Bow Ridge - Geotechnical Investigation Final Report Dated April 6, 2010 - 201310111410396370 PDF

Geotechnical Investigation
Bow Ridge Subdivision Phase 3

Cochrane, Alberta
FINAL
Prepared for:
The Town of Cochrane
101 Ranchehouse Road
Cochrane, Alberta
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
Calgary, Alberta
PROJECT NO. 123310172

April 6, 2010
Final
Executive Summary
As requested by the Town of Cochrane, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has carried out a geotechnical
investigation in Bow Ridge Subdivision Phase 3 in Cochrane, Alberta (see Figures 1 and 2, Appendix B). The
purpose of the investigation is to determine the cause of differential movements of two (2) rows of gabion
retaining walls within Phase 3, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for remedial measures from the
geotechnical engineering perspective.
Field Work – Stantec advanced a total of twelve (12) boreholes along the retaining walls. Representative soil
samples were collected at regular intervals. Standpipe piezometers and slope inclinometers were installed in
all the boreholes to permit groundwater level and ground displacement monitoring. Groundwater level and
ground displacement monitoring were carried out on a monthly basis between July 2009 and February 2010.
In addition, a 3D laser survey was completed to measure and document the existing conditions of the
retaining walls.
Existing Design Review – The original design of the retaining walls was reviewed. It is understood that a
section of the retaining wall has been repaired with a “Retrofit Wall” design, and reconstructed with a “Rebuild
Wall” design. Both Retrofit Wall and Rebuild Wall designs were also reviewed by Stantec. Stability analyses
against both overturning and sliding of the retaining walls in all three (3) designs were completed. Based on
the parameters provided in the designs, the Factor of Safety against both overturning and sliding appeared to
be adequate. The Factor of Safety was recalculated based on recommendations provided in the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual. The results indicated that all three (3) existing wall designs have inadequate
Factors of Safety against sliding. In addition, Stantec is of the opinion that frost action of the clay fill material
contributed to the differential movements of the retaining walls. Other factors such as poor quality of the base
drainage gravel, undermining of the base of the retaining walls during construction, and migration of the
subgrade soil into the gabion baskets may also have contributed to the differential movements.
Based on the results of the inclinometer monitoring, the maximum accumulated lateral displacements of the
retaining walls during the measurement period were in the order of 8 mm. The measured displacements
represent movements that occurred within the monitoring period only and do not represent total
displacements experienced by the wall since construction. Based on the inclinometer results, we are of the
opinion that failure planes do not exist within the measurement depths at the borehole locations, with the
exception of borehole BH8. At borehole BH8, the inclinometer results indicate an impending bearing
capacity failure in the soil below the retaining wall.
Conclusion – Based on the information provided and our observations during the field investigation, no signs
of global instability were observed or reported within the subdivision outside of the immediate areas of the
retaining walls. However continued localized movements or failure of the retaining walls should be expected.
Recommendation – Stantec is of the opinion that remediation of the existing retaining walls using the
existing design will not be effective. It is recommended that the retaining walls be removed entirely and
reconstructed using other alternate wall systems.
• The wall at and near borehole BH8 should be repaired or reconstructed as soon as possible.
• Continued monitoring at all borehole locations on a monthly basis should be carried out prior to repair or
reconstruction to provide warning of potentially dangerous situations. The monitoring program should be
reviewed annually.
• Homeowners need to be advised that downspouts should not discharge directly on to the gabion retaining
walls.
• Construction of other retaining walls within backyards without proper geotechnical design is not
recommended.
E.1
Final
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site and Geology .......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background .................................................................................................. 1
2 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 5
2.1 Field Investigation........................................................................................ 5

2.2 Laboratory Testing....................................................................................... 5
2.3 Laser Survey Scan of Walls ........................................................................ 6
2.4 Slope Inclinometer Installation ................................................................... 7
3 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 7
3.1 General .......................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Surficial Materials ........................................................................................ 7
3.3 Fill Materials ................................................................................................. 7
3.3.1 Clay ................................................................................................... 7
3.3.2 Gravel................................................................................................ 8
3.4 Clay (CL-CH) ................................................................................................. 8
3.5 Sandy Silt (ML) and Silty Sand (SM) .......................................................... 8
3.6 Low Plastic Clay (CL)................................................................................... 9
3.7 Groundwater ................................................................................................. 9
4 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 11
4.1 Original Wall ............................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Design Data .................................................................................... 11
4.1.2 Stability Analyses ............................................................................ 12
4.1.3 Wall Construction ............................................................................ 13
4.2 Retrofit Wall ................................................................................................ 14
4.3 Rebuilt Wall................................................................................................. 18
4.4 Slope Inclinometer Results ....................................................................... 20
4.5 Global Stability of the Subdivision and Local Stability of the Walls .... 21
5 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................. 24
6 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 25
i
Final
APPENDIX A STATMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS
APPENDIX B FIGURES
APPENDIX C BOREHOLE RECORDS
APPENDIX D LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX E SLOPE INCLINOMETER READINGS
APPENDIX F UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
APPENDIX G EXAMPLES OF MSE WALLS FROM SIERRA
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Groundwater Levels July 2009 to September 2009 ................................ 10
Table 3-2 Groundwater Levels November 2009 to February 2010 ......................... 10
Table 4-1 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Original Wall

Analyses ..................................................................................................... 12
Table 4-2 Calculated Factor of Safety (Original Wall) ............................................. 13
Table 4-3 Calculated Factor of Safety (Original Wall using ka = 1.0) ..................... 13
Table 4-4 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Retrofit Wall

Analyses ..................................................................................................... 15
Table 4-5 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Rebuilt Wall

Analyses ..................................................................................................... 18
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location Plan ....................................................................APPENDIX B
Figure 2 Site Plan ....................................................................................APPENDIX B
Figure 4-1 Original Wall Design Cross Sections ....................................................... 12
Figure 4-2 Retrofit Wall Design ................................................................................... 16
Figure 4-3 Cross Section at Borehole BH7 ................................................................ 17
ii
Final
Figure 4-4 Rebuilt Wall Design.................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-5 Cross Sections through Rebuilt Wall....................................................... 20
List of Photos
Photo 1-1 Failure of stairway connecting Bow Ridge Link and Bow Ridge Close . 3
Photo 1-2 Support Column of Stairway....................................................................... 3
Photo 1-3 Evidence of settlement at 10 Bow Ridge Close ........................................ 4
Photo 2-1 Typical laser scanned image ...................................................................... 6
Photo 4-1 Progressive Buckling of Fence ................................................................ 22
iii
Final
1 INTRODUCTION
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec), acting in accordance with the terms of reference provided by our proposal
number 116599000.100.200, has carried out a geotechnical investigation in Bow Ridge Subdivision Phase 3
in Cochrane, Alberta. Specifically, Stantec was requested to investigate the stability of the two (2) rows of
gabion retaining walls within Phase 3, and if necessary, to provide conceptual remedial recommendations to
stabilize the walls. Authorization to proceed with the work was received from Mr. Mike Saley, P.Eng., Director
of Planning and Engineering, from the Town of Cochrane on May 19, 2009.
The scope of the geotechnical investigation was carried out as indicated in the above mentioned proposal and
as discussed within the text of this report. The scope of work for this investigation included the following:
• Coordinate and supervise underground utility locates
• Conduct site visits to observe differential movements of the gabion retaining walls
• Conduct a field drilling program to characterize the soil and groundwater conditions and assess their
possible contribution to observed deformations and measured displacements of the gabion retaining walls
• Preparation of a report presenting the factual information obtained during this investigation and provide
geotechnical recommendations for remedial measures from the geotechnical engineering perspective
1.1 Site and Geology
Bow Ridge Subdivision Phase 3 is located in SW¼ of Section 4, Township 26, Range 4, West of 5 Meridian in
Cochrane, Alberta (Figure 1, Appendix B); herein referred to as the Site. The two subject gabion retaining
walls are located on the back of the lots along Bow Ridge Link and Bow Ridge Drive (see Figure 2, Appendix
B). For the purpose of this report, the walls located on the south and north are labeled as Retaining Wall A
and B, respectively.
Based on published geological information 1 and our experience in the area, it was expected that the Site
would be located within a lacustrine deposit of silt and clay.
1.2 Background
The following documents were reviewed prior to completion of this report:

• Almor Engineering Associates Ltd. (Almor) report Retaining Wall Evaluation – Bow Ridge Phase 3
Subdivision, Cochrane, dated October 17, 2003
• McIntosh-Lalani Engineering Ltd. report Bow Ridge Gabion Basket Retaining Wall, dated September 12,
2003
• Almor report Foundation Considerations – Bow Ridge Phase 2 and 3, dated July 27, 2000
• Almor report Retaining Wall Recommendations – Bow Ridge Phase 3 Subdivision, dated March 15, 1999
1
Shetsen, I., 1987. Quaternary Geology, Southern Alberta, Alberta Research Council
1
Final
• Almor report Subsoil Investigation – Bow Ridge Subdivision, dated October, 1996
• Geo-Engineering (M.S.T.) Ltd. report Bow Ridge Developments – Report on Preliminary Slope Stability
Assessment, dated June, 1994
Based on the information from the above listed documents, communication with the Town of Cochrane, and
our observations, it is understood that the subject gabion retaining walls have undergone differential
movements. We also understand that the east portion of Retaining Wall B has been repaired. Two (2)
methods (referred to in this report as Retrofit Wall and Rebuilt Wall) were used to repair this section of the
retaining wall.
Based on the results of our site visits, the observed distresses and conditions of the retaining walls and the
surrounding structures are as follows:
• Gabion baskets were pushed out in various locations along the retaining wall.
• Ground subsidence was noted behind the retaining wall at several locations.
• Adjacent fences of the walkway connecting Bow Ridge Link and Bow Ridge Drive, at the toe of Retaining
Wall B, showed progressively more buckling of the panels towards the toe of the wall.
• Fences at both the top and toe of the walls at several locations were observed to be leaning.
• Two (2) wood-framed stairways, located between Bow Ridge Close and Bow Ridge Link, and between
Bow Ridge Link and Bow Ridge Drive, were damaged and the wood components were separated at
various locations (see Photo 1-1).
• Water discharge from roof downspouts towards the back of the retaining walls were observed at some
locations.
• Private retaining walls built in some backyards (behind the gabion walls) were observed.
• The support columns of the stairways were supposed to be founded on concrete piers. However, due to
differential movements, the support columns were pushed away from the piers and were no longer
bearing on the concrete piers (see Photo 1-2).
• Evidence of backyard subsidence was observed at 10 Bow Ridge Close behind the retaining wall
adjacent to the stairways connecting Bow Ridge Link and Bow Ridge Close (see Photo 1-3, note the
elevation difference on both sides of the red line).
2
Final
Photo 1-1 Failure of stairway connecting Bow Ridge Link and Bow Ridge Close
Photo 1-2 Support Column of Stairway
3
Final
Photo 1-3 Evidence of settlement at 10 Bow Ridge Close
4
Final
2 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
2.1 Field Investigation
Prior to the start of the investigation, Stantec personnel made arrangements to verify the locations of
underground utilities at and near the proposed borehole locations. The fieldwork for the investigation was
carried out from June 4 to 18, 2009. Twelve (12) boreholes (numbered BH1 to BH12) were advanced using a
track-mounted solid stem auger drill rig operated by Mobile Augers and Research Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta.
The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 6.9 m to 9.9 m below existing grade. Borehole locations
are shown on Figure 2, Appendix B.
The subsurface stratigraphy encountered in the boreholes was recorded by Stantec personnel as the
boreholes were advanced. Representative samples of each stratum encountered were collected at close
intervals during the performance of Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) and from the auger flights. Pocket
penetrometer tests were carried out on samples of cohesive soils to assist with the assessment of the shear
strengths of the soils.
Standpipe piezometers were installed in all boreholes to permit groundwater level monitoring. The standpipe
piezometers were monitored between July 2, 2009 and February 9, 2010. The groundwater levels are shown
in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 (see Section 3.7) and on the Borehole Records in Appendix C.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
All samples recovered were stored in moisture tight containers and were returned to our Calgary laboratory
for detailed classification and testing. Laboratory testing was performed on selected samples. The results of
the laboratory testing are provided on the Borehole Records in Appendix C, presented in Appendix D, or are
discussed in Section 3 of this report. Symbols and terms used in the borehole records are included in
Appendix C.
Laboratory testing was carried for the purposes of determining the classifications and strengths of the site
soils accurately, in order to understand past behaviour and predict future behaviour of the soils. The tests
carried out and the corresponding information of the tests are outlined below.
• Moisture Content – determination of the percentage of water to soil solids by weight
• Atterberg Limits – determination of the degree of plasticity of a soil through the determination of
moisture contents at which the soil exhibits solid, plastic and liquid states
• Grain Size Analysis – determination of the percentages by weight of gravel, sand, silt/clay sized
particles in a soil using sieves
Samples remaining after testing will be stored for a period of three (3) months after issuance of this report.
Samples will be discarded after this period unless we are otherwise directed.
5
Final
2.3 Laser Survey Scan of Walls
To accurately measure and document the existing conditions of the retaining walls, state-of-the-art 3D laser
scanning techniques were employed to produce 3D topographic visuals of the wall surface. 3D laser scanners
collect approximately 50,000 points per second, gathering more data in less time than traditional surveying
techniques, with higher accuracy and less inconvenience to the homeowners. Whereas conventional survey
techniques allow for the walls to be documented and analyzed only at pre-defined locations, the volume of
data using the laser scanner allows the entire walls to be analyzed. If deemed required, laser scanning also
allows for ongoing monitoring of wall deformation by providing a fast, convenient way of comparing the
current wall locations to measurements made previously. A typical laser scanned image is shown in Photo
2-1.
Photo 2-1 Typical laser scanned image
6
Final
2.4 Slope Inclinometer Installation
Slope inclinometers were installed in all the boreholes for ground displacement monitoring. Inclinometer
casings are heavy-walled PVC pipes with 2 sets of grooves at 90 degrees to each other (typically installed
perpendicular and parallel to the face of the wall). These grooves allow the instrument to provide a three
dimensional (x-y-z directions, i.e. parallel-perpendicular-depth) model of soil movements. The inclinometers
were protected with flush-mounted road boxes. The slope inclinometers were monitored between July 2, 2009
and February 9, 2010. The results of the monitoring are presented in Appendix E and are discussed in the
text of this report (see Section 4.4).
3 RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
3.1 General
The subsurface conditions encountered in the boreholes are described in detail on the Borehole Records,
with additional and supplementary information provided in this section. All soil descriptions and identifications
during drilling were made in accordance with ASTM Standard D2488 (Visual Manual Procedure). The
Borehole Records, along with an explanation of the symbols and terms used in their description, are provided
in Appendix C.
In general, the observed stratigraphy consisted of topsoil or fill overlying clay, which extended to silt and sand
deposits.
3.2 Surficial Materials
Topsoil was present at the surface in eight (8) of the twelve (12) boreholes (BH1, BH2, BH4, BH5, BH6, BH9,
BH11, and BH12) and ranged in thickness from 200 mm to 300 mm. It should be noted that borehole BH3
was drilled through existing pavement; a 150 mm thick layer of asphalt and 350 mm thick layer of base gravel
were encountered at the surface. Gravel surfacing (approximately 100 mm to 200 mm thick) was noted in
boreholes BH7, BH8 and BH10.
3.3 Fill Materials
3.3.1 Clay
Clay fill was encountered beneath the asphalt pavement structure in borehole BH3, beneath the topsoil in
boreholes BH4 and BH12, and beneath the gravel surfacing in boreholes BH7 and BH10. The clay fill
extended to depths ranging from 1.4 m to 4.3 m below existing grade. It contained trace silt, sand, gravel,
organics and rootlets. It should be noted that the fill was gravelly in boreholes BH7 and BH10. The fill was
generally brown in color and damp to moist.
Results of the Atterberg Limits testing on a representative sample of the fill indicated a Liquid Limit of 49 and
a Plasticity Index of 32. Based on the laboratory testing and following the Unified Soils Classification (USC)
System 2 as set forth in ASTM D2487, this material is classified as low to medium plastic clay (CL-CH).
Moisture content of the fill ranged from 15% to 30%, with an average moisture content of 22%.
2
For reference purposes, detail of the USC System is included in Appendix F.
7
Final
Results of SPTs conducted in the clay fill indicated N-values 3 between 3 and 10, with an average N-value of
6. Pocket penetrometer test within this stratum indicated an undrained shear strength of 144 kPa. In terms of
relative consistency, based on Standard Penetration Test N-values and pocket penetrometer result, the fill
may be described as firm to stiff.
3.3.2 Gravel
Gravel fill was encountered beneath surface gravel in borehole BH8 and beneath the clay fill in boreholes
BH7 and BH10. The gravel fill extended to a depth of 3.8 m below existing grade in all three boreholes. It was
clayey, contained trace silt and sand, and was generally brown in color and damp to moist.
A grain size analysis completed on a representative sample of this material indicated the following group
percentages: 69% gravel; 4% sand; and 27% silt and clay size particles. Based on the laboratory testing and
following the USC system, this material may be classified as clayey gravel (GC). Moisture content of the
gravel fill ranged from 8% to 25%, with an average moisture content of 17%.
Results of SPTs indicated N-values of 4 and 5. In terms of relative density, based on Standard Penetration
Test N-values, the gravel fill may be described as loose.
3.4 Clay (CL-CH)
Clay was encountered under the topsoil and fill in boreholes BH1 to BH6 and BH12. It extended to beyond the
termination depths (6.9 m to 9.9 m below existing grade) in boreholes BH1 to BH4, and to depths ranging
from 3.5 m to 7.3 m below existing grade in the remaining boreholes. The clay contained trace silt and gravel,
was generally brown with grey mottling in color and damp to moist.
Results of the Atterberg Limits testing on four (4) representative samples of the clay indicated Liquid Limits
ranging from 43 to 50 and Plasticity Indices ranging from 27 to 31. Based on the laboratory testing and
following the USC system, this material is classified as medium to high plastic clay (CL-CH). Moisture
contents of the clay samples were between 20% and 35%, with an average moisture content of 23%.
Results of SPTs conducted on the clay indicated N-values between 6 and 39, with an average N-value of 19.
Pocket penetrometer tests within this stratum indicated undrained shear strength ranging from approximately
84 kPa to 120 kPa, with an average value of 106 kPa. In terms of relative consistency, based on Standard
Penetration Test N-values and pocket penetrometer results, the clay may be described as firm to very stiff.
3.5 Sandy Silt (ML) and Silty Sand (SM)
Interbedded sandy silt and silty sand were logged beneath the clay and fill in boreholes BH5 to BH12. The silt
and sand extended to a depth of 8.4 m below existing grade in boreholes BH8 and BH10, and beyond the
termination depths in the remaining boreholes (6.9 m to 9.9 m below existing grade). The silt and sand was
generally brown in color, interbedded with clay layers and dry to wet.
Grain size analyses were completed on two (2) representative samples of these materials. The results
indicated that one sample had 33% sand and 67% fines (silt and clay size particles) and the second sample
had 58% sand and 42% fines. Based on the laboratory testing and following the USC system, this material
may be classified as sandy silt (ML) and silty sand (SM). Moisture contents ranged from 1% to 25%, with an
average moisture content of 12%.
3
For reference purposes, determination of relative density and consistency based on N-values and undrained shear
strengths are outlined in the Symbols and Terms Used on Borehole and Test Pit Records provided in Appendix C.
8
Final
Results of SPTs conducted on the silt and sand indicated N-values between 8 and 45, with an average N-
value of 26. In terms of relative density, based on Standard Penetration Test N-values, the silt and sand may
be described as loose to dense.
3.6 Low Plastic Clay (CL)
A low plastic clay layer was noted beneath the topsoil and medium to high plastic clay in boreholes BH5 and
BH11, and beneath the silt and sand in boreholes BH8 and BH10. The low plastic clay extended to depths
ranging from 2.1 m to 4.6 m below existing grade in boreholes BH5 and BH11, and beyond the termination
depths ranging from 9.0 m to 9.1 m below existing grade in the remaining boreholes. The clay had trace silt,
sand and gravel. It was generally brown in color and damp to moist.
Results of the Atterberg Limits testing on a representative sample of the clay indicated a Liquid Limit of 36
and a Plasticity Index of 20. Based on the laboratory testing and following the USC system, this material is
classified as low plastic clay (CL). Moisture content of the clay ranged from 13% to 26%, with an average
moisture content of 19%.
Results of SPTs conducted on the clay indicated N-values between 12 and 30, with an average N-value of 22.
Pocket penetrometer test within this stratum indicated an undrained shear strength of 108 kPa. In terms of
relative consistency, based on Standard Penetration Test N-values and pocket penetrometer result, the clay
may be described as stiff to very stiff.
3.7 Groundwater
Groundwater levels within the standpipe piezometers were monitored from July 2, 2009 to February 9, 2010.
The measured groundwater levels are presented in Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and on the Borehole Records in
Appendix C. Groundwater levels vary from year to year and from season to season, and depend on many
factors including surface and subsurface drainage, precipitation, and the hydrogeology of the area.
Fluctuations in the groundwater levels should be anticipated. Additional groundwater monitoring may be
conducted to confirm the measured groundwater levels. Groundwater levels in Alberta can typically
experience fluctuation of up to 1 m with the peak groundwater levels generally occurring in June or July.
9
Final
Table 3-1 Groundwater Levels July 2009 to September 2009
Borehole July 2, 2009 July 16, 2009 August 7, 2009 September 10, 2009
Number (m) (m) (m) (m)
BH1 2.2 0.8 0.4 1.3
BH2 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH3 6.1 3.6 2.9 3.8
BH4 6.1 4.9 4.4 4.3
BH5 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH6 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.3
BH7 Dry 6.1 6.3 6.6
BH8 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH9 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH10 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH12 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.7
Table 3-2 Groundwater Levels November 2009 to February 2010
Borehole November 4, 2009 December 3, 2009 January 12, 2010 February 9, 2010
Number (m) (m) (m) (m)
BH1 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8
BH2 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH3 3.4 4.1 4.9 4.8
BH4 5.4 4.3 4.6 4.4
BH5 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH6 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7
BH7 6.6 6.9 Dry Dry
BH8 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH9 Dry Dry Dry Dry
BH12 5.6 --- 6.0 5.7
10
Final
4 DISCUSSION
Based on review of the information available and the results of our investigation, Stantec is of the opinion that
the observed differential movements of the gabion retaining walls may be due to a combination of the
following possible factors:
• Low factor of safety against sliding
• Poor construction method
• Post construction factors, such as excess water discharge towards the back of the walls, surcharge of the
walls due to other retaining structures apparently constructed after the gabion walls were installed
Based on the available information, there are three (3) different types of gabion retaining walls: the original
wall, the retrofit wall and the rebuilt wall. Each wall design is discussed in detail in the following sections.
4.1 Original Wall
4.1.1 Design Data
The original retaining walls included locations near boreholes BH1 to BH6 and BH12. Details of the original
design were provided in the March 1999 Almor report. It should be noted that the design provided in the
report was completed by G. Douglas Dey Engineering. A copy of the design cross section drawing is
presented in Figure 4-1. The key geotechnical features of the design are summarized below:
• The offset of the gabion baskets was to range from 0.15 m to 0.30 m.
• A layer of drainage gravel was to be placed behind and beneath the retaining wall.
• Filter fabric was to be placed between the drainage gravel and gabion baskets.
• Clay material was identified as the backfill behind the retaining wall.
• The report stated “a wet unit wight (sic) of the soils of 2100 kg/m³ and a co-efficient of passive earth
pressure (k) of 0.5” were used in the design. Although the report used the term passive earth pressure, it
is assumed that the author was referring rather to the active earth pressure coefficient.
11
Final
Figure 4-1 Original Wall Design Cross Sections
4.1.2 Stability Analyses
Using the above design and soil parameters derived from the soils encountered during drilling (see Table 4-1)
the factor of safety (FOS) against sliding and overturning of the retaining wall were analyzed at each borehole
location. Active earth pressure coefficients (ka) ranging from 0.33 to 0.43 were used for the above analyses. A
FOS of 1.5 against sliding is typically accepted as industry standard in retaining wall design. The results are
presented in Table 4-2.
Table 4-1 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Original Wall Analyses
Parameter Value
Clay Fill Unit Weight (kN/m³) 18
Clay Fill Friction Angle, φ (°) 25°
Gabion Basket Unit Weight (kN/m³) 20.5
Friction Angle between Gabions and Clay Fill, δ (°) 17°
Friction Angle between Gabions and Base Drainage Gravel, δ (°) 25°
Back Slope, β (°) 6° to 10°
12
Final
Table 4-2 Calculated Factor of Safety (Original Wall)
Borehole Number Calculated Factor of Safety

Against Overturning Against Sliding
BH1 3.4 1.3
BH3 3.7 1.4
BH4 8.9 3.3
BH6 4.6 1.4
BH12 5.6 1.5
It should be noted that the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM), 4th Edition, Section 12.12.3.3
states that “Soils classified as CH, CL, MH, ML or OL, according to the USCS, are often subject to excessive
frost action and swelling when used as wall backfill. Wall movement is likely to be excessive; the use of these
materials should be avoided. Where they must be used, frost protection should be provided and an earth-
pressure coefficient of 1.0 used in design.”
Since clay was used as the backfill material behind the retaining walls and excessive wall movements were
observed, the comments from CFEM are considered to be applicable. As such, the FOS was recalculated
using a ka of 1.0 as recommended in CFEM. The calculated FOS values are presented in Table 4-3. The
calculations indicate that if the recommendations in CFEM are followed the original design has an inadequate
FOS at most wall locations. It should be noted that an FOS less than 1.0 indicates a failure condition.
Table 4-3 Calculated Factor of Safety (Original Wall using ka = 1.0)
Borehole Number Calculated Factor of Safety

Against Overturning Against Sliding
BH1 1.9 0.7
BH3 1.5 0.5
BH4 4.5 1.6
BH6 2.0 0.6
BH12 2.1 0.6
4.1.3 Wall Construction
Based on our review of the design drawing and the results of our investigation, it appears that frost protection
was not provided. Since gabion retaining walls contain numerous large void spaces between the rock fill in
the baskets, frost penetration into the clay backfill is expected both vertically and horizontally. The results of
the laboratory testing indicated that the average moisture content of the clay fill was 22%. As moisture content
is defined by weight and that the weight of water is about half the weight of soil solids, approximately 44% of
the clay mass by volume is water. Since water expands by 9% when it changes from water to ice, and
assuming frost penetration depth of 1.5 m horizontally, lateral movements of the walls based on water
freezing expansion alone could be in the order of 60 mm throughout each winter. The observed lateral
movements of sections of the retaining walls appear to confirm this calculated magnitude of movements. If the
walls do not move back entirely upon thawing, the lateral movements can be cumulative over several years.
13
Final
If the construction was not adequately supervised, it may have also contributed to the movement of the
retaining wall. The Factor of Safety against sliding of the retaining wall is based on the friction between the
gabion rocks and the drainage gravel layer beneath the base of the retaining walls. Poor quality or
preparation of the base drainage gravel can reduce the FOS of the retaining walls. Poor preparation of the
subgrade materials can cause longitudinal differential settlements of the retaining wall as observed.
The differential movements of the retaining walls and the surrounding structures listed in Section 1.2 are most
likely due to the lateral movement (sliding) of the retaining wall. As the retaining walls move laterally outward,
the backfill behind the retaining walls settles to “fill up” the extra space created by the walls moving outward.
Since the wood framed stairways were constructed adjacent to the retaining walls, the walls pushed the
columns of the stairways outward, causing the columns off the support piers, and causing the damage
observed. It should be noted that although the lower stairway structure connecting Bow Ridge Link and Bow
Ridge Drive has not failed at this time, the same lateral movement of the retaining walls is observed and
similar failure is considered likely. The timing of such failure is unknown but is inevitable.
Water discharge towards the back of the retaining walls either through natural runoff or excessive discharge
from roof downspouts are expected to reduce the Factor of Safety of the retaining walls since water
contributes to the swelling of the clay backfill and increased moisture content leading to larger lateral
movements due to freezing.
Retaining walls built in the backyards may also surcharge the gabion retaining walls which, in turn, would also
reduce the Factor of Safety against both sliding and overturning.
The slope inclinometer installed in borehole BH1 measured a maximum movement of 7 mm during the
monitoring period. Groundwater depths at BH1 were measured at less than 1.0 m from the ground surface
during the summer and at about 1.8 m from the ground surface over the winter months. These groundwater
levels are significantly higher than those measured at other borehole locations. We are of the opinion that the
shallow groundwater levels play a significant part in contributing to the outward movements of the wall at this
location, as observed prior to and during the inclinometer monitoring period. Slope inclinometer results are
further discussed in Section 4.4.
4.2 Retrofit Wall
It is understood that a section of Retaining Wall B was repaired previously using the Retrofit design provided
in Almor’s October 17, 2003 report. The Retrofit Wall is located near BH7. According to the drawing, it
appears that the Retrofit Wall design was intended to provide reinforcement to the original retaining wall
without complete reconstruction. The key geotechnical features of the Retrofit Wall design as shown in Figure
4-2 are summarized below.
• Three (3) gabion baskets were installed at the back of the retaining wall, starting from the base and
extended to 1.5 m below existing grade, with the width of the base increased from 1.5 m to 2.5 m.
• Two (2) concrete blocks were placed on the base gabion baskets.
• Clay material was used as backfill for the top 1.0 m behind the retaining wall.
• Gravel material was used as backfill beneath the clay backfill.
• Filter fabrics were placed between the gravel fill, clay fill and gabion baskets.
14
Final
The analysis of the design of the Retrofit Wall was done using the parameters provided in Table 4-4. The
analyzed FOS against sliding and overturning of the Retrofit Wall design were 10.0 and 2.7, respectively,
when a ka of 0.34 was used in the analysis. As stated in the previous section, CFEM recommends against
using clay materials as backfill, and a ka of 1.0 be used for the analysis should clay be used as backfill.
Should ka of 1.0 be used for the analysis, the FOS against sliding would be reduced significantly to 1.1. It
should also be noted that frost protection was not included in the design; hence frost action of the clay backfill
as discussed above is expected to have contributed to the lateral movement of the retaining wall at this
location.
Table 4-4 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Retrofit Wall Analyses
Parameter Value
³
Gravel Fill Unit Weight (kN/m ) 20
Gravel Fill Friction Angle, φ (°) 35°
New Gabion Basket Unit Weight (kN/m³) 19.5
Friction Angle between Gabions and Gravel Fill, δ (°) 25°
Back Slope, β (°) 22°
15
Final
Figure 4-2 Retrofit Wall Design
Stantec conducted a survey of the retaining wall at borehole BH7. The cross-section showed evidence of the
influence of the frost action within the clay fill. According to the cross-section, the offset between the top and
the middle gabion baskets was larger than the offset between the middle and the base gabion baskets. Our
investigation identified that clay fill was used as the top part of the backfill and gravel backfill was used as the
bottom part. The clay backfill in borehole BH7 extended to 1.4 m below existing grade, which is near the top
of the base gabion basket. It is expected that expansion from the clay backfill due to frost action pushed the
top and middle gabion baskets outward, while the gravel backfill did not. Hence, the observed offsets between
the gabions are different.
16
Final
Figure 4-3 Cross Section at Borehole BH7
In order to place the new gabion baskets behind the retaining wall, a vertical excavation into the subgrade soil
would have been required. The field investigation indicated that the subgrade soil at this location consisted of
silt and sand material. It is anticipated that sloughing of side walls of these materials would have occurred
during excavation. Hence, it is likely that the original base gabion was undermined during construction. In
addition, from a constructability perspective, it would have been difficult to backfill and compact the sloughed
area while installing the gabion baskets. Therefore, it is possible that a gap would have existed between the
gabion baskets and the subgrade soil.
According to the design drawing, there was no filter fabric between the gabion baskets and the subgrade soil.
Since the subgrade soil was silt and sand materials, migration of the subgrade silt and sand into the gabion
baskets is likely. Migration of the subgrade soil would cause the front portion of the retaining wall (the gabion
baskets of the original design) to settle. Combined with the lateral movement due to frost expansion of the
clay fill materials, the retaining wall would have a tendency to tilt forward, which is what was observed at this
location.
In addition to visual observations, the slope inclinometer installed in borehole BH7 measured a maximum
movement of 7 mm during the monitoring period. The result of the slope inclinometer matched closely with the
hypothesized failure mechanism discussed above. Slope inclinometer results are further discussed in
Section 4.4.
It is expected that the effects of water discharge behind the gabion walls and homeowner constructed walls
would have the same negative effects to the FOS of the Retrofit Wall as discussed in Section 4.1.
17
Final
4.3 Rebuilt Wall
It is understood that the original wall was completely removed and reconstructed near boreholes BH8 and
BH10. Details of the Rebuilt Wall were also provided in the October 17, 2003 Almor report (see Figure 4-4).
The key geotechnical features of the Rebuilt Wall design are summarized below.
• The configuration of the top three (3) gabion baskets was unchanged from the Original Wall design.
• A 2.5 m wide and 1.5 m high base gabion basket was added below the original wall and buried into the
subgrade soil.
• Clay material was used as backfill for the top 1.0 m behind the retaining wall.
• Gravel material was used as backfill beneath the clay backfill.
• Filter fabric was placed between the gravel fill, clay fill and gabion baskets.
The analysis of the design of the Rebuilt Wall was carried out using the parameters provided in Table 4-5.
The analyzed FOS against sliding and overturning of the Rebuilt Wall design were 2.7 and 1.2, respectively, if
a ka of 0.57 was used in the analysis. As stated in the previous section, CFEM recommends against using
clay materials as backfill and a ka of 1.0 be used for the analysis should clay be used. Should a ka of 1.0 be
used for the analysis, the FOS against sliding would be reduced significantly to a value of 0.8, suggesting
failure of the wall. It should also be noted that frost protection was not included in the design; hence frost
action of the clay backfill as discussed above is expected to have contributed to the lateral movement of the
retaining wall at this location.
Table 4-5 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Rebuilt Wall Analyses
Parameter Value
Gravel Fill Unit Weight (kN/m³) 20
Gravel Fill Friction Angle, φ (°) 35°
New Gabion Basket Unit Weight (kN/m³) 19.5
Friction Angle between Gabions and Gravel Fill, δ (°) 25°
Back Slope, β (°) 18°
18
Final
Figure 4-4 Rebuilt Wall Design
Results of the survey at the Rebuilt Wall section (from boreholes BH8 to BH10) as shown in Figure 4-5
indicated similar offset conditions between the gabion baskets as evidenced in the Retrofit Design. The offset
between the top and the middle gabion baskets was larger than the offset between the middle and the base
gabion baskets, which is most likely due to the frost action within the clay backfill as discussed in the previous
section.
It is expected that the effects of water discharge behind the gabion walls and homeowner constructed walls
would have the same negative effects to the FOS of the Retrofit Wall as discussed in Section 4.2.
19
Final
Figure 4-5 Cross Sections through Rebuilt Wall
4.4 Slope Inclinometer Results
The slope inclinometers installed in the boreholes were monitored between July 2, 2009 and
February 9, 2010. Displacements along both perpendicular and parallel to the retaining wall directions were
measured. The results of the monitoring are presented in graphical format, plotted as borehole depth versus
accumulated displacement, in Appendix E. It should be noted that due to ice blockage in the road boxes,
inclinometers measurements in boreholes BH1 and BH4 were not possible between December 2009 and
February 2010. Some inclinometer measurements have been removed from the graphs due to measurement
errors.
20
Final
The inclinometer measurements indicated that the maximum accumulated lateral displacements of the
retaining walls during the measurement period were in the order of 7 mm at borehole BH1 and 8 mm at
borehole BH8. Measured displacements at the other borehole locations ranged from negligible to less than
8 mm. It should be pointed out that the measured displacements represent the movements that occurred
within the monitoring period only. The measured displacements do not represent total displacements
experienced by the wall since construction, as significant displacements were observed prior to
commencement of monitoring. It is also difficult to predict the rates of future displacements at a particular
location, as future displacement rates depend on many factors such as backfill materials, moisture content,
frost penetration, and seepage conditions. As such factors are highly variable along the walls, displacements
rates can be expected to be highly variable as well.
At borehole BH1, the inclinometer monitoring results indicated that the retaining wall is leaning forward at a
gradual rate. It does not appear that a shear plane (failure plane) exists at this location. Based on the
inclinometer results, we are of the opinion that failure planes do not exist within the measurement depths at
the other borehole locations, with the exception of borehole BH8.
At borehole BH8, the inclinometer results indicated that the gabion blocks are moving independently of each
other, but generally tilting backwards. The results further show that there are movements indicative of
impending bearing capacity failure in the soil below the retaining wall. From January 12, 2010 to
February 9, 2010, the incremental movement was measured to be about 2 mm. It is expected that this
movement will continue until bearing capacity failure of the underlying soil.
4.5 Global Stability of the Subdivision and Local Stability of the Walls
Based on conversations with representatives of the Town of Cochrane, it is understood that there are
concerns regarding the global stability of the entire Bow Ridge Subdivision. A study of the stability of the
subdivision was not within Stantec’s scope of work and therefore the opinion offered below is a conditional
one. The only definitive method of determining the potential for global instability would be to extend the
geotechnical study to cover the subdivision as a whole. In this way, relevant geotechnical data could be
gathered and a technical recommendation could be prepared. Stantec has only studied the stability conditions
of the retaining walls and has not studied the global stability of the subdivision. However, we are of the
opinion that there are no immediate signs of global instability observed or reported within the subdivision
outside of the immediate areas of the retaining walls. Should there be global stability issues affecting the
subdivision outside of the immediate areas of the retaining walls, we are of the opinion that some or all of the
following distresses would be evident:
• Cracking or differential movements of asphalt pavements, concrete sidewalks, and other surface
structures
• Damages to underground utilities
• Cracking and other distresses of houses
• Tension cracks within the subdivision outside of the areas immediately adjacent to the retaining walls
Should the above noted distresses be observed, Stantec should be contacted immediately to determine if a
study of global instability of the subdivision is required.
21
Final
The wooden fences adjacent to the walkway connecting Bow Ridge Link and Bow Ridge Drive have observed
to have buckled (see Photo 4-1). The severity of buckling of the fence panels appears to be progressive
(i.e. the panels buckle more near the slope and progressively less away from the slope). Stantec is of the
opinion that the buckling is the result of the retaining wall moving laterally (forward) pushing on the soil
underneath the walkway and the asphalt pavement. Typically the effect of the pushing would be expected to
be quite localized and immediately in front of the wall. We are of the opinion that the reason why the effect of
the pushing is observed a long distance from the wall at this location is due to the asphalt pavement. Since
asphalt is a stiff material, it moves as a rigid unit thus essentially “transmits” the lateral movement of the wall a
long distance from the wall, dissipating the total displacement gradually, thus causing progressively less
buckling of the fence panels with increased distance from the wall. We are of the opinion that this progressive
buckling observed is not a sign of global instability of the subdivision.
Photo 4-1 Progressive Buckling of Fence
22
Final
As indicated in Section 4.4, we are of the opinion that shear planes do not exist behind the retaining wall with
the exception of borehole BH8. Therefore, sudden shear type failure of the walls is not expected. As such,
residential structures adjacent to the walls are considered to be safe. However, it should be expected that
lateral displacements of the walls will continue. In time, localized failures of the walls can be expected. Such
failures may include the collapse of localized gabion baskets, which may pose dangerous conditions to
people and properties located immediately adjacent to the wall when the event occurs.
At borehole BH8 location, there are signs indicative of an impending bearing capacity failure. At the time of
failure, it is expected that the wall will undergo excessive settlement and tilting, leading to rapid collapse of the
wall. However, it is difficult to predict when the bearing capacity failure will occur.
23
Final
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our observations, investigation, and analysis, it is anticipated that observed distresses will continue
to worsen, including the following conditions:
• The retaining walls will continue to move laterally (outward), pushing onto stairways, fences, decks, etc.
where such structures are close by.
• As the retaining walls continue to move outward, the backfill soil behind the walls will continue to settle,
and tension cracks will develop.
• Water will seep into the soils and accelerate the movement and settlement.
• The above mechanism will ultimately lead to localized failures of gabion baskets.
• Continued longitudinal differential settlements of the retaining walls will occur.
Based on the study presented herein, Stantec offers the following recommendations:
• Remediation of the existing retaining walls using the existing design will not be effective, as the original
design has deficiencies as outlined above. Previous remediation incorporating the original wall has
proven to be ineffective. It is, therefore, our opinion that the retaining walls should be removed entirely
and reconstructed.
• Based on the existing soil and groundwater conditions, it is expected that Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) walls (see Appendix G) or reinforced concrete walls will be the most suitable retaining structure
types for the Site. Should it be decided to proceed with the replacement of the walls, the type of retaining
structures and geotechnical recommendations for the detailed design of the walls can be provided.
• The wall at and near borehole BH8 should be repaired or reconstructed as soon as possible.
• Continued monitoring at all borehole locations on a monthly basis should be carried out prior to repair or
reconstruction to provide warning of potentially dangerous situations. The monitoring program should be
reviewed annually.
• Homeowners need to be advised that downspouts should not discharge directly on to the gabion retaining
walls.
• Construction of other retaining walls within backyards without proper geotechnical design is not
recommended.
24
Final
6 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of The Town of Cochrane and their agents, and may not be
used by any third party without the express written consent of Stantec and The Town of Cochrane.
Any use which a third party makes of this report is the responsibility of such third party. Use of this report is
subject to the Statement of General Conditions provided in Appendix A. It is the responsibility of the Town of
Cochrane who is identified as “the Client” within the Statement of General Conditions, and its agents to review
the conditions and to notify Stantec should any of these not be satisfied. The Statement of General Conditions
addresses the following:
• Use of the report
• Basis of the report
• Standard of care
• Interpretation of site conditions
• Varying or unexpected site conditions
• Planning, design or construction
We trust the above information meets with your present requirements. Should you have any questions or
require further information, please contact us.
Yours truly,
STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.
Signed By Edwin Choy Signed By Charles Kwok
Edwin C.H. Choy, M.Sc., P.Eng. Charles C.K. Kwok, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Geotechnical Engineer Senior Principal
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Tel: (403) 781-5472 Tel: (403) 781-4135
Fax: (403) 716-7922 Fax: (403) 716-7922
edwin.choy@stantec.com charles.kwok@stantec.com
APEGGA Permit No. P258
V:\1233\active\123310172\report\Report\R06_Fnl_Geo_Bow Ridge_20110401.docx
25
Final
APPENDIX A
Statement of General Conditions
Final
USE OF THIS REPORT: This report has been prepared for the sole benefit of the Client or its agent and may
not be used by any third party without the express written consent of Stantec and the Client. Any use which a
third party makes of this report is the responsibility of such third party.
BASIS OF THE REPORT: The information, opinions, and/or recommendations made in this report are in
accordance with Stantec’s present understanding of the site specific project as described by the Client. The
applicability of these is restricted to the site conditions encountered at the time of the investigation or study. If
the proposed site specific project differs or is modified from what is described in this report or if the site
conditions are altered, this report is no longer valid unless Stantec is requested by the Client to review and
revise the report to reflect the differing or modified project specifics and/or the altered site conditions.
STANDARD OF CARE: Preparation of this report, and all associated work, was carried out in accordance
with the normally accepted standard of care in the state or province of execution for the specific professional
service provided to the Client. No other warranty is made.
INTERPRETATION OF SITE CONDITIONS: Soil, rock, or other material descriptions, and statements
regarding their condition, made in this report are based on site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time
of the work and at the specific testing and/or sampling locations. Classifications and statements of condition
have been made in accordance with normally accepted practices which are judgmental in nature; no specific
description should be considered exact, but rather reflective of the anticipated material behaviour.
Extrapolation of in situ conditions can only be made to some limited extent beyond the sampling or test points.
The extent depends on variability of the soil, rock and groundwater conditions as influenced by geological
processes, construction activity, and site use.
VARYING OR UNEXPECTED CONDITIONS: Should any site or subsurface conditions be encountered that
are different from those described in this report or encountered at the test locations, Stantec must be notified
immediately to assess if the varying or unexpected conditions are substantial and if reassessments of the
report conclusions or recommendations are required. Stantec will not be responsible to any party for damages
incurred as a result of failing to notify Stantec that differing site or sub-surface conditions are present upon
becoming aware of such conditions.
PLANNING, DESIGN, OR CONSTRUCTION: Development or design plans and specifications should be

reviewed by Stantec, sufficiently ahead of initiating the next project stage (property acquisition, tender,
construction, etc), to confirm that this report completely addresses the elaborated project specifics and that
the contents of this report have been properly interpreted. Specialty quality assurance services (field
observations and testing) during construction are a necessary part of the evaluation of sub-subsurface
conditions and site preparation works. Site work relating to the recommendations included in this report
should only be carried out in the presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer; Stantec cannot be responsible
for site work carried out without being present.
Final
APPENDIX B
Figures
SITE
Ã
22
Date: February 16, 2010

EK V:\1233\active\123310172\bow_ridge_subdivision\Drawings\cad\Figure_1_0.mxd Project Number 123310172
Client/Project
TOWN OF COCHRANE
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
BOW RIDGE SUBDIVISION PHASE 3, COCHRANE, AB
Figure No.
0 500 1,000 1,500m SITE

1.0
Title
1:40000
SITE LOCATION PLAN
200 - 325 25th St. SE Calgary, AB T2A 7H8
This map is not intended to replace a survey by a licensed Surveyor. Stantec does not certify the accuracy of the data. This map is for reference only and should not be used for construction.
Final
APPENDIX C
Borehole Records
SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BOREHOLE AND TEST PIT RECORDS
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Terminology describing common soil genesis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RQD Rock Mass Quality
0-25 Very Poor
25-50 Poor
50-75 Fair
75-90 Good
90-100 Excellent
Rock quality classification is based on a modified core recovery percentage (RQD) in which all pieces of sound core over
100 mm long are counted as recovery. The smaller pieces are considered to be due to close shearing, jointing, faulting,
or weathering in the rock mass and are not counted. RQD was originally intended to be done on NW core; however, it can
be used on different core sizes if the bulk of the fractures caused by drilling stresses are easily distinguishable from in situ
fractures. The terminology describing rock mass quality based on RQD is subjective and is underlain by the presumption
that sound strong rock is of higher engineering value than fractured weak rock.
Terminology describing rock mass:

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

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

Term Description
Fresh No visible signs of rock weathering. Slight discolouration along major discontinuities
Discolouration indicates weathering of rock on discontinuity surfaces. All the rock
Slightly Weathered
material may be discoloured.
Moderately Weathered Less than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.
Highly Weathered More than half the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil.
All the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated into soil. The original mass
Completely Weathered
structure is still largely intact.
STRATA PLOT
Strata plots symbolize the soil or bedrock description. They are combinations of the following basic symbols. The
dimensions within the strata symbols are not indicative of the particle size, layer thickness, etc.
Boulders Sand Silt Clay Organics Asphalt Concrete Fill Igneous Meta- Sedi-
Cobbles Bedrock morphic mentary
Gravel Bedrock Bedrock
SAMPLE TYPE
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT
Split spoon sample (obtained by performing
SS
the Standard Penetration Test)
ST Shelby tube or thin wall tube measured in standpipe,
piezometer, or well
Direct-Push sample (small diameter tube
DP
sampler hydraulically advanced)
PS Piston sample
BS Bulk sample inferred
WS Wash sample
Rock core samples obtained with the use of
HQ, NQ, BQ, etc.
standard size diamond coring bits.
RECOVERY
For soil samples, the recovery is recorded as the length of the soil sample recovered. For rock core, recovery is defined
as the total cumulative length of all core recovered in the core barrel divided by the length drilled and is recorded as a
percentage on a per run basis.
N-VALUE
Numbers in this column are the field results of the Standard Penetration Test: the number of blows of a 140 pound (64 kg)
hammer falling 30 inches (760 mm), required to drive a 2 inch (50.8 mm) O.D. split spoon sampler one foot (305 mm) into
the soil. For split spoon samples where insufficient penetration was achieved and N-values cannot be presented, the
number of blows are reported over sampler penetration in millimetres (e.g. 50/75). Some design methods make use of N
value corrected for various factors such as overburden pressure, energy ratio, borehole diameter, etc. No corrections
have been applied to the N-values presented on the log.
DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (DCPT)

Dynamic cone penetration tests are performed using a standard 60 degree apex cone connected to A size drill rods with
the same standard fall height and weight as the Standard Penetration Test. The DCPT value is the number of blows of the
hammer required to drive the cone one foot (305 mm) into the soil. The DCPT is used as a probe to assess soil variability.
OTHER TESTS
S Sieve analysis Single packer permeability test; test

H Hydrometer analysis interval from depth shown to bottom
k Laboratory permeability of borehole
γ Unit weight
Double packer permeability test; test
Gs Specific gravity of soil particles interval as indicated
CD Consolidated drained triaxial
Consolidated undrained triaxial with pore pressure
CU Falling head permeability test using
measurements
casing
UU Unconsolidated undrained triaxial
DS Direct Shear
C Consolidation Falling head permeability test using
Qu Unconfined compression well point or piezometer
Point Load Index (Ip on Borehole Record equals
Ip Ip(50) in which the index is corrected to a reference
diameter of 50 mm)
Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH1

CLIENT Stantec Consulting Ltd. PROJECT No. 1052130
LOCATION Bow Ridge, Cochrane, AB BH SIZE 150 mm
DATES (mm/dd/yy): BORING 6/4/09 WATER LEVEL 2.2 m (7/2/09) DATUM
SAMPLES UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH - kPa
ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
SOIL DESCRIPTION WP W WL
TYPE
WATER CONTENT & ATTERBERG LIMITS
Pocket Penetrometer kPa
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, BLOWS/0.3m
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
Very stiff brown CLAY BS 1
1 (CL-CH) SS 2 300 39
- with light brown and grey
mottling, trace silt and gravel,
BS 3
2 damp to moist
SS 4 450 24
3
BS 5
4 SS 6 450 22
5 BS 7
SS 8 450 25
6
BS 9
7 SS 10 450 22
- greyish brown below 7.3 m
BS 11
8
- brown, trace claystone SS 12 400 27
9 fragments below 8.4 m
BS 13
10 End of Borehole (9.9 m)
Borehole dry and open upon
completion
11 25 mm standpipe hand slotted
from 3.8 m to 6.9 m
Annulus backfilled with sand
12 and cuttings
Bentonite seal at surface
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:22

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH2

DATES (mm/dd/yy): BORING 6/8/09 WATER LEVEL Dry (7/2/09) DATUM
ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
Very stiff brown CLAY BS 1
1 (CL-CH)
mottling, trace silt, damp to BS 2
2 moist
SS 3 400 17
3
BS 4
4 SS 5 350 17
5 BS 6
SS 7 200 19
6
BS 8
completion
from 2.3 m to 5.3 m
9 and cuttings
10
11
12
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:28

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH3

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
ASPHALT
FILL: gravel, trace cobbles
1 FILL: brown clay
- trace to some gravel, trace silt BS 1
and sand, damp to moist
2
SS 2 75 7
3
BS 3
4 SS 4 450 11
Stiff brown CLAY (CL-CH)
- with light brown and grey BS 5
5
damp to moist SS 6 450 15
6
BS 7
7 ST 8 250
8 BS 9
SS 10 400 24
9 - trace sand lenses and
claystone fragments BS 11
below 8.7 m
completion
from 5.3 m to 8.4 m
12 and cuttings
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:34

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH4

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
FILL: brown clay BS 1
1 - trace silt, organics and SS 2 150 10
rootlets, damp
BS 3
2
Stiff brown CLAY (CL-CH) SS 4 350 13
3
mottling, trace silt, gravel and BS 5
oxides, damp to moist
4 SS 6 400 13
5 BS 7
SS 8 350 16
6
BS 9
- trace coal and claystone
7 fragments below 6.6 m SS 10 300 25
BS 11
8
SS 12 300 18
9
BS 13
completion
from 5.3 m to 8.4 m
12 and cuttings
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:39

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH5

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
Stiff brown CLAY (CL-CH) BS 1
1 - with light brown and grey SS 2 250 11
damp to moist
BS 3
2
SS 4 450 14
3
BS 5
Very stiff brown CLAY (CL)
4 - silty, trace sand, damp SS 6 350 22
Dense brown silty SAND (SM) BS 7

5 - dry to damp
SS 8 400 34
6
- 0.5 m thick layer of clay
at 6.3 m BS 9
7 - moist to wet below 6.9 m SS 10 400 27
End of Borehole (7.3 m)
8 Borehole dry and open upon
completion
25 mm standpipe hand slotted
9 from 3.0 m to 6.9 m
and cuttings
10 Bentonite seal at surface
11
12
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:43

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH6

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
Firm to stiff brown CLAY
1 (CL-CH) SS 1 100 6
- with grey mottling, trace silt
and gravel, damp to moist
BS 2
2
SS 3 200 14
3
BS 4
4 SS 5 450 14
5 BS 6
SS 7 400 15
6
BS 8
- silty, damp below 6.6 m
7 SS 9 350 32
Compact brown sandy SILT
(ML)
8 BS 10
- trace gravel, dry to damp
- interbedded with clay layers
below 8.2 m SS 11 400 28
9
BS 12
completion
from 3.8 m to 6.9 m
12 and cuttings
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:47

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH7

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
FILL: 40 mm gravel
FILL: brown gravelly clay BS 1
1 - trace silt and sand, damp to SS 2 25 3
moist BS 3
FILL: brown gravel
2 - trace to some clay, trace silt
and sand, damp to moist SS 4 25 5
3
4 Compact brown silty SAND SS 5 250 23

(SM)
- damp
5
SS 6 200 28
6
7 SS 7 250 45
8 End of Borehole (7.9 m) due to

auger refusal
Slough to 3.4 m
9 Borehole dry upon completion
25 mm standpipe hand slotted
from 3.0 m to 6.1 m
10 Annulus backfilled with sand
and cuttings
11
12
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:51

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH8

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
FILL: 40 mm gravel
FILL: brown clayey gravel BS 1
1 - trace silt and sand, moist SS 2 0 5
BS 3
2
SS 4 0 4
3
BS 5
4 Loose to compact brown silty SS 6 50 8

SAND (SM)
- interbedded with clay layers,
5 trace clay, damp
SS 7 100 20
6
7 SS 8 175 27
8
Very stiff brown CLAY (CL) SS 9 50 30
9 - trace silt, sand and gravel,
damp to moist
End of Borehole (9.1 m) due to
10 auger refusal
Slough to 3.4 m
Borehole dry upon completion
from 3.0 m to 6.1 m
12 and cuttings
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:55

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH9

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
Compact brown silty SAND BS 1
1 (SM) SS 2 350 13
- damp
- interbedded with clay layers
BS 3
2 below 0.8 m
SS 4 350 25
3
BS 5
4 SS 6 400 28
5 BS 7
- moist to wet below 5.3 m SS 8 350 31
6
BS 9
completion
from 3.0 m to 6.1 m
9 and cuttings
10
11
12
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:23:58

Page 1 of 1
BOREHOLE RECORD BH10

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
FILL: 40 mm gravel
FILL: brown gravelly clay
1 - trace silt and sand, damp to SS 1 0 4
moist
FILL: brown gravel
2 - trace to some clay, trace silt
and sand, damp to moist SS 2 0 5
3
4 Compact brown silty SAND SS 3 0 29

(SM)
- interbedded with clay layers,
5 dry to damp
SS 4 100 28
6
7 SS 5 150 17
8
Very stiff brown CLAY (CL) SS 6 150 24
9 - trace to some gravel, trace silt,
sand and coal, damp to moist
End of Borehole (9.0 m) due to
10 auger refusal
Slough to 3.4 m
Borehole dry upon completion
from 3.0 m to 6.1 m
12 and cuttings
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:24:35

Page 1 of 1

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
Stiff brown CLAY (CL) BS 1
1 - with light brown mottling, SS 2 200 12
trace silt, damp to moist BS 3
- silty, trace gravel, seepage
2 below 1.2 m
Compact brown SILT and SS 4 300 29
SAND (ML-SM)
3 - dry to damp BS 5
4 SS 6 400 24
BS 7
5 - interbedded with clay layers
below 4.8 m
- trace clay, moist to wet SS 8 450 24
6 below 5.2 m
BS 9
completion
from 3.0 m to 6.1 m
9 and cuttings
10
11
12
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:24:39

Page 1 of 1

ELEVATION(m)
STRATA PLOT
50 100 150 200
MONITOR WELL/
DEPTH(m)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY
OR RQD %
NUMBER
N-VALUE
TYPE
mm 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
TOPSOIL
FILL: brown clay
1 - silty, trace sand, gravel and SS 1 75 4
rootlets, moist
Stiff brown CLAY (CL-CH) BS 2
2 - with grey mottling, trace silt
and gravel, damp to moist SS 3 450 10
3
BS 4
4 SS 5 400 17
5 BS 6
SS 7 450 15
6
BS 8
- interbedded with silt seams,
7 trace oxides below 6.9 m SS 9 450 17
Compact to dense brown silty
SAND (SM) BS 10
8
- dry to damp
SS 11 350 39
9
BS 12
completion
from 3.0 m to 6.1 m
12 and cuttings
13
14
15
App'd__________Sep 28 2009 10:24:43

Final
APPENDIX D
Laboratory Testing
OFFICE LABORATORY
Grain Size Client: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 805 - 8th Avenue SW 10830 - 46th Street SE
Analysis Project Name: Bow Ridge Retaining Wall Suite 300 Calgary, Alberta
ASTM C136, ASTM C117 or Project No: 1052130.02 Calgary, Alberta Canada T2C 1G4
CSA A23.3-2A, CSA A23.2-5A Canada T2P 1H7
Tel: (403) 269-5150 Tel: (403) 253-7876

Fax: (403) 269-5245 Fax: (403) 253-0021
SAMPLE No: BS7 DATE SAMPLED: -
SOURCE: BH5 DATE RECEIVED: -
TESTED BY: S.Evans DATE TESTED: 07/09/09
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Silty Sand (SM)
Sieve Sample Specifications

(mm) % Passing Lower Upper
100
0.63 100
0.315 99.9
90
0.16 99.3
0.08 41.6
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 0.1 0.01 COMMENTS:
Sieve Size (mm)
Reviewed By: __________________

% Passing Upper Limit Lower Limit
Reporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of the test results is provided only on written request. The data presented above is for the sole use of the client stipulated above.
Stantec is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for the use of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of Stantec.
Form MAT.003B, Rev. 3, 2009/04/20
One Team. Infinite Solutions.

OFFICE LABORATORY
Tel: (403) 269-5150 Tel: (403) 253-7876

Fax: (403) 269-5245 Fax: (403) 253-0021
TESTED BY: K.Asgarpour DATE TESTED: 07/10/09
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Sandy Silt (ML)

100.0
0.630 100.0
0.315 99.9
90.0
0.160 99.6
0.080 66.6
80.0
70.0
Percent Passing
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1.000 0.100 0.010 COMMENTS:
Sieve Size (mm)
Reviewed By: __________________

Form MAT.003B, Rev. 3, 2009/04/20

OFFICE LABORATORY
Tel: (403) 269-5150 Tel: (403) 253-7876

Fax: (403) 269-5245 Fax: (403) 253-0021
TESTED BY: S.Evans DATE TESTED: 07/09/09
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Clayey Gravel (GC)

100
40.0 100
25.0 58.4
90
20.0 39.1
16.0 35.6
80
12.5 32.3
70
10.0 31.8
5.0 30.6
Percent Passing
60 2.5 30.0
1.25 29.6
50 0.630 29.3
0.315 28.9
40 0.160 28.4
0.080 26.8
30
20
10
0
10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 COMMENTS:
Sieve Size (mm)
Reviewed By: __________________

Form MAT.003B, Rev. 3, 2009/04/20

Final
APPENDIX E
Slope Inclinometer Readings
Borehole BH1 ‐ Depth vs Displacement
(Perpendicular to the Retaining Wall)
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Aug‐09
10‐Sep‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 4 Nov 09
4‐Nov‐09
3‐Dec‐09
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Cumulative Displacement (mm)
(Parallel to the Retaining Wall)
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Aug‐09
10‐Sep‐09
‐6
RIGHT Facing Wall
RIGHT ‐ F i W ll LEFT Facing Wall
LEFT ‐ F i W ll 4 Nov 09
4‐Nov‐09
3‐Dec‐09
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5 10‐Aug‐09
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 3 Dec 09
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7 9‐Feb‐10
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5 10‐Aug‐09
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
RIGHT Facing Wall
LEFT ‐ F i W ll 3 Dec 09
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7 9‐Feb‐10
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
4‐Nov‐09
3‐Dec‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 12 Jan 10
12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
4‐Nov‐09
3‐Dec‐09
‐6
RIGHT Facing Wall
LEFT ‐ F i W ll 12 Jan 10
12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Aug‐09
‐6 10‐Sep‐09
IN O
OUT 4‐Nov‐09
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Aug‐09
‐6
RIGHT Facing Wall
LEFT ‐ F i W ll 10 Sep 09
10‐Sep‐09
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5 10‐Aug‐09
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 3 Dec 09
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7 9‐Feb‐10
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5 10‐Aug‐09
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
RIGHT Facing Wall
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7 9‐Feb‐10
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
IN O
OUT 12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
RIGHT Facing Wall
LEFT ‐ F i W ll 12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
IN O
OUT 12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
RIGHT Facing Wall
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 12 Jan 10
12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
RIGHT Facing Wall
LEFT ‐ F i W ll 12 Jan 10
12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5 10‐Aug‐09
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 3 Dec 09
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7 9‐Feb‐10
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
RIGHT Facing Wall
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 3 Dec 09
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
RIGHT Facing Wall
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
IN O
OUT 12‐Jan‐10
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
RIGHT Facing Wall
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5 10‐Aug‐09
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6
IN O
OUT 3 Dec 09
3‐Dec‐09
12‐Jan‐10
‐7 9‐Feb‐10
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
‐1
‐2
‐3
‐4
‐5
Depth (m)
10‐Sep‐09
4‐Nov‐09
‐6 3‐Dec‐09
RIGHT Facing Wall
9‐Feb‐10
‐7
‐8
‐9
‐10
‐10 ‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Final
APPENDIX F
Unified Soil Classification System
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
1. INTRODUCTION has the flexibility of being adaptable both to the field and to the
laboratory. Probably its greatest advantage is that a soil can be classified
Most soils are a heterogeneous accumulation of mineral grains not readily by visual and manual examination without the necessity for
cemented together. However, the term `soil' or èarth', as used by laboratory testing. The Unified Classification System is based on the
engineers, includes virtually every type of uncemented or partially sizes of the particles, the amounts of the various sizes, and the
cemented inorganic and organic material found in the ground. Only hard characteristics of the very fine grains. This method of classification of
rock which remains firm after exposure is wholly excluded. soils is recommended for use by the Canadian Foundation Engineering
Manual and is described in the following text and summarized in Table
1.
In order for engineers, both in the field and in the office, to be able to
`speak the same language' with respect to soils, a standard method of 2. SOIL COMPONENTS
identifying and classifying soils regarding their engineering
characteristics rather than agricultural or geological or other (A) Size
characteristics is needed. A system of describing the soil (identification)
and placing it into a category or group (classification) which has distinct (i) General
engineering properties enables engineers to exchange information and to Particles larger than 76 mm (3 inches) are excluded from the Unified
profit by one another's experiences. Borehole logs of soil profile Soil Classification System. However, the amount of such oversized
explorations containing adequate descriptions and soil classifications material may be of great importance in the selection of sources for
(often from field identification) can be used in making preliminary embankment material: hence borehole logs of explorations always
estimates to determine the extent of additional field investigation needed contain information on quantity and size of particles larger than 76 mm
for (a) final design, (b) planning an economical testing program, and (c) (3 inches). Within the size range of the system (i.e. less than 76 mm)
extending test results to additional explorations. For final design of there are two major engineering performance divisions. (A third division
important structures, however, visual soil classification must be is used for highly organic material, i.e. Peat):
supplemented by laboratory tests to determine performance (a) Coarse grained soils have 50% by weight of their particles greater
characteristics of the soil, such as permeability, shearing strength, and than the No. 200 sieve size (0.075 mm), approximately the smallest size
compressibility, under expected field conditions. Knowledge of soil visible by the unaided human eye.
classification, including typical engineering properties of soils of the (b) Fine grained soils have 50% by weight of their particles less than the
various groups, is especially valuable to the engineer engaged in No. 200 sieve size (0.075 mm) and thus no individual particle should be
prospecting for earth materials or investigating foundations for visible by the unaided human eye.
structures. Initially much work was concentrated on grain size (c) Organic material (Symbol Pt): - Organic soils composed of more
relationships as illustrated by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads than 50% organic material by weight are known as Peat.
classification system shown in Figure 1 (Rose, 1924), however this was
found insufficient for engineering use. (ii) Coarse Grained Fraction
The coarse grain fraction is further divided into two soil types again
based on sizing. These two types form part of the initial identification
regarding engineering performance classification. For brevity they are
given an identification symbol. The soil types and their symbol are -
(a) Gravel (Symbol G) which

identifies a coarse grained soil
where 50% by weight of only that
fraction of the soil retained on the
No. 200 sieve (0.074 mm) is larger
than the No. 4 sieve size (4.75 mm
or about 3/16 inch).
Size Subdivision: In order to aid
the identification of particle sizes
gravel has two particle size
subdivisions as shown on Figure 2 Figure 2. Ranges for coarse
and as given by:- particle sizing.
Coarse gravel -- 76 mm (3 inch)
to 19 mm (3/4 inch),
Fine Gravel -- 19 mm (3/4 inch) to 4.75 mm (No. 4 sieve).
Figure 1. Textural classification system found inappropriate for There are no symbol identifications for size.
engineering use.
(b) Sand (Symbol S) which identifies a coarse grained soil where 50%
In 1952, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, with by weight of only that fraction of the soil retained on the No. 200 sieve
Professor A. Casagrande as consultant, reached agreement on a (0.075 mm) is smaller than the No. 4 sieve size (4.75 mm).
modification of Professor Casagrande's airfield classification, which they Size Subdivision: In order to aid the identification of particle sizes
named the Ùnified Soil Classification System' or ÙSCS' (Casagrande, sand has three particle size subdivisions as shown on Figure 2 and as
1948). Today (1996) the classification of soils is still base on the USCS given by:-
it is more extensive and is periodically updated by the American Society Coarse sand -- No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 sieves (2.00 mm),
for Testing Materials (ASTM) via their two Standards ASTM-D2457 and Medium sand -- No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 sieves (0.425 mm),
ASTM-D2488. The system takes into account the engineering properties Fine sand -- No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 sieves (0.074 mm).
of soils: it is descriptive and easy to associate with actual soils, and it There are no symbol identifications for size.
Unified Soil Classification System -- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING-1997 -- Prof. G.P. Raymond.© 9

Grading/Fines Subdivision -- In actual fact the engineering end of this section) is due to Von Post (1922).
behaviour of the coarse grained soil is more dependent on whether it is
clean or not (less than 5% by weight of fines being clean and more than (B) Gradation
12% by weight of fines being dirty). If clean, the gradation influences The amounts of the various sizes of grains present in a soil can be
performance and, if dirty, the fines influence performance. Thus in the determined in the laboratory by means of sieving for the coarse grains
Unified Soil Classification System gravels and sands are subdivided for and sedimentation (wet mechanical analysis) for the fines. The
classification purposes into (these subdivisions are defined under the laboratory results are presented in the form of a cumulative grain-size
heading of grading):- curve as shown in Figure 3. For soils consisting mainly of coarse grains,
(i) Well Graded (Symbol _W) clean fraction, the grain-size distribution reveals something of the physical properties
(ii) Poorly Graded (Symbol _P) clean fraction, of the material. On the other hand, grain size is much less significant for
(iii) Silt (Symbol _M) behaviour of fines of dirty fraction, and soils containing a preponderance of fine grains. In the Unified Soil
(iv) Clay (Symbol _C) behaviour of fines of dirty fraction. Classification System two gradings for coarse soils free of fines (less
Note: Silt and Clay are also primary classification types for describing than 12% by weight) are used. They are:
fine grained soils. Their definitions are given later.
(a) Well Graded (Symbol _W) --
Extension -- Burmister (1951) proposed as an extension of the USCS Good representation of all particle
that the proportions of the minor fractions may be identified by adding sizes from largest to smallest
in small letters (percentages are by weight).
(i) a for ànd' representing 35 to 50% (b) Poorly Graded (Symbol _P)
(ii) s for `some' representing 20 to 35% which includes: Uniform
(iii) l for `little' representing 10 to 20% Gradation -- Most particles about
(iv) t for `trace' representing 0 to 10% the same size, or Skip Gradation --
Thus a well graded sand with 5% gravel sizes would be SWtG. ASTM Absence of one or more
D2488 uses the terms: Trace < 5%, Few for 5% to 10%; Little for 15% intermediate sizes.
to 25%; Some for 30% to 45%; and Mostly for 50% to 100%. In Note that a dual classification is
addition Burmister suggested the size fractions in quantities larger than given if the fines are between 5%
the 10% are recommended as being identified as and 12%.
(i) c where coarse sizes constitute more than 10% In the field, soil is estimated to
(ii) m where medium sizes constitute more than 10% be well graded or poorly graded by
(iii) f where fine sizes constitute more than 10% visual examination. For laboratory
so that, where all three sand sizes are each present in quantities greater purposes, the type of gradation can
than 10% of the total, the identification would be `cmfS' placed after the be determined by the use of criteria Figure 3. Definition
main classification type (i.e. Swtg cmfS). based on the range of sizes by requirements for soil to be
These suggestions require little extra effort to include and may be weight and on the shape of the classified as well graded.
useful. grain-size curve. The measure of
size range is called the coefficient of uniformity, Cu, which is the ratio
(iii) Fine Grained Fraction, or Fines of the 60 percent finer than size (D60) to the 10 percent finer than size
The fine grained fraction of the soil sample is that portion smaller than (D10). The shape of the grain-size curve is given by the coefficient of
the No. 200 (0.074 mm) sieve size. In the Unified Soil Classification curvature, Cc, which is the ratio of the square of the 30 percent finer
System fines are not subdivided by sizing but by behaviour. The fines, than size (D30) to the product (D60) (D10). The definitions used
if of inorganic origin, are of two types (these types are further described distinguish between well and poorly graded Gravel or Sand and are
later under the heading relating to moisture): shown in Figure 3.
(a) SILT (Symbol M for the Swedish word Mo), and
(b) CLAY (Symbol C). (C) Shape
Older classification systems define clay as those particles smaller than The shape of the particles is not a direct part of the Unified
0.006 mm (6 microns) as seen on Figure 1 (some use 0.002 mm) and Classification System but nevertheless has an important influence on the
define silt as fines larger than clay sizes. However, it is a mistaken idea physical properties of a soil (e.g. cubical shaped particles generally
that the typical engineering characteristics of silt and clay correspond to interlock better than plate-like particles, and as previously presented
particular grain sizes. Natural deposits of rock flour that exhibit all the roundness effects void ratio). The following shapes are most common
properties of silt and none of clay may consist entirely of grains smaller and are a useful addition.
than 0.006 mm. On the other hand, typical clays may consist mainly of (i) Bulky or Equidimensional Grains -- These may be further
particles larger than 0.006 mm, but containing small quantities of described as rounded, sub-rounded, subangular, and angular as illustrated
extremely fine colloidal-sized particles. Thus in the Unified Soil in Figure 4. The coarse-grained components of a soil are usually of the
Classification System, no size distinction is made between silt and clay, bulky type, consisting chiefly of the minerals quartz and feldspar. The
but rather, they are differentiated by their behaviour, and are further interlocking ability of angular cubic particles is many times greater than
subdivided according to the amount of water required to make them act rounded or subrounded particles such that mainline railway ballast is
plastically or to flow as a semi liquid. required to be from a quarried source (i.e. crushed rock).
(ii) Flat or Flaky grains, also called plate-like particles -- These are
(iv) Organic Material (Symbol O) present in appreciable quantities in many fine-grained soils and have
Organic material is often a component of soil, but in the Unified Soil width/thickness ratios > 3. Mica and some clay minerals have this shape,
Classification System it has no specific grain size. It is distinguished by which is mainly responsible for their high compressibility.
the composition of its particles rather than by their sizes which range (iii) Elongated Grains -- These are long needle shaped particles and
from colloidal-sized particles of molecular dimensions to fibrous pieces have length to width ratios > 3.
of partly decomposed vegetable matter several inches in length. Length, Width and thickness are measured between two parallel plates.
Subdivision of organic soils is the same as for silt or clay. Organic soils Length and thickness are maximum and minimum possible distance
composed of more than 50% organic material by weight are known as between two surface points measured by the two plates.
Peat (Symbol Pt). A useful classification system for peat (given at the

Figure 4. Typical description of bulky or equidimensional
grains. Figure 5. Liquid limit device.
(D) Soil Moisture

The effect of soil moisture on the fines forms a major part of the (a) Low (_L) liquid limit, and
Unified Soil Classification System. A typical soil mass has three (b) High (_H) liquid limits
constituents - soil grains, air and water. In soils consisting largely of fine (c) Intermediate ? (an intermediate range is sometimes used, LL =
grains, the amount of water present in the voids has a pronounced effect 30-50).
on the soil properties. Three main states of soils consistency are These divisions are shown in Figure 6. By definition a clay soil has
recognizable -- limits which plot above the "A" line shown on Figure 6 and silts plot
Liquid state in which the soil is either in suspension or has the nature of below the "A" line with the exceptions shown in the range liquid limit
a viscous fluid. 10-30 and plastic limit less than 7.
Plastic state in which the soil can be rapidly deformed or moulded
without elastic rebound, change of volume, cracking, or crumbling.
Solid state in which the soil will crack when deformed or will exhibit
elastic rebound.
(i) Consistency Limits
In describing these soil states it is customary to consider only the
fraction of soil smaller than the No. 40 sieve (0.425 mm) size. For this
fraction the water content in percentage of dry weight at which the soil
passes from the liquid state into the plastic state is called the `liquid
limit' (LL or wL) and is recorded as a whole number. A device
illustrated in Figure 5 which causes the soil to flow under certain
conditions (25 drops of the cup through 10 mm) is used in the laboratory
to determine the liquid limit. In practice the 25 blow moisture content is
often determined from a single test result using the equation
0.1
Blows
LL ' w L ' m/c (1)
25
Similarly, the water content of the soil at the boundary between the
plastic state and the solid state is called the `plastic limit' (PL or wP) and
is recorded as a whole number. The laboratory test consists of Figure 6. The plasticity chart.
repeatedly rolling threads of the soil to 3 mm (1/8 inch) in diameter until
they crumble, and then determining the water content. The difference
between the liquid limit and the plastic limit corresponds to the range of With sufficient experience a soils engineer may acquire the ability to
water contents within which the soil is plastic. This difference of water estimate the Atterberg limits of a soil. Such an estimation may be
content is called the `plasticity index' (PI or Ip). Highly plastic soils facilitated by three simple hand tests which have been found adequate for
have high PI values. In a non-plastic soil the plastic limit and the liquid field identification and classification of fine soils. These three tests
limit are the same (and the PI equals 0) or the liquid limit test is determine whether the fine-grained fraction of a soil is silty or clayey,
impossible to perform. without requiring estimation of Atterberg limits. These hand tests, which
These limits of consistency, which are called Àtterberg limits' after are part of the field procedure in the Unified Soil Classification System,
a Swedish scientist, are used in the Unified Soil Classification System as are -
the basis for laboratory differentiation between materials of appreciable Dilatancy (reaction to shaking)
plasticity (clays) and slightly plastic or non-plastic materials (silts). They Dry strength (crushing characteristics)
are also used to subdivide the silts, clays and organic materials into those Toughness (consistency near plastic limit)
with These tests are described in the next section. There use is given below:

Soil Dry Strength Dilatancy Toughness Strength Visual Response of Dry Specimen
ML None to Low Slow to Rapid Low. Cannot form thread
MH Low to Medium None to Slow Low to Medium None Crubles with handling.
CL Medium to High None to Slow Medium Low Crubles with light finger pressure.
CH High to Very High None High Medium Breaks with considerable finger pressure.
High Requires thumb pressure to break.
Very High Cannot be broken with thumb pressure.
3. FIELD IDENTIFICATION TESTS

The procedures for field identification of the fine grained fraction are (C) Toughness
performed on the minus No. 40 sieve (0.425 mm) size particles, Toughness or consistency near plastic limit: -- After removing
approximately 1/64 in. For field classification purposes, sieving or particles larger than the No. 40 sieve (0.425 mm) size, a specimen of soil
screening is not intended, simply remove by hand the coarse particles about two cubic cm (one-half inch) volume in size is moulded to the
that interfere with the tests. consistency of putty. If too dry, water must be added and if sticky, the
specimen should be spread out in a thin layer and allowed to lose some
(A) Dilatancy moisture by evaporation. Then the specimen is rolled out by hand on a
Dilatancy or reaction to shaking: -- After removing particles larger smooth surface or between the palms into a thread about 3 mm (one-
than No. 40 sieve (0.425 mm) size, prepare a pat of moist soil with a eighth inch) in diameter. The thread is then folded and then rerolled
volume of about two cubic cm (one-half inch). Add enough water, if repeatedly. During this manipulation the moisture content is gradually
necessary to make the soil soft but not sticky. Place the pat in the open reduced and the specimen stiffens, finally loses its plasticity, and
palm of one hand and shake horizontally, striking vigorously against the crumbles when the plastic limit is reached.
other hand several times. A positive reaction consists of the appearance After the thread crumbles, the pieces should be lumped together and
of water on the surface of the pat which changes to a livery consistency a slight kneading action continued until the lump crumbles.
and becomes glossy. When the sample is squeezed between the fingers, The tougher the thread near the plastic limit and the stiffer the lump
the water and gloss disappear from the surface, the pat stiffens, and when it finally crumbles, the more potent is the colloidal clay fraction in
finally it cracks or crumbles. The rapidity of appearance of water during the soil. Weakness of the thread at the plastic limit and quick loss of
shaking and of its disappearance during squeezing assist in identifying cohesion of the lump below the plastic limit indicate either inorganic clay
the character of the fines in a soil. of low plasticity, or materials such as kaolin-type clays and organic silts
Very fine clean sands give the quickest and most distinct reaction which occur below the A-line.
whereas a plastic clay has no reaction. Inorganic silts, such as a typical Highly organic clays have a very weak and spongy feel at the plastic
rock flour, show a moderately quick reaction. Typical criteria for limit. Typical criteria for classification is:
classification is:
Toughness Response to Rolling 3 mm diameter thread.
Reaction Visual Response Low Slight pressure required to roll at PL.

Medium Medium pressure required to roll at PL.
Low No visible change. High High pressure required to roll at PL.
Medium Water appears slowly on shaking and disappears
slowly on squeezing.
High Water appears quickly on shaking and disappears 4. CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS (see Table 1).
quickly on squeezing.
(A) General
Soils in nature seldom exist separately as a gravel, sand, silt, clay, or
organic matter, but are usually found as mixtures with varying
(B) Dry Strength proportions of these components. The Unified Soil Classification
Dry strength or crushing characteristics: -- After removing particles System is based on recognition of the type and predominance of the
larger than a No. 40 sieve (0.425 mm) size, mould a pat of soil to the constituents, considering grain size, gradation, plasticity and
consistency of putty, adding water if necessary. Allow the pat to dry compressibility. As already described it divides soils into three major
completely by oven, sun, or air drying, and then test its strength by divisions - coarse-grained soils, fine-grained soils, and highly organic
breaking and crumbling between the fingers. This strength is a measure (peaty) soils. In the field, identification is accomplished by visual
of the character and quantity of the colloidal fraction contained in the examination for the coarse grains and by a few simple hand tests for the
soil. The dry strength increases with increasing plasticity. fine-grained soils or fraction. In the laboratory, the grain-size curve and
High dry strength is characteristics for clays of high plasticity index the Atterberg limits can be used. The peaty soils (Pt) are readily
which by deduction must also have a high liquid limit and thus must be identified by colour, odour, spongy feel, and fibrous texture and are not
in the CH group or high range of the CL group. A low dry strength further sub-divided in the classification.
indicates low plasticity index and thus a silt. Silty fine sands and silts
have about the same slight dry strength, but can be distinguished by the (B) Field Classification
feel after powdering the dried specimen. Fine sand feels gritty whereas A representative sample of soil (excluding particles larger than 76 mm
a typical silt has the smooth feel of flour. Typical criteria for or 3 inches) is first classified as coarse grained or fine grained by
classification is: estimating whether 50 percent, by weight, of the particles can be seen
individually by the naked eye. Soils containing more than 50 percent of
particles that can be seen are coarse-grained soils, soils containing more
than 50 percent of particles smaller than the eye can see are fine-grained
soils. If the soil is predominantly coarse grained, it is then identified as
being a gravel or a sand by estimating whether 50 percent or more of the

fraction of coarse grains are larger or smaller than the No. 4 sieve (4.75 of uniformity (Cu) greater than 4 and a coefficient of curvature (Cc)
mm) size (about 1/4 inch). between 1 and 3 (see Figure 3) - otherwise, it must be classified as a
If the soil is a gravel, it is next identified as being `clean' and poorly graded gravel (GP). A clean sand, having both a Cu greater than
containing little or no fines (by definition less than 5 percent by weight), 6 and a Cc between 1 and 3, is in the SW group - otherwise, it is a poorly
or `dirty' and containing an appreciable amount of fines (by definition graded sand (SP).
more than 12 percent by weight). For clean gravels, final classification
is made by estimating the gradation, the well-graded gravels belong to
the GW group, and uniform or well sorted (not to be confused with well
graded) and skip-graded gravels belong to the GP group. Dirty gravels
are of two types - those with non-plastic (silty) fines, GM, and those with
plastic (clayey) fines, GC. The determination of whether the fines are
silty or clayey is made by the three manual (i.e. by hand) tests for fine-
grained soils.
If a soil is a sand, the same steps and criteria are used as for the
gravels in order to determine whether the soil is a well-graded clean sand
(SW), poorly graded clean sand (SP), sand with silty fines (SM), or sand
with clayey fines (SC).
If a material is predominantly (more than 50 percent by weight) fine
grained, it is classified into one or six groups (ML, CL, OL, MH, CH,
OH) by estimating its dilatancy (reaction to shaking), dry strength Figure 7. Guide for field soil textural classification using unified
(crushing characteristics), and toughness (consistency near plastic limit), system.
and by identifying it as being organic or inorganic.
Soils that are typical of the various groups are readily classified by the
foregoing procedures. However, many natural soils will have property `Dirty' gravels or sands are those containing more than 12 percent of
characteristics of two groups because they are close to the borderline fines, and they are classified as silty (GM or SM) or clayey (GC or SC)
between the groups, either in percentages of the various sizes or in by results of their Atterberg limits tests as plotted on the plasticity chart
plasticity characteristics. For this substantial number of soils, boundary shown. Silty fines are those which have a plasticity index (PI) less than
classifications are used, that is, the two group symbols most nearly 4 or which plot below the À' line. Clayey fines are those which have a
describing the soil are connected by a hyphen, such as GW-GC. PI greater than 7 and which plot above the À' line.
If the percentages of gravel and sand sizes in a coarse-grained soil are Coarse-grained soils containing between 5 and 12 percent of fines are
nearly equal, the classification procedure is to assume that the soil is a borderline cases between the clean and dirty gravels or sands (GW, GP,
gravel, and then continue in the chart until the final soil group, say GC, SW, SP, and GM, GC, SM, SC). Similarly, borderline cases may occur
is reached. Since we could have assumed that the soil is a sand, the in dirty gravels and dirty sands where the PI is between 4 and 7 (GM-
correct field classification is GC-SC, because the criteria for the gravel GC, SM-SC). It is theoretically possible, therefore, to have a borderline
and sand subgroups are identical. Similarly, within the gravel or sand case of a borderline case - but this is not permitted, and the rule for
groupings, boundary classifications such as GW-GP, GM-GC, GW-GM, correct classifications is to favour the non-plastic one. For example, a
SW-SP, SM-SC, and SW-SM can occur. gravel with 10 percent fines, a Cu of 20, a Cc of 2.0, and a PI of 6 would
Proper boundary classification of a soil near the borderline between be classified GW-GM rather than GW-GC.
coarse-grained and fine-grained soils is accomplished by classifying it Once a soil is determined to be fine grained by the grain-size curve,
first as a coarse-grained soil and then as a fine-grained soil. Such its classification into one of the six groups is done by the results of
classifications as SM-ML and SC-CL are common. Atterberg limits tests as plotted on the plasticity chart, with attention
Within the fine-grained division, boundary classifications can occur being given to the organic content. Inorganic fine-grained soils with PI
between low liquid limit soils and high liquid limit soils as well as greater than 7 and above the À' line are CL or CH, depending on
between silty and clayey materials in the same range of liquid limits. For whether their liquid limits are below 50 percent or above 50 percent
example, we may have ML-MH, CL-CH, OL-OH and ML-CL, ML-OL, respectively. Similarly, inorganic fine-grained soils with PI less than 4
CL-OL, MH-CH, MH-OH, CH-OH soils. A guide for a textural or below the À' line are ML or MH, depending on whether their liquid
classification of soils is shown in Figure 7. The textural properties can limits are below or above 50 percent, respectively. Fine-grained soils
be supplemented by manually performed tests already presented for field which fall above the À' line but which have a plasticity index between
classification purposes. 4 and 7 are classified ML-CL.
Soils which plot below the À' line that are definitely organic are
(C) Laboratory Classification classified as OL if they have liquid limits less than 50 and as OH if the
Although most classifications of soils will be done visually and by the liquid limit is above 50. Organic silts and clays are usually distinguished
manually performed tests, the Unified Soil Classification System from inorganic silts and clays which have the same position on the
provides a precise delineation of the soil groups by mechanical analyses plasticity chart, by odour and colour. However, when the organic
and Atterberg limits tests in the laboratory. Laboratory classifications are content is doubtful the material can be oven dried, remixed with water,
often performed on representative samples of soils which are being and retested for liquid limit. The plasticity of fine-grained organic soils
subjected to extensive testing for strength, compressibility, and is greatly reduced on oven drying, due to irreversible changes in the
permeability. They also can be used to advantage in training the field organic colloids. Oven drying also affects the liquid limit of inorganic
classifier of soils to improve his ability to estimate percentages and soils, but to a much smaller degree. A reduction in liquid limit after oven
degrees of plasticity. drying to a value less than three-fourths of the liquid limit before oven
The grain-size curve is used to classify the soil as being coarse drying is positive identification of organic soils.
grained or fine grained, and if coarse grained, into gravel or sand by size,
using the 50 percent criterion. Within the gravel or sand groupings, soils 5. ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL
containing less than 5 percent finer than the No. 200 sieve (0.074 mm) COMPONENTS
size are considered `clean' and are then classified as well graded or
poorly graded by their coefficients of uniformity and curvature. In order Some of the main engineering properties of the various soil types are
for a clean gravel to be well graded (GW), it must have both a coefficient given in summary form in Table 2 and typical safe bearing pressures and

California Bearing Ratios (CBR) as used in main class highways and sand and gravel may make the soil virtually impervious, especially when
airport design are shown in Figure 8. These may be considered the coarse grains are well graded. Also, serious frost heaving in well-
somewhat conservative for use with railroads whose support need not be graded sands and gravels may be caused by less than 12 percent of fines.
as rigid. A fifty percent increase in scale values is suggested for use with Typically 6% fines at the surface results in some frost heave. The
railway track support subgrades allowable amount increases with depth.
Soils containing large quantities of silt and clay are the most
troublesome to the engineer. These materials exhibit marked changes in
physical properties with change of water content. A hard, dry clay, for
example, may be suitable as a foundation for heavy loads so long as it
remains dry, but may turn into a quagmire when wet. Many of the fine
soils shrink on drying and expand on wetting, which may adversely
effect structures founded on them or constructed on them. Even when
moisture content does not change, the properties of fine soils may vary
considerably between their natural condition in the ground and their state
after being disturbed. Deposits of fine particles which have been
subjected to loading in geologic time frequently have a structure which
gives the material unique properties in the undisturbed state. When the
soil is excavated for use as a construction material or when the natural
deposit is disturbed by driving piles, for example, the soil structure is
destroyed and the properties of the soil are changed radically.
Silts are different from clays in many important respects, but because
of their similarity in appearance, they often have been mistaken one for
the other sometimes with unfortunate results. Dry, powdered silt and
clay are indistinguishable, but they are easily identified by their
behaviour in the presence of water. The importance of the recognition
of the difference in behaviour of fines as being silt or clay is an essential
part of the Unified Soil Classification System.
(i) Silts
Silts are the non-plastic fines. They are inherently unstable in the
presence of water and have a tendency to become `quick' when saturated.
Silts are fairly impervious, difficult to compact, and are highly
susceptible to frost heaving. Silt masses undergo change of volume with
change of shape (the property of dilatancy) in contrast to clays which
retain their volume with change of shape (the property of plasticity).
Thus silts, at the same liquid limit, have relatively low plasticity
compared with clays. In terms of the classification chart (Figure 6) they
plot below the À' line. The dilatancy property of silts, together with the
`quick' reaction to vibration, affords a means of identifying typical silt in
the loose wet state. When dry, silt can be pulverized easily under finger
Figure 8. Safe Bearing Stresses developed for highway and pressure (has very slight dry strength), and will have a smooth feel
airport design (PCA, 1956). between the fingers in contrast to the grittiness of fine sand.
.(A) Gravel and Sand Silts differ among themselves in size and shape of grains which are
Both of the coarse-grained components of soil (gravel and sand) have reflected mainly in the property of compressibility. For similar
essentially the same engineering properties, differing mainly in degree. conditions of previous loading, the higher liquid limit of a silt the more
The division of gravel and sand sizes by the No. 4 sieve (4.75 mm) is compressible it is. This is also true for clays and a general pattern of
arbitrary and does not correspond to a sharp change in properties. Well- results for remould fine grained soils is shown in Figure 9 demonstrating
graded, compacted gravels, or sands are stable materials. The coarse- this point. The liquid limit of a typical bulky-grained inorganic silt is
grained soils when devoid of fines are pervious, easy to compact, little about 30, while highly micaceous or diatomaceous silts (so-called
affected by moisture, and not subject to frost action. Although grain èlastic' silts) consisting mainly of flaky grains, may have liquid limits as
shape and gradation as well as size affect these properties, for the same high as 100. The differences in quickness and dilatancy properties afford
amount of fines gravels are generally more pervious, more stable, and a means of distinguishing in the field between silts of low liquid limit
less affected by water or frost than are sands. Similarly angular particles
result in stronger strengths than rounded particles.
As a sand becomes finer and more uniform, it approaches the
characteristics of silt with corresponding decrease in permeability and
reduction in stability in the presence of water. Very fine, uniform sands
are difficult to distinguish visually from silt. However, dried sand
exhibits no cohesion (does not hold together) and feels gritty in contrast
to the very slight cohesion and smooth feel of dried silt.
(B) Silt and Clay

Even small amounts of fines may have important effects on
engineering properties of the soils in which they are found. As little as Figure 9. Compressibility-Liquid Limit relationship for
12 percent of particles smaller than the No. 200 sieve (0.074 mm) size in remoulded soils (Skempton, 1944).

and those of high liquid limit. are dark grey or black in colour, and usually have a characteristic odour
of decay. Organic clays feel spongy in the plastic range as compared to
(ii) Clays inorganic clays. The tendency for soils high in organic content to create
Clays are the plastic fines. Thus they plot above the À' line on the voids by decay or to change the physical characteristics of a soil mass
plasticity chart (Figure 6). They have low resistance to deformation through chemical alteration makes them undesirable for engineering use.
when wet, but they dry to hard cohesive masses. Clays are virtually Soils containing even moderate amounts of organic matter are
impervious, difficult to compact when wet, and impossible to drain by significantly more compressible and less stable than inorganic soils,
ordinary means. Large expansion and contraction with changes in water hence they are less desirable for engineering use.
content are characteristics of clays. The small size, flat shape, and
mineral composition of clay particles combine to produce a material that 6. ACTIVITY
is both compressible and plastic. The higher the liquid limit of a clay, the Although not part of the classification of soils Skempton (1953) has
more compressible it will be when compared at equal conditions of defined the Àctivity' of a soil as the ratio of the Plasticity Index to the
previous loading (Figure 9), hence, in the Unified Soil Classification percentage by weight of the soil smaller than the 2 micrometre. The
System, the liquid limit is used to distinguish between clays of high results that accommodated Skempton's definition are illustrated in Figure
compressibility (symbol H) and those of low compressibility (symbol L). 11 and were done on clays that were basicly 100% passing the 75 µm
{Note:- The low range is sometimes subdivided into low (L) and sieve. The value of obtaining the activity of the fines fraction is that high
intermediate (I).} Differences in plasticity of clays are reflected by their activity is generally but not always associated with swelling soils.
plasticity indexes.
Since the plastic limit of a soil is rarely less than 15 the range of the
plasticity index (PI = LL - PL) for a clay at any given liquid limit is small
since they must plot above the À' line on Figure 6. Thus clays are often
referred to as low or high plasticity clays rather than low or high
compressible clays. In general the higher the liquid limit and thus the
plasticity index the more cohesive is the clay at the same overburden
consolidation pressure, as seen in Figure 10 for Norwegian soft
(normally consolidated) clays. Field differentiation among clays is
accomplished by the toughness test in which the moist soil is moulded
and rolled into threads until crumbling occurs and by the dry strength test
which measures the resistance of the clay to breaking and pulverizing.
With a little experience in performing these tests, the clays of low
compressibility and also low plasticity, `lean' clays (symbol _L), can be
readily distinguished from the highly compressible and also highly
plastic `fat' clays (symbol _H). {Since the plastic index is less than the
liquid limit low or high compressibility for clays also means low or high
plasticity. This however is not true for silts. The subdivision L or H
refers to compressibility (Liquid Limit see Figure 9) and not plasticity.
This point is often misquoted.}
(iii) Organic Matter

Organic matter in the form of partly decomposed vegetation is the
primary constituent of peaty soils. Varying amounts of finely divided
vegetable matter are found in plastic and non-plastic sediments, and often
affect their properties sufficiently to influence their classification. Thus
we have organic silts and silt-clays of low plasticity and organic clays of
medium to high plasticity. Even small amounts of organic material in Figure 11. Typical activity relationship for three natural soils
colloidal form in a clay will result in an appreciable increase in liquid (Skempton, 1953).
limit of the material without increasing its plasticity index. Organic soils
7. VON POST CLASSIFICATION OF PEAT

Von Post's main classification of peat is for degree of decomposition
or "Humidification" symbol H.
Secondary subdivisions are for "Relative Moisture", symbol B;
"Number of Fibres", symbol F; "Number of Root Threads", symbol R;
and "Quantity of Wood" symbol V.
These classifications are given below (see after references):
8. REFERENCES
ASTM D-2487, "Classification of soils for engineering purposes",
American Society for Testing Materials. (TA401.A5S).
ASTM D-2488, "Description and identification of soils (visual-
manual procedure)", American Society for Testing Materials.
(TA401.A5S).
Bjerrum, L. (1954), "Geotechnical properties of Norwegian marine
clays". Geotechnique, Vol. 4, pp. 49-69. (TA1.G3).
Burmister, D.M., 1951, "Identification and Classification of Soils".
Symposium on Identification and Classification of Soils, Special
Figure 10. Relationship suggested by Bjerrum (1954) between
Technical Publication No. 113, American Society for Testing Materials,
undrained strength and plasticity Index.

pp. 3-24. (TA710.A5)
Casagrande, A., 1948, "Classification and Identification of Soils". Secondary Classification for Peat
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Volume 113,
pp. 901-991. (TA1.A5t) B. Relative B1 Air dry
Helenelund, K.V. (1968), "Compression, Tension and Beam Tests on Moisture: B2 Somewhat dry
Fibrous Peat". Proceedings of the Third International Peat Congress, B3 Normal moisture
Quebec, Canada, pp. 136-142. (TN837.I58) B4 Wet
"Peat Testing Manual", (1979). Technical Memorandum 125, B5 Very wet
National Research Council of Canada, Ed. Com. Day, J.H., Rennie, P.J.,
Stanek, W, and Raymond G.P. (Chairman). (TA710.A1N27). F. Number of F1 No fibres
Portland Cement Association (1956), "PCA soil primer". Fibres: F2 Few fibres
Portland Cement Association, Chicago, IL. 86p. F3 Plenty of fibres
Rose, A.C. (1924), "Practical field tests for subgrade soils". Public F4 Mainly fibres
Roads, Vol. 5, pp. 10-15. (TE23.A4).
R. Number of R1 No root threads
Skempton, A.W., 1944, "Notes on the compressibility of clays".
Root Threads: R2 Few root threads
Quart. J. Geol. Soc., London, C, pp. 119-135. (QE1.G345).
R3 Plenty of root threads
Skempton, A.W., 1953, "The colloidal activity of clays". Proc. 3rd
R4 Root threads forming main part of peat
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 57-61. (TA710.I6t) V. Quantity of V1 No wood remainder
Von Post, L. (1922) "Sveriges geologiska undersöknings Wood: V2 Few wood remainders
torvinventering och några av dess hittills vunna resultat" Sv. V3 Plenty wood remainders
Mosskulturför", Tidskr, 1:1-27. V4 Very many wood remainders
Classification of Degree of Decomposition of Peat
H1 Completely unhumified and muck-free peat; upon pressing

in the hand, gives off only colorless, clear water.
H2 Almost completely unhumified and muck-free peat; upon
pressing, gives off almost clear but yellow-brown water.
H3 Little humified and little muck-containing peat; upon
pressing, gives off distinctly turbid water, no peat
substances pass between the fingers and the residue is not
mushy.
H4 Poorly humified or some muck-containing peat; upon
pressing, gives off strongly turbid water. The residue is
somewhat mushy.
H5 Peat partially humified or with considerable muck-content.
The plant remains are recognizable but not distinct. Upon
pressing, some of the substance passes between the fingers
together with mucky water. The residue in the hand is
stronglv m1lshv
H6 Peat partially humified or with considerable muck-content.
The plant remains are not distinct. Upon pressing, at the
most, one third of the peat passes between the fingers. The
residue is strongly mushy but the plant residue stands out
more distinctly than in the unpressed peat.
H7 Peat quite well humified or with considerable
muck-content, in which much of the plant remains can still
be seen. Upon pressinR, about half of the peat passes
between the fingers. If water separates it is soupy and very
dark in color.
H8 Peat weIl humified or with considerable muck-content. The
plant remains are not recognizable. Upon pressing, about
two-thirds of the peat passes between the fingers. If it
gives off water at alln it is soupy. The remains consist
mainlY of more resistant root fibres, etc.
H9 Peat, very well humified or muck-like in which hardly any
plant remains are apparent. Upon pressing, nearly all of the
peat passes between the fingers like a homogeneous mush.
H10 Peat completely humified or muck-like in which no plant
remains are apparent. Upon pressing all of the peat passes
between the fingers.

: Examples of MSE Walls from Sierra
April 6, 2010
APPENDIX G
Examples of MSE Walls from Sierra

Bow Ridge - Geotechnical Investigation Final Report Dated April 6, 2010 - 201310111410396370 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

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

Bow Ridge - Geotechnical Investigation Final Report Dated April 6, 2010 - 201310111410396370 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Geotechnical Investigation

Bow Ridge Subdivision Phase 3

PROJECT NO. 123310172

1.1 Site and Geology .......................................................................................... 1

2.1 Field Investigation........................................................................................ 5

3.1 General .......................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Original Wall ............................................................................................... 11

6 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 25

APPENDIX A STATMENT OF GENERAL CONDITIONS

APPENDIX C BOREHOLE RECORDS

APPENDIX D LABORATORY TESTING

APPENDIX E SLOPE INCLINOMETER READINGS

APPENDIX F UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

APPENDIX G EXAMPLES OF MSE WALLS FROM SIERRA

Table 4-1 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Original Wall

Table 4-2 Calculated Factor of Safety (Original Wall) ............................................. 13

Table 4-4 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Retrofit Wall

Table 4-5 Analysis Parameters based on Stantec Investigation – Rebuilt Wall

Figure 2 Site Plan ....................................................................................APPENDIX B

Figure 4-1 Original Wall Design Cross Sections ....................................................... 12

Figure 4-2 Retrofit Wall Design ................................................................................... 16

Figure 4-3 Cross Section at Borehole BH7 ................................................................ 17

Figure 4-4 Rebuilt Wall Design.................................................................................... 19

Figure 4-5 Cross Sections through Rebuilt Wall....................................................... 20

Photo 1-2 Support Column of Stairway....................................................................... 3

Photo 1-3 Evidence of settlement at 10 Bow Ridge Close ........................................ 4

Photo 2-1 Typical laser scanned image ...................................................................... 6

Photo 4-1 Progressive Buckling of Fence ................................................................ 22

1.1 Site and Geology

The following documents were reviewed prior to completion of this report:

Photo 1-2 Support Column of Stairway

Photo 1-3 Evidence of settlement at 10 Bow Ridge Close

2.1 Field Investigation

2.2 Laboratory Testing

2.3 Laser Survey Scan of Walls

Photo 2-1 Typical laser scanned image

2.4 Slope Inclinometer Installation

3.2 Surficial Materials

3.3 Fill Materials

3.4 Clay (CL-CH)

3.5 Sandy Silt (ML) and Silty Sand (SM)

3.6 Low Plastic Clay (CL)

Table 3-1 Groundwater Levels July 2009 to September 2009

Table 3-2 Groundwater Levels November 2009 to February 2010

• Low factor of safety against sliding

• Poor construction method

4.1 Original Wall

4.1.1 Design Data

Figure 4-1 Original Wall Design Cross Sections

4.1.2 Stability Analyses

Table 4-2 Calculated Factor of Safety (Original Wall)

Borehole Number Calculated Factor of Safety

Table 4-3 Calculated Factor of Safety (Original Wall using ka = 1.0)

Borehole Number Calculated Factor of Safety

4.1.3 Wall Construction

4.2 Retrofit Wall

• Gravel material was used as backfill beneath the clay backfill.

Figure 4-2 Retrofit Wall Design

Figure 4-3 Cross Section at Borehole BH7

4.3 Rebuilt Wall

• Gravel material was used as backfill beneath the clay backfill.

Figure 4-4 Rebuilt Wall Design

Figure 4-5 Cross Sections through Rebuilt Wall