Sample Soils Report

#270, 120 Pembina Road
Sherwood Park, Alberta

T8H 0M2
Phone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
ENC File: 645 – 50
March 19, 2015
Alliance Development
c/o Brian Allsopp Architect Ltd.
1020 Parsons Road SW
Edmonton, Alberta
T6X 0J4
Ph: (780) 433-7828; Email: aleksandra@brianallsopp.com
Attention: Aleksandra Burzynska, Intern Architect AAA
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed McConachie CRU
16510 – 59A Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta
As requested, ENC Testing Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation at the

above noted site. Please find enclosed our report with respect to the above noted
investigation. In brief, this report presents the geotechnical recommendations for design and
construction aspects of this project.
This geotechnical investigation was prepared by or under the direct supervision of

this registered Professional, complying with the Alberta Building Code.
We trust this report meets your engineering design requirements. If you should
have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact ENC Testing Inc.
Yours truly,
ENC Testing Inc.
Ralph Wilhelm, M. Eng., P. Eng.

Project No.: T15 – 1013 ENC File: 645 – 50

Prepared For:
Alliance Development
c/o Brian Allsopp Architect Ltd.
1020 Parsons Road SW
Edmonton, Alberta
T6X 0J4
Date of Report:
March 2015
Materials Testing by:

ENC Testing Inc.
Sherwood Park, Alberta
2/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

_____________________ Geotechnical Testing & Consulting______________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4
2. SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................... 4
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 5
4. LABORATORY TESTING........................................................................................................... 5
5. SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 6
5.1 CLAY FILL .................................................................................................................................. 6
5.2 SAND FILL................................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 SAND .......................................................................................................................................... 6
5.4 CLAY .......................................................................................................................................... 6
5.5 CLAY TILL .................................................................................................................................. 7
5.6 CLAY SHALE ............................................................................................................................... 7
6. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 7
7. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 8
7.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8
7.2 CAST-IN-PLACE (C-I-P) PILES ...................................................................................................... 8
7.3 FOOTING OPTION ....................................................................................................................... 10
7.4 SLABS ON GRADE ...................................................................................................................... 12
7.5 TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL ........................................................................................ 13
7.6 PAVEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 15
7.7 CONCRETE ................................................................................................................................ 15
7.8 SEISMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 15
8. CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................... 16
A P P E N D I X ......................................................................................................................... 17
List of Pictures
Picture 1: Aerial View of Site........................................................................................... 5
Picture 2: Looking West at the site .................................................................................. 6
Picture 3: Pan northerly after site investigation ............................................................... 7

Project: Proposed McConachie CRU
Location: 16510 – 59A Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta
Client: Alliance Development c/o Brian Allsopp Architect Ltd.
Attention: Aleksandra Burzynska, Intern Architect AAA
1. INTRODUCTION
As requested, ENC Testing Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation made

on the above noted site. In brief, this report presents the geotechnical recommendations
for design and construction aspects of this project. The purpose of the investigation is to
provide general soils information, address potential foundation options, provide
foundation design parameters and address any site specific issues that may be
encountered during construction.
It is understood that the proposed structure will consist of a one storey pre-
engineered steel structure with a footprint of approximately 16,235ft2, located in
Edmonton, Alberta. The preferred foundation is grade beam on piles. A parking
evaluation is included. Should these conditions change, the undersigned should be
contacted so that additional recommendations may be supplied.
Written authorization signed by Mr. Joe Dhami, was received from Aleksandra
Burzynska via email on February 19, 2015. Fieldwork was completed March 6 & 16,
2015. This geotechnical investigation was conducted as outlined in proposal S15-1013
dated February 19, 2015, and is subject to the terms and conditions contained therein.
Previous land utilization, environmental concerns, buried objects unless

encountered, or other geotechnical issues not specifically noted are beyond the scope of
this report. All recommendations are based on the soils encountered in the testholes.
Should different soils be encountered between the testholes, additional recommendations
may be provided. The recommendations provided apply only to the outlined structure.
Other forms may require alternative recommendations.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed building is in NW35-53-24-W4M, Lot 130A, Block 17, Plan 152
0615. It is at 16510 59A Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta. Drainage was split towards
both adjacent roads, but predominantly towards 59A Street, across the testhole area.
Utilities checked included water, sewer, power, communication and gas service
lines. Underground utilities found on site were avoided during testhole probing.

167 Avenue
Picture 1: Aerial View of Site
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION
The soil investigation was conducted using a truck mounted Geoprobe rig owned
and operated by ENC Testing Inc. of Sherwood Park, Alberta. Eight testholes were
advanced: 5 MacroCores and 3 Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) in 1.2-metre increments
within the proposed building and parking areas except for ATCO-restricted access 10m west
of the east wall. These are recorded on the testhole logs and site plan in the Appendix.
A continuous visual description was recorded on site, which included the soil types,
depths, moisture, and other pertinent observations. Slightly disturbed samples were removed
at intervals of 0.6 metres from the MacroCore portion for further testing at the laboratory.
Following the probing, piezometric standpipes were installed in MacroCore Testholes J1–
J3. Elevations were levelled using the top of hydrant southeast of the site with a top
elevation of 689.04 metres derived from McConachie Site Grading Plan C02, Issue 1 for
development permit 2015.01.12.
4. LABORATORY TESTING
All samples returned to the laboratory were tested for moisture content. Four
representative samples were further tested to determine the liquid and plastic limits of the
Atterberg Limit series and one for the soil’s sulphate concentrations. The results of all
laboratory and field testing are provided on the attached testhole logs in the Appendix.

Picture 2: Looking West at the site
5. SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
A detailed description of the soils encountered is found on the attached testhole

logs in the Appendix. In general, the subsurface soil profile at this site may be described
as clay/sand fill, sand, clay, clay till and clay shale.
5.1 Clay Fill
Silty to sandy, stiff to very stiff, damp to moist, medium to high plastic, medium
brown to dark brown-grey clay fill with B-horizon organics was found in Testholes J1–J4
& J6–J8 to 0.2–1.8 metres depths. Its moisture content was 21.0%.
5.2 Sand Fill
Clayey to silty, fine grained, poorly graded, damp to moist, medium brown-grey
to dark brown sand fill was found in Testholes J2, J3 & J5 to 0.6–0.9 metre depths. Its
moisture content varied 12.8 to 19.2% and averaged 16.0%
5.3 Sand
Clayey to silty, fine grained, poorly graded, damp to wet, medium brown to
brown-grey sand with oxides was found below fill, within clay till in Testholes J1, J3, J4
& J6–J8 to 1.1–4.7 metres depths. Its moisture content varied 14.4 to 22.3% and
averaged 17.9%.
5.4 Clay
Silty, high plastic, very stiff, moist, medium brown-grey clay was found in
Testholes J1–J5 under the clay/sand fill or sand and inferred from CPT in Testholes J7 &
J8 to 1.8–2.4 (termination) metres depths. Its moisture content varied 26.0 to 31.9% and
averaged 28.9%. An Atterberg test series in Testhole J1 at 1.8 metres depth showed a
plastic limit of 15.8%, liquid limit of 48.0% and plasticity index of 32.2%.

5.5 Clay Till
Sandy, medium plastic, stiff to hard, moist, medium to dark brown to brown-grey
to grey clay till with coal, oxide and pebble inclusions was found in Testholes J1–J3 & J5
and inferred from CPT in Testholes J6–J8 under the clay or sand to 2.4 (termination)–6.7
metres depths. Its moisture content varied 12.9 to 31.8% and averaged 21.1%. Atterberg
test series in Testholes J1 at 2.4 & 5.5 metres depths showed plastic limits of 17.7 & 14.8%,
liquid limits of 44.9 & 40.3% and plasticity indices of 27.2 & 25.5%.
5.6 Clay Shale
Silty, high plastic, very stiff to hard, moist, medium brown-grey clay shale was
found in Testhole J2 and inferred from CPT in Testhole J8 under the clay till to 8.2
(termination) metres depth. Its moisture content varied 31.9 to 41.0% and averaged 35.2%.
An Atterberg test series in Testhole J2 at 7.9 metres depth showed a plastic limit of 40.1%,
liquid limit of 205.7% and plasticity index of 165.6%.
Picture 3: Pan northerly after site investigation
6. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Following drilling, piezometric standpipes were installed and the water level was
measured after 10 days as shown in the results tabulated below:
Below Ground Surface Below Ground Surface
Testhole Ground Date at End of Drilling March 16, 2015
number Elev Probed (metres) (metres)
(m) Depth Elev. Depth Elev.
J1 689.53 6-Mar 2.28 687.25 1.73 687.80
J2 688.91 6-Mar dry 680.71 8.20 dry
J3 688.79 6-Mar 2.91 685.88 2.41 686.38
It should be noted that groundwater level may fluctuate on a seasonal or yearly basis,
and after periods of heavy rainfall or extended dry weather. Water levels may vary between
the testhole locations.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General Construction
1. The water table on the site was found as shallow as 1.73 metres. Excavation may
experience significant ground water impact.
2. Note that recommendations are based on depth from grade at the time of drilling.
These should be reconsidered with final site grading fill depth. ENC can do this if
provided with original ground contours that may be compared to final grades.
3. The foundation system may consist of a grade beam on cast-in-place drilled piles.
A footing option is also provided.
4. It is recommended that all surface grading be sloped away from the buildings at a
minimum grade of 10% for a distance of 3.0 metres. Where pavements are
provided, this may be reduced to 2%. It is imperative that drainage be maintained
during construction and over time.
5. It is recommended that all soil materials be tested by ENC Testing Inc. to verify
adequate compaction, before additional materials are placed.
6. Allowance for or acceptance of differential movement between different

foundation conditions within the structure, between any staging of construction,
and between the structure and any slabs-on-grade must be made. In general,
mixing of foundation types within the structure is not recommended.
7. The planting of large trees and landscaping should be designed in such a manner
that desiccation or saturation of soil does not occur. Care should also be taken
that excess water from sprinklers does not cause the subgrade soils to become
saturated and eventually swell.
8. The following values correspond to ultimate limit states (ULS) and serviceability
limits states (SLS) as defined in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual 4th
Edition 2006, section 8.2 and can be used as such. Serviceability limit states are
numerically equivalent to the working stress and should include both dead and
live loads. The resistance factor (φ) from the Canadian Foundation Engineering
Manual has been provided. The theoretical ULS value must not be used for
purposes other than ULS design with the appropriate resistance and load factors.
SLS design must be checked.
7.2 Cast-in-Place (C-I-P) Piles
1. A cast-in-place concrete pile foundation system is considered geotechnically

possible for this project. The structure may be founded on an adequately reinforced

grade beam or pile cap supported by bored, cast-in-place, concrete piles.
2. Since the water table on site was found as shallow as 1.73 metres deep and sand was
present at various depths, casing is recommended.
3. The allowable skin friction values that may be used for design are as follows:
Soil Stratum Skin Friction Value (kPa)

metres depth below grade in Resistance factored
SLS
clay, clay till, sand or clay shale Factor (φ) ULS
0.0 – 1.8 0 0
1.8 – 3.0 25 0.4 33
3.0 –8.2 30 0.4 40
4. Considering the effects of frost and seasonal moisture changes, the friction value for
the first 1.5 metres of pile should not be considered in design for unheated or
isolated piles. This may be reduced to 0.6 metres for interior piles of continuously
heated buildings.
5. Down-drag is load placed on the pile by settlement of added fill. It can be reduced
to -5 kPa by placing a double polyethylene wrapped sonotube through the fill. This
provides a smooth low friction surface to reduce the down-drag. Alternatively,
without this treatment, down drag of -20kPa will occur and must be supported in the
design.
6. The recommended minimum skin friction pile depths at this site, to prevent frost
uplift, are 5.0 metres in a continuously heated structure and 6.0 metres in a non-
continuously heated structure. Reinforcing should have similar minimum lengths.
The minimum pile diameter for all piles should be 400 millimetres, with a minimum
skin friction pile spacing of 3.0 pile diameters on center.
7. The mixing of piles, pile types, or footings within one structural element is not
recommended as differential movements may occur.
8. End-bearing piles are an alternative for this site. End-bearing resistance values
that may be used are as follows:
Soil Stratum C-I-P Pile End-Bearing Value

(kPa)
metres below grade in Resistance factored
SLS
clay till or clay shale Factor (φ) ULS
4.5 – 6.9 in clay till 260 0.4 340
6.9 – 8.2 in clay shale 400 0.4 530
9. Use caution and good inspection to ensure validity of end-bearing resistance and be
prepared to increase bell diameter during construction at locations where less

resistance is found.
10. These values are based on an estimated movement of 25 millimetres to full load.
Skin friction should not be included in the design of end-bearing piles. Note that
end-bearing piles have a maximum bell to shaft ratio of 3:1. Cover of 2.0 bell
diameters has been assumed in the calculation of the capacity of the belled piles
bearing value. For partial bells, the belling tool must be the same size as the shaft
diameter. In order to keep the bell open, the bell must be entirely formed in the clay
till or clay shale.
11. All pile holes must be clean and dry during and prior to placement of concrete. The
pile concrete should be placed as soon as possible after the pile has been bored to
minimize the potential of sloughing or ingressing groundwater.
12. The piling contractor should make its own determination as to the need for casing
and ability to provide a clean pile. It is noted that different piling equipment requires
different conditions to maintain clean and open pile holes.
13. All pile holes should be carefully inspected to ensure that no water or slough
material is present prior to concrete placement. Full time inspection by ENC Testing
Inc. is recommended for all piles and is required should the client require ABC
schedules.
14. Provisions should be made for the possible swelling of the subsoil and the effects of
frost action by providing a suitable 100 millimetre void form beneath the grade
beams.
15. It is recommended that all piles be adequately reinforced. Concrete for all piles
should be adequately compacted.
7.3 Footing Option
1. A standard concrete footing foundation is considered geotechnically satisfactory

for this project. The allowable bearing values that may be used are as follows:
Soil Stratum Bearing Value (kPa)

1.5–3.0 metres below present grade SLS Resistance factored
on undisturbed clay, clay till or sand Factor ULS
Strip Footing 140 0.5 210
Spread Footing 180 0.5 270
2. To provide frost cover and moisture protection the footings should be placed at
least 1.5 metres below finished grade within a continuously heated structure and
2.4 metres for a non-continuously heated structure or exterior isolated footings.
Differential settlements are anticipated to be less than 25 millimetres.

3. All foundations must have a minimum of 1.5 metres of frost protection in
continuously heated buildings. For a non-continuously heated structure or
exterior isolated footings, a minimum cover of 2.4 metres should be used.
4. Due to the nature of this soil, the footing excavations must be inspected by ENC
Testing Inc. to verify the bearing resistance of undisturbed soil exposed at all
footing locations if ABC schedules are needed for the project. The footing soils
must not be exposed to water, or else they will soften.
5. To ensure adequate performance of the foundation system, continuous footings

should be designed as a beam with adequate reinforcing and should be integrated
with the foundation walls, if applicable. Such design procedures would permit
foundation components to withstand a small amount of differential movement
induced by any soil volume changes.
6. Should any organic, soft, wet, or weak footing foundation areas, not shown by the
testholes, be encountered during construction, ENC Testing Inc. should be
contacted so that additional recommendations may be supplied.
7. No loose, disturbed, remoulded, or sloughed material should be allowed to remain

in the open footing excavations. Hand cleaning is advised if an acceptable surface
cannot be prepared by mechanical equipment. Excavations should be dug with
equipment operating remote from the bearing surface. It is recommended that all
bearing surfaces be inspected to verify the correct soil type, and to check for local
pre-existing disturbances or soft areas.
8. Footing excavations should be protected from drying, rain, snow, freezing, and
the ingress of groundwater. If groundwater is noted in the excavation, the
undersigned should be contacted to assess the situation. Care should be taken
during construction to prevent excessive changes in moisture content of this
material. Where practical, weeping tile should be utilized to assist in control of
infiltration water. Protection from desiccation is also recommended to minimize
volume change. This is accomplished by not using below slab hot air heating and
keeping large deep-rooting trees a sufficient distance away from the building.
9. All interior backfill against foundation walls should be an inorganic material and
should be compacted to an equivalent of at least 98% of the corresponding
Standard Proctor Density at optimum moisture content. The backfill should be
placed in lifts not greater than 150 millimetres after compaction.
10. Surface grading of the fill around the proposed building should be made sloping
away from the foundation walls. Exterior fill should be compacted, and be of low
permeability materials. Lateral pressures on the foundation should be considered
during backfill.
11. During winter construction, it is essential that all interior fill and load bearing
materials remain frost-free. Should freezing of the foundation support soils occur,
additional movements can be expected. Recommended winter construction

practices, with respect to hoarding and heating of the forms and the fresh
concrete, must be strictly followed. If doubts remain as to the suitability of the
foundation during construction, the owner should consult ENC Testing Inc.
7.4 Slabs on Grade
1. With lightly reinforced slabs, all obvious organic material and deleterious
material should be removed from under the development areas. Proof rolling
should be conducted to verify that no soft areas exist. Organic materials are
subject to large volume change under load when they become wet; hence, and do
not provide uniform or consistent support. Should any organic or other soft or
deleterious materials be found, it is recommended that they be removed and
replaced with clay, compacted to 98% of the corresponding Standard Proctor
Density slightly over optimum moisture content.
2. Care should be taken during construction not to excessively dry or wet any of
these materials. As moisture change of the supporting soil occurs, change in the
volume of supporting materials will occur, with accompanying movement of the
slab. It is recommended that the soil be placed at moisture content slightly over
optimum moisture to reduce the potential for swelling.
3. The clay has potential for volume change with moisture changes. As placing a
structure on this site will alter the existing moisture regime, some floor slab
movements can be expected in response to the new post building moisture regime.
If floor movements cannot be tolerated, a grade separated structural slab would be
required.
4. Any clay material used for slab support below the subgrade should be placed in
150mm lifts, compacted, and tested to an equivalent of at least 98% of the
corresponding Standard Proctor Density at slightly over optimum moisture
content. Subgrade preparation should be conducted, and consist of a minimum of
scarification and mixing of 150 millimetres to optimum moisture content, and
compacting to 98% of the corresponding Standard Proctor Density.
5. A layer of clean granular material, 150 millimetres minimum, should be placed

immediately below the slab-on-grade. This material should be compacted to an
equivalent of at least 98% of the corresponding Standard Proctor Density at
optimum moisture content.
6. A non-deteriorating vapour barrier should be placed beneath the concrete floor to

reduce desiccation of the subgrade material. It is assumed that crack control
reinforcing and joints will be utilized.
7. It is recommended that provisions for slab movement be designed into the

structure. Grade-supported floor slabs should be structurally separated from other

components of the proposed structure. The slabs should contain sufficient
reinforcing to control cracking due to vertical movement caused by shrinkage and
swelling of the underlying material. Other slab movement provisions may include
adjustments for slab-supported equipment and space over partitions
8. Where separation for the slab and foundation components is not practical, the slab
should be reinforced to act as a structural slab, and provision for volume change
(VoidForm, for example) made underneath and adjacent to the grade beam.
9. In such areas as furnace rooms, where there is an intense concentrated heat,

adequate provisions should be made to protect the supporting subsoil from
excessive desiccation. These areas should be well insulated so that soil volume
changes beneath the floor slabs may be kept to a tolerable amount. Under slab air
heating is not recommended.
10. Trees can affect the long term stability of foundations. The planting of large trees
and landscaping should be designed in such a manner that desiccation or
saturation of soil does not occur. Care should also be taken that excess water from
sprinklers does not cause the subgrade soils to become saturated and eventually
swell.
11. Any areas with concrete floor slabs that will be exposed to deep frost penetration
below the slabs are expected to move; hence, should not be rigidly attached to the
structure, and should contain sufficient reinforcing to control crack width and
vertical movements across the cracks and joints.
7.5 Trench Excavation and Backfill
1. The water table on the site was found as shallow as 1.73 metres depth on March
16, 2015. Ground water is likely to affect excavation.
2. The trench location was not defined, but the subsurface soil conditions
encountered in the test holes are considered to be fair to poor for the installation
of storm sewer pipe and control structures using the City of Edmonton or better
trenching and backfilling standards.
3. Actual cutback angles should be determined in the field during construction. The
Occupational Health and Safety Act, General Safety Regulation should be strictly
followed, except were superseded by this report. Please note that OH&S permits
a vertical portion at the bottom of the trench, and this is not recommended in
sands and silts.
4. To minimize pipe loading, trench widths should be minimal but compatible with
safe construction operations. The trench width must be wide enough to
accommodate pipe bedding and compaction equipment.

5. Long open trenches are not recommended as the sidewalls will fail over time.
Protection for the workers is recommended for extended time excavations.
6. The moisture content of clay and clay till in the testholes ranged from 12.9 to
31.9% and the clay averaged significantly wet of the estimated optimum moisture
content (OMC) for compaction. This variable condition will cause a
corresponding variability in the utility trench pipe backfill conditions. Drying and
mixing may be required to achieve OMC for best compaction.
7. To overcome utility installation difficulties, it is recommended that washed or

screened rock and a geotextile separator be utilized for the pipe bedding in areas
of poor pipe bedding conditions. The washed rock and geotextile should surround
the entire pipe with the exact dimensions determined in the field during
construction. It is recommended that soft un-compactable material be replaced by
washed rock to a minimum depth of 150 millimetres below the pipe. Depending
upon the conditions of soil at the pipe base, additional rock may be required.
8. Pipe bedding should adhere to City of Edmonton specifications or equivalent

standard. The backfill material beneath and up to the middle of the pipe should be
an approved bedding sand material where conditions allow. This material should
be hand placed and hand tamped with care taken to fill the underside of the pipe.
9. Minimum trench compaction recommendations are 98% of the corresponding

Standard Proctor Density. A 150 millimetre maximum lift thickness should be
used throughout. This degree of compaction should be readily achievable with
some of the subsurface soils encountered in the testholes; however, drying or
mixing may be required.
10. Bedding first lifts will require lighter and smaller compaction equipment to avoid
damage to the pipe installed. Ideally, each lift should be tested, the thickness
determined and approval received before additional material is placed.
11. It should be noted that the ultimate performance of the trench backfill is directly
related to the consistency and uniformity of the backfill compaction, as well as the
underground contractor’s construction procedures. In order to achieve this
uniformity, the lift thickness and compaction criterion should be strictly enforced,
including near the pipe zone. Sand, utilized to protect fragile pipe must also be
compacted.
12. Temporary surcharge loads, such as spill piles, should not be allowed to within
2.0 metres of an unsupported excavation face while mobile vehicles should be
kept back at least 1.0 metre. All excavations should be checked regularly for
signs of sloughing or failures, especially after rainfall periods.

7.6 Pavement
1. Pavement structure for light duty car and light truck areas on clean subgrade:
75 millimetres of asphaltic concrete

250 millimetres of 20 mm Crushed Gravel
150 millimetres subgrade preparation
Proof rolling is recommended to confirm all soft areas have been removed.
2. Pavement structure for heavy duty truck areas on clean subgrade:
120 millimetres of asphaltic concrete

375 millimetres of 20 mm Crushed Gravel
3. Concrete slab structure for heavy duty truck parking, driveway or point loads:
175 millimetres of Portland Cement Concrete

175 millimetres of 20 millimetre Crushed Gravel
4. All crushed gravel, should be compacted to a minimum 100% of Standard Proctor

Density, and meet all other City of Edmonton or comparable standards.
7.7 Concrete
A Test on a selected soil sample from Testhole J1 at 1.8 metres depth indicated a
moderate potential for sulphate attack. Therefore, C.S.A. Type MS or HS (formerly
known as Type 50 Sulphate Resistant) cement should be used for concrete. The
minimum strength should be 32 MPa. Concrete should be air entrained where freeze-
thaw will occur.
7.8 Seismic Analysis
Edmonton is located in the seismic zone Sa (0.2) = 0.12; this site is classified as a
Class D site according to the Alberta Building Code (ABC) Table 4.1.8.4.A.

8. CLOSURE
This geotechnical investigation report was prepared for the exclusive and
confidential use of Alliance Development, Brian Allsopp Architect Ltd. and their agents;
it applies only to the subject project. The recommendations given are based on the
subsurface soil conditions encountered during testhole boring, current construction
techniques, and generally accepted engineering practices. Soil conditions are known only
at the test boring locations.
Due to the geological randomness of many soil formations, no interpolation of soil

conditions between or away from the testholes has been made or implied. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Should other soils be encountered during
construction or other information pertinent to the structures become available, the
recommendations may be altered or modified in writing by the undersigned.
We trust this information is satisfactory for your current needs. If you should have any
further questions, please contact our office.
Respectfully yours,
ENC Testing Inc.
. WILH PERMIT TO PRACTICE

.W ENC TESTING INC.
EL
R.R
2015 March 19
PERMIT NUMBER P07111
The Association of Professional Engineers
and Geoscientists of Alberta
Ralph Wilhelm, M. Eng., P. Eng.

A P P E N D I X
LIST OF CONTENTS
Site Plan – Figure A1
Logs of Testholes J1 – J8
Cone Tests J6 – J8
UCS Soil Classification Chart

with Atterberg Test results plotted

ENC Testing Inc. TESTHOLE J1
PAGE 1 OF 1
Sherwood Park, AB T8H 0M2
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
CLIENT Alliance Development c/o Brian Allsopp Architect Ltd. DATE DRILLED 06-Mar-2015
PROJECT NAME McConachie CRU, 16510 - 59A Street NW GROUND ELEVATION 689.53
PROJECT LOCATION Edmonton, Alberta GROUND WATER LEVELS:
PROJECT NUMBER T15-1013 AT END OF DRILLING 2.28 m / Elev 687.25 m
DRILLING METHOD Macro Core AFTER DRILLING ON 16-Mar-2015
LOGGED BY JH REVIEWED BY RW THE WATER LEVEL IS 1.73 m / Elev 687.80 m
TESTHOLE LOCATION 1.5m E / 2.0m S of the NW corner of the building
LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE: MACROCORE
SULPHATE: MODERATE
SLOTTED
WELL BACKFILL: BENTONITE SAND
PIPE
Slough
ATTERBERG
WELL DIAGRAM
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
(FILL) CLAY FILL, sandy, stiff, damp, medium brown, trace
FILL B horizon organics
ENC TESTHOLE LOG CPT/SPT T15-1013 ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT 16510 - 59A STREET EDMONTON.GPJ GINT STD CANADA LAB.GDT 3-20-15
100 20.6
688.9 0.6 (SC) SAND, clayey, fine grained, poorly graded, damp,
1 medium brown-grey, trace oxides
SC
100 20.4
687.9 1.7 (CH) CLAY, silty, high plastic, very stiff, moist, medium 225 26.0 48.0 15.8 32.2
2 CH
brown-grey
687.4 2.1 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, medium plastic, stiff to very stiff,
moist, medium brown-grey, inclusions of coal, oxides and 200 27.9 44.9 17.7 27.2
pebbles
3
CI 175 25.0
300 19.2
4
685.6 4.0 (SM) SAND, silty, fine grained, poorly graded, wet, medium
SM brown - 17.2
5
684.8 4.7 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, medium plastic, very stiff to hard, 300 14.2
moist, dark brown, inclusions pebbles
CI
--dark grey at 5.2m
450+ 14.7 40.3 14.8 25.5
683.9 5.6
6
End of testhole - refusal at 5.6m

No slough
Standpipe Installed
Water at 2.28m after drilling
7
Water at 1.73m on 16-Mar-2015 at 10 days
8
PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
PROJECT NUMBER T15-1013 AT END OF DRILLING Dry
LOGGED BY JH REVIEWED BY RW THE WATER LEVEL IS Dry
TESTHOLE LOCATION 36.0m W / 13.0m N of the SE corner of the building
SULPHATE:
SLOTTED
PIPE
ATTERBERG
WELL DIAGRAM
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
(FILL) SAND FILL, clayey, fine grained, poorly graded,
FILL damp, medium brown-grey
225 19.2
1
FILL 688.0 0.9 (FILL) CLAY FILL, silty, high plastic, very stiff, moist, dark
200 21.0
brown-grey, trace B horizon organics
CH 687.5 1.4
(CH) CLAY, silty, high plastic, very stiff, moist, medium
2 brown-grey 250 20.7
687.1 1.8
(CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, medium plastic, very stiff to hard,
moist, medium brown-grey, inclusions of pebbles 275 21.6
3
250 20.3
--medium grey-brown at 3.4m

450+ 12.9
4
CI 450+ 13.2
--dark grey at 4.4m
5 400 23.7
325 25.6
--intermittent layers of clay shale at 5.5m
6
325 17.9
350 33.2
7 682.2 6.7 (CH) CLAY SHALE, silty, high plastic, very stiff to hard,
moist, medium grey-brown
425 31.9
CH
8 425 34.6
400 41.0 205.7 40.1 165.6
680.7 8.2
9
End of testhole - refusal at 8.2m
No slough
Standpipe Installed
10 Dry after drilling
Dry on 16-Mar-2015 at 10 days
11
PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
PROJECT NUMBER T15-1013 AT END OF DRILLING 2.91 m / Elev 685.88 m
LOGGED BY JH REVIEWED BY RW THE WATER LEVEL IS 2.41 m / Elev 686.38 m
TESTHOLE LOCATION 17.0m W / 7.5m N of the SE corner of the building
SULPHATE:
SLOTTED
PIPE
Slough
ATTERBERG
WELL DIAGRAM
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
FILL (FILL) CLAY FILL, sandy, B horizon organically
FILL 688.6 0.2 contaminated, damp, dark brown
(FILL) SAND FILL, clayey, silty, fine grained, poorly graded, 100 18.2
688.2 0.6
damp, medium brown
1 SM (SM) SAND, silty, fine grained, poorly graded, damp,
medium brown-grey 100 20.5
687.4 1.4 (CH) CLAY, silty, high plastic, very stiff, moist, medium
CH brown-grey
275 30.5
2
686.7 2.1 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, medium plastic, very stiff to hard,
moist, medium brown-grey, inclusions of coal, oxides and 250 22.3
pebbles
3 CI
275 21.4
--medium grey at 3.5m 450+ 16.6

4 685.0 3.8 (SM) SAND, silty, fine grained, poorly graded, wet, medium
SM brown
- 22.3
684.2 4.6 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, medium plastic, very stiff, moist,
5 dark grey, inclusions of coal and pebbles 250 28.6
CI
250 25.8
6
250 31.8
682.7 6.1
End of testhole at 6.1m

7 No slough
Standpipe Installed
Water at 2.91m after drilling
Water at 2.41m on 16-Mar-2015 at 10 days
8
PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
PROJECT NUMBER T15-1013 AT END OF DRILLING ---
DRILLING METHOD Macro Core AFTER DRILLING ON
LOGGED BY JH REVIEWED BY RW THE WATER LEVEL IS ---
TESTHOLE LOCATION Parking Area, 12.0m N / 17.0m E of the NW corner of the building
SULPHATE:
WELL BACKFILL:
ATTERBERG
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
(FILL) CLAY FILL, silty, B horizon organically contaminated, high
FILL plastic, damp, dark brown
689.0 0.3 (SM) SAND, silty, fine grained, poorly graded, damp, medium
brown
100 15.0
SM
1
688.3 1.1 (SC) SAND, clayey, fine grained, poorly graded, moist, medium
SC brown-grey 100 15.0
687.9 1.4 (CH) CLAY, silty, high plastic, stiff to very stiff, moist, medium
brown-grey
175 27.0
CH
2
200 31.9
686.9 2.4

3 No standpipe installed
5
PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
DRILLING METHOD Macro Core AFTER DRILLING ON
TESTHOLE LOCATION Parking Area, 11.0m N / 22.0m W of the NE corner of the building
SULPHATE:
WELL BACKFILL:
ATTERBERG
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
(FILL) SAND FILL, fine grained, poorly graded, damp, dark
brown
FILL
150 12.8
1 687.9 0.9 (CH) CLAY, silty, high plastic, very stiff, moist, medium
brown-grey
200 22.0
CH
200 24.4
2
686.7 2.1 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, medium plastic, very stiff, moist, medium
CI brown, inclusions of coal and pebbles
300 19.2
686.4 2.4

3 No standpipe installed
5
PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
DRILLING METHOD Macro Core / Cone Penetration AFTER DRILLING ON
TESTHOLE LOCATION 1.9m E / 1.6m N of the SW corner of the building
SULPHATE:
WELL BACKFILL:
ATTERBERG
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
(FILL) CLAY FILL, silty, damp, medium brown-grey, trace B
FILL horizon organics
688.8 0.5 (SC) SAND, clayey, fine grained, poorly graded, damp, medium 125 14.4
1
brown-grey
150 17.3
SC 1.2m, End of probing, cone penetration and implied classification
below,
2 SAND continues
687.0 2.4 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, very stiff
3
CI
4
SM
685.4 4.0 (SM) SAND, silty, dense
685.0 4.4 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, hard
5 CI
683.9 5.4
6
End of cone penetration - refusal at 5.44m
8
PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
TESTHOLE LOCATION 25.0m E / 17.0m N of the SW corner of the building
SULPHATE:
WELL BACKFILL:
ATTERBERG
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
(FILL) CLAY FILL, sandy, damp, medium brown-grey, trace B
FILL horizon organics
SC brown-grey
1
688.0 1.1 (CH) CLAY, silty, high plastic, very stiff, damp, medium 275 26.4
CH brown-grey
1.2m, End of probing, cone penetration and implied classification

2 687.3 1.8 below,
CLAY continues
CI (CI) CLAY TILL, silty, stiff
3 SM 686.2 2.9 (SM) SAND, silty, medium dense to dense

CI 686.0 3.1 (CI) CLAY TILL, sandy, hard
SM 685.7 3.4 (SM) SAND, silty, dense
685.4 3.7
4
8
PAGE 1 OF 1
Telephone: (780) 467-1334
Fax: (780) 467-1336
TESTHOLE LOCATION 1.2m S / 17.8m W of the NE corner of the building
SULPHATE:
WELL BACKFILL:
ATTERBERG
ELEVATION (m)
SAMPLE TYPE
LIMITS
POCKET PEN.
CONTENT (%)
SULPHATE
MOISTURE
DEPTH (m)
GRAPHIC
U.S.C.S.
DEPTH
PLASTICITY
(kPa)
LOG
(m)
PLASTIC
INDEX
LIQUID
LIMIT
LIMIT
0
(FILL) CLAY FILL, sandy, damp, medium brown-grey, trace B
FILL
horizon organics
SC
1 brown-grey
687.7 1.1 (CH) CLAY, silty, high plastic, very stiff, damp, medium 125 28.5
brown-grey
CH
2 1.2m, End of probing, cone penetration and implied classification
686.7 2.1 below,
CLAY continues
(CI) CLAY TILL, silty to sandy, very stiff to hard
3
CI
7
681.9 6.9 (CH) CLAY SHALE, silty, very stiff to hard
CH
681.1 7.6
8
10
ENC Testing Inc. Cone Penetration Test Results
Project: McConachie CRU, 16510 – 59 A Street NW, Edmonton Project No: T15-1013 Figure Number: A 10
Client: Alliance Development c/o Brian Allsopp Architect Ltd. Test No: J6 Tested By: KR
Location: 1.9m E, 1.6m N of SW Building Corner Date: March 16, 2015 Reviewed By: RW
3TM: Easting: Northing: Zone: Elevation: 689.38 Water Table (metres depth) 1.73
Cone Resistance Sleeve Friction Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Behavior Estimated
(MPa) (kPa) (%) Absolute (kPa) Clay Content (%)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
Metres
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
End at 5.44 m
C:\Users\R.Wilhelm.ENCTESTING\Documents\Client Files 2015\T15-1013 Alliance Development 16510 - 59A Street Edmonton\Cones\Cone j6 CALC
Location: 25.0m E, 17.0m N of SW Building Corner Date: March 16, 2015 Reviewed By: RW
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
Metres
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
End at 3.71 m
Location: 17.8m W, 1.2m S of NE Building Corner Date: March 16, 2015 Reviewed By: RW
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
Metres
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6
7 7 7 7 7
8 8 8 8 8
End at 7.63 m
3/16/2015
MODIFIED (BY PFRA, 1985) UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS
GROUP ENC
MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
SYMBOL SYMBOL
curve. Depending on percentages of fines (fraction smaller than

(D 30 ) 2
5% to 12% Borderline cases requiring the use of dual symbols

D 60
Less than 5% GW, GP, SW, SP ; More than 12% GM, GC, SM, SC
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND
Determine percentages of gravel and sand from grain size

CLEAN GW MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CU = > 4; C C = =1 - 3
D 10 (D 10 )(D 60 )
µm)
75 µm) coarse grained soils are classified as follows:

GRAVELS
> 50% > 4.75 mm
WITH FEW
GRAVELS
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND NOT MEETING ALL GRADATION

OR NO FINES GP
(MORE THAN HALF BY WEIGHT LARGER THAN 75
MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES REQUIREMENTS FOR GW

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
GRAVELS SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT ATTERBERG LIMITS

WITH
GM MIXTURES
ABOVE 'A' LINE 4 < Ip < 7,
BELOW 'A' LINE, Ip < 4
ARE BORDERLINE CASES
SIGNIFICANT
REQUIRING USE OF DUAL
AMOUNT OF CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY ATTERBERG LIMITS
GC MIXTURES ABOVE 'A' LINE, Ip > 7
SYMBOLS
FINES
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, D 60 (D 30 ) 2

CLEAN SW LITTLE OR NO FINES
CU = > 6; C C = =1 - 3
SANDS D 10 (D 10 )(D 60 )
≥ 50% < 4.75 mm
WITH FEW
POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, NOT MEETING ALL GRADATION
SANDS
OR NO FINES SP LITTLE OR NO FINES REQUIREMENTS FOR SW
SANDS ATTERBERG LIMITS

WITH
SM SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES ABOVE 'A' LINE 4 < Ip < 7,
BELOW 'A' LINE, Ip < 4
ARE BORDERLINE CASES
SIGNIFICANT
REQUIRING USE OF DUAL
AMOUNT OF ATTERBERG LIMITS
SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES SYMBOLS
FINES ABOVE 'A' LINE, Ip > 7
SILTS INORGANIC SILTS & VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK

µm)
W L< 50% ML FLOUR, SILTY / CLAYEY FINE SANDS, CLAYEY
PLASTICITY CHART (SEE BELOW)

(BELOW 'A'
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON
LINE -
(MORE THAN HALF BY WEIGHT SMALLER THAN 75
NEGLIGIBLE
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
ORGANIC W L> 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS
CONTENT)
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY,

CLAYS W L< 30% CL GRAVELLY, SANDY, OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
(ABOVE 'A'
LINE - INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
30% < W L < #270, 120 Pembina Road
NEGLIGIBLE CI GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
ORGANIC 50% CLAYS
CONTENT)
Sherwood Park, AB
W L> 50% CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT
CLAYS
T8H 0M2
ORGANIC INORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
CLAYS & W L< 50% OL OF LOW AND MEDIUM PLASTICITY
SILTS
(BELOW 'A' ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY,
W L> 50% OH ORGANIC SILTS
LINE)
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS OR PEAT OR OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS STRONG COLOR OR ODOR, OFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE
PLASTICITY CHART FOR SOIL PARTICLES < 425 µm ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTORS

40
'B' LINE
'C' LINE
FRACTION SIEVE SIZE RANGES,

PASSES RETAINS ADJECTIVES
CH
30 J1@1.8 BOULDER 900 mm 300 mm
PLASTICITY INDEX (LP) %
COBBLE 300 mm 75 mm
J1@2.4
J1@5.5 GRAVEL
20 CI COARSE 75 mm 19 mm
FINE 19 mm 4.75 mm > 35 % and
21 – 35 % ~ y*
MH or OH SAND 10 – 20 % some
10 CL COARSE 4.75 mm 2.0 mm >0 – 10 % trace
MEDIUM 2.0 mm 425 mm
ML or OL
CL - ML FINE 425 mm 75 mm
ML LIQUID LIMIT (WL ) %

* GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTY, CLAYEY
0
SILT / CLAY 75 mm ADJECTIVES AS ABOVE
10 20 30 40 50 60
T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmNE CALCS UCS85 pts Figure A 5

Sample Soils Report

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sample Soils Report

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

#270, 120 Pembina Road

Sherwood Park, Alberta

ENC File: 645 – 50

March 19, 2015

Ph: (780) 433-7828; Email: aleksandra@brianallsopp.com

Attention: Aleksandra Burzynska, Intern Architect AAA

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

As requested, ENC Testing Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation at the

This geotechnical investigation was prepared by or under the direct supervision of

Ralph Wilhelm, M. Eng., P. Eng.

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

Materials Testing by:

2/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

Picture 1: Aerial View of Site........................................................................................... 5

Picture 2: Looking West at the site .................................................................................. 6

Picture 3: Pan northerly after site investigation ............................................................... 7

3/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

Project: Proposed McConachie CRU

Location: 16510 – 59A Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta

Client: Alliance Development c/o Brian Allsopp Architect Ltd.

Attention: Aleksandra Burzynska, Intern Architect AAA

As requested, ENC Testing Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation made

Previous land utilization, environmental concerns, buried objects unless

4/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

Picture 1: Aerial View of Site

5/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

5. SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS

A detailed description of the soils encountered is found on the attached testhole

5.1 Clay Fill

5.2 Sand Fill

6/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

5.6 Clay Shale

Picture 3: Pan northerly after site investigation

7/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

7.1 General Construction

6. Allowance for or acceptance of differential movement between different

7.2 Cast-in-Place (C-I-P) Piles

1. A cast-in-place concrete pile foundation system is considered geotechnically

8/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

Soil Stratum Skin Friction Value (kPa)

Soil Stratum C-I-P Pile End-Bearing Value

9/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

7.3 Footing Option

1. A standard concrete footing foundation is considered geotechnically satisfactory

Soil Stratum Bearing Value (kPa)

10/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

5. To ensure adequate performance of the foundation system, continuous footings

7. No loose, disturbed, remoulded, or sloughed material should be allowed to remain

11/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

7.4 Slabs on Grade

5. A layer of clean granular material, 150 millimetres minimum, should be placed

6. A non-deteriorating vapour barrier should be placed beneath the concrete floor to

7. It is recommended that provisions for slab movement be designed into the

12/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

9. In such areas as furnace rooms, where there is an intense concentrated heat,

7.5 Trench Excavation and Backfill

13/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

7. To overcome utility installation difficulties, it is recommended that washed or

8. Pipe bedding should adhere to City of Edmonton specifications or equivalent

9. Minimum trench compaction recommendations are 98% of the corresponding

14/17 T15-1013 Alliance Development EdmontonNE

75 millimetres of asphaltic concrete

2. Pavement structure for heavy duty truck areas on clean subgrade:

120 millimetres of asphaltic concrete