Ground Response Analysis, Note

APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS
B.3: 1D Grou d Respo se A alysis
A acis Isla d WWTP Ne Outfall Syste

Va cou er Fraser Port Authority
Project a d E iro e tal Re ie Applicatio
This page intentionally left blank
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE 22 December 2017 PROJECT No. 1525010-031-TM-RevC
TO John Newby, PE
CDM Smith Canada ULC
CC
Yannick Wittwer; Yen Bui, Viji Fernando, Trevor
FROM EMAIL vfernando@golder.com
Fitzell
RESULTS OF THE ONE DIMENSIONAL GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSES -

ANNACIS ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TRANSIENT MITIGATION AND OUTFALL,
DELTA, BC
This Technical Memorandum summarizes the results of the one-dimensional (1D) ground response analyses
carried out to assess the potential liquefaction of site soils along the final outfall alignment referred to as the Option
T
6 alignment. The analyses were carried for the design ground motions corresponding to a return period of 2,475
years consistent with both the 2010 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and 2015 NBCC.
This Technical Memorandum supersedes the previous draft technical memorandum, issued on May 30, 2016
AF
summarizing the results of the preliminary 1D ground response analyses focusing on the initial western alignment.
The ground response analyses were carried out based on the subsurface information collected along the Option
6 Outfall Alignment during the Phase III and IV geotechnical investigations as presented in the Draft Geotechnical
Data Report (1525010-108-RevA-GDR) dated 20 September 2017. The characterizations of the site soils are as
presented in the Draft Geotechnical Interpretive Report (1525010-028-RevB-GIR) dated 31 May 2017.
R
2D ground deformation analyses were also carried out to assess the potential liquefaction of the site soils, and the
resulting lateral spreading and vertical settlements under the design ground motions consistent with both the 2010
NBCC and 2015 NBCC. The results of the 2D ground deformation analyses are summarized under separate cover.
The ground motion parameters, design acceleration spectra, and the time histories related to the 2010 NBCC and
D
2015 NBCC ground motions can be found in the Technical Memorandum “Seismic Design Criteria and
Performance Expectation – AIWWTP Transient Mitigation and Outfall System” dated 08 July 2016. This Technical
memorandum should be read in conjunction with the above noted documents.
This Technical Memorandum presents the following:
 Design firm-ground spectra and acceleration-time histories corresponding to the 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC
 Subsurface conditions and engineering parameters along the Option 6 Outfall alignment
 Site response analyses methodology and the results of the analyses
 Estimated extent of liquefaction along the final outfall alignment corridor
Golder Associates Ltd.

Suite 200 - 2920 Virtual Way, Vancouver, BC, V5M 0C4
Tel: +1 (604) 296 4200 Fax: +1 (604) 298 5253 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
John Newby, PE 1525010-031-TM-RevC
CDM Smith Canada ULC 22 December 2017
1.0 DESIGN FIRM-GROUND SPECTRA AND INPUT GROUND MOTIONS

The 2,475-yr return period Uniform Hazard Response Spectra (UHRS) and the subduction earthquake spectra,
provided by NRCan for the 4th and 5th generation seismic hazard models, are summarized in Table 1-1 and they
are also shown in Figure 1-1.
Table: 1-1: Site-Specific Probabilistic Firm-Ground Motion Parameters (Site Class C)
Return Period (2,475 Years) PHGA Sa (0.2s) Sa (0.5s) Sa (1.0s) Sa (2.0s)
2010 NBCC [4th generation model] 0.51 g 1.03 g 0.68 g 0.34 g 0.17 g
Subduction Earthquake [4th generation model] 0.16 g 0.37 g 0.31 g 0.17 g 0.09 g
2015 NBCC [5th generation model] 0.36 g 0.84 g 0.75 g 0.42 g 0.25 g
Subduction Earthquake [5th generation model] 0.14 g 0. 29 g 0.34 g 0.27 g 0.19 g
Note: PHGA refers to peak horizontal ground acceleration; Sa refers to spectral acceleration for a given period.
Consistent with the seismic ground motions that have been used for the Stage V expansion, three sets of ground
motions were developed for the 2010 NBCC ground motions, with each set comprising two single-component
time-histories to represent the crustal and inslab earthquakes, and one ground motion comprising two
T
single-component time-histories to represent the subduction earthquakes. The time histories were matched to the
design Site Class C spectra consistent with the 2010 NBCC ground motions; and they are shown on Figures 1-2a
and 1-2b, for the crustal and inslab, and interface earthquakes, respectively.
AF
Dr. Tuna Onur was retained to develop the applicable time histories based on the site-specific ground motion
parameters consistent with the 2015 NBCC. A total of 11 single-component acceleration time-histories were
developed to represent the crustal and inslab earthquakes. These were spectrally matched to the 2015 NBCC
UHRS (Site Class C) over a period range extending from PHGA to about 2 seconds, as shown on Figure 1-3a and
Figure 1-3b. A total of five single-component acceleration time-histories were developed to represent the interface
earthquakes; they were spectrally matched to the interface spectrum as shown on Figure 1-3c.
R
2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions at the subject site were established based on the results of the field investigations
carried out along the western, central and the final Option 6 outfall alignment corridors, with a specific focus on
D
the Option 6 alignment corridor. The results indicate that the site is underlain by fill (Unit 1) overlying overbank
deposits (Unit 2) comprising clayey silt and organic silt. Unit 2 is followed by a Fraser River sand deposit (Unit 3).
The Fraser River sand deposit, in turn, is underlain by an extensive marine sequence (Unit 4) comprising
interlayered fine sand and clayey silt to silty clay, followed by a glacio-marine deposit (Unit 7).
The glacio-marine deposit was encountered at depths ranging from 60 to 80 m below ground surface on land,
while the deposit was encountered at a depth of approximately 55 m below mudline in the offshore area. The
glacio-marine deposit is inferred to be underlain by a glacial deposit comprising till-like soils. The till-like soils were
encountered in the offshore area at a depth of 80 m below mudline near the Option 6 outfall alignment.
A stratigraphic profile along the Option 6 outfall alignment, including a proposed tunnel segment leading to a future
shaft that will connect to the Stage V expansion, was developed and is shown on Figure 2-1. The stratigraphic
profile was developed considering the test holes put down during the supplementary investigation completed along
the Option 6 outfall alignment, as well as the test holes put down as part of the previous investigations along the
conceptual alignments. In addition, a stratigraphic profile along the effluent tunnel leading to the effluent shaft from
2/10
the outfall shaft was also developed, and is shown on Figure 2-1. All elevations shown on Figures 2-1 are with
respect to the CVD28GVRD2005 datum, which is geodetic datum plus 100 metres.
The natural groundwater level at the site is expected to vary with the water level in the river, change in season,
and amount of precipitation. Based on available information, the groundwater levels on land vary between
Elevations 100 m and 101 m relative to the CVD28GVRD2005 datum.
3.0 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION

Liquefaction potential of site soils was evaluated using the semi-empirical approach developed by Idriss and
Boulanger (Idriss and Boulanger 2008 1). Several approaches or frameworks have been proposed over the last 45
years for assessing the potential for liquefaction triggering. The most widely used approach has been the
stress-based approach that compares the earthquake induced cyclic shear stresses normalized by the initial
vertical effective stress (i.e., CSR) with the soil’s cyclic shear resistance normalized by the initial vertical effective
stress (i.e., CRR). Liquefaction is expected at depths where the induced cyclic shear stress exceeds the cyclic
shear resistance of soil.
The procedure described above involves methods of estimating the earthquake-induced cyclic shear stress
(i.e., CSR) and the in-situ CRR. The earthquake-induced CSR is often estimated via Seed’s simplified method of
T
analyses, which are recommended for depths up to 20 m. Liquefaction evaluations at greater depths require high
quality site response analyses involving sufficient site characterization and taking into account the variability in the
possible input ground motions.
AF
The in-situ CRR of granular soils can be evaluated on the basis of laboratory testing of “undisturbed” field soil
samples, but this would require the use of techniques such as frozen sampling if “disturbance” is to be minimized
to obtain meaningful results. Consequently, semi-empirical relationships have been developed correlating the
in-situ CRR of granular soils and results from in-situ tests such as SPT, CPT, and shear wave velocity (Vs), on the
basis of compilations of case-histories, in which evidence of liquefaction has or has not been observed. The
definition of liquefaction in this context refers to observations, in the form of ground fissures and sand boils on
R
ground surface, which indicate that granular soils at depth must have developed excess pore water pressures and
developed significant strains. The interpretation of the field observation is complicated by the fact that surface
observations can be inconclusive in identifying the depths at which liquefaction probably occurred. The database
D
associated with the case-histories is limited to depths of liquefaction up to about 15 m, and earthquake magnitudes
(M) generally up to M7.5. Evidence of soil liquefaction and surface movement of soil strata related to large
subduction earthquakes of the order of M8 to M9, on the West Coast of Canada, is based on paleo-seismological
evidence.
Considering the limitation of the case history data, laboratory testing has been carried out to assess the key factors
that influence the potential liquefaction of soils such as earthquake magnitude, overburden stress, level ground
vs. sloping ground conditions, etc. The case history data supplemented with the laboratory testing is used to
develop a single graph of CRR versus in-situ testing for reference conditions based on the key factors, which allow
the case history data to be used for various conditions.
The details of the site response analyses and results of the liquefaction potential of soils are provided in the
following sections.
1
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008). Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, EERI, Oakland, CA
3/10
3.1 Site Response Analyses

Site-specific one-dimensional (1D) ground response analyses involving propagation of ground motions from firm
ground at depth, through the overburden soils to the ground surface, were carried out using the computer code
SHAKE2000, developed by Geomotions LLC. In the SHAKE analyses, the non-linear and hysteretic stress-strain
behaviour of the soil is modeled in the frequency domain using an equivalent linear approach with shear strain
level-dependent moduli and viscous damping. Equivalence is achieved by an iterative procedure such that the
moduli and damping values used are compatible with the computed strains in each layer.
SHAKE analyses were carried out to compute the variations in equivalent cyclic stress ratios (CSRs) with depth
(i.e., 0.65 times the maximum cyclic shear stress ratio) for use in the assessment of the liquefaction potential
corresponding to the 2,475 year ground motions consistent with the 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC.
1D soil columns were developed at five locations along the alignment corridor based on available subsurface
information. The following sections describe the results of the site response analyses along with the input
parameters used in the analyses.
3.1.1 Depth to Site Class C Ground Conditions
T
Vs measurements carried out within the glacio-marine deposit (Unit 7) encountered below Unit 4 indicate that Vs
in this layer varied between 370 m/s and 460 m/s, which corresponds to Class C conditions.
AF
In the absence of Vs measurements, the Class C ground conditions, especially in the effluent and the future shaft
areas where Vs data at depths is not available, were established based on the mean curve suggested by Hunter
et al. (1995 2) for unconsolidated deposits within the upper 100 m of the Fraser Delta.
The site-specific acceleration time-histories corresponding to the 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC ground motions
were applied at the Class C ground level in the site response analyses.
R
3.1.2 Shear Wave Velocity Profiles
The shear wave velocity profiles used in the site response analyses for the five locations are presented in Figures
3-1 through 3-5. They were generally established based on the site-specific shear wave velocity (Vs)
D
measurements, as well as the empirical correlations, as summarized in Table 3-1.
2
Hunter, J.A. (1995). “Shear-wave velocities of Holocene sediments, Fraser River Delta, BC, Current Research 1995A, Geological Survey of Canada, pp 29-32
4/10
Table 3-1: Summary of Shear Wave Data

SHAKE Location Vs Data
 Downhole Vs measurements at 1 m intervals from SCPT16-05 and SCPT
16-06 to a depth of 62.5 m and 64 m below ground surface, respectively.
Column #1 Outfall Shaft  Downhole Vs measurements at 1 m intervals within SH16-05 to a depth
of 90 m below ground surface.
 Encountered Class C ground conditions with Vs measurements varying
from 412 m/s to 533 m/s at a depth of 77 m below ground surface.
 Inferred from empirical correlations based on CPT15-15 and Hunter et al.
(1995).
Column #2 Effluent Shaft  Class C ground conditions was inferred from Hunter’s curve and an
average Vs of 450 m/s was used for analyses purposes in the absence of
Vs measurements corresponding to the Class C conditions at a depth of
90 m below ground surface.
 Downhole Vs measurements at 1 m intervals from SCPT16-03 and SCPT
16-04 to a depth of 63 m and 70 m below ground surface, respectively.
 Downhole Vs measurements at 1 m intervals within SH16-07 to a depth
Column #3 Future Shaft
 Class C ground conditions was inferred from Hunter’s curve and an
average Vs of 450 m/s was used for analyses purposes in the absence of
T
Vs measurements corresponding to the Class C conditions at a depth of
93 m below ground surface.
 Downhole Vs measurements at 1 m intervals from SCPT16-09 to a depth
AF
Station 0+600,  Downhole Vs measurements at 1 m intervals within SH16-06 to a depth
Column #4
Nearshore of 90 m below ground surface.
 Encountered Class C ground conditions with Vs measurements varying
from 364 m/s to 401 m/s at a depth of 78 m below ground surface.
 Downhole Vs measurements at 1 m intervals form SCPT16-10 to a depth
of 36 m below mudline, where the SCPT encountered effective refusal.
Column #5 Riser Shaft  Class C ground conditions was inferred from the nearshore location and
R
an average Vs of 450 m/s was used for analyses purposes in the absence
of Vs measurements corresponding to the Class C conditions at a depth
D
The following correlation established by Seed (1986) was used in estimating the small strain shear modulus of the
fill and sand units, where the field measurements were not available.
Gmax = 21.7 • Pa • F• [(N1)60]1/3 [σ’m / Pa]1/2
Where the F factors for the soil deposits are as follows:
 For the entire sand deposit at the effluent shaft location, a value of 15 was used
 For the fill layer at the onshore locations, a value of 20 was used
For Units 4 and 7 at the effluent shaft location, the Vs profile was established based on Hunter et al. (1995) as
noted above. Similarly, the Vs profile for Unit 2 was established based on the Vs data available at other locations
at the site.
5/10
3.1.3 Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves

The modulus reduction and damping curves considered for the ground response analyses are shown on Figure 3-6
and they are also shown on Figures 3-9 through 3-28 along with the soil profiles considered in the analyses.
The modulus reduction and damping curves published by Idriss (1970 3) were used to model the shear and
damping characteristics of the fill and Fraser River sand. The marine and the glacio marine deposits were modeled
using the modulus reduction and damping curves developed by Vucetic and Dobry (1991 4).
3.1.4 Results of Site Response Analyses

The results of site response analyses indicate that the CSR profiles computed for the crustal and inslab motions
are generally higher than the CSR profiles for the subduction motions when considering the 2010 NBCC seismic
hazard parameters as shown on Figure 3-7. Considering the significant difference in the CSR profiles and that the
potential liquefaction of soils is expected to be governed by the crustal and inslab ground motions, the site
response analyses were limited the crustal and inslab ground motions under the design ground motions consistent
with the 2010 NBCC In contrast, the CSR profiles computed for the subduction motions, when considering the
2015 NBCC seismic hazard parameters, are lower in the upper 30 m and higher below 30 m depth, when
compared with the corresponding crustal and inslab earthquake motions. This is primarily due to the higher
T
earthquake magnitude and higher spectral accelerations at the resonance period of the soil column, which is
approximately 1 second. A comparison of the CSR profiles associated with the 2015 NBCC ground motions for a
typical location is shown on Figure 3-8.
AF
The variation of the computed equivalent cyclic stress ratio (CSR), peak ground acceleration, and cyclic shear
strain with depth for the design ground motions corresponding to the crustal and inslab earthquakes consistent
with the 2010 NBCC are shown on Figures 3-9 through 3-13.
The variation of the CSR, peak ground acceleration, and cyclic shear strain with depth for the design ground
motions associated with the 2015 crustal and inslab earthquakes are shown on Figures 3-14 through 3-23, while
those for the subduction earthquakes are shown on Figures 3-24 through 3-28.
R
The predicted peak ground surface accelerations for the 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC motions are summarized
in Table 3-2.
D
Table 3-2: Summary of Ground Surface Accelerations Computed Using SHAKE – 2,475 Year Demand
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Location 2010 Crustal and Inslab 2015 Crustal and Inslab 2015 Subduction
Class C Surface Class C Surface Class C Surface
Outfall Shaft 0.51 0.24 – 0.32 0.36 0.25 – 0.38 0.14 0.15 - 0.18
Effluent Shaft 0.51 0.20 – 0.29 0.36 0.22 – 0.37 0.14 0.14 – 0.17
Future Shaft 0.51 0.20 – 0.29 0.36 0.25– 0.36 0.14 0.14 – 0.17
Nearshore 0.51 0.20 – 0.28 0.36 0.20 – 0.34 0.14 0.14 – 0.17
Riser Shaft 0.51 0.31 – 0.37 0.36 0.31 – 0.51 0.14 0.16 – 0.25
3
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., (1970). Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis, Report No. EERC70-10, University of California, Berkeley, December.
4
Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ACSE, 17(1), pp 89-107.
6/10
3.2 Liquefaction Potential of Fraser River Sand

Liquefaction potential of the sand deposit was evaluated based on the following approaches.
 Approach 1: Based on Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count values using Boulanger and Idriss 2014 5
 Approach 2: Based on Cone Penetration Test (CPT) tip resistance using Boulanger and Idriss 2015 6
 Approach 3: Based on Vs measurements using Kayen et al. (2013 7)
In accordance with the recommendations made by the Task Force (2007 8) (formed to provide geotechnical design
guidelines for buildings on liquefiable sites) an earthquake of magnitude M7 is to be considered for the crustal and
inslab earthquakes for the liquefaction evaluation corresponding to the 2010 NBCC ground motions. Based on the
PGA-based de-aggregation of the site-specific seismic hazard for the 2015 NBCC motions, an earthquake
magnitude of M7 was considered for the crustal and inslab earthquakes, and an earthquake magnitude of M9 was
considered for the subduction earthquake.
The overall liquefaction evaluation along the outfall alignment corridor, presented herein, was carried out following
Approach 1. Approaches 2 and 3 were followed at one location for comparison purposes. The details of the
approaches followed along with the results are presented in the following sections.
T
3.2.1 SPT-Based Liquefaction Assessment
AF
The SPT based liquefaction triggering correlations provided in the Monograph (Idriss and Boulanger 2008) were
further updated by Boulanger and Idriss in 2014 with revised correlation for the magnitude scaling factor (MSF)
extending to earthquake magnitudes up to M9. The database has also been updated with an additional 24 case
histories; however, there is no change to the liquefaction triggering chart from its earlier version.
The liquefaction assessment based on SPTs consisted of the following steps:

R
Step 1: Compute standard penetration test values normalized to an effective stress level of 100 kPa corrected
for fines content SPT (N1)60cs from the measured CPT and SPT data. The fines contents computed using the
Robertson and Wride (1998 9) method was utilized to establish a continuous profile of corrected SPT (N1)60cs
from the CPT data. The Robertson and Wride method correlates the fines content values inferred from CPT
D
data with the measured values (cf. sieve analyses) well. The SPT (N1)60cs values were also computed from
the measured SPT blow count values and fines contents from the sieve analyses. Further details on the
interpreted SPT(N1)60cs profiles along the outfall alignment corridor were provided in a draft geotechnical
interpretive report dated May 31, 2017;
 Step 2: Compute Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) profiles for the reference conditions corresponding to M7.5
and an effective stress of 100 kPa for the SPT(N1)60cs profiles based on the liquefaction triggering chart
developed by Idriss and Boulanger (2014);
5 Boulanger, R. W., and Idriss, I. M. (2014). CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Rep. No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Univ. of California, Davis, CA.
6
Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. (2015). CPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedure, JGGE, ASCE, 04015065, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001388
7
Kayen, R., Moss, R.E.S., Thompson, E.M., Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Der Kiureghian, A., Tanaka, Y., and Tokimatsu, K. (2013), Shear Wave Velocity Based Probabilistic and Deterministic
Assessment of Cyclic Soil Liquefaction Potential, JGGE, ASCE, 139(3), pp 407-419.
8
Task Force Report (2007), Geotechnical Guidelines for Buildings on Liquefiable Sites in Accordance with NBCC 2005 in Greater Vancouver Region.
9
Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., (1998). Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential using the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3.
7/10
 Step 3: Obtain equivalent cyclic stress ratio (CSR) profiles for the design earthquakes consistent with the
2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC seismic hazard parameters from the site response analyses as noted above.
The average CSR profiles from earthquake records was used for each scenario;
 Step 4: Apply appropriate magnitude scaling factor (MSF) to the CSR profiles to obtain the scaled CSR
profiles corresponding to M7.5. It is noted that the MSF varied between 1.0 and 1.1 for the crustal an inslab
earthquakes associated with both the 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC. The MSF for the subduction earthquakes
consistent with the 2015 NBCC varied between 0.7 and 0.9. A scaling factor is also applied to account for
variations in the effective overburden stress. ; and,
 Step 5: Compare scaled CSR with CRR for each design earthquake and liquefaction is expected to occur
when the scaled CSR is higher than the CRR.
Figures 3-29 through 3-33 illustrate the extent of liquefaction at the five locations along the outfall alignment
corridor, where the site response analyses were carried out. The extent of liquefaction was established based on
a Factor of Safety (FoS) against liquefaction of 1.0 (i.e., a ratio between CSR and CRR) as shown on the figures.
It is noted that although a FoS of 1 was used for the purpose of the liquefaction evaluation, a higher FoS about
1.3 is often used to limit the excess pore pressure ratio within the liquefiable deposit to be less than 40%. An
T
excess pore pressure ratio higher than 40% may lead to some strength and stiffness reductions along with ground
displacements, even though the soils are not liquefied. A similar FoS was considered in the liquefaction evaluation
carried out for the Stage V expansion.
AF
The equivalent SPT (N1)60cs profiles estimated from the field data along with the required SPT (N1)60cs profiles
based on the triggering correlation for the design ground motions consistent with the 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC
were also shown on the Figures 3-29 through 3-33 for comparison purposes. Figure 3-34 illustrates the extent of
liquefaction both vertically and laterally based on the design ground motions consistent with the 2010 NBCC and
2015 NBCC.
R
The results of the assessment indicate that the upper 22 m to 36 m of the sand deposit at the on-land locations
are considered potentially liquefiable under the 2010 NBCC crustal and inslab ground motions. The potential
liquefaction depth increases from the upper 40 m to the full depth sand deposit for the crustal and inslab motions
at the on-land locations associated with the 2015 NBCC. The entire sand deposit at the riser shaft is considered
D
potentially liquefiable under the 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC interface ground motions. It is noted that there are
localised zones with a slightly larger FoS against liquefaction and they are generally considered as potentially
liquefiable for the purpose of liquefaction evaluation.
3.2.2 Extent of Liquefaction Comparison – Other Approaches

The liquefaction evaluation was also carried out using Approaches 2 and 3 for comparison purposes as part of the
preliminary analyses completed previously focusing on the western alignment and it is presented herein for
completeness. This comparison was carried out for a typical location (i.e., SCPT16-05) for illustration purposes
considering the 2015 subduction motions.
It is noted that the CPT-based liquefaction assessment (Approach 2) provided in the Monograph (Idriss and
Boulanger 2008) was further updated by Boulanger and Idriss in 2015. This includes changes in the magnitude
scaling factor (MSF), liquefaction triggering curve, and fine content corrections for CPT. This is a very recent
update and the use of this approach in the current practice, in our opinion, is very limited at this time.
8/10
The Vs based liquefaction assessment (Approach 3) is generally considered as a screening level tool primarily
due to its lack of sensitivity to relative density (Dr) of cohesionless soils (Idriss & Boulanger, 2008). Note that a
relative density varying from 30% to 80%, which can control the potential from generally liquefiable to
non-liquefiable soils, may have an increment factor of 1.4 in terms of the shear wave velocity. The Vs-based
liquefaction evaluation developed by Kayen et al. (2013), which is an update of the approach developed by Chen
et al. (2008) was used. The Vs approach is limited to a maximum overburden stress of 200 kPa, which is equivalent
to a depth of about 20 m at the subject site. However, for comparison purposes, the liquefaction evaluation was
extended to the depth of the potentially liquefiable soils at the site.
Figure 3-35 shows the potential liquefaction of the sand deposit based on the liquefaction evaluation approaches
noted above including the SPT based approach. The results of the assessment generally indicate a deeper
liquefaction estimate by the other two approaches compared to the SPT-based approach.
4.0 CLOSURE
We trust that the information presented in this Technical Memorandum is sufficient for your immediate
requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions or require clarification of contents.
T
Yours truly,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

AF
Yannick Wittwer, PEng Yen Bui, MSc, PEng
Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical Engineer
R
D
Viji Fernando, MESc, PEng

Associate, Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Reviewed by:
Trevor Fitzell, PEng

Principal, Senior Geotechnical Reviewer
YEW/VF/TPF/le
9/10
Attachments: Figure 1-1: Acceleration Response Spectra 2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC
Figure 1-2a: Acceleration Time Histories 2010 NBCC – Crustal/Inslab
Figure 1-2b: Acceleration Time Histories 2010 NBCC – Interface
Figure 1-3a: Acceleration Time Histories 2015 NBCC – Crustal
Figure 1-3b: Acceleration Time Histories 2015 NBCC – Inslab
Figure 1-3c: Acceleration Time Histories 2015 NBCC - Interface
Figure 2-1: Statigraphic Profiles – Option 6 Outfall Alignment
Figure 3-1: Shear Wave Velocity Profile – Outfall Shaft
Figure 3-2: Shear Wave Velocity Profile- Effluent Shaft
Figure 3-3: Shear Wave Velocity Profile – Future Shaft
Figure 3-4: Shear Wave Velocity Profile - Nearshore
Figure 3-5: Shear Wave Velocity Profile – Riser Shaft
Figure 3-6: Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves
Figure 3-7: Comparison of CSR – Typical Location 2010 NBCC
Figure 3-8: Comparison of CSR – Typical Location 2015 NBCC
Figure 3-9: Results of Site Response Analyses 2010 NBCC Crustal & Inslab – Outfall Shaft
Figure 3-10: Results of Site Response Analyses 2010 NBCC Crustal & Inslab – Effluent Shaft
Figure 3-11: Results of Site Response Analyses 2010 NBCC Crustal & Inslab – Future Shaft
Figure 3-12: Results of Site Response Analyses 2010 NBCC Crustal & Inslab - Nearshore
Figure 3-13: Results of Site Response Analyse 2010 NBCC Crustal & Inslab s – Riser Shaft
Figure 3-14: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Crustal – Outfall Shaft
Figure 3-15: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Crustal – Effluent Shaft
Figure 3-16: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Crustal – Future Shaft
T
Figure 3-17: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Crustal - Nearshore
Figure 3-18: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Crustal – Riser Shaft
Figure 3-19: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Inslab – Outfall Shaft
Figure 3-20: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Inslab – Effluent Shaft
AF
Figure 3-21: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Inslab – Future Shaft
Figure 3-22: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Inslab - Nearshore
Figure 3-23: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Inslab – Riser Shaft
Figure 3-24: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Interface – Outfall Shaft
Figure 3-25: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Interface – Effluent Shaft
Figure 3-26: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Interface – Future Shaft
Figure 3-27: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Interface – Nearshore
Figure 3-28: Results of Site Response Analyses 2015 NBCC Interface – Riser Shaft
Figure 3-29: Potentially Liquefiable Depth – Outfall Shaft
R
Figure 3-30: Potentially Liquefiable Depth – Effluent Shaft
Figure 3-31: Potentially Liquefiable Depth – Future Shaft
Figure 3-32: Potentially Liquefiable Depth – Nearshore
Figure 3-33: Potentially Liquefiable Depth – Riser Shaft
D
Figure 3-34: Extent of Liquefaction

Figure 3-35: Extent of Liquefaction – Various Approaches
\\golder.gds\gal\burnaby\active\2015\3 proj\1525010 cdm_annacis island wwtp\geo\6.0 deliverables\6.2 tech memos\3 1d ground response analyses\rev c\wp\1525010-031-tm-revc-1d
response analyses_draft_final.docx
10/10
Path: O:\Active\2015\3 Proj\1525010 CDM_Annacis Island WWTP\GEO\6.0 Deliverables\6.2 Tech Memos\3 1D Ground Response Analyses\Rev 0\Figures
1.2
UHRS 2475 ‐ 2015 NBCC
UHRS 2475 ‐ 2010 NBCC
1 Interface ‐ 2015 NBCC
Interface ‐ 2010 NBCC
0.8
Spectral Acceleration (g)
T
0.6
AF
0.4
0.2
R
D
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s)
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
CDM SMITH CANADA ULC AIWWTP TRANSIENT MITIGATION AND OUTFALL SYSTEM
DELTA, BC
Note: CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 19 DEC 2017 TITLE
Acceleration Response Spectra
Acceleration response PREPARED YEW
2010 NBCC and 2015 NBCC
spectra for 5% damping DESIGN YEW
REVIEW ---- Rev

PROJECT No. PHASE FIGURE
APPROVED ---- 1525010 2100 C 1-1
Path: O:\Active\2015\3 Proj\1525010 CDM_Annacis Island WWTP\GEO\6.0 Deliverables\6.2 Tech Memos\3 1D Ground Response Analyses\Rev C\Figures
Spectral Response Acceleration

0.5 (Damping 5%)
1.1
LP EW 2010 NBCC UHRS
1
Landers Ew
0 0.9 Landers NS
Acc. (g)

0.8 LP EW
0.7 LP NS
-0.5 0.6 ChiChi EW
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.5 ChiChi NS
Time (Sec.)
0.4
0.5 0.3
LP NS 0.2
0
0.1
Acc. (g)
T
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-0.5 Period (Sec)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (Sec.)
AF
0.5 0.5
CHICHI EW
LAN EW
0
Acc. (g)
0
Acc. (g)
-0.5
-0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0.5
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Sec.)
25 R
30 35 40 45
LAN NS
50
0.5
Time (Sec.)
CHICHI NS
D
0 Acc. (g) 0
Acc. (g)
-0.5 -0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (Sec.) Time (Sec.)
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 20 DEC 2017 TITLE
PREPARED MSK ACCELERATION TIME HISTORIES

DESIGN MSK
2010 NBCC – CRUSTAL/INSLAB
REVIEW ---- Rev FIGURE
PROJECT No. Phase
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 1-2a
0.2
0.1 Mexico EW
0 Spectral Response Acceleration

Acc. (g)
(Damping 5%)
-0.1 1.1
2010 NBCC Interface
1
-0.2 Mexico EW
0.9 Mexico NS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0.8
Time (Sec.)
T
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.1 Mexico NS 0.5
0.4
AF
0 0.3
Acc. (g)
0.2
-0.1 0.1
0
-0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Period (Sec)
Time (Sec.) R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN MSK
2010 NBCC - INTERFACE
PROJECT No. Phase
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 1-2b
0.5
Crustal 01a Spectral Response Acceleration (Damping 5%)
1.1
0 2015 NBCC UHRS
1
Acc. (g)
Crustal01a
0.9 Crustal02
Spectral Acc.eleration (g)

0.8 Crustal03
-0.5 Crustal04
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.7 Crustal05a
Time (Sec.) 0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
Crustal 02
0.3
0.2
Acc. (g)
0
0.1
T
0
-0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 10 20 Time (Sec.)30 40 50 T (sec.)
AF
0.5 0.5
Crustal 03 Crustal 05a
Acc. (g)
0
Acc. (g)
-0.5
-0.5 R 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20
Time (Sec.)30 40 50 Time (Sec.)
0.5 0.5
Crustal 04 Crustal 06
D
0
Acc. (g)
0
Acc. (g)
-0.5
-0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (Sec.)
Time (Sec.)
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN MSK
2015 NBCC – CRUSTAL
PROJECT No. Phase
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 1-3a
0.5
Spectral Response Acceleration (Damping 5%)
0.3 Inslab 01 1.1
2015 NBCC UHRS
1 Inslab01
0.1 0.9 Inslab02
Acc. (g)
0.8 Inslab03
-0.1
Spectral Acc.eleration (g)

Inslab04
0.7
-0.3 Inslab05
0.6
-0.5 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.4
Time (Sec.) 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5 0
T
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.3 Inslab 02 T (sec.)
0.1
0.5
Acc. (g)
AF
-0.1
0.3 Inslab 04
-0.3
0.1
-0.5
Acc. (g)
0 10 20 30 40 50 -0.1
Time (Sec.) -0.3
-0.5
0.5
0.3
R Inslab 03 0.5
0.3
0 10 20
Time (Sec.)
30 40
Inslab 05
50
D
0.1
Acc. (g)
0.1
-0.1 Acc. (g)
-0.1
-0.3
-0.3
-0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 -0.5
Time (Sec.) 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (Sec.)
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN MSK
2015 NBCC - INSLAB
PROJECT No. Phase
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 1-3b
Spectral Response Acceleration (Damping 5%)

1.1
2015 NBCC Interface
1 Interface 01
0.2 0.9 Interface 02
Interface 03

0.8 Interface 04
0.1 Interface 01
0.7 Interface 05
0 0.6
Acc. (g)
0.5
-0.1 0.4
0.3
-0.2
0.2
0 50 100 150 200
Time (Sec.) 0.1
0
T
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
T (sec.)
0.1 Interface 02
0.2
AF
0 Interface 04
Acc. (g)
0.1
-0.1 0
Acc. (g)
-0.2 -0.1
0 50 100 150 200
Time (Sec.) -0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.2
0.1
R Interface 03
0.2
0.1
Time (Sec.)
Interface 05
D
0
Acc. (g)
Acc. (g) 0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
0 50 100 150 200 -0.2
Time (Sec.) 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (Sec.)
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN MSK
PROJECT No. Phase
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 1-3c
140 140
130 BH16-05 SCPT16-06 SH16-05 130

o/s 15.07 o/s 5.96 o/s 3.28 APPROXIMATE GROUND
AH16-03 FUTURE SHAFT SURFACE
120 SCPT16-04 AH16-02 SH16-07 BH16-04 SCPT16-03 SCPT16-02 AH16-01 BH16-06 SCPT16-07 BH16-07 SCPT16-08 SCPT16-09 SH16-06 120
o/s -112.20
o/s 15.03 o/s 18.36 o/s 47.46 o/s 27.07 o/s 26.34 o/s 31.28 o/s 32.64 o/s 6.81 o/s 5.34 o/s 21.47 o/s 21.71 o/s 29.88 o/s 23.37 BH16-08 SCPT16-10
OUTFALL SHAFT o/s 33.08 o/s 33.08
110 qc (Bar) qc (Bar) qc (Bar) CPT15-12 BH15-10 110
N-value
qc (Bar) qc (Bar) qc (Bar) qc (Bar)
N-value
N-value
N-value
0 50 100 150 200 250
? ? ? ?
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
o/s -103.46 o/s -107.08 SCPT15-11 BH15-09 RISER SHAFT
? ? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
UNIT
?
??
1 ?? ?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
?? ?? o/s -97.87 o/s -94.99 2016 CCG BATHYMETRY
100 ?
?
?
?
?
? 2
?
?
? ? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
6
7
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? ?? ?? ?? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
7?
8 ?
11
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? 3?
5 ?
4
?
?
?
?
?? ?? ?? ?? ??
UNIT 2 ? ? ?
? 100
? qc (Bar)
N-value
7 8 10 3
4 ?
ELEVATION - GVD28GVRD DATUM (m)

9 11 8
9 0 50 100
? 150 200 250 qc (Bar)
N-value
8 11 5
8 ?
OPTION 6 OUTFALL qc (Bar)
N-value
11 7 11 10 ? 2 0 50 100 150 200 250
90 14
8
8 12
10
10
12
UNIT 3A
WH ?
?
?
0 50 100 150 200 250 90
13
17
SECONDARY BYPASS 12
15 14
21
18
18 ALIGNMENT
10
10
15
?
WH
1
12 WH MUNGO'S HOLE
14 13 22 18 17 19 4
21 19 24 23
? 15 11 11
17 19 18 16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
80 ? ?? ?? ??
18
16
?? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 22
19
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
15
19
? ? ?
8
?
23 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
28
18
20
? ? ? ? ? ?
12
19
29
?
16
21
27
80
25 30 ? ? 18 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 26 ? ? ? ?
? ?
26 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 22 24 15 ? ? ? ?
? ? 16 ? ? 22 24 51 17 24 ? ? ? ? ?
29 18 28 26 39 30 25 ? ? ?
26 24 20 13 21 35 33
33
70 34
28
31
31
27
22
18
19
28
15
18
14
31
28
15
36
17 70
39 22
? ? ? 4 ?
4
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
20
26
32
36
30
WR
WH UNIT 3B 41
41
33
20
28
44
10 ? ? ? 30 40 24 23 25
3 ? ? ?
30 30 56
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?WR WH? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?
60 WR ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
31
35
31
30
32
40 ?
?
? ? WR
WR
WR
WR 60
WH
? 44 36 ? 6 WR WR
WH WR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? WR 52 ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? WR WR
16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
37 ? WR WR WR
2 WR ? ? ? 49 ? WR WR
WR ? ? ?
50 22
WR
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
53
54
?
?
? WR WR
50
?
WR
? ?
UNIT 4 WR
? ? ? ? WR
? ? ? ? WR WR
?
40 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
WR
40
? ? ? ? WR 24
? ? ?
? ? ? ? WR
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?WR
WR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? >50
? ? ? ? ? ?
30 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
30
? ? WR
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
?
20 ? ? ? ? ? ?
20
? ?
?
? ? ?
UNIT 7
10 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?>50 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 10
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
0
? ? ? ?
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
UNIT 6B
? ? ? ?
? ?
-10 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-10
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
?
-20 ? ?
-20
-0+500 -0+400 -0+300 -0+200 -0+100 0+000 0+100 0+200 0+300 0+400 0+500 0+600 0+700 0+800 0+850
SCALE 1:1,000 m A-A' STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE
T
1.1
AF
140 140
APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE
130 SCPT16-05 SCPT16-06 130
BH15-05 o/s -51.63 o/s 7.96
o/s -29.63
BH16-03 BH16-06 SH16-05 BH16-01 SH16-01 CPT15-15 BH15-13
120 SCPT15-06 BH16-02 SCPT16-01 o/s 1.45 o/s 2.14 120
o/s -48.71 o/s 12.77 o/s 11.48 o/s -14.09 o/s -12.45 o/s 23.24 o/s 22.44
o/s -27.10 EFFLUENT SHAFT 1
OUTFALL SHAFT qc (Bar)
N-value
110 110
N-value
qc (Bar) qc (Bar) qc (Bar) qc (Bar)
N-value
N-value
N-value
N-value
0 50 100 150 200 250
250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 250 200 150 100 50 0
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? 13 ?
? ?
? 10
?
?
?
? ? ? ? 7 6
UNIT 1 10
18
? ? ? ? ? ?
100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2?? ? ? ? ? WR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 7 ? ? ? ?
100
? ? ? ? ? ?
UNIT

? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 2 ? ? ? ?
12 ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? 8 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4 ? ? ? ? ? ?
13 11 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 11
8 9 10 10 4 5
8 10 11 6 7 8
12 13 10 13 3
11
9 7 9 11 13
11
11
90 11
12
9
8
11
18
12
10
14
10
14
11
10
12
12
9
15
90
16 17
14
20
11
14
21
22 19
20
UNIT 3A 18
13
12
26
Path: \\golder.gds\gal\Burnaby\CAD-GIS\Client\CDM_Smith\Annacis_Island\99_PROJECTS\1525010_WWTP\02_PRODUCTION\2100\DWG\ | File Name: 1525010-2200-2-1.dwg
22 15 24 22
12 13 12 14 20
18
80 24 18 15 12
32
17
12
20 80
R
22 26 19 18
25 19 18
? ? ? ? ? 31 ? ? ? ?
13 18
17 ? ? ? ? ? 20 ? ? ? ? ?
30 17 22 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 29
? ? ? 20? 22
15 19 28
? ? ? ? ? 25 19
27
23 9
? ? ? ? 20 ? 21
? ? ? ? ? ? ? 23 ? ? ? ? 15 23
70 30
25
19
22
18 18
19
23
16
28
22 70
27
23
21
19
18
22
19
36
30
16
32
UNIT 3B 33
15
29
22
33
25 25 23 21 29
30
38 25 24 32
30 WR
60 38
33
42
32
31
30
45
37
26
24
15
25
35
WR
43
60
32 23 44 27
44 ? WR ? ? ? ? ? ? WR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 21
? ? ? ? ? ?
29
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? WR? WR ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 26 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
WR 30
WR
WR
50 WR
1 WR 10 6 50
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
15
49 ?
?
OPTION 6 OUTFALL WR
13
29
? WR
ALIGNMENT
IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
16
? WR
?
40 43
39
?
?
WR
WR
WR
40
35 ? WR
?
52 ?
? UNIT 4
D
? WR
30 42
63
?
?
?
WR 30
70 ?
?
?
?
?
20 ?
?
WR
20
?
? WR
?
?
10
?
? 10 DATA CONCERNING THE VARIOUS STRATA HAVE
?
?
?
?
BEEN OBTAINED AT TEST HOLE LOCATIONS ONLY.
UNIT 7 ?
? THE SOIL STRATIGRAPHY BETWEEN TEST HOLES
0 ?
? 0
?
?
?
HAS BEEN INFERRED FROM GEOLOGICAL
?
?
?
EVIDENCE AND MAY VARY FROM THAT SHOWN.
-10 -10
-0+150 -0+100 0+000 0+100 0+200 0+300 0+350
SCALE 1:1,000 m B-B' STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE

1.1
PLAN
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1:5,000m
LEGEND SOIL LITHOLOGY STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND NOTES

TEST HOLE RECORD SHOWING SOIL CONDITIONS UNIT 1 - FILL 1. COORDINATES ARE IN UTM NAD83 ZONE 10 AND CONVERTED TO GROUND LEVEL USING A
(FOR DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION REFER TO RECORD OF BOREHOLE) PEAT (PT) SILTY CLAY (CI) CLAYEY SAND (SC) CLAYEY GRAVEL (GC) COMBINED SCALE FACTOR OF 10397558.
UNIT 2 - OVERBANK DEPOSITS 2. ELEVATIONS ARE IN METRES AND REFER TO CVD28GVRD - 100 METRES PLUS GEODETIC DATUM.
BH15-03 ORGANIC SILT (OL) CLAY (CH) SAND - WELL SILTY GRAVEL (GM) CLIENT PROJECT
o/s 21.14 DENOTES TEST HOLE TYPE, GRADED (SW) 3. STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE ALONG THE OPTION 6 OUTFALL ALIGNMENT WAS DEVELOPED BASED
UNIT 3A - FRASER RIVER SAND (LOOSE TO COMPACT)
INVESTIGATION YEAR AND ID NUMBER GRAVEL - POORLY ON ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE DATA ALONG THE WESTERN AND
CDM SMITH ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP TRANSIENT MITIGATION AND OUTFALL
SPT N-value
ORGANIC SILT (OH) CLAYEY SILT (MH) SILTY SAND (SM) CENTRAL ALIGNMENTS
GRADED (GP)
DENOTES PERPENDICULAR DISTANCE FROM
TEST HOLE TO SECTION LINE IN METRES SILTY CLAY (CL) CLAYEY SILT OR SAND - POORLY GRAVEL - WELL
UNIT 3B - FRASER RIVER SAND (COMPACT TO DENSE)
4. SECTION C-C' IS SIMILAR TO SECTION A-A' WITH A DIFFERENCE IN TOPOGRAPHY, SPECIFICALLY DELTA, B.C.
GRADED (SP) IN THE OFFSHORE AREA.

GRADED (GW)

SILT (ML) UNIT 4 - MARINE DEPOSIT
qc (Bar)
DRAFT
71
UNIT 6B - GLACIAL DEPOSITS REFERENCES
0 50 100 150 200 250 CONSULTANT TITLE
YYYY-MM-DD 2017-12-22
SPT - DENOTES STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 1. NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL, ORTHOPHOTO AND GROUND SURVEY DATA PROVIDED BY BLACK &
BLOW COUNT (BLOWS/0.3m)
UNIT 7 - GLACIOMARINE DEPOSIT
VEATCH. DESIGNED Y. WITTWER
STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILES - OPTION 6 OUTFALL ALIGNMENT
DENOTES CONE PENETRATION TEST
25 mm
23 FILE: ANNACISNAD27Z10GRND.TIF, ANNACIS-RIVER.TIF, C000A_XXXXX-1.DWG 0 50 100
TIP RESISTANCE (Bar) 2. 2016 CCG BATHYMETRY SURVEY AND OPTION 6 ALIGNMENT PROVIDED BY
PREPARED S. REDDY
CDM SMITH CANADA ULC ON MAY 19, 2016. FILE: C201072016.DWG.
3. 60% DETAIL DESIGN DRAWING OBTAINED FROM CDM SMITH. 1:1,000 METRES
SONIC HOLE LOCATION AUGERHOLE LOCATION REVIEWED V. FERNANDO
PROJECT NO. PHASE/TASK REV. FIGURE
BOREHOLE LOCATION (SEISMIC) CONE PENETRATION TEST LOCATION
APPROVED V. FERNANDO 1525010 2200 A 2-1
0
Outfall Shaft (SCPT16-06/SH16-05)
0 103.7
Unit 1
Unit 2
SCPT16-06 Interval Velocity (m/s)

10 SH16-05 DHS Interval Velocity (m/s) 93.7
SH16-02 DHS Interval Velocity (m/s)
Hunter (1995) Mean
20 83.7
Hunter (1995) Mean+2σ
Hunter (1995) Mean-2σ
Unit 3 SHAKE Vs Profile
30 73.7
Elevation (m) - CVD28GVRD2005

40 63.7
T
Depth (m)
50 53.7
AF
Unit 4
60 43.7
Unit 7
R
70 33.7
D
80 23.7
Unit 7 - Class C Condition
90 13.7
100 3.7
0 100 200 300 400 500
Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE – OUTFALL SHAFT
DESIGN YEW
REVIEW --- PROJECT No PHASE REV FIGURE
APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-1

Effluent Shaft (BH16-01/CPT15-15)
0 104.8
Unit 1 Gmax = 21.7 • Pa • 20 [(N1)60cs]1/3 [σ’m / Pa]1/2
Unit 2
BH16-01 Correlated Vs from SPT (m/s)

10 94.8
Hunter (1995) Mean
CPT15-15-SPTN160cs Correlated Vs (m/s)
20 84.8
30 74.8
Unit 3
Gmax = 21.7 • Pa • 15 [(N1)60cs]1/3 [σ’m / Pa]1/2

40 64.8
T
Depth (m)
50 54.8
AF
60 44.8
Unit 4
R
70 34.8
D
80 24.8
90 14.8
100 4.8
0 100 200 300 400 500
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE – EFFLUENT SHAFT
DESIGN YEW
APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-2

Future Shaft (SH16-07)
0 103.8
Unit 1
Unit 2

10 SCPT16-03 Interval Velocity (m/s) 93.8
Hunter Mean (1995)
Unit 3 Hunter (1995) Mean-2σ
20 SHAKE Vs Profile 83.8
30 73.8

40 63.8
T
Depth (m)
50 53.8
Unit 4
AF
60 43.8
70 33.8
R
D
80 23.8
Unit 7
90 13.8
100 3.8
0 100 200 300 400 500
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE – FUTURE SHAFT
DESIGN YEW
APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-3

Nearshore (SCPT16-09/SH16-06)
0 104.1
Unit 1
Unit 2
10 Hunter (1995) Mean 94.1
SHAKE Vs Profile
20 84.1
Unit 3
30 74.1

40 64.1
T
Depth (m)
50 54.1
Unit 4
AF
60 44.1
70 34.1
R
Unit 7
80 24.1
D
90 14.1
100 4.1
0 100 200 300 400 500
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE – NEARSHORE
DESIGN YEW
APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-4

Riser Shaft (SCPT16-10)
-22.8 110
SH16-06 (Nearshore DHS) Interval Velocity (m/s)
Hunter (1995) Mean
-12.8 Hunter (1995) Mean+2σ 100
BH16-08-SPTN160cs Correlated Vs (m/s)
SCPT16-10-SPTN160cs Correlated Vs (m/s)
SHAKE Vs Profile
-2.8 90
Mudline
7.3 80
Unit 3
17.3 70

T
27.3 60
Depth (m)
Unit 4
AF
37.3 50
47.3 40
R
57.3 Unit 7 30
D
67.3 20
77.3 10
87.3 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW
SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE – RISER SHAFT
DESIGN YEW
APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-5

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
G/Gmax
0.5
Sand Upper - Seed and Idriss

0.4
PI=18 - Vucetic and Dobry
0.3
0.2 PI=21 - Vucetic and Dobry
0.1
T
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Strain (%)
30
AF
Sand Lower - Seed and Idriss
25

R
20 PI=21 - Vucetic and Dobry
Damping (%)
15
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Strain (%) DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW
MODULUS REDUCTION AND DAMPING CURVES
DESIGN YEW
APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-6

CSR (M=7.5, σv'= 1 atm)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0
10
20
30
T
Depth (m)
AF
40
R
50
D
60 Average - 2010 NBCC Crustal and Inslab
Average - 2010 NBCC Interface
70
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW COMPARISON OF CSR – TYPICAL LOCATION

DESIGN YEW
2010 NBCC
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-7

CSR (M=7.5, σv'= 1 atm)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0
10
20
30
T
Depth (m)
AF
40
R
50
D
60
Average - 2015 NBCC Crustal and Inslab
Average - 2015 NBCC Interface
70
DRAFT
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW COMPARISON OF CSR – TYPICAL LOCATION

DESIGN YEW 2015 NBCC
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-8

T
AF
O:\Active\2015\3 Proj\1525010 CDM_Annacis Island WWTP\GEO\6.0 Deliverables\6.2 Tech Memos\3 1D Ground Response Analyses\Rev 0\Figures
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW RESULTS OF SITE RESPONSE ANALYSES

DESIGN YB 2010 NBCC CRUSTAL & INSLAB - OUTFALL SHAFT
REVIEW ---
PROJECT No. PHASE Rev FIGURE
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-9
T
AF
R
Unit 7
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2010 NBCC CRUSTAL & INSLAB - EFFLUENT SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-10
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2010 NBCC CRUSTAL & INSLAB - FUTURE SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-11
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2010 NBCC CRUSTAL & INSLAB - NEARSHORE
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-12
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2010 NBCC CRUSTAL & INSLAB - RISER SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-13
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC CRUSTAL - OUTFALL SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-14
T
AF
Unit 7
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC CRUSTAL - EFFLUENT SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-15
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC CRUSTAL - FUTURE SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-16
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC CRUSTAL – NEARSHORE
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-17
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC CRUSTAL - RISER SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-18
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INSLAB - OUTFALL SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-19
T
AF
R
Unit 7 D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INSLAB - EFFLUENT SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-20
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INSLAB - FUTURE SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-21
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INSLAB – NEARSHORE
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-22
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INSLAB - RISER SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-23
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INTERFACE - OUTFALL SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-24
T
AF
R
Unit 7
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INTERFACE - EFFLUENT SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-25
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INTERFACE - FUTURE SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-26
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INTERFACE – NEARSHORE
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-27
T
AF
R
D
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB 2015 NBCC INTERFACE - RISER SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-28
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Potentially
Potentially Liquefiable
20 20 20 Potentially
Liquefiable 20 20 20 20 Liquefiable
T
Depth (m)
30 30 30 30 30 30 30
AF
40 40 40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50
R 50 50 50 50
Interpreted
D
Required SPT (N1)60-cs
SCPT16-06
SCPT16-06
SCPT16-06
BH16-06 Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs
SCPT16-06 SCPT16-06 SCPT16-06
60 60
Soil Behaviour Type 60 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
60 60 60 60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Fines Content (%) Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs vs. (FoS)liquefaction Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs vs. (FoS)liquefaction Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs vs. (FoS)liquefaction
Required SPT (N1)60-cs Required SPT (N1)60-cs Required SPT (N1)60-cs
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW DEPTH OF LIQUEFACTION

DESIGN YB OUTFALL SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-29
0 6 12
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Potentially
Liquefiable
Potentially
Liquefiable
Potentially
Liquefiable
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
T
Depth (m)
30 30 30 30 30 30 30
AF
40 40 40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50
R 50 50 50 50
Interpreted Required SPT (N1)60-cs

D CPT15-15
CPT15-15
CPT15-15
CPT15-15 CPT15-15 CPT15-15
60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB EFFLUENT SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Potentially
Liquefiable 20 20 20 20 Liquefiable
T
Depth (m)
30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Potentially
AF
Liquefiable Potentially
Liquefiable
Potentially
Liquefiable
40 40 40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50
R 50 50 50 50
Interpreted from
SCPT16-03
BH16-04
D
SCPT16-03
Required SPT (N1)60-cs Required SPT (N1)60-cs
Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs SCPT16-03 Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs

Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs SCPT16-03
60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Soil Behaviour Type 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB FUTURE SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-31
0 6 12
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Potentially Potentially Potentially
Liquefiable Liquefiable Liquefiable
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
T
Depth (m)
30 30 30
AF
30
Liquefiable
40 40 40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50
R 50 50 50 50
D
SCPT16-09
SCPT16-09
SCPT16-09
Interpreted
Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs
60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Soil Behaviour Type Fines Content (%) Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs vs. (FoS)liquefaction Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs vs. (FoS)liquefaction Equivalent SPT (N1)60-cs vs. (FoS)liquefaction
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB NEARSHORE
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-32
0 6 12
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Potentially Potentially Potentially
Liquefiable Liquefiable Liquefiable
20 20 20 20 20 20 20
T
Depth (m)
30 30 30 30 30 30 30
AF
40 40 40 40 40 40 40
50 50 50
R 50 50 50 50
Interpreted
D
SCPT16-10
SCPT16-10
SCPT16-10
60 60 60 60 60 60 60
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Soil Behaviour Type 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC

DESIGN YB RISER SHAFT
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-33
140 140
130 CPT15-15 SCPT16-01 130

o/s 23.24 o/s -12.45 SCPT16-06 SCPT16-07 SCPT16-08 SCPT16-09
o/s 5.96 o/s 5.34
120
EFFLUENT SHAFT OUTFALL SHAFT o/s 21.71 o/s 29.88
120
qc (Bar)
CPT15-12 SCPT15-11 SCPT16-10
110 qc (Bar) 0 50 100 150 200 250 qc (Bar) qc (Bar) qc (Bar) qc (Bar) o/s -103.46 o/s 33.08
110
0 50 100 150 200 250 ? ? ? 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 o/s -97.87
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
UNIT 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
?? UNIT
?
?? 1 ? ?? ?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
?? ? ??
100 ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? UNIT?? 2 ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?? ?? ??
UNIT 2 ?
? 100
ELEVATION - CVD28GVRD2005 (m)
?
0
qc (Bar)
50 ?100 150 200 250 qc (Bar) RISER SHAFT
? qc (Bar)
? 0 50 100 150 200 250
90 ? 0 50 100 150 200 250 90
UNIT 3A ?
?
UNIT 3A ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
80 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
80
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
70 70
UNIT 3B UNIT 3B
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
60 ?
? 60
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ?
? ?
50 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? 50
? ? ?
UNIT 4
?
40 ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
40
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
30
UNIT 4 ?
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
30
?
?
?
?
?
20 ? 20
?
?
?
? UNIT 7
10 ?
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 10
? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
?
?
UNIT 7 ? ? ? ?
UNIT 6B
0 0
-0+350 -0+300 -0+200 -0+100 0+000 0+100 0+200 0+300 0+400 0+500 0+600 0+700 0+850
2010 NBCC - CRUSTAL AND INSLAB

SCALE 1:1,250 m
140 140
130 CPT15-15 SCPT16-01 130

o/s 5.96 o/s 5.34
120
120
qc (Bar)
CPT15-12 SCPT15-11 SCPT16-10
110
0 50 100 150 200 250 ? ? ? 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 o/s -97.87
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
UNIT 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
?? UNIT 1?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
?? ? ??
100 ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? UNIT?? 2 ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?? ?? ?? ?? ??
UNIT 2 ?
? 100
?
0
qc (Bar)
? qc (Bar)
? 0 50 100 150 200 250
90 ? 0 50 100 150 200 250 90
UNIT 3A ?
?
UNIT 3A
T
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
80 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
80
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
70 70
UNIT 3B UNIT 3B
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
60 ?
? 60
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ?
? ?
50 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? 50
? ? ?
UNIT 4
?
40 ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
40
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
30
UNIT 4 ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
30
AF
? ? ? ? ? ?
?
?
?
?
?
20 ? 20
?
?
?
? UNIT 7
10 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 10
? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
?
?
?
UNIT 7 0+100
? ? ? ?
UNIT 6B
0 0
-0+350 -0+300 -0+200 -0+100 0+000 0+200 0+300 0+400 0+500 0+600 0+700 0+850

SCALE 1:1,250 m
140 140
130 CPT15-15 SCPT16-01 130

o/s 5.96 o/s 5.34
120
120
qc (Bar)
CPT15-12 SCPT15-11 SCPT16-10
110
0 50 100 150 200 250 ? ? ? ? 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 o/s -97.87
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
UNIT 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?? UNIT
?
?? 1 ? ?
??
?
??
?
??
?
??
?
?? ? ??
100 ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
? UNIT?? 2 ?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
UNIT 2?? ?
? 100
?
0
qc (Bar)
? qc (Bar)
Path: \\golder.gds\gal\Burnaby\CAD-GIS\Client\CDM_Smith\Annacis_Island\99_PROJECTS\1525010_WWTP\02_PRODUCTION\2200\LIQUEFACTION REPORT\ | File Name: 1525010-2200-3-31.dwg
? 0 50 100 150 200 250
R
90 ? 0 50 100 150 200 250 90
UNIT 3A ?
?
UNIT 3A ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
80 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
80
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
70 70
UNIT 3B UNIT 3B
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
60 ?
? 60
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
? ? ?
? ?
50 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? 50
? ? ?
UNIT 4
?
40 ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
40
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
30
UNIT 4 ?
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
30
?
?
20
10
?
?
?
?
?
UNIT 7
?
?
?
?
?
?
D UNIT 7
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
20
10
IF THIS MEASUREMENT DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS SHOWN, THE SHEET SIZE HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM: ANSI D
? ? ? ?
?
? ? ? ?
UNIT 6B
0 0
-0+350 -0+300 -0+200 -0+100 0+000 0+100 0+200 0+300 0+400 0+500 0+600 0+700 0+850
2015 NBCC - SUBDUCTION

SCALE 1:1,250 m
DRAFT
0 50 100
1:1,000 METRES
NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
LEGEND STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND NOTE

UNIT 1 - FILL 1. ELEVATIONS ARE IN METERS AND REFER TO CVD28GVRD2005 = 100 METERS PLUS
CPT15-15 DENOTES TEST HOLE TYPE, GEODETIC DATUM. CLIENT PROJECT
o/s 23.24 INVESTIGATION YEAR AND ID NUMBER UNIT 2 - OVERBANK DEPOSITS
DENOTES PERPENDICULAR DISTANCE FROM
CDM SMITH CANADA ULC ANNACIS ISLAND WWTP TRANSIENT MITIGATION AND OUTFALL
qc (Bar) TEST HOLE TO SECTION LINE IN METRES
UNIT 3A - FRASER RIVER SAND (LOOSE TO COMPACT)
DELTA, B.C.

0 50 100 150 200 250
UNIT 3B - FRASER RIVER SAND (COMPACT TO DENSE)
DENOTES CONE PENETRATION TEST UNIT 4 - MARINE DEPOSIT

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 2017-12-22 TITLE
TIP RESISTANCE (Bar)
UNIT 6B - GLACIAL DEPOSITS
DESIGNED V. FERNANDO
EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION
25 mm
2010 NBCC - CRUSTAL AND INSLAB UNIT 7 - GLACIOMARINE DEPOSIT
LIQUEFACTION EXTENT PREPARED A. WONG
REVIEWED V. FERNANDO
PROJECT NO. PHASE/TASK REV. FIGURE
APPROVED V. FERNANDO 1525010 2200 A 3-34
0
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
CSR (M=7.5, σ'v = 1 atm)

CSR (M=7.5, σ'v = 1 atm)
CSR (M=7.5, σ'v = 1 atm)

0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2
CSR (2015
0.1 0.1 Subduction)
CSR (2015 Subduction) CSR (2015 Subduction)

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 100 200 300
T
(N1)60-cs qc1Ncs Vs1 (m/s)
AF
R
D
Vs1 based approach
CLIENT PROJECT
DELTA, BC
PREPARED YEW
YB
EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION – VARIOUS APPROACHES
DESIGN
REVIEW ---
APPROVED --- 1525010 2100 C 3-35
This page intentionally left blank

Ground Response Analysis, Note

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

Ground Response Analysis, Note

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPENDIX B

B.3: 1D Grou d Respo se A alysis

A acis Isla d WWTP Ne Outfall Syste

DATE 22 December 2017 PROJECT No. 1525010-031-TM-RevC

RESULTS OF THE ONE DIMENSIONAL GROUND RESPONSE ANALYSES -

This Technical Memorandum presents the following:

 Site response analyses methodology and the results of the analyses

 Estimated extent of liquefaction along the final outfall alignment corridor

Golder Associates Ltd.

1.0 DESIGN FIRM-GROUND SPECTRA AND INPUT GROUND MOTIONS

3.0 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION

3.1 Site Response Analyses

3.1.1 Depth to Site Class C Ground Conditions

measurements, as well as the empirical correlations, as summarized in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Summary of Shear Wave Data

Gmax = 21.7 • Pa • F• [(N1)60]1/3 [σ’m / Pa]1/2

Where the F factors for the soil deposits are as follows:

3.1.3 Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves

3.1.4 Results of Site Response Analyses

3.2 Liquefaction Potential of Fraser River Sand

 Approach 3: Based on Vs measurements using Kayen et al. (2013 7)

The liquefaction assessment based on SPTs consisted of the following steps:

3.2.2 Extent of Liquefaction Comparison – Other Approaches

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

Viji Fernando, MESc, PEng

Trevor Fitzell, PEng

Figure 3-34: Extent of Liquefaction

REVIEW ---- Rev

Spectral Response Acceleration

Spectral Acceleration (g)

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 20 DEC 2017 TITLE

PREPARED MSK ACCELERATION TIME HISTORIES

0 Spectral Response Acceleration

Spectral Acceleration (g)

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 20 DEC 2017 TITLE

PREPARED MSK ACCELERATION TIME HISTORIES

Spectral Acc.eleration (g)

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 20 DEC 2017 TITLE

PREPARED MSK ACCELERATION TIME HISTORIES

Spectral Acc.eleration (g)

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 20 DEC 2017 TITLE

PREPARED MSK ACCELERATION TIME HISTORIES

Spectral Response Acceleration (Damping 5%)

Spectral Acceleration (g)

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 20 DEC 2017 TITLE

PREPARED MSK ACCELERATION TIME HISTORIES

130 BH16-05 SCPT16-06 SH16-05 130

ELEVATION - GVD28GVRD DATUM (m)

SCALE 1:1,000 m A-A' STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE

ELEVATION - GVD28GVRD DATUM (m)

SCALE 1:1,000 m B-B' STRATIGRAPHIC PROFILE

LEGEND SOIL LITHOLOGY STRATIGRAPHY LEGEND NOTES

SCPT16-06 Interval Velocity (m/s)

Elevation (m) - CVD28GVRD2005

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 19 DEC 2017 TITLE

REVIEW --- PROJECT No PHASE REV FIGURE

APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-1

BH16-01 Correlated Vs from SPT (m/s)

Elevation (m) - CVD28GVRD2005

Unit 7 - Class C Condition

Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)

CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD 19 DEC 2017 TITLE

REVIEW --- PROJECT No PHASE REV FIGURE

APPROVED --- 1525010 2000 C 3-2