geotechnical evaluation review - bow valley high school artificial turf

Tetra Tech EBA Inc.Riverbend Atrium One, 115, 200 Rivercrest Drive SE

Calgary, AB T2C 2X5 CANADATel 403.203.3355 Fax 403.203.3301

PRESENTED TOMorrison Hershfield

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEWBOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD2000 RIVER HEIGHTS DRIVECOCHRANE, ALBERTA

FEBRUARY 2014ISSUED FOR USEFILE: 704-C12103317-01

Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School Artificial Turf.docx

This page intentionally left blank.

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURFFILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE

i


TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2.0 PROJECT DETAILS .................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW.......................................................................................................... 24.1 Subsurface Conditions...........................................................................................................................24.2 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................................3

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 35.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................35.2 Site Preparation .....................................................................................................................................35.3 Artificial Turf Field Design......................................................................................................................45.4 Excavation and Backfill ..........................................................................................................................5

6.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES........................................................................... 6

7.0 CLOSURE.................................................................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX SECTIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix AAppendix BAppendix CAppendix D

General ConditionsGeotechnical Reports (Reviewed)Construction GuidelinesFieldturf Base Design Guidelines


ii


LIMITATIONS OF REPORTThis report and its contents are intended for the sole use of Morrison Hershfield and their agents. Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (TetraTech EBA) does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis, or the recommendationscontained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than Morrison Hershfield, or forany Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the solerisk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in Tetra Tech EBAs Services Agreement. TetraTech EBAs General Conditions are provided in Appendix A of this report.


1


1.0 INTRODUCTIONTetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech EBA) was retained to conduct a geotechnical review of the Subsoil Investigationand Geotechnical Assessment performed by Almor Testing Services Ltd. (Almor) and Levelton Consultants(Levelton), respectively. The Subsoil Investigation and Geotechnical Assessment were conducted for the planneddevelopment of an artificial turf field at Bow Valley High School, in Cochrane, Alberta (referred herein as theproject site).

The objective of this review was to provide recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the design andconstruction of the artificial turf field, based upon review of prior work completed for the project site.

The scope of work for the review was described in our proposal dated February 3, 2014. Authorization to proceedwith the review was provided by Jack Vanstone, of Morrison Hershfield, via email, with a signed serviceagreement on February 4, 2013.

2.0 PROJECT DETAILSThe project site is located within the south portion of the Bow Valley High School, at 2000 River Heights Drive, inCochrane, Alberta.

Based on the information provided by Morrison Hershfield, it is understood that the site currently comprises abaseball field, football field, and track/field. The existing grass-covered field is to be replaced with an artificial turffield, with a proposed field size of approximately 146 m by 76 m (11,100m2).

The aspects of the new turf field were discussed with Morrison Hershfield on February 5, 2014. From discussion,it is understood that the turf field will be supplied by Fieldturf and a brochure for Base Design Guidelines isincluded in Appendix D. From the Fieldturf guidelines and from discussions, it is understood that the primary basedesign factors include highly permeable granular base materials, sufficient for inflow of surface water in the rangeof 10 to 20 inches per hour. The granular base materials must also be thick enough for drainage and stableenough for effective support of the athletes. It is understood that no traffic of any kind will traverse the artificial turffield, with the exception of emergency services and foot traffic.

The proposed development will also include possible light standards and bleachers near the proposed artificialturf sports field. Tetra Tech EBA acknowledges that the conceptual design, specifically the exact locations of thebleachers and light standards, for the proposed developments have not been finalized and these project detailsmay be changed. For the purposes of this report, only design recommendations for the installation of the artificialturf are provided.

Tetra Tech EBA has reviewed the following reports (provided by Morrison Hershfield) for the preparation of thisreport, included in Appendix B for reference purposes:

Subsoil Investigation, Turf Football Field, Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, Alberta, prepared by Almor,dated December 4, 2012; and

Geotechnical Assessment, Synthetic Field Project, Bow Valley School, Cochrane, Alberta, prepared byLevelton, dated June 3, 2013.


2


3.0 SITE DESCRIPTIONThe project site is located within the south portion of the Bow Valley High School, at 2000 River Crest Drive, inCochrane, Alberta. The project site is bordered to the west and south by Township Road 254A, to the north byRiver Heights Drive, and the east by a residential community.

It is understood that fill soils existing on site have been in place for approximately eight to ten years (placed asearly as 2004). The existing fields were generally flat and vegetated with grass, exhibiting no noticeable slumpingor heaving. There have been no known performance problems with the existing fields.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEWThe following sections and subsections are provided based upon the review of the reports outlined in Section 2.0.Information presented and/or referenced to for the reviewed documents are based on Tetra Tech EBAs reviewand interpretation. The reports reviewed can be found in Appendix B.

Fieldwork programs were carried out for the project site by Almor (October 2012) and Levelton (May 2013). Atotal of two boreholes were drilled by Almor, designated as TH1 and TH2. A total of eight boreholes were drilledby Levelton, designated as BH13-01 to BH13-08. Borehole locations and borehole logs can be found in theirrespective reports in Appendix B.

It should be noted that geological conditions are innately variable and glacial deposits, in particular, are seldomspatially uniform. Information on subsurface stratigraphy is available only at discrete borehole locations. In orderto develop recommendations from the information, it is necessary to make some assumptions concerningconditions at locations between boreholes.

4.1 Subsurface Conditions

Topsoil was encountered in all boreholes, with an approximate layer thickness of 50 mm. This thickness reportedis thinner than expected. As such, the topsoil thickness should be expected to vary across the property.

Clay fill was encountered in both Almor boreholes (TH1 and TH2) and in all Levelton boreholes, with theexception of BH13-01 and BH13-08. The clay fill was encountered underlying the topsoil, with a thickness rangingbetween 0.5 m and 2.8 m. The clay fill was generally described as silty, trace to some sand, trace to some graveland organics, damp to very moist, medium plastic, and stiff to very stiff. Inclusions of organic layers were notedthroughout the clay fill layer.

Native clay was encountered underlying the fill soils in all boreholes, with the exception of BH13-01 (underlyingtopsoil) and BH13-08 (underlying a sand layer). The clay was generally described as silty and sandy, with tracegravel, moist to very moist, low to medium plastic, and firm to very stiff in consistency and grey to mottledgrey-brown in colour.

Silt was encountered in all boreholes, with the exception of BH13-02, BH13-03, and BH13-04, inter-layered withinthe clay. The silt was generally described as containing sand and was compact to dense.

A sand layer was encountered in boreholes BH13-07 and BH13-08 inter-layered within the native clay andunderlying the topsoil, respectively. The sand was generally described as containing silt and was dense to verydense.


3


4.2 Groundwater Conditions

All boreholes were observed to be dry upon completion of drilling. Subsequent groundwater levels weremeasured after completion of drilling and were all found to be dry, with the exception of BH13-01 where thegroundwater table was observed at a depth of 4.55 m below the existing ground surface.

It should be noted that groundwater levels may fluctuate seasonally and in response to climatic conditions.Accordingly, groundwater levels should be monitored until start of construction. It changes are noted ingroundwater levels, Tetra Tech EBA should be notified so that implication of these changes to therecommendations provided herein can be reviewed.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONSThe recommendations below may offer varying options intended to aid in the development of the project designconcepts and construction specifications. The recommendations are provided on the understanding and conditionthat Tetra Tech EBA will be retained to review the relevant aspects of the final design and will be retained toconduct such field reviews as are necessary to ensure compliance with geotechnical aspects of this report.

5.1 General

Geotechnical recommendations provided are valid for the proposed project details discussed in Section 2.0, asunderstood by Tetra Tech EBA at the time of this reports preparation. These recommendations may requirerevision if the project details are altered at a later stage of design for the project.

Recommendations are provided for the granular base and drainage details for the new turf field, which areintended to be in general conformance with Fieldturfs Base Design Guidelines (Appendix D).

No other recommendations are provided that are not in relation with the installation of the artificial turf field (i.e.,foundation options for light standards and bleachers). It is considered that the Almor and Levelton reports aresuitable for this purpose.

5.2 Site Preparation

Due to the presence of topsoil and fill soils across the site, some precautions regarding site preparation andgeotechnical aspects of design and construction of the proposed development should be undertaken asdiscussed below.

For the intended purpose and installation of the artificial turf field, as stated in Section 2.0, the existing fills soils onthe project site are not considered to impede the functionality or construction of the artificial turf field. Therefore,complete removal of fill soils for the project site is not deemed necessary.

Tetra Tech EBA has no records that the fill soils, which extended to depths up to 2.8 m below the ground surface,were placed in a controlled manner with adequate compaction. Therefore, these soils should be observed andapproved by qualified geotechnical personnel during construction.

Following initial site stripping and excavation (shaping) of the sports field area to achieve the design subgradeelevation, the subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 150 mm, moisture conditioned to between 0%and 3% above optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to 95% of Standard Proctor maximum dry density(SPD).

jcharleboisHighlight


4


During these preparation measures, prior to placement of the drainage granular materials, the subgrade shouldbe proof-rolled to detect structurally deficient areas. Areas of structurally deficient subgrade should be evaluatedin the field to determine appropriate remedial measures. If highly organic soils are encountered during subgradepreparation, they should be removed. Any otherwise soft areas should be over-excavated and backfilled to 95%of SPD using general engineered clay fill. The prepared subgrade should be observed and approved by ageotechnical engineer.

The excavated subgrade should be protected during construction from rain, snow, freezing temperatures, andexcessive drying, and from the ingress of free water.

Full-time monitoring and compaction testing should be provided during any fill placement to ensure suitablesubgrade conditions are prepared. Qualified persons, independent of the contractor, should complete thismonitoring.

All fill required for the project site to raise the subgrade elevation should meet the requirements of generalengineered clay fill, as defined in Backfill Material Compaction in Appendix C. General engineered fill should beplaced in lifts not exceeding 200 mm in compacted thickness and a density of 95% SPD, unless noted otherwise.

5.3 Artificial Turf Field Design

As noted, the Base Design Guidelines from Fieldturf are included in Appendix D. From a geotechnicalperspective, in order to generally comply with these guidelines, the following recommendations are provided.

The turf field base clay subgrade should be prepared, as recommended in Section 5.2, including sub-cut to finalsubgrade elevation, moisture conditioning, compaction, and proof rolling. As a special Fieldturf requirement, thesubgrade should be graded to a minimum 0.5% gradient, from the field longitudinal centreline towards the sideedges.

At the completion of these recommended subgrade preparation procedures, given the condition of the clay soilsnoted, the subgrade is considered to be suitable for the field support. That is, the subgrade should be competentand there should be no need to subexcavate to provide additional bridging. In addition, placement of a geotextileon the prepared subgrade is not considered necessary.

One of the key proprietary design aspects includes drainage perforation of the surfacing. Guidelines for granularbase layers are provided in the Fieldturf guidelines in Appendix D, including Base Stone Type 1, Base StoneType 2, and Finishing Stone. The guidelines include gradation for stability, as well as minimum permeabilitycharacteristics of the stone types. Morrison Hershfield has proposed a similar design for a previous projectcompleted for an artificial turf field, utilizing the Crushed Stone Base with 2 Drains.

In Tetra Tech EBAs experience on past turf field projects, local gravel suppliers have significant difficulty inproviding these special granular products to these guidelines, which results in significant increase in costs. Forexample, the Base Stone and Finishing Stone types do not comply with standard local specifications for AlbertaTransportation or The City of Calgary. Therefore, Tetra Tech EBA recommends a modification to locally availablegranular materials, as presented in Appendix C of this report. The Finishing Stone layer should be replaced withAlberta Transportation A.T. D2-C20 20 mm crushed gravel. The Base Stone layer should be replaced withCoarse Gravel, with the 25 mm Gravel gradation preferred (AT D8-C25). It is recommended that local gravelsuppliers be consulted in order to provide options for similarly acceptable granular materials at an effective cost.

Another factor is to provide sufficient granular thickness for constructability, as well as to provide drainage of thebase to sufficient depth to prevent frost effects from affecting the turf surface over time. Therefore, with these



5


considerations, referencing Tetra Tech EBAs experience with similar turf fields on past projects, the followinggranular structures is recommended, directly underlying the artificial turf surfacing:

100 mm of Finishing Stone, comprising A.T. D2-C20 20 mm crushed gravel, overlying

500 mm of Base Stone, comprising 25 mm Drainage Rock (AT D8-C25), overlying

Prepared subgrade, inclusive of pipe drains.

The minimum 100 mm thick layer of crushed gravel is recommended in order to better facilitate compaction andstability and to allow very fine grading operations. This material should be compacted to a minimum of 98% ofSPD. The 500 mm thick drainage rock is recommended at the centreline of the field. Assuming the field surface isquite flat, with 0.5 % drainage of the subgrade towards the edges of the field, the thickness of the drainage rockwill increase towards the outer edges. As noted, the intent of these products is to provide surface stability as wellas to meet the intent of excellent surface drainage, using locally available granular products.

The base of the field below Base Stone layer should include a system of subsurface drainage. Based onexperience, Tetra Tech EBA recommends that drainage pipes be placed on the prepared subgrade. It is notnecessary to install the drainage pipes within narrow trenches excavated. The perforated drainage pipes shouldbe minimum 100 mm in diameter and should be fitted with a geosock. Either perforated rigid pipes or flexiblepipes may be used. A maximum lateral pipe spacing of 6.0 m is recommended for general usage. On pastprojects, a W or herringbone or a V-shaped pattern have proven to be an effective layout. Typically, the internalperforated pipes would lead to a series of header pipes with increased diameters of a minimum of approximately300 mm, considered appropriate. These lines should drain into locally available systems.

5.4 Excavation and Backfill

Excavations should be carried out in accordance with Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)regulations. The consistencies of the soils encountered at the site should allow conventional hydraulic excavatorsto remove these soils.

For this project, the depth of excavations is anticipated to be relatively shallow and will be carried out for servicetrenches and underground utilities.

For temporary excavations in clay deeper than 1.5 m (and up to 2 m deep), the sideslopes should be shored andbraced or the slopes cut 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical (1.0H:1.0V) or flatter. Flatter sideslopes may be required inthe clay at depths below 2 m from grade. Where excavations are open for longer than one month or if significantgroundwater seepage is encountered, the sideslopes should be cut flatter than 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical(1.0H:1.0V). In areas below the groundwater table or if sand is encountered, flatter sideslopes will be required.

If sloping of excavation sides is not feasible due to space limitations or other factors, then vertical-sidedexcavations greater than 1.5 m deep should be shored or entered only in conjunction with an appropriate safetydevice utilized in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. Upon request, Tetra Tech EBA caneither provide recommendations for shoring design or undertake the detailed shoring design.

Where the base of the excavation comprises of wet or soft soils, it is recommended that the base beover-excavated to obtain a stable base (or to a maximum of 600 mm). A woven geotextile should then be placedon the sub-cut base of the trench. The trench may then be backfilled to the original trench base elevation usingpit-run gravel.





6


Excavations left open for extended periods may collect groundwater seepage or surface runoff. It is anticipatedpumping from sumps or trench and sump systems will be sufficient to dewater typical excavations. Any surfacewater or groundwater infiltration into an excavation should be diverted away from the base to avoid softening.Ponded water should not be permitted to remain near excavation slopes as it may result in soil softening andshallow slumping.

Temporary surcharge loads, such as construction materials and equipment, should not be allowed within 3 m ofan unsupported excavated face or the depth of excavation, whichever is greater. A further setback may berequired for deeper excavations. Vehicles delivering materials should be kept back from excavated faces by atleast 1 m.

Prior to allowing workers to enter, and particularly after periods of rain, construction excavations should becarefully observed for evidence of instability, such as cracks, bulging, or soil loss from seepage areas. Small earthfalls from the sideslopes are a potential source of danger to workers and must be guarded against. Evidence ofexcavation instability and/or seepage should be reported to Tetra Tech EBA and corrected prior to allowingworker access. Loose soil blocks, cobbles, and the like should be scaled from the excavation slopes prior toworker entry.

Trenches must be backfilled in such a way as to reduce the potential of differential settlement and frost heavemovements; however, some variation in subgrade performance must be expected across trench locations.

Trenches should generally be backfilled with soils similar to the adjacent native soils, and the backfill should becompacted at moisture contents within 3% of optimum. A minimum compaction to 95% SPD is recommended forall trenches except for the top 600 mm, which should be compacted to 98% SPD. The compacted thickness ofeach lift of backfill should not exceed 150 mm. The upper 1.5 m of service trenches should be cut at a maximumslope of 1.0H:1.0V, to avoid an abrupt transition between backfill and in situ soil. If the trench is within the footprintof a structure, all trench backfill should comprise fill meeting the specifications of select engineered fill, compactedto a minimum of 98% of SPD at moisture content within 3% of optimum. The compacted thickness of each lift ofbackfill should not exceed 150 mm.

The existing site soils comprising native clay and clay fill are suitable for use as general engineered fill materialas defined in Appendix C. However, the plasticity and the organic content of this material should be confirmedprior to its use as general engineered fill. Organic soils should be removed and placed in landscaped areas.

Backfill comprising cohesive soils should be considered frost susceptible and should not be used in areas where itmay become frozen and where frost heaving would be unacceptable.

The ultimate performance of the backfill is directly related to the uniformity of the backfill compaction. In order toachieve this uniformity, the lift thickness and compaction criteria must be strictly enforced.

General recommendations regarding construction excavation, backfill materials, and compaction are contained inAppendix C.

6.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINESRecommended general design and construction guidelines are provided in Appendix C, under the followingheadings:

Backfill Materials and Compaction.

Proof-Rolling.


7


Construction Excavations.

These guidelines are intended to present standards of good practice. Although supplemental to the main text ofthis report, they should be interpreted as part of the report. Design recommendations presented herein are basedon the premise that these guidelines will be followed.

The design and construction guidelines are not intended to represent detailed specifications for the worksalthough they may prove useful in the preparation of such specifications.

In the event of any discrepancy between the main text of this report and Appendix C, the main text should govern.



APPENDIX AGENERAL CONDITIONS

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

This report incorporates and is subject to these General Conditions.

1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP

This geotechnical report pertains to a specific site, a specificdevelopment and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to anyother sites nor should it be relied upon for types of developmentother than that to which it refers. Any variation from the site ordevelopment would necessitate a supplementary geotechnicalassessment.

This report and the recommendations contained in it are intendedfor the sole use of Tetra Tech EBAs Client. Tetra Tech EBA doesnot accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, theanalyses or the recommendations contained or referenced in thereport when the report is used or relied upon by any party otherthan Tetra Tech EBAs Client unless otherwise authorized in writingby Tetra Tech EBA. Any unauthorized use of the report is at thesole risk of the user.

This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced eitherwholly or in part without the prior, written permission of Tetra TechEBA. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtainedupon request.

2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT

Where Tetra Tech EBA submits both electronic file and hard copyversions of reports, drawings and other project-related documentsand deliverables (collectively termed Tetra Tech EBAs instrumentsof professional service), only the signed and/or sealed versionsshall be considered final and legally binding. The original signedand/or sealed version archived by Tetra Tech EBA shall be deemedto be the original for the Project.

Both electronic file and hard copy versions of Tetra Tech EBAsinstruments of professional service shall not, under anycircumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered byany party except Tetra Tech EBA. Tetra Tech EBAs instruments ofprofessional service will be used only and exactly as submitted byTetra Tech EBA.

Electronic files submitted by Tetra Tech EBA have been preparedand submitted using specific software and hardware systems. TetraTech EBA makes no representation about the compatibility of thesefiles with the Clients current or future software and hardwaresystems.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES

Unless stipulated in the report, Tetra Tech EBA has not beenretained to investigate, address or consider and has notinvestigated, addressed or considered any environmental orregulatory issues associated with development on the subject site.

4.0 NATURE AND EXACTNESS OF SOIL AND

ROCK DESCRIPTIONS

Classification and identification of soils and rocks are based uponcommonly accepted systems and methods employed inprofessional geotechnical practice. This report contains descriptionsof the systems and methods used. Where deviations from thesystem or method prevail, they are specifically mentioned.

Classification and identification of geological units are judgmental innature as to both type and condition. Tetra Tech EBA does notwarrant conditions represented herein as exact, but infers accuracyonly to the extent that is common in practice.

Where subsurface conditions encountered during development aredifferent from those described in this report, qualified geotechnicalpersonnel should revisit the site and review recommendations inlight of the actual conditions encountered.

5.0 LOGS OF TESTHOLES

The testhole logs are a compilation of conditions and classificationof soils and rocks as obtained from field observations andlaboratory testing of selected samples. Soil and rock zones havebeen interpreted. Change from one geological zone to the other,indicated on the logs as a distinct line, can be, in fact, transitional.The extent of transition is interpretive. Any circumstance whichrequires precise definition of soil or rock zone transition elevationsmay require further investigation and review.

6.0 STRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

The stratigraphic and geological information indicated on drawingscontained in this report are inferred from logs of test holes and/orsoil/rock exposures. Stratigraphy is known only at the locations ofthe test hole or exposure. Actual geology and stratigraphy betweentest holes and/or exposures may vary from that shown on thesedrawings. Natural variations in geological conditions are inherentand are a function of the historic environment. Tetra Tech EBA doesnot represent the conditions illustrated as exact but recognizes thatvariations will exist. Where knowledge of more precise locations ofgeological units is necessary, additional investigation and reviewmay be necessary.

GENERAL CONDITIONSGEOTECHNICAL REPORT

2

7.0 PROTECTION OF EXPOSED GROUND

Excavation and construction operations expose geological materialsto climatic elements (freeze/thaw, wet/dry) and/or mechanicaldisturbance which can cause severe deterioration. Unless otherwisespecifically indicated in this report, the walls and floors ofexcavations must be protected from the elements, particularlymoisture, desiccation, frost action and construction traffic.

8.0 SUPPORT OF ADJACENT GROUND AND STRUCTURES

Unless otherwise specifically advised, support of ground andstructures adjacent to the anticipated construction and preservationof adjacent ground and structures from the adverse impact ofconstruction activity is required.

9.0 INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

There is a direct correlation between construction activity andstructural performance of adjacent buildings and other installations.The influence of all anticipated construction activities should beconsidered by the contractor, owner, architect and prime engineerin consultation with a geotechnical engineer when the final designand construction techniques are known.

10.0 OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION

Because of the nature of geological deposits, the judgmental natureof geotechnical engineering, as well as the potential of adversecircumstances arising from construction activity, observationsduring site preparation, excavation and construction should becarried out by a geotechnical engineer. These observations maythen serve as the basis for confirmation and/or alteration ofgeotechnical recommendations or design guidelines presentedherein.

11.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Where temporary or permanent drainage systems are installedwithin or around a structure, the systems which will be installedmust protect the structure from loss of ground due to internalerosion and must be designed so as to assure continuedperformance of the drains. Specific design detail of such systemsshould be developed or reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.Unless otherwise specified, it is a condition of this report thateffective temporary and permanent drainage systems are requiredand that they must be considered in relation to project purpose andfunction.

12.0 BEARING CAPACITY

Design bearing capacities, loads and allowable stresses quoted inthis report relate to a specific soil or rock type and condition.Construction activity and environmental circumstances canmaterially change the condition of soil or rock. The elevation atwhich a soil or rock type occurs is variable. It is a requirement ofthis report that structural elements be founded in and/or upongeological materials of the type and in the condition assumed.Sufficient observations should be made by qualified geotechnicalpersonnel during construction to assure that the soil and/or rockconditions assumed in this report in fact exist at the site.

13.0 SAMPLES

Tetra Tech EBA will retain all soil and rock samples for 30 daysafter this report is issued. Further storage or transfer of samples canbe made at the Clients expense upon written request, otherwisesamples will be discarded.

14.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH EBA BY

OTHERS

During the performance of the work and the preparation of thereport, Tetra Tech EBA may rely on information provided bypersons other than the Client. While Tetra Tech EBA endeavours toverify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so bythe Client, Tetra Tech EBA accepts no responsibility for theaccuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect thereport.



APPENDIX BGEOTECHNICAL REPORTS (REVIEWED)

P a g e | i

Town of Cochrane Geotechnical Assessment

Synthetic Field Project Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB

File: R713-0641-00

Table of Contents

page

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 1

3 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................... 1

4 DETAILS OF THE INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................... 2

4.1 Field Drilling and Soil Sampling ................................................................................... 2

4.2 Laboratory Test Programs ......................................................................................... 2

5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 2

5.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions ......................................................................................... 2

5.1.1 Topsoil .............................................................................................................. 2

5.1.2 Fill ................................................................................................................... 2

5.1.3 Clay ................................................................................................................. 3

5.1.4 Silt .................................................................................................................. 3

5.1.5 Sand ................................................................................................................. 3

5.2 Surface Geology ..................................................................................................... 3

5.3 Water Soluble Sulphate ............................................................................................ 3

5.4 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................... 4

6 FROST PENETRATION DEPTHS .......................................................................................... 4

7 DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 4

7.1 General Comments .................................................................................................. 4

7.2 Field Site Preparation .............................................................................................. 5

7.2.1 Removal of Unsuitable Materials .............................................................................. 5

7.2.2 Frost Heave Protection .......................................................................................... 5

7.2.3 Excavation ......................................................................................................... 5

7.2.4 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................ 5

7.3 Field High-Mast Lighting Systems ................................................................................. 6

7.3.1 Preliminary Comments .......................................................................................... 6

7.3.2 Foundations ....................................................................................................... 6

7.3.3 Additional Preliminary Commentary for Foundations ...................................................... 6 7.3.3.1 Lateral Pile Capacity ...................................................................................... 7

7.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................. 7

8 SULPHATE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................... 7

9 FIELD REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 7

10 CLOSURE .................................................................................................................. 7

APPENDIX A SITE PLANS (FIGURES 1 AND 2) BOREHOLE LOGS ........................................................ A

P a g e | ii



File: R713-0641-00

List of Tables

Table 1 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Fill .................................................................................. 3

Table 2 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Clay ................................................................................ 3

Table 3 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Silt ................................................................................. 3

Table 4 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Sand ............................................................................... 3

Table 5 Summary of Groundwater Observations ............................................................................... 4

Table 6 Preliminary Skin Friction Values for Concrete Piers .................................................................... 6

2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, EXCEPT BY WRITTEN PERMISSION OF LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD.

P a g e | 1



File: R713-0641-00

1 Introduction

Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) was retained by the Town of Cochrane to provide a geotechnical assessment for a proposed synthetic field project at Bow Valley High School in Cochrane, Alberta. This report presents the results of our geotechnical assessment. It has been prepared for the Town of Cochrane in accordance with the scope of work presented in Leveltons proposal, File No. P713-0729-00 Rev. 1 dated March 27, 2013. Authorization to proceed was received from Suzanne Gaida, Senior Manager of the Town of Cochrane, on April 3, 2013.

2 Site and Project Description

The project site is located in the south east quadrant of Bow Valley High School property in Cochrane, Alberta. Presently, the project site is vegetated with grass and is being used as a baseball field. The following provides a summary of background information provided to us for the geotechnical assessment:

A site plan of the school property showing the baseball field area (attached as Figure 1 in Appendix A of this report);

A site plan of the baseball field area showing proposed borehole locations; and

Soil report prepared by Almor Testing Services Ltd. dated December 4, 2012, File No 099-112-12. Based on discussions with Douglas Wournell, Architect at Dialog Vancouver, our understanding of the development plans for the synthetic field project is summarized as follows:

Proposed field size to be about 146 m by 76 m (area about 11,100 m2);

Proposed field location to be in the general area of the existing grass overlain baseball field;

Proposed field orientation not yet determined;

Proposed top of field elevation to be about 0.6 m above present site grades; and

Field high-mast lighting systems will form part of synthetic field development. No other details of the proposed development plans were provided to us at the time of report preparation.

3 Scope of Work

The scope of work for the geotechnical assessment included:

determination of: subsurface soil profiles and their geotechnical characteristics; and groundwater and sloughing conditions.

providing: comments on the geotechnical aspects to be considered for site development; comments on subgrade preparation requirements for synthetic turf field construction; comments on soil susceptibility to frost heave and soil swelling protection; comments on concentrations of water soluble sulphates in the soil; preliminary comments on surface and subsurface drainage; and preliminary comments on site subgrade suitability and geotechnical parameters for high mast

lighting system construction.

P a g e | 2



File: R713-0641-00

4 Details of the Investigation

4.1 Field Drilling and Soil Sampling

Field drilling was carried out on May 6, 2013, using a truck-mounted drill rig owned and operated by Great West Drilling. Soil sampling and logging of the various soil strata was performed by Levelton geotechnical staff. A total of eight boreholes (BH13-01 to BH13-08) were drilled within the general area of the existing grass overlain baseball field. The borehole locations were selected by Dialog Vancouver. All boreholes were advanced to depth of 5.1 m below ground surface. The soil conditions encountered during drilling were described visually in accordance to the Modified Unified Soil Classification System. Approximate borehole locations are presented on a site plan, Figure 2 in Appendix A. Disturbed auger samples were collected at 0.75 m intervals from all boreholes. In addition, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted at selected intervals to obtain an indication of soil consistency and unconfined compressive strength. All field test results are contained in the borehole logs in Appendix A. The groundwater conditions were monitored during drilling. Standpipe piezometers (25 mm diameter) were installed in three of the boreholes upon completion of drilling and the levels of accumulated groundwater in the standpipe piezometers were monitored 24 days later. The groundwater readings are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A and are summarized in Section 5.4 of this report.

4.2 Laboratory Test Programs

Laboratory testing was carried out on selected soil samples and included:

Moisture contents;

Sulphate tests;

Atterberg limit tests; and

Particle size analysis. The laboratory test results are included in the borehole logs in Appendix A.

5 Subsurface Conditions

The general soil profile at the borehole locations consisted of topsoil and fill, underlain by native soil deposits consisting mainly of clay and silt, with interlayered sand. Descriptions of the soil strata encountered are provided in the following sections.

5.1 Subsurface Soil Conditions

5.1.1 Topsoil

Generally, in all boreholes, a topsoil layer of up to about 5 cm thickness was encountered.

5.1.2 Fill

Fill in thickness ranging from 1.0 to 2.8 m was encountered in majority of boreholes, except for BH13-01 and BH13-08 where no fill was noted. The fill thickness appeared to increase from north to south. The fill was variable in composition, and was generally described as a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and organics. Field and laboratory test results obtained from this soil layer are summarized below in Table 1.

P a g e | 3



File: R713-0641-00

Table 1 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Fill

Test Range

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 20 to 34

Natural Moisture Content (%) 10.8 to 30.7

5.1.3 Clay

Clay was encountered below the fill in all boreholes, extending to termination depth of all boreholes except for boreholes BH13-01 and -05. The fill contained silty and sandy components, trace gravel, and was grey to mottled grey or brown in color. Based on field and laboratory test results, the clay was encountered in firm to very stiff consistency and exhibits medium plasticity. Laboratory and field test results obtained from the clay stratum are summarized below in Table 2.

Table 2 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Clay

Test Range

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 7 to 32


Liquid Limit (%) 31 to 41

Plastic Limit (%) 16 to 20

5.1.4 Silt

Silt was encountered in boreholes inter-layered within the native clay except in BH13-02, BH13-03, and BH13-04 where no silt layer was noted. Silt was generally described as brown, sandy, moist, compact to dense. Laboratory and field test results on this soil layer are summarized below in Table 3.

Table 3 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Silt

Test Range

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 19

Natural Moisture Content (%) 4.9 to 16,6

5.1.5 Sand

Sand was encountered in BH13-07 inter-layered within the native clay. Sand was generally described as brown, silty, moist, dense to very dense. Laboratory and field test results on this soil layer are summarized below in Table 4.

Table 4 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Sand

Test Range

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 27


5.2 Surface Geology

Based on the map of Surface Materials of the Calgary Urban Area: Calgary Sheet, NTS 820/1, prepared by S.R. Moran (1986), we understand that the soil conditions in the vicinity of the project site generally comprise of superglacial lacustrine clay overlying glacial till. The findings from the field drilling generally conform with published geological soil descriptions.

5.3 Water Soluble Sulphate

The results of water soluble sulphate tests on selected soil samples yielded concentration of 0.00% to 0.002% sulphate by dry unit weight of soil.

P a g e | 4



File: R713-0641-00

5.4 Groundwater Conditions

Groundwater conditions were observed during drilling. Standpipes were also installed in boreholes BH13-01, BH13-02, and BH13-04 to monitor relatively stabilized groundwater conditions. A summary of the groundwater observations is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Summary of Groundwater Observations

Borehole Number

Depth of Water Seepage (m)

Depth of Groundwater (m)

At End of Drilling On May 30, 2013

BH13-01 nil Dry 4.55

BH13-02 nil Dry Dry

BH13-03 nil Dry n/a

BH13-04 nil Dry Dry

BH13-05 nil Dry n/a

BH13-06 nil Dry n/a

BH13-07 nil Dry n/a

BH13-08 nil Dry n/a

It should be recognized that groundwater levels are dependent on meteorological cycles and drainage. Higher groundwater levels than those observed in this investigation may be encountered.

6 Frost Penetration Depths

The expected maximum depth of frost penetration at the subject site is 2.5 m. The penetration depth is determined based on a freezing index for a 30-year return period of 1100 degree-days Celsius. The depth of frost penetration was determined based on the assumption of granular fill subsoil with a turf cover at the surface.

7 Discussions and Recommendations

This section of the report provides engineering information for the geotechnical design aspects of the project, based on our interpretation of the boreholes information from Leveltons site investigation and available information, and on our understanding of the project requirements. The recommendations provided are intended as guidance for planning and design by design engineers and architects. Where comments are made on construction, they are provided to highlight aspects of construction that could affect the design of the project. Parties requiring information beyond the scope or purpose of this report must make their own interpretation of the information provided.

7.1 General Comments

Based on the existing subsurface conditions presented in the previous sections, the native soil deposits encountered below the site are considered acceptable as soil bearing support for construction of the proposed synthetic field. The soils are considered to have low compressibility characteristics. The following geotechnical issues should be considered in the design and construction of the field:

Existing on-site fill is not considered suitable as structural or engineered fill and is not considered suitable to support field construction;

Native clay is medium plastic in characteristic, and considered moderately susceptible to soil heaving due to frost; and

P a g e | 5



File: R713-0641-00

Depth of frost penetration below the field will be highly dependent on the materials used to restore the field site to grade.

7.2 Field Site Preparation

7.2.1 Removal of Unsuitable Materials

All topsoil, organics, vegetation, fill, and other deleterious materials should be excavated from the project site as part of site preparation for the construction of the field. Based on the borehole findings, we anticipate that removal of unsuitable materials including the fill soils encountered in the geotechnical boreholes, will extend to about 2.8 m below grade. We anticipate that stiff to very stiff native clay will be exposed in the excavation after removal of all topsoil, organics, vegetation, fill, and other deleterious materials from the field site. Proof rolling of the exposed native subgrade should be completed to identify any soft subgrade conditions. Levelton geotechnical engineering staff should monitor proof roll activities and advise on any remedial measures, if required.

7.2.2 Frost Heave Protection

The approximated frost depth penetration at the project site was about 2.5 m as determined in Section 6. The following recommendations are provided to reduce the anticipated frost heave under the proposed synthetic turf field:

the backfill material to be used for the construction of the proposed turf field base should be free draining in addition to satisfying other required specifications, such as for stability and durability;

the free draining base should extend below the approximated frost depth by excavating the native soil and replacing with the free draining base material; and,

appropriately designed subsurface drainage system should be installed below the approximated frost depth to collect the surface infiltrated water as soon as possible; no water is allowed to sit within the free draining base and/or at the interface of free draining base and native soil.

7.2.3 Excavation

Excavations with up to 3.0 m depth, cut back and shoring operations should be conducted in accordance with Part 32 and other applicable sections of the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. If required, Levelton can provide engineering analysis to advise on side slope stability for excavations exceeding 3.0m in depth. Care should be taken during excavations to avoid the subgrade to become frozen, dried, or softened during winter or wet seasons. Water should not be allowed to pond directly on exposed subgrade soils as it can potentially soften subgrade soils and reduce its bearing capacity. Site specific recommendations for protecting bearing subgrade from softening or freezing should be provided by Levelton at the time of construction.

7.2.4 Subgrade Preparation

After excavation of existing fill and native soils to the approximated frost depth, the exposed subgrade should be visually inspected and proof rolled. Soft or weak soils should be sub-excavated and replaced with granular fills. Nonwoven geotextile (Nilex 4553 or equivalent) is recommended to be installed on the native soil subgrade prior to the backfilling of free draining base material in order to prevent the intrusion of fine materials to the free draining material. Subsurface drainage pipes are also recommended to be wrapped with nonwoven geotextile.

P a g e | 6



File: R713-0641-00

7.3 Field High-Mast Lighting Systems

7.3.1 Preliminary Comments

No design details have been provided for the field high-mast lighting systems. Based on our experience with these types of lighting systems, for the purpose of preliminary commentary, we assume the following design configuration:

poles for the high-mast lighting systems are about 25 m high, light steel structures;

foundation type consist of small diameter (

P a g e | 7



File: R713-0641-00

Full-time pile reviews should be provided by Levelton during pile installation. Pile reviews should keep complete and accurate records of the pile installation operation. For cast in place concrete piles, concrete should be poured immediately after drilling out each pile location to reduce the risk of groundwater seepage into the drilled out hole and sloughing of soil within the hole.

7.3.3.1 Lateral Pile Capacity

The analysis of pile lateral load resistance can be performed using computer programs such as LPILE. The lateral pile analysis is used to determine the lateral pile capacity, the pile head deflections, and maximum bending moments and shear forces induced by lateral loads. Once the pile arrangements and loading conditions are known, Levelton can complete the lateral analyses of piles up on request.

7.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage

The drainage of the field is to be designed by others. At this preliminary stage, based on site native soil conditions consisting generally of clay deposits, we do not recommend that clay deposits be relied upon to assist in the drainage design based on potentially low porosity rates for clay soils.

8 Sulphate Exposure Classification

The result of water soluble sulphate test on selected soil sample has indicated a negligible potential for sulphate attack on concrete in contact with native soils at this site. Any imported soils should be tested to determine water soluble sulphate concentration and associated sulphate exposure classification.

9 Field Review

We recommend that on-site field reviews be performed to verify that actual site conditions are consistent with assumed conditions, which meet or exceed design criteria. We recommend adequate levels of field reviews to include: review of adequacy of site excavation, testing of engineered fill, review of all completed bearing surfaces, and full time field reviews during construction of pile foundations.

10 Closure

This geotechnical report has been prepared by Levelton Consultants Ltd. exclusively for the Town of Cochrane and their appointed agents. The report reflects our judgment in light of the information provided to us at the time that it was prepared. Any use of the report by third parties, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Levelton Consultants Ltd. does not accept responsibility for damages suffered, if any, by a third party as a result of their use of this report. The attached Terms of Reference are an integral part of this geotechnical report.

P a g e | A



File: R713-0641-00

APPENDIX A

Site Plans (Figures 1 and 2)

Borehole Logs

TownOfCochrane.

SyntheticField-BowValleyHighSchoolCochrane, AB

SitePlanShowingBoreholeLocationsJob: Date:May31,2013 Figure:2R713-0641-00

8884-48 Avenue,Edmonton, Alberta, T6E5L1Phone:(780)438-0844

Fax:(780)435-1812

N

ApproximateBoreholeLocations

N

LEGEND

BH13-01

BH13-02

BH13-08

BH13-07

BH13-03

BH13-05

BH13-06

BH13-04

BoreholelocationplanadoptedfromthesiteplanprovidedbyDialogVancouver

TOPSOILBrown, silty, CLAY, trace sand, grey mottled,occasional sand or silt seam, medium plastic,moist

Brown, sandy, SILT, fine grained, moist

Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic, moist

Brown, sandy, SILT, wet

Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters

May 302013

G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

12

11

13

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-01

Pie

zo 1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description

N: Number of BlowsWH : Weight of HammerWR : Weight of RodStandard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586Hammer Type: Trip Hammer

C: Condition of Sample

Good

Disturbed

No Recovery

Date Drilled: 5/6/2013

Type: Type of Sampler

SPT : 2 in. standard

ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE

Moisture Content % Plastic Limit % Liquid Limit % Ground Water Level Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or

Penetrometer) Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined) Shear strength in kPa (field vane) Remolded strength in kPa Percent Passing # 200 sieve

Wat

erLe

vel

Cochrane, ABGeotechnical Assessment

Solid Stem AugerTHIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY

THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTONCONSULTANTS LTD AND CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED

IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.

C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:

Levelton Consultants Ltd.

(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

Project No: R713-0641-00

Bentonite/Grout PlugSolid PipeCuttingsSlotted PipeSand/Pea-Gravel

Depth

8884 - 48th AvenueEdmonton, AB T6E 5L1Tel: 780-438-0844Fax: 780-435-1812www.levelton.com

1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TOPSOILVery stiff, brown, silty, FILL, clay, trace gravel,trace sand, trace organics, grey mottled, mediumplastic, moist

Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, trace gravel,rust stains, grey mottled, medium plastic, moist


G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

32

25

23

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-02

Pie

zo 1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description



Good

Disturbed

No Recovery




ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE



Wat

erLe

vel





C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:


(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32



Depth


1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TOPSOILMedium dense, brown, sandy, FILL, silt, traceorganics, damp

Very stiff, brown, silty, FILL, clay, moist

-organic soil layer encountered at 1.5 m

Stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, trace gravel, greymottled, rust stains, medium plastic


G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

25

7

14

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-03

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description



Good

Disturbed

No Recovery




ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE



Wat

erLe

vel





C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:


(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32


Depth


1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TOPSOILBrown, silty, FILL, trace clay, trace sand, blackorganic soil admixing, damp

Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, grey mottled, mediumplastic, moist


G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

20

10

10

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-04

Pie

zo 1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description



Good

Disturbed

No Recovery




ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE



Wat

erLe

vel





C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:


(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32



Depth


1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TOPSOILDense, brown, sandy, FILL, silt, trace organics,brown, damp to moist

Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, grey mottled,sand layers, medium plastic, damp -SO4= 0.00%

Medium dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp


G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

34

26

19

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-05

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description



Good

Disturbed

No Recovery




ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE



Wat

erLe

vel





C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:


(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32


Depth


1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TOPSOILStiff, brown, silty, sandy, FILL, clay, trace gravel,trace organic, medium plastic, damp to moist

Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, grey mottled,silt and sand seam, medium plastic -SO4=0.006%

Loose to medium dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp

Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic


G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

23

10

11

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-06

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description



Good

Disturbed

No Recovery




ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE



Wat

erLe

vel





C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:


(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32


Depth


1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TOPSOILBrown, sandy, FILL SILT, trace organics, blackmottled, damp

Dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp

Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, silt and sandlayers, medium plastic

Medium dense, brown ,silty, SAND, damp

Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic


G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

24

27

14

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-07

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description



Good

Disturbed

No Recovery




ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE



Wat

erLe

vel





C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:


(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32


Depth


1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TOPSOILDense, brown, silty, SAND, occasional clay layer,damp

Stiff to very stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, moist,occasional silt and sand layer, medium plastic

Medium dense, brown, SILT, sand, trace clay,occasional clay layer, wet

Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic, moist


G

SPT

G

SPT

SPT

12

19

15

Pg 1 of 1

BH13-08

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Description



Good

Disturbed

No Recovery




ST : Shelby

FP : Fixed Piston

G : Grab

CORE



Wat

erLe

vel





C

TypeN

By: T.W

Drill Method:


(m)

2

4

6

8

(ft)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32


Depth


1 LO

G P

ER

PA

GE

R71

3-06

41-0

0 B

OR

EH

OLE

LO

GS

.GP

J L

EV

ELT

ON

.GD

T 5

/31/

13

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

ISSUED BY LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD.

!

" # $ # % & ' ( ) ' ( * + % & , ( & * " & - . / 0 " # $ # % & ' ( 1 2 3 4 # 3 , 4 # - , ( - 5 * * + # - & 6 5 * 7 # ' & # 8 6 ( 5 8 , % 4 # 3 ' 4 & / & 6 # 0 9 # 3 ' 4 & 1 2 : ' 4 5 & * 8 % 5 # ( &

/ & 6 # 0 ) % 5 # ( & 1 2 5 ( , 8 8 ' 4 - , ( 8 # ; 5 & 6 7 # ( # 4 , % % < = , 8 8 # 3 & # - # ( 7 5 ( # # 4 5 ( 7 8 ' ( * + % & 5 ( 7 3 4 , 8 & 5 8 # * : ' 4 & 6 # 7 # ' & # 8 6 ( 5 8 , %

- 5 * 8 5 3 % 5 ( # . > ' ' & 6 # 4 ; , 4 4 , ( & < ? # @ 3 4 # * * # - ' 4 5 A 3 % 5 # - ? 5 * A , - # . B ( % # * * * 3 # 8 5 : 5 8 , % % < * & , & # - 5 ( & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 & ? & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 &

- ' # * ( ' & , - - 4 # * * # ( $ 5 4 ' ( A # ( & , % 5 * * + # * .

C 6 # & # 4 A * ' : 4 # : # 4 # ( 8 # : ' 4 7 # ' & # 8 6 ( 5 8 , % 4 # 3 ' 4 & * 5 * * + # - D < " # $ # % & ' ( / & 6 # 0 C # 4 A * ' : 9 # : # 4 # ( 8 # 1 2 8 ' ( & , 5 ( # - 5 ( & 6 #

3 4 # * # ( & - ' 8 + A # ( & 3 4 ' $ 5 - # , - - 5 & 5 ' ( , % 5 ( : ' 4 A , & 5 ' ( , ( - 8 , + & 5 ' ( 4 # % , & # - & ' * & , ( - , 4 - ' : 8 , 4 # , ( - & 6 # + * # ' : & 6 #

9 # 3 ' 4 & . C 6 # ) % 5 # ( & * 6 ' + % - 4 # , - , ( - : , A 5 % 5 , 4 5 E # 5 & * # % : ; 5 & 6 & 6 # * # C # 4 A * ' : 9 # : # 4 # ( 8 # .

F G H I ! ! ! J ! ! H

K % % - ' 8 + A # ( & * ? 4 # 8 ' 4 - * ? - 4 , ; 5 ( 7 * ? 8 ' 4 4 # * 3 ' ( - # ( 8 # ? - , & , ? : 5 % # * , ( - - # % 5 $ # 4 , D % # * ? ; 6 # & 6 # 4 6 , 4 - 8 ' 3 < ? # % # 8 & 4 ' ( 5 8 ' 4

' & 6 # 4 ; 5 * # ? 7 # ( # 4 , & # - , * 3 , 4 & ' : & 6 # * # 4 $ 5 8 # * : ' 4 & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & , 4 # 5 ( 6 # 4 # ( & 8 ' A 3 ' ( # ( & * ' : & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 & , ( - ?

8 ' % % # 8 & 5 $ # % < ? : ' 4 A & 6 # 5 ( * & 4 + A # ( & * ' : 3 4 ' : # * * 5 ' ( , % * # 4 $ 5 8 # * / & 6 # 0 L ( * & 4 + A # ( & * ' : M 4 ' : # * * 5 ' ( , % N # 4 $ 5 8 # * 1 2 . C 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 &

5 * ' : , * + A A , 4 < ( , & + 4 # , ( - 5 * ( ' & 5 ( & # ( - # - & ' * & , ( - , % ' ( # ; 5 & 6 ' + & 4 # : # 4 # ( 8 # & ' & 6 # 5 ( * & 4 + 8 & 5 ' ( * 7 5 $ # ( & ' " # $ # % & ' (

D < & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & ? & 6 # 8 ' A A + ( 5 8 , & 5 ' ( * D # & ; # # ( " # $ # % & ' ( , ( - & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & ? , ( - & ' , ( < ' & 6 # 4 4 # 3 ' 4 & * ? ; 4 5 & 5 ( 7 * ? 3 4 ' 3 ' * , % *

' 4 - ' 8 + A # ( & * 3 4 # 3 , 4 # - D < " # $ # % & ' ( : ' 4 & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & 4 # % , & 5 $ # & ' & 6 # * 3 # 8 5 : 5 8 * 5 & # - # * 8 4 5 D # - 5 ( & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 & ? , % % ' : ; 6 5 8 6

8 ' ( * & 5 & + & # & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 & .

C O M 9 O M P 9 " Q B > R P 9 N C K > R C S P L > T O 9 U K C L O > ? O V N P 9 W K C L O > N ? T L > R L > X N ? N B X X P N C L O > N ?

9 P ) O U U P > R K C L O > N K > R O M L > L O > N ) O > C K L > P R L > C S P 9 P M O 9 C ? 9 P T P 9 P > ) P U B N C V P U K R P C O

C S P Y S O " P O T C S P 9 P M O 9 C . " P W P " C O > ) K > > O C V P 9 P N M O > N L V " P T O 9 B N P V Q K > Q M K 9 C Q O T

M O 9 C L O > N O T C S P 9 P M O 9 C Y L C S O B C 9 P T P 9 P > ) P C O C S P Y S O " P 9 P M O 9 C K > R L C N W K 9 L O B N

) O U M O > P > C N .

Z [ \ J ! ! H

" # $ # % & ' ( 3 4 # 3 , 4 # - & 6 # 9 # 3 ' 4 & : ' 4 & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & : ' 4 & 6 # * 3 # 8 5 : 5 8 * 5 & # ? - # $ # % ' 3 A # ( & ? D + 5 % - 5 ( 7 ? - # * 5 7 ( ' 4 D + 5 % - 5 ( 7

, * * # * * A # ( & ' D ] # 8 & 5 $ # * , ( - 3 + 4 3 ' * # & 6 , & & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & - # * 8 4 5 D # - & ' " # $ # % & ' ( . C 6 # , 3 3 % 5 8 , D 5 % 5 & < , ( - 4 # % 5 , D 5 % 5 & < ' : , ( O O C S P 9 M K 9 C Q U K Q B N P O 9

9 P " Q B M O > C S P 9 P M O 9 C O 9 K > Q M O 9 C L O > O 9 ) O U M O > P > C Y L C S O B C C S P Y 9 L C C P > ) O > N P > C O T

" P W P " C O > . " # $ # % & ' ( ; 5 % % 8 ' ( * # ( & & ' , ( < 4 # , * ' ( , D % # 4 # ^ + # * & D < & 6 # ) % 5 # ( & & ' , 3 3 4 ' $ # & 6 # + * # ' : & 6 5 * 9 # 3 ' 4 & D

geotechnical evaluation review - bow valley high school artificial turf

Documents