and/or a coffer
dam would be required to allow dewatering of the work area for construction.
5.2.2 Wingwall Tie-Back Anchoring
Tie-back anchors could comprise concrete dead-men in the overburden, rock-socketed anchors
or other approved alternative anchor type systems. Double corrosion protection should be
provided for the various anchor types.
5.2.2.1 Dead-Man Anchors
To develop full capacity, dead-man anchor blocks must be placed an adequate distance back
from the wall to avoid load transfer on the wall. Material parameters provided below can be used
for design.
5.2.2.2 Rock Anchors
The factored resistance of inclined anchors grouted into rock can be taken as 700 kPa (for non-
shrink grout) times the grout to rock contact area. This bond stress contains a resistance factor
of 0.4. A minimum anchorage length of 3 metres and not more than 10 metres is recommended.
5.2.3 Material Parameters
For design purposes, Table 5.1 lists unfactored geotechnical material parameters for existing
site fill, glacial till, compacted structural fill, bedrock and NSTIR Type 1/Type 2 Gravel.
TABLE 5.2 Unfactored Geotechnical Material Parameters

Value
(3)
Parameter In-situ Compacted Compacted
In-situ
Glacial Structural/ Type 1/Type 2
(1) Bedrock
Till Embankment Fill Gravel
Effective Angle of Internal Friction, degrees 35 34 - 36
3
Total Unit Weight, kN/m 21 21 24 21
3
Submerged Unit Weight, kN/m 11 11 14 11
(2)
Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure 0.27 0.28 - 0.26
(2)
Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure 3.69 3.54 - 3.85
Friction Factor, Soil/Mass Concrete Interface 0.45 0.45 0.7 0.55
(1) Existing Embankment Fill as noted/encountered at borehole locations.
(2) Coefficients of earth pressure assume a frictionless wall with a vertical back face and a horizontal back slope.
(3) Material to be compacted to at least 95 percent Standard Proctor density.

5.2.4 Seismic Site Classification
Based on the findings at the borehole locations, the site classification for seismic site response
in accordance with Clause 4.1.8.4 of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2010) is
Site Class B.
6.0 Closure
Use of this report is subject to the Statement of General Conditions provided in Appendix A. It is
the responsibility of NSTIR who is identified as “the Client” within the Statement of General
Conditions, and its agents to review the conditions and to notify Stantec Consulting Ltd. should
any of these be not satisfied. The Statement of General Conditions addresses the following:
 Use of the report

 Basis of the report
 Standard of care
 Interpretation of site conditions
 Varying or unexpected site conditions
This report was prepared by Brian T. Grace, P.Eng. and reviewed by Dan R. McQuinn, P.Eng.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us at 902-468-7777.
Yours very truly,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
____________________________________ ___________________________________
Dan R. McQuinn, P.Eng. Brian T. Grace, P.Eng.
V:\1216\active\121614XXX\121614801-121614875 NSTIR Geotech Investigations\121614816\7_reports\geotechnical\121614816 - Partridge River Bridge - Report.docx

APPENDIX A
Statement of General Conditions
Symbols and Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Records
Borehole Records, BH1 to BH4
Grain Size Analysis Plots
Drawing No. 1, Borehole Location Plan
STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS
USE OF THIS REPORT: This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the Client or its
agent and may not be used by any third party without the express written consent of Stantec
Consulting Ltd. and the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this report is the
responsibility of such third party.
BASIS OF THE REPORT: The information, opinions, and/or recommendations made in this
report are in accordance with Stantec Consulting Ltd’s present understanding of the site specific
project as described by the Client. The applicability of these is restricted to the site conditions
encountered at the time of the investigation or study. If the proposed site specific project differs
or is modified from what is described in this report or if the site conditions are altered, this report
is no longer valid unless Stantec Consulting Ltd. is requested by the Client to review and revise
the report to reflect the differing or modified project specifics and/or the altered site conditions.
STANDARD OF CARE: Preparation of this report, and all associated work, was carried out in
accordance with the normally accepted standard of care in the state or province of execution for
the specific professional service provided to the Client. No other warranty is made.
INTERPRETATION OF SITE CONDITIONS: Soil, rock, or other material descriptions, and

statements regarding their condition, made in this report are based on site conditions
encountered by Stantec Consulting Ltd. at the time of the work and at the specific testing and/or
sampling locations. Classifications and statements of condition have been made in accordance
with normally accepted practices which are judgmental in nature; no specific description should
be considered exact, but rather reflective of the anticipated material behavior. Extrapolation of
in situ conditions can only be made to some limited. extent beyond the sampling or test points.
The extent depends on variability of the soil, rock and groundwater conditions as influenced by
geological processes, construction activity, and site use.
VARYING OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS: Should any site or subsurface conditions be

encountered that are different from those described in this report or encountered at the test
locations, Stantec Consulting Ltd. must be notified immediately to assess if the varying or
unexpected conditions are substantial and if reassessments of the report conclusions or
recommendations are required. Stantec Consulting Ltd. will not be responsible to any party for
damages incurred as a result of failing to notify Stantec Consulting Ltd. that differing site or sub-
surface conditions are present upon becoming aware of such conditions.
PLANNING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION: Development or design plans and specifications

should be reviewed by Stantec Consulting Ltd., sufficiently ahead of initiating the next project
stage (property acquisition, tender, construction, etc), to confirm that this report completely
addresses the elaborated project specifics and that the contents of this report have been
properly interpreted. Specialty quality assurance services (field observations and testing) during
construction are a necessary part of the evaluation of sub-subsurface conditions and site
preparation works. Site work relating to the recommendations included in this report should only
be carried out in the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer; Stantec Consulting Ltd.
cannot be responsible for site work carried out without being present.
K:\ADMIN\Geotech\STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS_StantecLogo.doc

SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Terminology describing common soil genesis:

Topsoil - mixture of soil and humus capable of supporting vegetative growth
Peat - mixture of visible and invisible fragments of decayed organic matter
Till - unstratified glacial deposit which may range from clay to boulders
Fill - material below the surface identified as placed by humans (excluding buried services)
Terminology describing soil structure:

Desiccated - having visible signs of weathering by oxidization of clay minerals, shrinkage cracks, etc.
Fissured - having cracks, and hence a blocky structure
Varved - composed of regular alternating layers of silt and clay
Stratified - composed of alternating successions of different soil types, e.g. silt and sand
Layer - > 75 mm in thickness
Seam - 2 mm to 75 mm in thickness
Parting - < 2 mm in thickness
Terminology describing soil types:

The classification of soil types are made on the basis of grain size and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487 or D 2488). The classification excludes particles larger than 76 mm
(3 inches). The USCS provides a group symbol (e.g. SM) and group name (e.g. silty sand) for identification.
Terminology describing cobbles, boulders, and non-matrix materials (organic matter or debris):
Terminology describing materials outside the USCS, (e.g. particles larger than 76 mm, visible organic matter, construction
debris) is based upon the proportion of these materials present:
Trace, or occasional Less than 10%

Some 10-20%
Frequent > 20%
Terminology describing compactness of cohesionless soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesionless soils includes compactness (formerly "relative density"), as determined
by the Standard Penetration Test N-Value (also known as N-Index). A relationship between compactness condition and N-
Value is shown in the following table.
Compactness Condition SPT N-Value

Very Loose <4
Loose 4-10
Compact 10-30
Dense 30-50
Very Dense >50
Terminology describing consistency of cohesive soils:

The standard terminology to describe cohesive soils includes the consistency, which is based on undrained shear strength
as measured by in situ vane tests, penetrometer tests, or unconfined compression tests.
Undrained Shear Strength

Consistency
kips/sq.ft. kPa
Very Soft <0.25 <12.5
Soft 0.25 - 0.5 12.5 - 25
Firm 0.5 - 1.0 25 - 50
Stiff 1.0 - 2.0 50 – 100
Very Stiff 2.0 - 4.0 100 - 200
Hard >4.0 >200
SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS – MARCH 2009 Page 1 of 3
ROCK DESCRIPTION
Terminology describing rock quality:

RQD Rock Mass Quality
0-25 Very Poor, Crushed, Very Severely Fractured
25-50 Poor, Shattered and Very Seamy or Blocky, Severely Fractured
50-75 Fair, Blocky and Seamy, Fractured
75-90 Good, Massive, Moderately Jointed or Sound
90-100 Excellent, Intact, Very Sound
Rock quality classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage (RQD) in which all pieces of sound core over
100 mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting, or
weathering in the rock 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 presumption
that sound strong rock is of higher engineering value than fractured weak rock.
Terminology describing rock mass:

Spacing (mm) Joint Classification Bedding, Laminations, Bands
> 6000 Extremely Wide -
2000-6000 Very Wide Very Thick
600-2000 Wide Thick
200-600 Moderate Medium
60-200 Close Thin
20-60 Very Close Very Thin
<20 Extremely Close Laminated
<6 - Thinly Laminated
Terminology describing rock strength:

Strength Classification Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa)
Extremely Weak <1
Very Weak 1–5
Weak 5 – 25
Medium Strong 25 – 50
Strong 50 – 100
Very Strong 100 – 250
Extremely Strong > 250
Terminology describing rock weathering:

Term Description
Fresh No visible signs of rock weathering. Slight discolouration along major discontinuities
Discolouration indicates weathering of rock on discontinuity surfaces. All the rock
Slightly Weathered
material may be discoloured.
Moderately Weathered Less than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.
Highly Weathered More than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.
All the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil. The original mass
Completely Weathered
structure is still largely intact.
STRATA PLOT
Strata plots symbolize the soil or bedrock description. They are combinations of the following basic symbols. The
dimensions within the strata symbols are not indicative of the particle size, layer thickness, etc.
Boulders Sand Silt Clay Organics Asphalt Concrete Fill Igneous Meta- Sedi-
Cobbles Bedrock morphic mentary
Gravel Bedrock Bedrock
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT
Split spoon sample (obtained by performing
SS
the Standard Penetration Test)
ST Shelby tube or thin wall tube measured in standpipe,
piezometer, or well
Direct-Push sample (small diameter tube
DP
sampler hydraulically advanced)
PS Piston sample
BS Bulk sample inferred
WS Wash sample
Rock core samples obtained with the use of
HQ, NQ, BQ, etc.
standard size diamond coring bits.
RECOVERY
For soil samples, the recovery is recorded as the length of the soil sample recovered. For rock core, recovery is defined as
the total cumulative length of all core recovered in the core barrel divided by the length drilled and is recorded as a
percentage on a per run basis.
N-VALUE
Numbers in this column are the field results of the Standard Penetration Test: the number of blows of a 140 pound (64 kg)
hammer falling 30 inches (760 mm), required to drive a 2 inch (50.8 mm) O.D. split spoon sampler one foot (305 mm) 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 millimetres (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-values presented on the log.
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 value is the number of blows of the
hammer required to drive the cone one foot (305 mm) into the soil. The DCPT is used as a probe to assess soil variability.
OTHER TESTS
S Sieve analysis Single packer permeability test; test

H Hydrometer analysis interval from depth shown to bottom
k Laboratory permeability of borehole
γ Unit weight
Double packer permeability test; test
Gs Specific gravity of soil particles interval as indicated
CD Consolidated drained triaxial
Consolidated undrained triaxial with pore pressure
CU Falling head permeability test using
measurements
casing
UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial
DS Direct Shear
C Consolidation Falling head permeability test using
Qu Unconfined compression well point or piezometer
Point Load Index (Ip on Borehole Record equals
Ip Ip(50) in which the index is corrected to a reference
diameter of 50 mm)

2014-115 121614816 - Partridge River Bridge - Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014-115 121614816 - Partridge River Bridge - Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

Partridge River Bridge Abutment

Report Prepared for:

File: Project No. 121614816

April 29, 2013

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

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 1

3.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE..................................................................................... 2

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 3

5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................... 5

6.0 CLOSURE ...................................................................................................................... 9

File: Project No. 121614816 i April 29, 2013

Appendix A Statement of General Conditions

TABLE 4.1 Borehole Summary Table ..................................................................................... 3

File: Project No. 121614816 ii April 29, 2013

2.0 Site Description

File: Project No. 121614816 1 April 29, 2013

Surficial geology mapping indicates a variable thickness of hummock ground moraine

3.0 Investigative Procedure

File: Project No. 121614816 2 April 29, 2013

3.4 LABORATORY TESTING

4.0 Subsurface Conditions

TABLE 4.1 Borehole Summary Table

File: Project No. 121614816 3 April 29, 2013

TABLE 4.2 Unconfined Compression Testing Results on Bedrock

File: Project No. 121614816 4 April 29, 2013

5.0 Discussion and Recommendations

5.1.1 Current Investigation Findings

 4.1 to 5.3 metres of silty gravel with sand fill underlain by

5.1.2 Original Bridge Design Drawings

File: Project No. 121614816 5 April 29, 2013

TABLE 5.1 Borehole Summary Table

 Soft Sandy Loam: Rootmat/Topsoil

5.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

File: Project No. 121614816 6 April 29, 2013

5.2.1 Wingwall Replacement

5.2.1.1 Retaining Walls

The following key components would comprise a soldier pile wall:

File: Project No. 121614816 7 April 29, 2013

5.2.1.2 Temporary Water Control

5.2.2 Wingwall Tie-Back Anchoring

5.2.2.1 Dead-Man Anchors

5.2.2.2 Rock Anchors

5.2.3 Material Parameters

TABLE 5.2 Unfactored Geotechnical Material Parameters

File: Project No. 121614816 8 April 29, 2013

5.2.4 Seismic Site Classification

 Use of the report

Yours very truly,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

File: Project No. 121614816 9 April 29, 2013

INTERPRETATION OF SITE CONDITIONS: Soil, rock, or other material descriptions, and

VARYING OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS: Should any site or subsurface conditions be

PLANNING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION: Development or design plans and specifications

K:\ADMIN\Geotech\STATEMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS_StantecLogo.doc

Terminology describing common soil genesis:

Terminology describing soil structure:

Terminology describing soil types:

Trace, or occasional Less than 10%

Terminology describing compactness of cohesionless soils:

Compactness Condition SPT N-Value

Terminology describing consistency of cohesive soils:

Undrained Shear Strength

Terminology describing rock quality: