Rosenthal Road Final Geotechnical Report

GEOTECHNICAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ROSENTHAL ROAD
SMITHERS, BC
Submitted to:
Town of Smithers
Attention: Mark F. Allen, P.Eng.
1027 Aldous Street PO Box 879
Smithers, British Columbia, V0J 2N0
Submitted by:
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure,
a Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited
#3 3167 Tatlow Road
Smithers, British Columbia V0J 2N0
October 2017
KS00423
Town of Smithers Amec Foster Wheeler
Geotechnical Site Assessment Environment & Infrastructure
Rosenthal Road
Smithers, British Columbia
13 October 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE #
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1

2.0 INITIAL SITE RECONNAISSANCE................................................................................ 1
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAMS ............ 2
3.1 Borehole Drilling Program ................................................................................... 2
3.2 Test Pitting Program ........................................................................................... 3
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Surficial Geology ................................................................................................. 3
4.2 Surface Conditions .............................................................................................. 4
4.3 Subsurface Conditions beneath the Existing Road .............................................. 4
4.4 Subsurface Conditions at the Toe of the Embankment Slope .............................. 5
4.5 Groundwater Conditions...................................................................................... 6
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 6
6.0 EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION OPTIONS....................................... 9
7.0 SOIL BUTTRESS REMEDIATION OPTION ................................................................... 9
8.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOIL BUTTRESS ............................. 12
8.1 Site Preparation ................................................................................................ 12
8.2 Structural Fill ..................................................................................................... 12
8.3 Excavating, Trenching and Backfilling ............................................................... 13
8.4 Groundwater and Surface Water Control........................................................... 14
8.5 Pavements and Road Drainage ........................................................................ 14
9.0 LIMITATIONS & CLOSURE ......................................................................................... 16
Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Table of Contents

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Site Plan Sketch
Figure 4 Rosenthal Road Cross-section A-A
Figure 5 Plan View of Proposed Soil Buttress
Figure 6 Proposed Soil Buttress Cross-section
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Photographs

Appendix B Borehole and Test Pit Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Testing Data
LIST OF TABLES
Table 8-1: Recommended Gradations for Granular Fill Materials
Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Table of Contents

IMPORTANT NOTICE
This report was prepared exclusively for the Town of Smithers by

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited. The
quality of information, conclusions and estimates contained herein
is consistent with the level of effort involved in Amec Foster Wheeler
services and was based on: i) information available at the time of
preparation, ii) data supplied by outside sources, and iii) the
assumptions, conditions and qualifications set forth in this report.
This report is intended to be used by the Town of Smithers only,
subject to the terms and conditions of its contract with Amec Foster
Wheeler. Any other use of, or reliance on, this report by any third
party is at that partys sole risk.
Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, a division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas
Limited (Amec Foster Wheeler), is pleased to submit this report providing the results of the
geotechnical site assessment carried out along the failed embankment fill and timber retaining
wall section of Rosenthal Road in Smithers, BC. The purpose of our services was to explore
subsurface conditions at the site and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the
design and remediation of the failed road section.
Rosenthal Road is a two lane road that serves as the only vehicle access route for the Dohler
Flats area in the Bulkley River floodplain. Rosenthal Road has been constructed across a
relatively steep slope between two terraces with an elevation difference of approximately 30 m.
The upper terrace is at an elevation of approximately 496 m in the Silver King subdivision, while
the lower terrace is just above the Bulkley River at an elevation of approximately 466 m. The
location of the road with respect to the Town of Smithers is shown in Figure 1. The subject failed
section of the road is shown in Figure 2.
Amec Foster Wheeler was approached by the Town of Smithers on 16 May 2017 to conduct a
preliminary site reconnaissance of the failed road section. Following the preliminary site
reconnaissance on 16 and 17 May 2017, Amec Foster Wheeler provided the Town of Smithers
with a detailed scope of work outlining the recommended subsurface exploration program that
would be required in order to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for remediating
the failed road section. The scope of work for this site assessment was described in Amec Foster
Wheelers proposal dated 12 June 2017. Authorization to proceed with this project was obtained
from the Town of Smithers via a signed purchase order on 12 July 2017.
Amec Foster Wheeler provided the Town of Smithers with a draft geotechnical report on 20
September 2017 that outlined the potential remediation options available for repairing and
stabilizing the road embankment slope. The information in the draft geotechnical report was
provided to the Town of Smithers to aid with their decision on which option to choose to repair the
road embankment.
2.0 INITIAL SITE RECONNAISSANCE

An initial site reconnaissance was conducted by Amec Foster Wheeler and the Town of Smithers
on 16 and 17 May 2017 to assess the condition of the road and adjacent embankment slope prior
to carrying out a more detailed site assessment. The purpose of the initial site reconnaissance
was to observe site conditions, assess the condition of the tensions cracks along the road
shoulder, assess the condition of the road embankment fill slope and timber retaining structure,
and identify areas where further site investigation was required. Amec Foster Wheeler and the
Town of Smithers also discussed constraints to remediation of the road surface, available
information on the existing slope and retaining structure, and the locations of current utilities in
the area that would need to be taken into consideration during planning of the detailed site
assessment.
During the initial site reconnaissance Amec Foster Wheeler observed a series of tension cracks
along the shoulder of the road that were estimated to extend over an approximate distance of
Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 1

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
80 m to 90 m. A maximum differential vertical displacement of 300 mm was measured between

the top of the existing road surface and the top of the failed road shoulder surface. The timber
retaining structure just downslope of the road shoulder exhibited various signs of structural failure
including forward tilting of the timber wall and piling. Photographs illustrating the depth and extent
of cracking along the road and the condition of the existing retaining wall structure at the time of
the initial site reconnaissance in May 2017 are included in Appendix A.
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAMS
3.1 Borehole Drilling Program
Subsurface conditions along the road were explored by advancing two boreholes to depths of
9.8 m and 15.8 m between 18 and 19 July 2017. The locations of the boreholes are shown in
Figure 3 and the stratigraphy for each of the boreholes are included in Figure 4. The boreholes
were advanced between the road centerline and the tension cracks on the downslope side of the
road. The drill rig and support equipment was set up in such a way as to provide a safe setback
distance from the failed section of the road while also maintaining on open lane for through traffic
to get around the equipment during drilling.
Prior to drilling, a BC OneCall was completed for this section of road. The only identified utilities
in the area were located over 20 m from the area of concern near the intersection of the road and
the perimeter trail.
Blue Max Drilling Inc. (Blue Max) was contracted by Amec Foster Wheeler to complete the drilling
program using a truck mounted sonic drilling rig. The geotechnical drilling program was monitored
by an Amec Foster Wheeler representative who laid out the borehole locations, classified and
obtained samples of the materials encountered in the boreholes, maintained detailed logs of the
boreholes, recorded groundwater conditions and observed pertinent site features.
The boreholes were advanced in 1.5 m intervals using the sonic drilling method. The purpose of
using the sonic drilling technique was to recover disturbed samples for the entire length of the
borehole in order to better define the contact between the road fills and the underlying native soils.
Disturbed Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) samples were also obtained from the boreholes at
1.5 m intervals to termination depth. The disturbed samples were obtained in general accordance
with ASTM D1586 - Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel
Sampling of Soils. Grab samples were taken from sonic core when SPT samples yielded poor
recovery. The samples obtained from the boreholes were classified in general accordance with
the Modified Unified Soil Classification System. Where possible, pocket penetrometer readings
were performed on silt and clay samples to provide an estimate of the strength of the fine grained
soils.
Upon completion, BH17-01 was backfilled with cuttings and sealed with bentonite chips in
accordance with the BC Water Sustainability Act. A standpipe was installed in BH17-02 to assess
the groundwater conditions at the site. The standpipe consisted of a 25 mm PVC pipe, perforated
between depths of 5.8 m and 8.8 m. The standpipe was backfilled with a sand pack from 4.9 m
to 8.8 m and sealed with bentonite chips from a depth of 4.9 m up to the ground surface. A
handheld recreational GPS unit was used to provide approximate coordinates of the completed
boreholes.

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
Selected soil samples collected during the field investigation were tested by Amec Foster
Wheelers Smithers laboratory for:
Water (Moisture) Content, ASTM D2216;
Atterberg Limits, ASTM D4318; and
Grain Size Distribution Analysis, ASTM C136/C117.
Borehole logs describing the soils encountered, sampling depths, and laboratory results are
presented in Appendix B. An explanation of terms and symbols used on the logs is also included.
Detailed laboratory testing results are presented in Appendix C.
3.2 Test Pitting Program
Three additional test pits were completed on 29 September 2017 along the perimeter trail in order
to identify a suitable subgrade near the toe of the existing embankment. These test pits were
completed after the Town of Smithers indicated that they preferred to proceed with the soil
buttress remediation option which will extend beyond the toe of the existing embankment.
The three test pits were excavated to depths of 2 m to 2.5 m using a small backhoe that was
operated by the Town of Smithers and observed by an Amec Foster Wheeler representative. The
soils were classified in general accordance with the Modified Unified Soil Classification System
and samples were taken for laboratory testing. GPS coordinates of the three test pit locations
were recorded using a handheld GPS device.
Test pit logs including descriptions of the soils encountered and laboratory results are in included
in Appendix B with the borehole logs from the initial site investigation. Detailed laboratory testing
results are included in Appendix C.
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 Surficial Geology
The published and available mapped surficial geology of the Smithers area1 indicates that it is
generally dominated by morainal landforms with a constituent till that is typically silt- to clay-rich.
Drift is common on moderate to steep slopes in this area, while glacio-fluvial sediments are also
present in the valley, though these sediments are much less common than in surrounding areas.
There is also widespread fluvial terrain related to historical post glacial flows of the Bulkley River
throughout the valley.
Additional available mapped surficial geology of the area2 indicates that the subject section of
Rosenthal Road has been constructed across a relatively steep erosional river terrace slope that
consists of several different stratigraphic sections with varying lithologies. The Smithers Soils
Map (83-M-03) dated 07 November 1983 indicates that the site area generally consists of a thin
veneer or blanket of colluvium above layers of morainal tills and other glacial deposits.
1
Clague, John J., Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology, Smithers-Terrace-Prince Rupert Area, British Columbia, Geographical
Survey of Canada, 1984
2
Geological Compilation Map of the Smithers, Hazelton and Terrace Areas, British Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum
Resources, Map69-1, Compiled by NC Carter and RV Kirkham

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
4.2 Surface Conditions

The failed section of Rosenthal Road is approximately 0.25 km north of the intersection of
Rosenthal Road and Columbia Drive (where 10th Avenue turns into Rosenthal Road) where
Rosenthal Road transitions from a paved road to a gravel surfaced road. The road currently
traverses a relatively steep natural slope from an elevation of 496 m at the Columbia Street
intersection down to an elevation of 466 m at the base of the lower river terrace. The road appears
to have been constructed using locally sourced fill from adjacent road cuts; however there is very
little information available regarding the construction of the road.
The failed section of the road, delineated by substantial tension cracks in the road shoulder, starts
approximately 100 m downhill (north) from the pavement-gravel transition near Columbia Drive.
The failed section of the road extends downhill along the road for a distance of about 80 m before
ending just a few meters from the intersection of the road and the Smithers Perimeter Trail. There
is currently an old timber retaining structure that is located along the upper 30 m of the failed
section just a few meters downslope of the road shoulder. The Smithers Perimeter Trail intersects
the road where the road flattens out on the lower terrace adjacent to the river. The trail is generally
located downslope of the road at the base of road embankment as shown in the Picture 3 of
Appendix A.
4.3 Subsurface Conditions beneath the Existing Road
The following sections describe the soil encountered below the existing road surface during the
borehole drilling program completed in June 2017, and should be read in conjunction with the
borehole logs provided in Appendix B.
FILL: The fill material at the top of the road surface consisted of a thin layer of surfacing
sand and gravel followed by a variable clayey silt fill with some sand, gravel, wood and
organics present. The fill did not appear to have any discernible structure beneath the
road surfacing aggregate indicating that it was likely placed in an uncontrolled manner.
The fill extended to depths of at least 5.2 m and 2.3 m below the road surface in boreholes
BH17-01 and BH17-02, respectively. The fill was generally firm to stiff with SPT N-values
ranging from 6 to 11. A grain size distribution test completed on a sample of the fill from
BH17-01 indicated that it consisted of 10% gravel, 19% sand, 47% silt and 24% clay.
Atterberg Limits completed on the same sample indicated it is medium plastic with a liquid
limit of 46 and a plastic limit of 27. The laboratory testing also indicated that the clay fill
had natural water contents of 14% to 30%. The composition of the fill material is very
similar to the underlying native glacial till and transitional/colluvium layer, therefore it is
likely that the source of the fill material was from cutting into the adjacent slope. The
extent of cut and fill below the road surface is not very well defined as there is no record
of the road construction work, including the depth and extent of the existing retaining
structure. The contact between fill material and the underlying transitional fill/colluvium
layer was determined based on the increased resistance to drilling that was encountered
at depths of 5.2 m and 2.3 m in the two boreholes.
TRANSITIONAL FILL/COLLUVIUM: Underlying the fill material was a brown clayey to
trace clay silt with trace to some sand and trace to some gravel. This clayey silt material
was stiff to very stiff with SPT N-values ranging between 13 and 26 and was

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
compositionally similar to the overlying fill material with a grain size distribution of 19%
gravel, 12% sand, 47% silt and 22% clay. Atterberg Limits completed on the same sample
indicate it is medium plastic with a liquid limit of 40 and a plastic limit of 23. This transitional
fill and colluvium material had natural water contents of 19% to 30%, similar to what was
measured in the overlying fill. This material appears to be a transitional fill and possibly
some clayey colluvium that has come down from the slope above. This layer extends to
depths of 8.7 m and 6.1 m in boreholes BH17-01 and BH17-02, respectively.
INTERBEDDED SAND AND SILT (likely glaciofluvial or fluvial origin): A 1.5 m thick layer
of interbedded silt and sand was encountered below the transitional fill and colluvium in
BH17-01. This material primarily consisted of reddish brown silt and sand that was
interbedded with poorly graded silty sand and low plastic, firm to stiff clay laminations.
The clay laminations ranged in thickness from 25 mm to 60 mm. This interbedded sand
and silt layer was primarily firm to stiff with an SPT N-value of 11. One sample taken from
this layer had a natural water content of 30%.
GLACIAL TILL (GREY): Underlying the transitional fill/colluvium material and/or
interbedded sand and silt was a very stiff to hard silt and clay till with trace to some gravel
and trace to some sand. This glacial till material was encountered at depths of 10.2 m
and 6.1 m below the road surface in boreholes BH17-01 and BH17-02 respectively and
where tested consisted of 17% gravel, 22% sand, 33% silt and 28% clay. SPT N-values
were generally higher in this till material than in the overlying soils, with SPT N-values
ranging from 20 to 39 with one low SPT N-value of 10 in BH17-01 just below the
interbedded sand and silt. This material was also medium plastic with a liquid limit of 35
and a plastic limit of 19. Natural water contents of this glacial till generally ranged from
15% to 17%, with one sample near the top of the till having a higher natural water content
of 23%. Both of the boreholes were terminated in this clay and silt.
4.4 Subsurface Conditions at the Toe of the Embankment Slope
The following sections describe the soil encountered at the toe of the existing embankment slope
during the secondary test pitting program completed on 29 September 2017. This subsurface
information should be read in conjunction with the test pit logs provided in Appendix B.
TOPSOIL: The topsoil generally consisted of either a sandy silt or a fibrous organic layer.
The topsoil ranged in thickness from 0.3 m to 0.5 m and contained a significant amount of
roots and other organics. In test pit TP17-03 the topsoil was highly saturated with ponded
water visible near the ground surface. It appeared that this water was ponding on top of
the relatively impermeable clay colluvium encountered directly below the topsoil at this
location.
SILT AND CLAY: Underlying the topsoil was a grey silt or clay with variable amounts of
clay, sand and gravel. In test pits TP17-01 and TP17-02 this material was generally a
poorly graded dense silt representative of overbank fluvial deposits. In TP17-03 this
material was more of a stiff medium plastic silty clay that was likely deposited as colluvium
as indicated by the lack of any discernible structure in the clay. In TP17-03, the clay and
silt colluvium had a natural water content of 31% and appeared to be saturated with water
ponding at the surface.

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
FLUVIAL SAND: A dense fine grained sand layer with some silt and trace gravel was
encountered below the colluvium in each of the three test pits. The sand was brown and
uniformly graded and was observed at depths of 0.8 m to 1.5 m below the existing ground
surface. The sand was generally damp to moist and had natural water contents that
ranged from 4% to 12% with the highest value being recorded in the sand underlying the
highly saturated clay colluvium in TP17-03. No groundwater or seepage was observed in
the fluvial sand deposits.
4.5 Groundwater Conditions
One groundwater level reading was taken in the standpipe installed in BH17-02 on 14 August
2017 and indicated a water level of 5.6 m below the ground surface. Groundwater level readings
were not possible during drilling because the boreholes were constantly filled with water during
sonic drilling. Ponded water was identified at the base of the embankment slope during the site
visits and test pitting. It appeared that the water was ponding on top of a layer of clayey colluvium
located just below the ground surface.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the available data and the findings of the site assessment, it appears that the tension
cracks along the outside of the road were initiated by the failure of the embankment and the
retaining structure downhill of the road following heavy rainfall in late April and early May 2017.
Failure is likely the result of a combination of increased lateral earth pressures acting along the
wall and decreased shear strengths in the uncontrolled fill below and behind the wall. Possible
deterioration of the timbers used to construct the retaining structure could also be contributing to
the failure of the retaining structure as the timbers have been in place for a significant period of
time. While movement of the wall is most likely due to added pressure on the wall, it is also
possible there could be some shear displacements occurring in lower strength fill materials below
the wall. Shear displacements occurring in weak fill soils below the retaining structure cannot be
ruled out without more information regarding construction of the retaining structure and the extent
of fill below the road and along the embankment slope. There is also evidence of soil creep near
the toe of the embankment slope which is another indicator of deeper seated soil instability.
Preliminary cross-section sketches through the road embankment are provided in Figure 4 and
illustrate the inferred subsurface conditions and potential failure surfaces below the road and
through the lower embankment slope. The sketches were created using information from the
geotechnical site assessment and an old topographic map from 1979 that was provided by the
Town of Smithers at the time that this report was prepared.
There are several different options available to address the tension cracking and failure along
Rosenthal Road, each with an accompanying level of risk and cost. The level of risk associated
with each option is based on the extent of the fix being proposed, as some options would not fully
address the entire embankment slope and uncontrolled fills present along the slope. A draft
geotechnical report outlining each of the available options for remediation was provided to the
Town of Smithers on 20 September 2017. In addition to discussing the potential remediation
options, the draft report also included a discussion on potential risks associated with each of the
options as well as possible constraints to construction such as the erosion of the Bulkley River
bank to the west of Rosenthal Road. In the draft geotechnical report Amec Foster Wheeler also

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
emphasized that the potential for larger scale failures through this entire section of road will still
remain unless a robust long term option is chosen.
Amec Foster Wheeler provided the Town of Smithers with three potential remediation options for
fixing the road, in addition to a Do Nothing approach. The Do Nothing approach was
considered in case the Town of Smithers decided that they wanted to further monitor the area to
assess whether or not the road shoulder continues to move. This approach would allow for a
single lane of traffic and would provide the Town of Smithers with more time until a decision is
made on a more permanent solution. While this approach would provide more time to make a
decision and would avoid having to implement an expensive fix, this option also contains the
greatest risk with respect to future movement and the potential for a larger, more sudden failure
to occur through the entire road section, effectively cutting of access for the entire road.
Three other general options were provided to the Town of Smithers in the draft geotechnical report
that would address the failed section of road embankment and provide a road surface wide
enough for two lanes of traffic. For each option it was recommended that the failed soil and
existing retaining structure timbers be completely removed prior to undertaking any other
construction work along the road embankment. Each of the three options provided would allow
for a single lane to remain open to local traffic for the duration of the remediation construction
work.
The three options considered to address the failed road embankment and retaining structure were
as follows:
Option 1: Replace the failed retaining structure with a short retaining wall constructed on
top of a reinforced soil base constructed within the upper portion of the existing
embankment fill (maximum retaining structure height of 2-3 m). Lock-block or gabion
mesh basket gravity retaining walls with or without Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE)
reinforcement behind the wall facing were considered to be suitable short wall alternatives.
This remediation option was proposed as a lower cost alternative; however, this option
would only be a temporary fix as it would not fully address the long term global stability of
the road embankment. Deeper failures could develop below the new retaining structure
after construction of a short MSE wall if there is still unsuitable uncontrolled fill left below
the wall. It is also possible that failure surfaces could develop through the underlying fill
during construction of such a short wall which could lead to significant cost over-runs and
delay during construction.
Option 2: Excavate the uncontrolled fill all the way down to suitable native undisturbed
subgrade soil and construct a tall MSE retaining wall with either lock-block, wire mesh, or
gabion basket facing. In order to remove the suspect old fill, the height of such a wall could
be as much as 10 m on its southern end. This option was provided as a long term solution
for overall global stability as it would remove the potential for deep seated failures below
the new retaining structure. With respect to Option 1, this option would involve
considerably more excavation and a much more expensive wall design given the
anticipated required depth of excavation to reach a suitable native subgrade.
Considerable soil reinforcement would also be required for a tall MSE wall (typically
extending back some 70% to 100% of the wall height), further increasing the costs

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
associated with this option. Other high wall options that involve less excavation such as
soldier pile and lagging or sheet pile walls were also considered; however given the
anticipated height of the retaining structure, tie-back anchors or excessive pile wall facing
stiffness would be required to provide internal stability.
Option 3: Replace all or a portion of the existing weak embankment fill soils with well
drained gravel fill down to a competent foundation level on the adjacent lower river terrace.
This option would effectively buttress the existing slope by adding weight at the toe of the
slope, while also removing weakened soils that failure surfaces could develop through.
There are various ways in which this option could be implemented based on the overall
dimensions of the existing slope and the amount of space available for construction. This
option could also be optimized using geogrid reinforced soil slopes or a benched slope
configuration to minimize the amount of material, space and costs associated with a slope
buttress.
Option 1 has the greatest amount of risk associated with it since there would still be a high
possibility for further slope instability issues to occur in any uncontrolled fill or colluvium that
remains in place below the new retaining structure. Potential failure surfaces below a short wall
are shown in Figure 5 of the draft geotechnical report. This option also comes with the risk of
cost over-runs and schedule delays occurring if the slope started to fail during or just after
construction. Given the amount of information available for the road and embankment slope, fully
addressing the long term global stability of the road embankment could only be achieved by
implementing either Option 2 or Option 3.
For Option 2, a considerable amount of excavation would be required in order to remove all
uncontrolled fill and colluvium down to a suitable native subgrade material. The costs associated
with building a taller MSE wall would be significantly greater than Option 1, given the extent of
excavation and construction required for a taller wall. The excavation of such a large amount of
the lower embankment slope could also lead to slope instability issues in the remaining portion of
roadway fill (required to keep the road open during construction) and potentially the cut slope
above the road. Construction would need to be staged in such a manner as to minimize the
amount of excavation that is left open at any point in time, resulting in more difficult access,
construction efficiency and schedule. An alternative to deep excavation would be to construct a
pile supported retaining wall (with or without tie-backs); however, this option would likely be more
expensive than a tall MSE wall given the costs associated with the extra piling materials and/or
specialty contractors required for such systems.
Option 3 would address the global stability of the road embankment without the costs associated
with constructing a large retaining structure for this entire section of the road. This option would
still require the removal of failed soil and embankment material down to a suitable subgrade,
though it would not require the same amount of excavation as for Option 2. The uncontrolled fill
and colluvium along the lower portion of the embankment slope would only need to be excavated
to a depth sufficient to provide adequate space for constructing a suitably thick fill buttress against
the existing slope. One concern related to the soil buttress option was crossing the perimeter trail
with the toe of the buttress; however, the Town of Smithers indicated that the perimeter trail could
be re-located as part of the slope remediation construction work (re-established adjacent to the

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
toe of the buttress slope). Amec Foster Wheeler indicated that there were several potential
variations to this option which could be considered to optimize the costs and amount of space
required to buttress the slope; however, in order to optimize the slope design, a detailed survey
of the existing slope would have to be completed.
Other design considerations such as the desired service life of this section of Rosenthal Road
and the overall stability of the entire slope above and below the road were also mentioned in the
draft report as factors that should to be taken into consideration when deciding how to address
the current road failure.
Following receipt of the draft report recommendations, the Town of Smithers indicated that they
would like to proceed with Option 3 to remediate the failed road embankment. The chosen
remediation option will consist of a 2.5H:1V buttress slope from the shoulder of Rosenthal Road
down to a suitable bearing layer on the lower river terrace. The buttress slope will be constructed
using locally sourced granular backfill material that is properly tied into the existing embankment
slope. Guidelines for the construction of the chosen remediation are provided in Sections 7 and
8 of this report, below.
6.0 EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION OPTIONS

Preliminary designs for each of the three remediation options were developed, evaluated and
discussed in the draft geotechnical report. The preliminary designs for each of the three
remediation options were created using the information collected during the initial site
reconnaissance and the geotechnical site assessment. Each preliminary design option was
assessed in terms of short and long term performance and the constructability of each option.
The global stability of preliminary configurations of all three remediation options were evaluated
using limit equilibrium methods. A basic slope stratigraphy model was developed for the existing
slope using the borehole drilling data and cross sections extracted from only al relatively low
resolution 1979 topographic map of the area. The global stability of each preliminary option was
evaluated using the proprietary software Slope/W 2012 distributed by GEO-SLOPE International
Ltd.
The target factors of safety for global stability are generally 1.5 for long-term stability and 1.3 for
short-term stability.
This stability modelling was carried out to give a preliminary indication of relative scope and
configuration of each option. The preliminary modelling was based on roughly estimated
topographic sections and provided to the Town of Smithers so that they could decide on a
preferred remediation option for the embankment slope.
7.0 SOIL BUTTRESS REMEDIATION OPTION

The Town of Smithers preferred method for re-establishing the road surface and stabilizing the
road embankment slope involves constructing a soil buttress from the outside edge of the new
road surface down to a suitable subgrade base using a 2.5H:1V slope. The overall stability of the
soil buttress design was assessed using Slope/W 2012 and indicated that a long term factor of
safety of 1.5 can be achieved provided the slope is constructed with an overall slope of 2.5H:1V
and the toe of the buttress slope is founded on the native undisturbed fluvial sand and/or gravel

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
that underlies the lower river terrace level. The toe of the new soil buttress is expected to be at
least 30 m or more from the western bank of the Bulkley River and is not expected to have any
negative impact on the current stability of the river bank itself. Continual erosion of the river bank
towards the soil buttress and perimeter trail is not addressed in this soil buttress design, but may
have to be considered and mitigated in the future.
The soil buttress should extend a minimum of 2 m north and south of the ends of the tension
cracks where the cracks intersect the outer edge of the road. The soil buttress is anticipated to
be approximately 80 m long at the top of the slope based on the extent of cracking observed
during the site visits. The maximum height of the soil buttress is expected to be approximately
12-15 m on the southern end of the road failure where the elevation difference between the road
and the perimeter trail is the greatest. The soil buttress should also tie into the existing slope
using 2.5H:1V backfilled side slopes on either end of the soil buttress. A sketch plan view of the
approximate extents of construction and dimensions for the soil buttress are illustrated in Figure
5, including the estimated locations of the buttress side slopes. A cross-section showing
approximate extents of the soil buttress excavation and final surface are shown in Figure 6.
The toe of the soil buttress should be constructed on top of a suitable undisturbed native subgrade
surface. Test pitting at the toe of the slope indicated that a suitable subgrade consisting of fluvial
sand was encountered approximately 0.8 m to 1.5 m below the existing ground surface. Sub-
excavation at the toe of the slope to remove topsoil and fine grained soils down to the sand
subgrade should be a minimum of 15 m wide and should extend all the way from the outer toe of
the soil buttress into the existing slope. An example of the required amount of subgrade
excavation into the existing slope at the base of the soil buttress is shown in Figure 6. The existing
embankment slope should be stripped of all vegetation, topsoil and any other unsuitable wet or
soft material until a suitable subgrade surface is identified. All failed road soils and remnants of
the failed retaining structure should be completely removed down to a suitable subgrade as well.
All subgrade surfaces should be inspected and approved by the geotechnical engineer.
Excavation to remove and replace the upper failed portion of the road surface and embankment
should extend a minimum of 0.5 m beyond the tension cracks (towards the centerline of the road)
to make sure that all failed soil is completely removed from below the road surface. First, the
roadway should be excavated and unloaded down to the base of the failed retaining structure. All
failed soil and retaining wall remnants should be completely removed to stop any movement that
may still be occurring. The roadway fills behind the failed retaining structure can be excavated
with a maximum overall slope of 1H:1V under the supervision of a representative of the
geotechnical engineer who should constantly monitor the slope for signs of instability. Shallower
excavation slopes than 1H:1V could be required if there are any signs of instability during
construction. Following unloading and removal of all of the failed retaining structure remnants and
roadway soils, construction of the buttress should begin at the toe of the slope. Construction of
the soil buttress should begin by excavating down to a suitable subgrade at the toe of the buttress.
Once a suitable subgrade is identified, excavation of unsuitable surficial material along the slope
and backfilling of the buttress can proceed up towards the road. Excavation of unsuitable material
from the existing slope can be completed in a series of benches starting from the base of the
slope and progressing to the top of the road surface. The excavated benches should extend a
sufficient distance into the existing slope to remove all vegetation, top soil, loose and wet surficial

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
soils. Note that width of the excavation into the existing slope will likely be the greatest above the
base of the failed retaining in order to make sure that all failed material is removed from the slope.
The excavated benches can be completed using a minimum bench width of 1.5 m and a maximum
bench height of 1.5 m as long as the overall angle of the excavated slope does not exceed 1H:1V.
In addition to being a minimum width of 1.5 m, the excavation benches should be of sufficient
width to allow the construction equipment to safely access the site. It is recommended that the
slope be excavated one bench at a time, with each bench being completely backfilled prior to
excavating the next bench. Excavating and backfilling the slope from the bottom up will provide
added stability at the toe of the slope during construction, as well as a wider more stable working
base for the construction equipment. This sequence of excavation and backfilling should be
adopted all the way from the toe of the buttress up to the final grade.
A layer of non-woven geotextile should be placed on top of all stripped subgrade surfaces once
the subgrade has been inspected and approved by the geotechnical engineer. The purpose of
the geotextile is to prevent the migration of fines from the subgrade into the granular backfill in
order to preserve its strength and drainage properties. Guidelines for the placement and
compaction of suitable granular backfill including the use of vibratory compaction equipment are
provided in Section 8. The use of vibratory equipment to compact the backfill material is not
expected to have an impact on the stability of the Bulkley River bank to the east of the
embankment slope given the distance between the toe of the soil buttress and the river.
Vibrations from compaction are also expected to have minimal impact on the stability of the overall
valley slope during construction, though the slope should still be monitored closely during
compaction activities to check for any signs of instability developing as a result of the compaction
vibrations. It is recommended that the Town of Smithers consider implementing a vibration
monitoring program both before and after construction to assess the impact of construction
vibrations on the slope. Such a program could be carried out by Amec Foster Wheeler using
specialized vibration monitoring equipment set-up at different locations along the slope to
measure vibrations induced during construction. As part of the vibration monitoring program an
initial set of readings should be taken prior to construction to develop a baseline for the vibration
monitoring readings. These pre-construction baseline readings should be taken along the road
and at the crest of the slope near the private properties that border the slope. Without the pre-
construction baseline readings the Town of Smithers will not have any way to assess whether or
not the compaction vibrations are having an impact on the slope or the nearby properties. If the
compaction vibrations appear to be having an adverse impact on the slope, alternative methods
of compaction such as static compaction will need to be considered.
In addition to constructing the soil buttress, sufficient space should be left open at the toe of the
buttress to re-establish the perimeter trail. The proposed location for the re-established perimeter
trail is also shown in brown on Figure 6. It is expected that a minimum width of 3 m to 4 m will be
required for the new perimeter trail. The perimeter trail can be constructed using the same backfill
material used to construct the buttress.

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
8.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOIL BUTTRESS

8.1 Site Preparation
All areas proposed for reconstruction should be stripped of vegetation and top soil with any wet
or soft uncontrolled fill stripped to depths sufficient to expose a suitable working surface for placing
geotextile and structural fill. Sub-excavation of the uncontrolled fills should be witnessed and
approved by the geotechnical engineer (or their representative) prior to proceeding to placement
of structural fill. Any native or subgrade materials disturbed by the site preparation activities
should also be excavated and replaced with structural fill, placed and compacted as
recommended in Section 8.2. All unsuitable material removed from the slope should be taken
away from site for disposal.
The excavation of material from beneath the road surface and existing retaining structure should
be staged in such a way as to minimize the height and width of the slope left open during
construction. A suitable construction plan addressing the sequencing of excavation and
backfilling work should be provided by the earthworks contractor prior to construction. The
construction plan should be provided to the geotechnical engineer to review and is subject to
change depending on the conditions encountered during construction.
As discussed in the previous section, a non-woven geotextile should be placed on top of the
subgrade soils at both the toe of the slope and along the stripped embankment slope. The
purpose of the geotextile is to prevent migration of fines from the subgrade soils into the free-
draining structural fill while allowing water to drain from the slope.
8.2 Structural Fill
All fill required to achieve final design grade elevations should be placed as structural fill.
Materials used for structural fill should be non-frost susceptible granular material consisting of
well-graded, free draining sand and gravel with a maximum particle size of 150 mm. Free draining
material is required to provide adequate drainage and minimize hydrostatic pressures behind
potential retaining structures. Crushed granular material such as 20-mm minus crushed gravel is
also considered suitable for free draining material to be placed as structural fill. Rip-rap consisting
of large pieces of blasted rock is also considered suitable to be placed along the outside of the
buttress to provide added weight against the buttress slope; however, this material should be
reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to use along the backfill slope. Recommended
gradations for granular fill materials are provided in Table 8-1.

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
Table 8-1: Recommended Gradations for Granular Fill Materials
Percent Passing by Mass

Metric Sieve (mm)
150 mm minus Pit Run Gravel
150 100
50 55 to 100
25 38 to 100
16 32 to 85
5 20 to 65
0.315 6 to 30
0.075 0 to 5
All materials used for structural fill should be free of ice, snow and frozen particles. Organic soils
and soils that cannot be properly moisture-conditioned are not suitable for use as structural fill.
Structural fill required to construct the buttress slope up to base of the road structure should be
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 300 mm in loose thickness, moisture conditioned and
uniformly compacted to not less than 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
D698 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard
Effort. Lifts placed directly over geotextiles should not be less than 150 mm in uncompacted
thickness or as recommended by the manufacturer. This thickness is required to protect the
geotextile from damage during compaction.
Compaction of all lifts should be completed with a vibratory roller or other suitable vibratory
equipment. Compaction using vibratory equipment is not expected to have an adverse impact on
the stability of the slope during construction; however, if sensitive subgrade soils are encountered
along the existing embankment slope static compaction shall be used to compact the first lift or
until there are no visible signs of rutting or settlement during compaction. Structural fill placement
and compaction should be monitored by a qualified field representative or geotechnical engineer
on a full-time basis during construction. If issues arise during compaction, alternative methods of
compaction such as static compaction might need to be considered. Smaller equipment such as
vibratory plate compactors should be used for compaction of lifts placed directly on top of
geotextiles.
Compaction should be monitored by field density testing at regular frequencies. The
recommended minimum density test frequency should be two to three representative field density
tests per lift of fill material.
8.3 Excavating, Trenching and Backfilling
Temporary excavations greater than 1.2 m deep where worker entry is required should be
constructed in accordance with Part 20 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, BC
Regulation 296/97 as currently amended for the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) of British

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
Columbia. For temporary excavations more than three meters deep the excavation sidewalls
should be no steeper than 1H:1V. The excavation can be benched using a minimum bench width
of 1.5 m as long as the overall slope of the excavation does not exceed 1H:1V and the individual
benches do not exceed a vertical height of 1.5 m. The ultimate width of the benches will depend
on the size of the construction equipment, as the benches need to be sufficiently wide for the
equipment to safely access the site. The excavation should be monitored on a full-time basis to
watch for any signs of instability. If seepage or sloughing conditions are observed in the
excavation side walls, flatter slopes than those originally allowed will be required. Excavation
sidewalls must be stable or suitably supported by bracing or shoring prior to worker entry as
required by the regulation. The construction contractor is ultimately responsible for making all
excavations in a safe and legal manner.
Equipment shall, in general, not be allowed within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation,
as measured from the crest of the excavation. Where construction equipment is required to
operate at closer distances from the upper edge of the excavation, the influence of this
construction equipment on excavation stability shall be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer
with appropriate measures being taken to ensure excavation stability. Vibratory compaction
equipment should stay a minimum of 0.5 m away from excavation side slopes. If sloughing occurs
along the backfilled slopes during compaction, smaller equipment or static compaction techniques
could be required to prevent further sloughing of the slope.
8.4 Groundwater and Surface Water Control
In general, site drainage works should be implemented during the early stages of the site grading
earthworks. To promote surface runoff and to minimize potential saturation and degradation of
the subgrade, the subgrade surface should be graded with a minimum slope of two percent,
directed towards drainage ditches or low areas leading away from the excavation. Drainage
ditches required to direct surface water away from the base of the excavations should be designed
in accordance with the British Columbia Water Sustainability Act. Water should not be allowed to
enter excavations or pond on subgrades. Any soils softened by standing water in the bottom of
excavations and trenches or by water ponded on subgrades should be removed and replaced as
specified for the overlying materials or as approved by the geotechnical engineer.
Perched groundwater could be encountered in the excavation depending on the subsurface
conditions encountered during excavation. The contractor should be prepared to initiate
dewatering in the event that perched groundwater is encountered in the excavation. A
groundwater management plan should be in place prior to the start of construction. The
groundwater management plan is best prepared by the construction contractor so that the plan is
specific to the contractors planned construction methods and provides drainage away from the
excavated areas and potential retained soil zones. Any discharge from dewatering systems
should follow the guidelines provided in the British Columbia Water Sustainability Act.
8.5 Pavements and Road Drainage
Once the slope remediation construction work has been completed the roadway should be re-
established following the recommendations provided in the Town of Smithers By-law Number
1800. Recommended structural sections for pavement are provided in Section 2 of the by-law.

Rosenthal Road
13 October 2017
The base and sub-base courses should be compacted to minimum 100% SPMDD and have less
than five percent passing the 0.075 mm sieve. Suitable gradations of the base and sub-base
courses are also provided in the Section 2 of the by-law. Sub-base is not required in those areas
where structural fill has been placed if the structural fill materials meets the gradation requirement
for sub-base and the thickness of the structural fill is equal to or greater than the minimum
thickness provided in Section 2 of the By-law. The Town of Smithers By-law also provides
guidelines for asphalt pavements if this section of road is going to be paved upon completed. If
the Town chooses to retain this section as a gravel surfaced road, high fines surfacing aggregate
(HFSA) can be used in place of asphalt. Gradations for HFSA material can be found either in
Section 200 of the 2016 BC Standard Specification for Highway Construction or in the provincial
Master Municipal Construction Documents (MMCD). If the Town of Smithers later decides to
upgrade from a gravel surfaced road to an asphalt surfaced road in this area, all high fines
surfacing aggregate placed previously should be removed and replaced with an appropriate base
course layer prior to placing asphalt.
The finished road should be graded in such a manner as to provide positive drainage into the
drainage ditch on the upslope (west) side of the road. This will help prevent runoff from
oversaturating the embankment slope material. The drainage ditch along the upslope side of the
road should be regularly maintained to provide a path for water flow during heavy rainfall events,
but also protected from erosion which could destabilize the slope above.

FIGURES
SITE LOCATION
Smithers Site Location
Prince George
Kamloops
0m 500 1000 1500 2000
Vancouver NOTE: Image provided by Spectrum Digital Mapping 1975

Edition 2 Contour Interval 40.0m Map Sheet 93L14. 1 : 50000
CLIENT: DWN BY: PROJECT: DATE:
N.Whelan
CHK'D BY: SITE LOCATION OCTOBER 2017
PROJECT NO:
C.Banks
amec DATUM:
TITLE: KS00423
foster Amec Foster Wheeler NAD 83 REV. NO:
PROJECTION:
wheeler Environment & Infrastructure GEOTECHNICAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Box 3966, #3-3167 Tatlow Road 0
UTM Zone 9
Environment & Smithers, BC, CANADA V0J 2N0 SCALE: ROSENTHAL ROAD FIGURE NO:
Infrastructure Tel. 1-250-847-8783 Fax 1-250-847-9049

1:50 000 1
470
480
460
455
465
485
475
5
51
510
505
500
Bulkey River
49
5 490
480
4 85
5
48
0
48
0
49
Extents of Road Failure

495
Smithers
0m 100 200 300 400
NOTES: Site image provided by the town of Smithers, and topographic contours
acquired from the Government of Canada CDEM data base March 30, 2016. 1 : 10000
CLIENT: DWN BY: PROJECT: DATE:
N.Whelan
CHK'D BY: SITE PLAN OCTOBER 2017
PROJECT NO:
C.Banks
amec DATUM:
TITLE: KS00423
foster Amec Foster Wheeler NAD 83 REV. NO:
PROJECTION:
wheeler Environment & Infrastructure GEOTECHNICAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Box 3966, #3-3167 Tatlow Road 0
UTM Zone 9
Environment & Smithers, BC, CANADA V0J 2N0 SCALE: ROSENTHAL ROAD FIGURE NO:
Infrastructure Tel. 1-250-847-8783 Fax 1-250-847-9049

1:10 000 2
CLIENT
CLIENT:
Amec Foster Wheeler CLIENT LOGO:
LOGO
Environment & Infrastructure Town of Smithers

3 - 3167 Tatlow Road, Smithers BC, V0J 2N0
Tel 250-847-8783 Fax 250-847-9149
PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL SITE ASSESSMENT DWN BY: DATUM: DATE:
ROSENTHAL ROAD CB N/A OCT 2017

TITLE CHK'D BY: REV. NO.: PROJECT NO:
NP 0 KS00423
Site Plan Sketch PROJECTION: SCALE: FIGURE NO:
N/A NTS FIGURE 3
B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\Deliverables\Figures\Figures 3-4.xlsx
CLIENT
CLIENT:
Amec Foster Wheeler CLIENT LOGO:
LOGO
Environment & Infrastructure Town of Smithers

3 - 3167 Tatlow Road, Smithers BC, V0J 2N0
Tel 250-847-8783 Fax 250-847-9149
PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL SITE ASSESSMENT DWN BY: DATUM: DATE:
ROSENTHAL ROAD CB N/A OCT 2017

TITLE CHK'D BY: REV. NO.: PROJECT NO:
NP 0 KS00423
Rosenthal Road Cross-section A-A' PROJECTION: SCALE: FIGURE NO:
N/A NTS FIGURE 4
B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\Deliverables\Figures\Figures 3-4.xlsx
CLIENT DWN BY: PROJECT DATE:
CB GEOTECHNICAL SITE ASSESSMENT OCT 2017
Town of Smithers CHK'D BY: ROSENTHAL ROAD PROJECT NO:
NP KS00423
DATUM: TITLE REV. NO.:
N/A 0
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment PROJECTION: FIGURE NO:
& Infrastructure N/A Plan View of Proposed Soil Buttress
3-3167 Tatlow Road, Smithers BC, V0J 2N0 SCALE:
Tel 403-248-4331 Fax 250-847-9049
AS SHOWN FIGURE 5
B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\Deliverables\Figures\Figures 5 and 6.xlsx

NP KS00423
N/A 0
& Infrastructure N/A Proposed Soil Buttress Cross-section
Tel 403-248-4331 Fax 250-847-9049
AS SHOWN FIGURE 6
B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\Deliverables\Figures\Figures 5 and 6.xlsx

Appendix A
Site Photographs
Photo 1 (left): Extent of Road
Shoulder Failure and leaning
Retaining Structure Timbers
Photo 2 (right): Failed Road

Shoulder Material between
Retaining Structure and Road
Photo 3 (left): Steep Embankment

Slope Downhill of Road - Material
from the Road Shoulder has Failed
and Flowed Down the Slope.
Photo 4 (right): Retaining

Structure Consisting of Old
Deteriorating Timbers.

NP KS00423
N/A 0
& Infrastructure N/A Site Photographs from May 16-17, 2017
Tel 403-248-4331 Fax 250-847-9049
AS SHOWN FIGURE A-1
B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\TechWorkFiles\WorkingDraftDocs\Appendix A - Site Photos.xlsx

Appendix B
Borehole and Test Pit Logs

CLIENT: Town of Smithers PROJECT: Rosenthal Road Geotechnical Assessment BOREHOLE NO: BH17-01
DRILLER: Blue Max Drilling Inc. Smithers, BC PROJECT NO: KS00423
DRILL TYPE/METHOD: Sonic NORTHING: EASTING: ELEVATION:
SAMPLE TYPE TUBE NO RECOVERY SPLIT SPOON GRAB MUD RETURN CORE RETURN
BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE PEA GRAVEL SLOUGH GROUT DRILL CUTTINGS SAND
RECOVERY (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL
SPT (N)
SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm) ADDITIONAL
20
PLASTIC
40
M.C.
60 80
LIQUID
DESCRIPTION INFORMATION
20 40 60 80
0 SAND (fine to coarse grained), gravelly, (fine to coarse
grained), trace to some silt, well graded, brown, loose, damp
[Gravel Road Fill] 0.3m
SAND (fine to coarse grained), some gravel, some silt to G01
silty, trace to some clay, dark brown, poorly graded, loose to
compact, moist, organics [FILL]
0.8m
SILT, some sand to sandy (fine to coarse grained), trace to
some clay, trace gravel (fine to coarse grained), medium
1 plastic, soft to firm, dark brown, moist, wood and organics 1
SPT01 79 9
[FILL] G02
... trace to some sand, trace to some gravel
SPT02 25 7
2 2
G03 Atterberg (GRAB

G03):
Plastic Limit:27%
Liquid Limit:46%
Sieve (GRAB G03):
Gravel:10% Sand:19%
3 Fines:71% 3
... trace clay, dark brown and black
SPT03 58 7
PP = 50 to 100kPa
BOREHOLE LOG ROSENTHAL ROAD UPDATED.GPJ AMEC-PG-MULTIWELL-DATATEMPLATE.GDT 20/9/17
G04
PP = 75 to 195kPa
4 4
SPT04 79 10
PP = 50 to 145kPa
5 5
5.2m
SILT, clayey to some clay, trace to some gravel (fine to PP = 195 to 270kPa
coarse grained), trace to some sand, medium plastic, stiff, Atterberg (GRAB
G05
brown, moist [TRANSITIONAL FILL/COLLUVIUM] G05):
Plastic Limit:23%
Liquid Limit:40%
Sieve (GRAB G05):
Gravel:19% Sand:12%
6 Fines:69% 6
... some clay to clayey, reddish brown and brown
SPT05 92 15
PP = 195 to 245kPa
... soft to firm G06

PP = 25 to 75kPa
7
LOGGED BY: DG COMPLETION DEPTH: 15.8 m
ENTERED BY: DG COMPLETION DATE: 18/7/17
REVIEWED BY: CB Page 1 of 3
RECOVERY (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL
SPT (N)
20
PLASTIC
40
M.C.
60 80
LIQUID
20 40 60 80
7 SILT, clayey to some clay, trace to some gravel (fine to
coarse grained), trace to some sand, medium plastic, stiff,
brown, moist [TRANSITIONAL FILL/COLLUVIUM]
(continued)
... some sand (fine to coarse grained), some clay, brown to

dark grey, stiff to very stiff, moist to wet
SPT06 100 13
8 8
G07
PP = 295 to 390kPa
8.7m
SILT and SAND, trace clay, trace gravel (fine to coarse
grained), poorly graded, compact, light reddish brown, wet,
interbedded silt and sand layers [GLACIOFLUVIAL or G08
9 PP = 25 to 100kPa 9
FLUVIAL]
... 25 to 60mm interbedding of poorly graded silty sand and
low plastic, firm to stiff clay with trace laminations
SPT07 71 11
10 10
10.2m
SILT, and clay to clayey, trace to some gravel (fine to
coarse grained), trace to some sand (fine to coarse grained),
medium plastic, firm to stiff, grey, moist, disturbed laminations G09
[TILL]
... trace to some clay, trace sand to sandy
11 SPT08 100 10 11
... trace clay to clayey, some sand (fine grained), very stiff,
damp
G10 Atterberg (GRAB

G10):
Plastic Limit:19%
12 Liquid Limit:35% 12
Sieve (GRAB G10):
Gravel:17% Sand:22%
... trace sand to sandy, trace to some clay, very stiff to hard, Fines:61%
moist
SPT09 75 23
PP = 370 to 415kPa
G11
PP = 195 to 390kPa
13 13
... very stiff

14
RECOVERY (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL
SPT (N)
20
PLASTIC
40
M.C.
60 80
LIQUID
20 40 60 80
14 SILT, and clay to clayey, trace to some gravel (fine to SPT10 54 28
PP = 270 to 295kPa
coarse grained), trace to some sand (fine to coarse grained),
medium plastic, firm to stiff, grey, moist, disturbed laminations
[TILL] (continued)
G12
PP = 100 to 220kPa
15 15
SPT11 63 21
PP = 100 to 245kPa
15.8m
End of Borehole
16 Completion Depth of 15.8 m. 16
No bedrock encountered.
Hole backfilled with drill cuttings and bentonite chips.
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21
RECOVERY (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL
SPT (N)
SLOTTED
SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm) ADDITIONAL PIEZOMETER
20
PLASTIC
40
M.C.
60 80
LIQUID
20 40 60 80
0 SAND fine to coarse grained, and gravel fine to coarse 0m Very little granular
grained, trace silt, well graded, compact [GRAVEL ROAD] material overlying silty
G01
SILT, sandy (fine to coarse grained), trace gravel (fine to fill material at this
coarse grained), trace clay, low plastic, stiff to very stiff, location
brown and reddish brown, wood and organics [ROAD FILL] PP = 220 to 390kPa
... firm to stiff, brown

1 1
SPT01 63 6
G02
... dark brown to black, stiff
SPT02 33 11
2 2
2.3m
SILT, clayey to some clay, some sand (fine to coarse
grained), trace to some gravel (fine to coarse grained),
medium plastic, very stiff, light brown to greyish brown, moist
[TRANSITIONAL FILL/COLLUVIUM] G03
3 3
... trace to some clay, very stiff, light brown, damp to moist,
trace organics
SPT03 0 22
G04 PP = >440kPa
4 4
... very light brown to brownish grey
SPT04 50 26
5 5
PP = 245 to 345kPa
G05
6 6.1m 6
CLAY, and silt to silty, trace to some sand (fine to coarse
grained), trace to some gravel
(fine to coarse grained), trace cobbles, low to medium plastic, SPT05 83 39
very stiff to hard, light grey to grey, moist [TILL]
7
RECOVERY (%)
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL
SPT (N)
SLOTTED
SPT "N" (BLOWS/300 mm) ADDITIONAL PIEZOMETER
20
PLASTIC
40
M.C.
60 80
LIQUID
20 40 60 80
7 CLAY, and silt to silty, trace to some sand (fine to coarse
grained), trace to some gravel
(fine to coarse grained), trace cobbles, low to medium plastic,
very stiff to hard, light grey to grey, moist [TILL] (continued)
8 8
... some minor swelling of grey clay till
G06
9 9
SPT06 83 22
9.8m
End of Borehole
Completion Depth of 9.8 m.
10 Installation of a 25 mm Standpipe Piezometer to 8.8 m depth. 10
Screened between 5.8 m to 8.8 m, sandpacked from 4.9 m to
8.8 m and backfilled with bentonite chips from 0 m to 4.9 m.
No bedrock encountered.
11 11
12 12
13 13
14
CLIENT: Town of Smithers PROJECT: Rosenthal Road Geotechnical Assessment TEST PIT NO: TP17-01
CONTRACTOR: Town of Smithers Smithers, BC PROJECT NO: KS00423
EXCAVATION METHOD: Backhoe NORTHING: 6072897 EASTING: 618169 ELEVATION:
SAMPLE TYPE BULK GRAB
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL ADDITIONAL
PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID

20 40 60 80
0 TOPSOIL, sandy, silty, trace gravel, trace clay, loose, dark
brown, moist, rootlets and organics
0.3m
SILT, some sand, some clay, trace gravel, compact to
dense, poorly graded, grey to brown, damp to moist, some
clumps of clay, no discernible structure [FLUVIAL]
0.9m
SAND (fine-grained), trace to some silt, brown, damp to
1 moist, relatively clean, massive [FLUVIAL] 1
G01
1.8m
End of Test Pit
Completion Depth of 2 m.
2 No groundwater encountered upon completion. 2
Backfilled with excavated material.
TEST PIT LOG ROSENTHAL ROAD TEST PITS.GPJ AMEC-PG-MULTIWELL-DATATEMPLATE.GDT 13/10/17
3 3
4 4
5
LOGGED BY: CB COMPLETION DEPTH: 1.8 m
ENTERED BY: CB COMPLETION DATE: 29/9/17
REVIEWED BY: NP Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL ADDITIONAL
PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID

20 40 60 80
0 TOPSOIL, sandy, silty, trace gravel, trace clay, loose, dark
brown, moist, rootlets and organics
0.3m
SILT, some sand, some clay, trace gravel, compact to
dense, poorly graded, grey to brown, damp to moist, some
clumps of clay, no discernible structure [FLUVIAL]
0.8m
SAND (fine-grained), trace to some silt, brown, damp to
moist, relatively clean, massive [FLUVIAL]
1 1
G01
2 2
2.1m
End of Test Pit
No groundwater encountered upon completion.
3 3
4 4
5
SAMPLE TYPE
SOIL SYMBOL
SAMPLE NO
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
SOIL ADDITIONAL
PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID

20 40 60 80
0 TOPSOIL, fibrous, some silt, loose, black, wet, rootlets and
organics
0.5m
CLAY, silty, trace to some gravel, trace sand, medium
plastic, firm to stiff, grey with orange mottling, moist to wet,
variable composition clumps of clay [COLLUVIUM] G01
1 1
1.5m
SAND (fine-grained), trace to some silt, trace gravel (less
than 20 mm diameter), brown, damp to moist, relatively clean,
massive [FLUVIAL]
G02
2 2
2.4m
End of Test Pit
No groundwater encountered upon completion.

3 3
4 4
5
Appendix C
Laboratory Testing Results

Client: Town of Smithers
Project No.: KS00423
Project Name: Rosenthal Road
MOISTURE CONTENT WORKSHEET Tech: B. Garlick Date: Aug. 15, 2017
Hole No. 17-01 17-01 17-01 17-01 17-01 17-01

Sample No. SPT 1 SPT 2 SPT 3 SPT 4 SPT 5 SPT 6
Tare No. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Wt. of Tare 11.4 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.4
Wt. Sample Wet 190.1 131.9 188.0 253.7 215.8 209.3
Wt. Sample Dry 159.4 117.5 147.0 202.2 167.8 174.4
Wt. Water 30.7 14.4 41.0 51.5 48.0 34.9
Moisture Cont. % 21 14 30 27 31 21
Hole No. 17-01 17-01 17-01 17-01 17-01 17-02

Sample No. SPT 7 SPT 8 SPT 9 SPT 10 SPT 11 SPT 1
Tare No. 7 8 9 10 11 12
Wt. of Tare 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.5 11.4 11.4
Wt. Sample Wet 170.7 253.1 192.9 221.6 195.6 156.5
Wt. Sample Dry 133.7 207.5 169.3 191.5 169.7 131.3
Wt. Water 37.0 45.6 23.6 30.1 25.9 25.2
Moisture Cont. % 30 23 15 17 16 21
Hole No. 17-02 17-02 17-02 17-02

Sample No. SPT 2 SPT 4 SPT 5 SPT 6
Tare No. 13 14 15 16 17 18
Wt. of Tare 11.3 11.4 11.3 11.4
Wt. Sample Wet 130.8 155.2 189.4 243.9
Wt. Sample Dry 107.4 132.0 164.9 213.9
Wt. Water 23.40 23.20 24.50 30.00 0.00 0.00
Moisture Cont. % 24 19 16 15 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Hole No.
Sample No.
Tare No. 19 20 21 22 23 24
Wt. of Tare
Wt. Sample Wet
Wt. Sample Dry
Wt. Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Moisture Cont. % #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Hole No.
Sample No.
Tare No. 25 26 27 28 29 30
Wt. of Tare
Wt. Sample Wet
Wt. Sample Dry
Wt. Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Moisture Cont. % #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Rosenthal Road Final Geotechnical Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rosenthal Road Final Geotechnical Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

GEOTECHNICAL SITE ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Table of Contents

Figure 1 Site Location

Appendix A Site Photographs

Table 8-1: Recommended Gradations for Granular Fill Materials

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Table of Contents

This report was prepared exclusively for the Town of Smithers by

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.0 INITIAL SITE RECONNAISSANCE

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 1

80 m to 90 m. A maximum differential vertical displacement of 300 mm was measured between

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 2

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 3

4.2 Surface Conditions

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 4

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 5

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 6

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 7

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 8

6.0 EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION OPTIONS

7.0 SOIL BUTTRESS REMEDIATION OPTION

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 9

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 10

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 11

8.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOIL BUTTRESS

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 12

Table 8-1: Recommended Gradations for Granular Fill Materials

Percent Passing by Mass

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 13

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 14

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No.: KS00423 Page 15

Smithers Site Location

Vancouver NOTE: Image provided by Spectrum Digital Mapping 1975

Infrastructure Tel. 1-250-847-8783 Fax 1-250-847-9049

Extents of Road Failure

0m 100 200 300 400

Infrastructure Tel. 1-250-847-8783 Fax 1-250-847-9049

Environment & Infrastructure Town of Smithers

ROSENTHAL ROAD CB N/A OCT 2017

Environment & Infrastructure Town of Smithers

ROSENTHAL ROAD CB N/A OCT 2017

B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\Deliverables\Figures\Figures 5 and 6.xlsx

B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\Deliverables\Figures\Figures 5 and 6.xlsx

Photo 2 (right): Failed Road

Photo 3 (left): Steep Embankment

Photo 4 (right): Retaining

CLIENT DWN BY: PROJECT DATE:

B:\PROJECTS\KS00423_Rosenthal Road_Smithers\TechWorkFiles\WorkingDraftDocs\Appendix A - Site Photos.xlsx

Borehole and Test Pit Logs

... trace to some sand, trace to some gravel

G03 Atterberg (GRAB

... soft to firm G06

... some sand (fine to coarse grained), some clay, brown to

... trace to some clay, trace sand to sandy

G10 Atterberg (GRAB

... very stiff

... firm to stiff, brown

... very light brown to brownish grey

... some minor swelling of grey clay till

PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID

PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID

PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID