Geotechnical Evaluation Review

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW
BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

2000 RIVER HEIGHTS DRIVE
COCHRANE, ALBERTA
PRESENTED TO
Morrison Hershfield
FEBRUARY 2014
ISSUED FOR USE
FILE: 704-C12103317-01
Tetra Tech EBA Inc.

Riverbend Atrium One, 115, 200 Rivercrest Drive SE
Calgary, AB T2C 2X5 CANADA
Tel 403.203.3355 Fax 403.203.3301
This page intentionally left blank.
Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School Artificial Turf.docx
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

FILE: 704-C12103317-01 | FEBRUARY 2014 | ISSUED FOR USE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
PROJECT DETAILS .................................................................................................................... 1
3.0
SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 2
4.0
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW.......................................................................................................... 2
4.1
4.2
5.0
Subsurface Conditions...........................................................................................................................2
Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................................3
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 3

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
General ..................................................................................................................................................3
Site Preparation .....................................................................................................................................3
Artificial Turf Field Design......................................................................................................................4
Excavation and Backfill..........................................................................................................................5
6.0
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES ........................................................................... 6
7.0
CLOSURE.................................................................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX SECTIONS
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
General Conditions
Geotechnical Reports (Reviewed)
Construction Guidelines
Fieldturf Base Design Guidelines
i

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

1.0
INTRODUCTION
Tetra Tech EBA Inc. (Tetra Tech EBA) was retained to conduct a geotechnical review of the Subsoil Investigation
and Geotechnical Assessment performed by Almor Testing Services Ltd. (Almor) and Levelton Consultants
(Levelton), respectively. The Subsoil Investigation and Geotechnical Assessment were conducted for the planned
development of an artificial turf field at Bow Valley High School, in Cochrane, Alberta (referred herein as the
project site).
The objective of this review was to provide recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the design and
construction of the artificial turf field, based upon review of prior work completed for the project site.
The scope of work for the review was described in our proposal dated February 3, 2014. Authorization to proceed
with the review was provided by Jack Vanstone, of Morrison Hershfield, via email, with a signed service
agreement on February 4, 2013.
2.0
PROJECT DETAILS
The project site is located within the south portion of the Bow Valley High School, at 2000 River Heights Drive, in
Cochrane, Alberta.
Based on the information provided by Morrison Hershfield, it is understood that the site currently comprises a
baseball field, football field, and track/field. The existing grass-covered field is to be replaced with an artificial turf
2
field, with a proposed field size of approximately 146 m by 76 m (11,100m ).
The aspects of the new turf field were discussed with Morrison Hershfield on February 5, 2014. From discussion,
it is understood that the turf field will be supplied by Fieldturf and a brochure for Base Design Guidelines is
included in Appendix D. From the Fieldturf guidelines and from discussions, it is understood that the primary base
design factors include highly permeable granular base materials, sufficient for inflow of surface water in the range
of 10 to 20 inches per hour. The granular base materials must also be thick enough for drainage and stable
enough for effective support of the athletes. It is understood that no traffic of any kind will traverse the artificial turf
field, with the exception of emergency services and foot traffic.
The proposed development will also include possible light standards and bleachers near the proposed artificial
turf sports field. Tetra Tech EBA acknowledges that the conceptual design, specifically the exact locations of the
bleachers and light standards, for the proposed developments have not been finalized and these project details
may be changed. For the purposes of this report, only design recommendations for the installation of the artificial
turf are provided.
Tetra Tech EBA has reviewed the following reports (provided by Morrison Hershfield) for the preparation of this
report, included in Appendix B for reference purposes:
Subsoil Investigation, Turf Football Field, Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, Alberta, prepared by Almor,
dated December 4, 2012; and
Geotechnical Assessment, Synthetic Field Project, Bow Valley School, Cochrane, Alberta, prepared by
Levelton, dated June 3, 2013.
1

3.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located within the south portion of the Bow Valley High School, at 2000 River Crest Drive, in
Cochrane, Alberta. The project site is bordered to the west and south by Township Road 254A, to the north by
River Heights Drive, and the east by a residential community.
It is understood that fill soils existing on site have been in place for approximately eight to ten years (placed as
early as 2004). The existing fields were generally flat and vegetated with grass, exhibiting no noticeable slumping
or heaving. There have been no known performance problems with the existing fields.
4.0
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
The following sections and subsections are provided based upon the review of the reports outlined in Section 2.0.
Information presented and/or referenced to for the reviewed documents are based on Tetra Tech EBAs review
and interpretation. The reports reviewed can be found in Appendix B.
Fieldwork programs were carried out for the project site by Almor (October 2012) and Levelton (May 2013). A
total of two boreholes were drilled by Almor, designated as TH1 and TH2. A total of eight boreholes were drilled
by Levelton, designated as BH13-01 to BH13-08. Borehole locations and borehole logs can be found in their
respective reports in Appendix B.
It should be noted that geological conditions are innately variable and glacial deposits, in particular, are seldom
spatially uniform. Information on subsurface stratigraphy is available only at discrete borehole locations. In order
to develop recommendations from the information, it is necessary to make some assumptions concerning
conditions at locations between boreholes.
4.1
Subsurface Conditions
Topsoil was encountered in all boreholes, with an approximate layer thickness of 50 mm. This thickness reported
is thinner than expected. As such, the topsoil thickness should be expected to vary across the property.
Clay fill was encountered in both Almor boreholes (TH1 and TH2) and in all Levelton boreholes, with the
exception of BH13-01 and BH13-08. The clay fill was encountered underlying the topsoil, with a thickness ranging
between 0.5 m and 2.8 m. The clay fill was generally described as silty, trace to some sand, trace to some gravel
and organics, damp to very moist, medium plastic, and stiff to very stiff. Inclusions of organic layers were noted
throughout the clay fill layer.
Native clay was encountered underlying the fill soils in all boreholes, with the exception of BH13-01 (underlying
topsoil) and BH13-08 (underlying a sand layer). The clay was generally described as silty and sandy, with trace
gravel, moist to very moist, low to medium plastic, and firm to very stiff in consistency and grey to mottled
grey-brown in colour.
Silt was encountered in all boreholes, with the exception of BH13-02, BH13-03, and BH13-04, inter-layered within
the clay. The silt was generally described as containing sand and was compact to dense.
A sand layer was encountered in boreholes BH13-07 and BH13-08 inter-layered within the native clay and
underlying the topsoil, respectively. The sand was generally described as containing silt and was dense to very
dense.
2

4.2
Groundwater Conditions
All boreholes were observed to be dry upon completion of drilling. Subsequent groundwater levels were
measured after completion of drilling and were all found to be dry, with the exception of BH13-01 where the
groundwater table was observed at a depth of 4.55 m below the existing ground surface.
It should be noted that groundwater levels may fluctuate seasonally and in response to climatic conditions.
Accordingly, groundwater levels should be monitored until start of construction. It changes are noted in
groundwater levels, Tetra Tech EBA should be notified so that implication of these changes to the
recommendations provided herein can be reviewed.
5.0
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below may offer varying options intended to aid in the development of the project design
concepts and construction specifications. The recommendations are provided on the understanding and condition
that Tetra Tech EBA will be retained to review the relevant aspects of the final design and will be retained to
conduct such field reviews as are necessary to ensure compliance with geotechnical aspects of this report.
5.1
General
Geotechnical recommendations provided are valid for the proposed project details discussed in Section 2.0, as
understood by Tetra Tech EBA at the time of this reports preparation. These recommendations may require
revision if the project details are altered at a later stage of design for the project.
Recommendations are provided for the granular base and drainage details for the new turf field, which are
intended to be in general conformance with Fieldturfs Base Design Guidelines (Appendix D).
No other recommendations are provided that are not in relation with the installation of the artificial turf field (i.e.,
foundation options for light standards and bleachers). It is considered that the Almor and Levelton reports are
suitable for this purpose.
5.2
Site Preparation
Due to the presence of topsoil and fill soils across the site, some precautions regarding site preparation and
geotechnical aspects of design and construction of the proposed development should be undertaken as
discussed below.
For the intended purpose and installation of the artificial turf field, as stated in Section 2.0, the existing fills soils on
the project site are not considered to impede the functionality or construction of the artificial turf field. Therefore,
complete removal of fill soils for the project site is not deemed necessary.
Tetra Tech EBA has no records that the fill soils, which extended to depths up to 2.8 m below the ground surface,
were placed in a controlled manner with adequate compaction. Therefore, these soils should be observed and
approved by qualified geotechnical personnel during construction.
Following initial site stripping and excavation (shaping) of the sports field area to achieve the design subgrade
elevation, the subgrade should be scarified to a minimum depth of 150 mm, moisture conditioned to between 0%
and 3% above optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to 95% of Standard Proctor maximum dry density
(SPD).
3

During these preparation measures, prior to placement of the drainage granular materials, the subgrade should
be proof-rolled to detect structurally deficient areas. Areas of structurally deficient subgrade should be evaluated
in the field to determine appropriate remedial measures. If highly organic soils are encountered during subgrade
preparation, they should be removed. Any otherwise soft areas should be over-excavated and backfilled to 95%
of SPD using general engineered clay fill. The prepared subgrade should be observed and approved by a
geotechnical engineer.
The excavated subgrade should be protected during construction from rain, snow, freezing temperatures, and
excessive drying, and from the ingress of free water.
Full-time monitoring and compaction testing should be provided during any fill placement to ensure suitable
subgrade conditions are prepared. Qualified persons, independent of the contractor, should complete this
monitoring.
All fill required for the project site to raise the subgrade elevation should meet the requirements of general
engineered clay fill, as defined in Backfill Material Compaction in Appendix C. General engineered fill should be
placed in lifts not exceeding 200 mm in compacted thickness and a density of 95% SPD, unless noted otherwise.
5.3
Artificial Turf Field Design
As noted, the Base Design Guidelines from Fieldturf are included in Appendix D. From a geotechnical
perspective, in order to generally comply with these guidelines, the following recommendations are provided.
The turf field base clay subgrade should be prepared, as recommended in Section 5.2, including sub-cut to final
subgrade elevation, moisture conditioning, compaction, and proof rolling. As a special Fieldturf requirement, the
subgrade should be graded to a minimum 0.5% gradient, from the field longitudinal centreline towards the side
edges.
At the completion of these recommended subgrade preparation procedures, given the condition of the clay soils
noted, the subgrade is considered to be suitable for the field support. That is, the subgrade should be competent
and there should be no need to subexcavate to provide additional bridging. In addition, placement of a geotextile
on the prepared subgrade is not considered necessary.
One of the key proprietary design aspects includes drainage perforation of the surfacing. Guidelines for granular
base layers are provided in the Fieldturf guidelines in Appendix D, including Base Stone Type 1, Base Stone
Type 2, and Finishing Stone. The guidelines include gradation for stability, as well as minimum permeability
characteristics of the stone types. Morrison Hershfield has proposed a similar design for a previous project
completed for an artificial turf field, utilizing the Crushed Stone Base with 2 Drains.
In Tetra Tech EBAs experience on past turf field projects, local gravel suppliers have significant difficulty in
providing these special granular products to these guidelines, which results in significant increase in costs. For
example, the Base Stone and Finishing Stone types do not comply with standard local specifications for Alberta
Transportation or The City of Calgary. Therefore, Tetra Tech EBA recommends a modification to locally available
granular materials, as presented in Appendix C of this report. The Finishing Stone layer should be replaced with
Alberta Transportation A.T. D2-C20 20 mm crushed gravel. The Base Stone layer should be replaced with
Coarse Gravel, with the 25 mm Gravel gradation preferred (AT D8-C25). It is recommended that local gravel
suppliers be consulted in order to provide options for similarly acceptable granular materials at an effective cost.
Another factor is to provide sufficient granular thickness for constructability, as well as to provide drainage of the
base to sufficient depth to prevent frost effects from affecting the turf surface over time. Therefore, with these
4

considerations, referencing Tetra Tech EBAs experience with similar turf fields on past projects, the following
granular structures is recommended, directly underlying the artificial turf surfacing:
100 mm of Finishing Stone, comprising A.T. D2-C20 20 mm crushed gravel, overlying
500 mm of Base Stone, comprising 25 mm Drainage Rock (AT D8-C25), overlying
Prepared subgrade, inclusive of pipe drains.
The minimum 100 mm thick layer of crushed gravel is recommended in order to better facilitate compaction and
stability and to allow very fine grading operations. This material should be compacted to a minimum of 98% of
SPD. The 500 mm thick drainage rock is recommended at the centreline of the field. Assuming the field surface is
quite flat, with 0.5 % drainage of the subgrade towards the edges of the field, the thickness of the drainage rock
will increase towards the outer edges. As noted, the intent of these products is to provide surface stability as well
as to meet the intent of excellent surface drainage, using locally available granular products.
The base of the field below Base Stone layer should include a system of subsurface drainage. Based on
experience, Tetra Tech EBA recommends that drainage pipes be placed on the prepared subgrade. It is not
necessary to install the drainage pipes within narrow trenches excavated. The perforated drainage pipes should
be minimum 100 mm in diameter and should be fitted with a geosock. Either perforated rigid pipes or flexible
pipes may be used. A maximum lateral pipe spacing of 6.0 m is recommended for general usage. On past
projects, a W or herringbone or a V-shaped pattern have proven to be an effective layout. Typically, the internal
perforated pipes would lead to a series of header pipes with increased diameters of a minimum of approximately
300 mm, considered appropriate. These lines should drain into locally available systems.
5.4
Excavation and Backfill
Excavations should be carried out in accordance with Alberta Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S)
regulations. The consistencies of the soils encountered at the site should allow conventional hydraulic excavators
to remove these soils.
For this project, the depth of excavations is anticipated to be relatively shallow and will be carried out for service
trenches and underground utilities.
For temporary excavations in clay deeper than 1.5 m (and up to 2 m deep), the sideslopes should be shored and
braced or the slopes cut 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical (1.0H:1.0V) or flatter. Flatter sideslopes may be required in
the clay at depths below 2 m from grade. Where excavations are open for longer than one month or if significant
groundwater seepage is encountered, the sideslopes should be cut flatter than 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical
(1.0H:1.0V). In areas below the groundwater table or if sand is encountered, flatter sideslopes will be required.
If sloping of excavation sides is not feasible due to space limitations or other factors, then vertical-sided
excavations greater than 1.5 m deep should be shored or entered only in conjunction with an appropriate safety
device utilized in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. Upon request, Tetra Tech EBA can
either provide recommendations for shoring design or undertake the detailed shoring design.
Where the base of the excavation comprises of wet or soft soils, it is recommended that the base be
over-excavated to obtain a stable base (or to a maximum of 600 mm). A woven geotextile should then be placed
on the sub-cut base of the trench. The trench may then be backfilled to the original trench base elevation using
pit-run gravel.
5

Excavations left open for extended periods may collect groundwater seepage or surface runoff. It is anticipated
pumping from sumps or trench and sump systems will be sufficient to dewater typical excavations. Any surface
water or groundwater infiltration into an excavation should be diverted away from the base to avoid softening.
Ponded water should not be permitted to remain near excavation slopes as it may result in soil softening and
shallow slumping.
Temporary surcharge loads, such as construction materials and equipment, should not be allowed within 3 m of
an unsupported excavated face or the depth of excavation, whichever is greater. A further setback may be
required for deeper excavations. Vehicles delivering materials should be kept back from excavated faces by at
least 1 m.
Prior to allowing workers to enter, and particularly after periods of rain, construction excavations should be
carefully observed for evidence of instability, such as cracks, bulging, or soil loss from seepage areas. Small earth
falls from the sideslopes are a potential source of danger to workers and must be guarded against. Evidence of
excavation instability and/or seepage should be reported to Tetra Tech EBA and corrected prior to allowing
worker access. Loose soil blocks, cobbles, and the like should be scaled from the excavation slopes prior to
worker entry.
Trenches must be backfilled in such a way as to reduce the potential of differential settlement and frost heave
movements; however, some variation in subgrade performance must be expected across trench locations.
Trenches should generally be backfilled with soils similar to the adjacent native soils, and the backfill should be
compacted at moisture contents within 3% of optimum. A minimum compaction to 95% SPD is recommended for
all trenches except for the top 600 mm, which should be compacted to 98% SPD. The compacted thickness of
each lift of backfill should not exceed 150 mm. The upper 1.5 m of service trenches should be cut at a maximum
slope of 1.0H:1.0V, to avoid an abrupt transition between backfill and in situ soil. If the trench is within the footprint
of a structure, all trench backfill should comprise fill meeting the specifications of select engineered fill, compacted
to a minimum of 98% of SPD at moisture content within 3% of optimum. The compacted thickness of each lift of
backfill should not exceed 150 mm.
The existing site soils comprising native clay and clay fill are suitable for use as general engineered fill material
as defined in Appendix C. However, the plasticity and the organic content of this material should be confirmed
prior to its use as general engineered fill. Organic soils should be removed and placed in landscaped areas.
Backfill comprising cohesive soils should be considered frost susceptible and should not be used in areas where it
may become frozen and where frost heaving would be unacceptable.
The ultimate performance of the backfill is directly related to the uniformity of the backfill compaction. In order to
achieve this uniformity, the lift thickness and compaction criteria must be strictly enforced.
General recommendations regarding construction excavation, backfill materials, and compaction are contained in
Appendix C.
6.0
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
Recommended general design and construction guidelines are provided in Appendix C, under the following
headings:
Backfill Materials and Compaction.
Proof-Rolling.
6

Construction Excavations.
These guidelines are intended to present standards of good practice. Although supplemental to the main text of
this report, they should be interpreted as part of the report. Design recommendations presented herein are based
on the premise that these guidelines will be followed.
The design and construction guidelines are not intended to represent detailed specifications for the works
although they may prove useful in the preparation of such specifications.
In the event of any discrepancy between the main text of this report and Appendix C, the main text should govern.
7

APPENDIX A
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
This report incorporates and is subject to these General Conditions.
1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP
4.0 NATURE AND EXACTNESS OF SOIL AND

ROCK DESCRIPTIONS
This geotechnical report pertains to a specific site, a specific

development and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any
other sites nor should it be relied upon for types of development
other than that to which it refers. Any variation from the site or
development would necessitate a supplementary geotechnical
assessment.
Classification and identification of soils and rocks are based upon

commonly accepted systems and methods employed in
professional geotechnical practice. This report contains descriptions
of the systems and methods used. Where deviations from the
system or method prevail, they are specifically mentioned.
This report and the recommendations contained in it are intended

for the sole use of Tetra Tech EBAs Client. Tetra Tech EBA does
not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the
analyses or the recommendations contained or referenced in the
report when the report is used or relied upon by any party other
than Tetra Tech EBAs Client unless otherwise authorized in writing
by Tetra Tech EBA. Any unauthorized use of the report is at the
sole risk of the user.
Classification and identification of geological units are judgmental in

nature as to both type and condition. Tetra Tech EBA does not
warrant conditions represented herein as exact, but infers accuracy
only to the extent that is common in practice.
Where subsurface conditions encountered during development are
different from those described in this report, qualified geotechnical
personnel should revisit the site and review recommendations in
light of the actual conditions encountered.
This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either

wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of Tetra Tech
EBA. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained
upon request.
5.0 LOGS OF TESTHOLES

The testhole logs are a compilation of conditions and classification
of soils and rocks as obtained from field observations and
laboratory testing of selected samples. Soil and rock zones have
been interpreted. Change from one geological zone to the other,
indicated on the logs as a distinct line, can be, in fact, transitional.
The extent of transition is interpretive. Any circumstance which
requires precise definition of soil or rock zone transition elevations
may require further investigation and review.
2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT

Where Tetra Tech EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy
versions of reports, drawings and other project-related documents
and deliverables (collectively termed Tetra Tech EBAs instruments
of professional service), only the signed and/or sealed versions
shall be considered final and legally binding. The original signed
and/or sealed version archived by Tetra Tech EBA shall be deemed
to be the original for the Project.
6.0 STRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

The stratigraphic and geological information indicated on drawings
contained in this report are inferred from logs of test holes and/or
soil/rock exposures. Stratigraphy is known only at the locations of
the test hole or exposure. Actual geology and stratigraphy between
test holes and/or exposures may vary from that shown on these
drawings. Natural variations in geological conditions are inherent
and are a function of the historic environment. Tetra Tech EBA does
not represent the conditions illustrated as exact but recognizes that
variations will exist. Where knowledge of more precise locations of
geological units is necessary, additional investigation and review
may be necessary.
Both electronic file and hard copy versions of Tetra Tech EBAs
instruments of professional service shall not, under any
circumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered by
any party except Tetra Tech EBA. Tetra Tech EBAs instruments of
professional service will be used only and exactly as submitted by
Tetra Tech EBA.
Electronic files submitted by Tetra Tech EBA have been prepared
and submitted using specific software and hardware systems. Tetra
Tech EBA makes no representation about the compatibility of these
files with the Clients current or future software and hardware
systems.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES
Unless stipulated in the report, Tetra Tech EBA has not been
retained to investigate, address or consider and has not
investigated, addressed or considered any environmental or
regulatory issues associated with development on the subject site.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
7.0 PROTECTION OF EXPOSED GROUND
11.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Excavation and construction operations expose geological materials

to climatic elements (freeze/thaw, wet/dry) and/or mechanical
disturbance which can cause severe deterioration. Unless otherwise
specifically indicated in this report, the walls and floors of
excavations must be protected from the elements, particularly
moisture, desiccation, frost action and construction traffic.
Where temporary or permanent drainage systems are installed

within or around a structure, the systems which will be installed
must protect the structure from loss of ground due to internal
erosion and must be designed so as to assure continued
performance of the drains. Specific design detail of such systems
should be developed or reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Unless otherwise specified, it is a condition of this report that
effective temporary and permanent drainage systems are required
and that they must be considered in relation to project purpose and
function.
8.0 SUPPORT OF ADJACENT GROUND AND STRUCTURES

Unless otherwise specifically advised, support of ground and
structures adjacent to the anticipated construction and preservation
of adjacent ground and structures from the adverse impact of
construction activity is required.
12.0 BEARING CAPACITY

Design bearing capacities, loads and allowable stresses quoted in
this report relate to a specific soil or rock type and condition.
Construction activity and environmental circumstances can
materially change the condition of soil or rock. The elevation at
which a soil or rock type occurs is variable. It is a requirement of
this report that structural elements be founded in and/or upon
geological materials of the type and in the condition assumed.
Sufficient observations should be made by qualified geotechnical
personnel during construction to assure that the soil and/or rock
conditions assumed in this report in fact exist at the site.
9.0 INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

There is a direct correlation between construction activity and
structural performance of adjacent buildings and other installations.
The influence of all anticipated construction activities should be
considered by the contractor, owner, architect and prime engineer
in consultation with a geotechnical engineer when the final design
and construction techniques are known.
10.0 OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION
13.0 SAMPLES
Because of the nature of geological deposits, the judgmental nature

of geotechnical engineering, as well as the potential of adverse
circumstances arising from construction activity, observations
during site preparation, excavation and construction should be
carried out by a geotechnical engineer. These observations may
then serve as the basis for confirmation and/or alteration of
geotechnical recommendations or design guidelines presented
herein.
Tetra Tech EBA will retain all soil and rock samples for 30 days
after this report is issued. Further storage or transfer of samples can
be made at the Clients expense upon written request, otherwise
samples will be discarded.
14.0 INFORMATION PROVIDED TO TETRA TECH EBA BY
OTHERS
During the performance of the work and the preparation of the
report, Tetra Tech EBA may rely on information provided by
persons other than the Client. While Tetra Tech EBA endeavours to
verify the accuracy of such information when instructed to do so by
the Client, Tetra Tech EBA accepts no responsibility for the
accuracy or the reliability of such information which may affect the
report.

APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS (REVIEWED)
Page |i
Table of Contents
pa g e
1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 1
SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................... 1
DETAILS OF THE INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................... 2

4.1
4.2
Field Drilling and Soil Sampling ................................................................................... 2

Laboratory Test Programs ......................................................................................... 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 2

5.1
Subsurface Soil Conditions ......................................................................................... 2
5.1.1 Topsoil.............................................................................................................. 2
5.1.2 Fill................................................................................................................... 2
5.1.3 Clay ................................................................................................................. 3
5.1.4 Silt .................................................................................................................. 3
5.1.5 Sand ................................................................................................................. 3
5.2
Surface Geology ..................................................................................................... 3
5.3
Water Soluble Sulphate ............................................................................................ 3
5.4
Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................... 4
FROST PENETRATION DEPTHS .......................................................................................... 4
DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 4

7.1
General Comments .................................................................................................. 4
7.2
Field Site Preparation .............................................................................................. 5
7.2.1 Removal of Unsuitable Materials .............................................................................. 5
7.2.2 Frost Heave Protection .......................................................................................... 5
7.2.3 Excavation ......................................................................................................... 5
7.2.4 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................ 5
7.3
Field High-Mast Lighting Systems ................................................................................. 6
7.3.1 Preliminary Comments .......................................................................................... 6
7.3.2 Foundations ....................................................................................................... 6
7.3.3 Additional Preliminary Commentary for Foundations ...................................................... 6
7.3.3.1
Lateral Pile Capacity ...................................................................................... 7
7.4
Surface and Subsurface Drainage ................................................................................. 7
SULPHATE EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................... 7
FIELD REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 7
10
CLOSURE .................................................................................................................. 7
APPENDIX A SITE PLANS (FIGURES 1 AND 2) BOREHOLE LOGS ........................................................ A
Town of Cochrane
Geotechnical Assessment
Synthetic Field Project
Bow Valley High School, Cochrane, AB
File: R713-0641-00
P a g e | ii
List of Tables
Table 1 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Fill .................................................................................. 3
Table 2 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Clay ................................................................................ 3
Table 3 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Silt ................................................................................. 3
Table 4 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Sand ............................................................................... 3
Table 5 Summary of Groundwater Observations ............................................................................... 4
Table 6 Preliminary Skin Friction Values for Concrete Piers .................................................................... 6
2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER, OR FOR ANY
PURPOSE, EXCEPT BY WRITTEN PERMISSION OF LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD.
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |1
Introduction
Levelton Consultants Ltd. (Levelton) was retained by the Town of Cochrane to provide a geotechnical
assessment for a proposed synthetic field project at Bow Valley High School in Cochrane, Alberta. This
report presents the results of our geotechnical assessment. It has been prepared for the Town of Cochrane
in accordance with the scope of work presented in Leveltons proposal, File No. P713-0729-00 Rev. 1 dated
March 27, 2013. Authorization to proceed was received from Suzanne Gaida, Senior Manager of the Town of
Cochrane, on April 3, 2013.
Site and Project Description
The project site is located in the south east quadrant of Bow Valley High School property in Cochrane,
Alberta. Presently, the project site is vegetated with grass and is being used as a baseball field.
The following provides a summary of background information provided to us for the geotechnical
assessment:
A site plan of the school property showing the baseball field area (attached as Figure 1 in
Appendix A of this report);
A site plan of the baseball field area showing proposed borehole locations; and
Soil report prepared by Almor Testing Services Ltd. dated December 4, 2012, File No 099-112-12.
Based on discussions with Douglas Wournell, Architect at Dialog Vancouver, our understanding of the
development plans for the synthetic field project is summarized as follows:
Proposed field size to be about 146 m by 76 m (area about 11,100 m2);

Proposed field location to be in the general area of the existing grass overlain baseball field;
Proposed field orientation not yet determined;
Proposed top of field elevation to be about 0.6 m above present site grades; and
Field high-mast lighting systems will form part of synthetic field development.
No other details of the proposed development plans were provided to us at the time of report preparation.
Scope of Work
The scope of work for the geotechnical assessment included:
determination of:
subsurface soil profiles and their geotechnical characteristics; and
groundwater and sloughing conditions.
providing:
comments on the geotechnical aspects to be considered for site development;
comments on subgrade preparation requirements for synthetic turf field construction;
comments on soil susceptibility to frost heave and soil swelling protection;
comments on concentrations of water soluble sulphates in the soil;
preliminary comments on surface and subsurface drainage; and
preliminary comments on site subgrade suitability and geotechnical parameters for high mast
lighting system construction.
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |2
Details of the Investigation
4.1
Field Drilling and Soil Sampling
Field drilling was carried out on May 6, 2013, using a truck-mounted drill rig owned and operated by Great
West Drilling. Soil sampling and logging of the various soil strata was performed by Levelton geotechnical
staff.
A total of eight boreholes (BH13-01 to BH13-08) were drilled within the general area of the existing grass
overlain baseball field. The borehole locations were selected by Dialog Vancouver. All boreholes were
advanced to depth of 5.1 m below ground surface.
The soil conditions encountered during drilling were described visually in accordance to the Modified Unified
Soil Classification System. Approximate borehole locations are presented on a site plan, Figure 2 in
Appendix A.
Disturbed auger samples were collected at 0.75 m intervals from all boreholes. In addition, Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted at selected intervals to obtain an indication of soil consistency and
unconfined compressive strength. All field test results are contained in the borehole logs in Appendix A.
The groundwater conditions were monitored during drilling. Standpipe piezometers (25 mm diameter) were
installed in three of the boreholes upon completion of drilling and the levels of accumulated groundwater in
the standpipe piezometers were monitored 24 days later. The groundwater readings are presented on the
borehole logs in Appendix A and are summarized in Section 5.4 of this report.
4.2
Laboratory Test Programs
Laboratory testing was carried out on selected soil samples and included:
Moisture contents;
Sulphate tests;
Atterberg limit tests; and
Particle size analysis.
The laboratory test results are included in the borehole logs in Appendix A.
Subsurface Conditions
The general soil profile at the borehole locations consisted of topsoil and fill, underlain by native soil
deposits consisting mainly of clay and silt, with interlayered sand. Descriptions of the soil strata
encountered are provided in the following sections.
5.1
Subsurface Soil Conditions
5.1.1
Topsoil
Generally, in all boreholes, a topsoil layer of up to about 5 cm thickness was encountered.
5.1.2
Fill
Fill in thickness ranging from 1.0 to 2.8 m was encountered in majority of boreholes, except for BH13-01
and BH13-08 where no fill was noted. The fill thickness appeared to increase from north to south. The fill
was variable in composition, and was generally described as a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and
organics. Field and laboratory test results obtained from this soil layer are summarized below in Table 1.
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |3
Table 1 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Fill

Test
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Natural Moisture Content (%)
5.1.3
Range
20 to 34
10.8 to 30.7
Clay
Clay was encountered below the fill in all boreholes, extending to termination depth of all boreholes except
for boreholes BH13-01 and -05. The fill contained silty and sandy components, trace gravel, and was grey to
mottled grey or brown in color. Based on field and laboratory test results, the clay was encountered in firm
to very stiff consistency and exhibits medium plasticity. Laboratory and field test results obtained from the
clay stratum are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Clay
Test
Liquid Limit (%)
Plastic Limit (%)
5.1.4
Range
7 to 32
12.5 to 34.7
31 to 41
16 to 20
Silt
Silt was encountered in boreholes inter-layered within the native clay except in BH13-02, BH13-03, and
BH13-04 where no silt layer was noted. Silt was generally described as brown, sandy, moist, compact to
dense. Laboratory and field test results on this soil layer are summarized below in Table 3.
Table 3 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Silt
Test
5.1.5
Range
19
4.9 to 16,6
Sand
Sand was encountered in BH13-07 inter-layered within the native clay. Sand was generally described as
brown, silty, moist, dense to very dense. Laboratory and field test results on this soil layer are summarized
below in Table 4.
Table 4 Field and Laboratory Test Results - Sand
Test
5.2
Range
27
4.0 to 10.2
Surface Geology
Based on the map of Surface Materials of the Calgary Urban Area: Calgary Sheet, NTS 820/1, prepared by
S.R. Moran (1986), we understand that the soil conditions in the vicinity of the project site generally
comprise of superglacial lacustrine clay overlying glacial till. The findings from the field drilling generally
conform with published geological soil descriptions.
5.3
Water Soluble Sulphate
The results of water soluble sulphate tests on selected soil samples yielded concentration of 0.00% to
0.002% sulphate by dry unit weight of soil.
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |4
5.4
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater conditions were observed during drilling. Standpipes were also installed in boreholes BH13-01,
BH13-02, and BH13-04 to monitor relatively stabilized groundwater conditions. A summary of the
groundwater observations is presented in Table 5.
Table 5 Summary of Groundwater Observations
Borehole
Number
BH13-01
BH13-02
BH13-03
BH13-04
BH13-05
BH13-06
BH13-07
BH13-08
Depth of Water
Seepage (m)
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
nil
Depth of Groundwater (m)

At End of Drilling
On May 30, 2013
Dry
4.55
Dry
Dry
Dry
n/a
Dry
Dry
Dry
n/a
Dry
n/a
Dry
n/a
Dry
n/a
It should be recognized that groundwater levels are dependent on meteorological cycles and drainage.
Higher groundwater levels than those observed in this investigation may be encountered.
Frost Penetration Depths
The expected maximum depth of frost penetration at the subject site is 2.5 m. The penetration depth is
determined based on a freezing index for a 30-year return period of 1100 degree-days Celsius. The depth of
frost penetration was determined based on the assumption of granular fill subsoil with a turf cover at the
surface.
Discussions and Recommendations
This section of the report provides engineering information for the geotechnical design aspects of the
project, based on our interpretation of the boreholes information from Leveltons site investigation and
available information, and on our understanding of the project requirements. The recommendations
provided are intended as guidance for planning and design by design engineers and architects. Where
comments are made on construction, they are provided to highlight aspects of construction that could
affect the design of the project. Parties requiring information beyond the scope or purpose of this report
must make their own interpretation of the information provided.
7.1
General Comments
Based on the existing subsurface conditions presented in the previous sections, the native soil deposits
encountered below the site are considered acceptable as soil bearing support for construction of the
proposed synthetic field. The soils are considered to have low compressibility characteristics.
The following geotechnical issues should be considered in the design and construction of the field:
Existing on-site fill is not considered suitable as structural or engineered fill and is not considered
suitable to support field construction;
Native clay is medium plastic in characteristic, and considered moderately susceptible to soil
heaving due to frost; and
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |5
Depth of frost penetration below the field will be highly dependent on the materials used to restore
the field site to grade.
7.2
Field Site Preparation
7.2.1
Removal of Unsuitable Materials
All topsoil, organics, vegetation, fill, and other deleterious materials should be excavated from the project
site as part of site preparation for the construction of the field. Based on the borehole findings, we
anticipate that removal of unsuitable materials including the fill soils encountered in the geotechnical
boreholes, will extend to about 2.8 m below grade.
We anticipate that stiff to very stiff native clay will be exposed in the excavation after removal of all
topsoil, organics, vegetation, fill, and other deleterious materials from the field site. Proof rolling of the
exposed native subgrade should be completed to identify any soft subgrade conditions. Levelton
geotechnical engineering staff should monitor proof roll activities and advise on any remedial measures, if
required.
7.2.2
Frost Heave Protection
The approximated frost depth penetration at the project site was about 2.5 m as determined in Section 6.
The following recommendations are provided to reduce the anticipated frost heave under the proposed
synthetic turf field:
the backfill material to be used for the construction of the proposed turf field base should be free
draining in addition to satisfying other required specifications, such as for stability and durability;
the free draining base should extend below the approximated frost depth by excavating the native
soil and replacing with the free draining base material; and,
appropriately designed subsurface drainage system should be installed below the approximated frost
depth to collect the surface infiltrated water as soon as possible; no water is allowed to sit within
the free draining base and/or at the interface of free draining base and native soil.
7.2.3
Excavation
Excavations with up to 3.0 m depth, cut back and shoring operations should be conducted in accordance
with Part 32 and other applicable sections of the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.
If required, Levelton can provide engineering analysis to advise on side slope stability for excavations
exceeding 3.0m in depth.
Care should be taken during excavations to avoid the subgrade to become frozen, dried, or softened during
winter or wet seasons. Water should not be allowed to pond directly on exposed subgrade soils as it can
potentially soften subgrade soils and reduce its bearing capacity. Site specific recommendations for
protecting bearing subgrade from softening or freezing should be provided by Levelton at the time of
construction.
7.2.4
Subgrade Preparation
After excavation of existing fill and native soils to the approximated frost depth, the exposed subgrade
should be visually inspected and proof rolled. Soft or weak soils should be sub-excavated and replaced with
granular fills. Nonwoven geotextile (Nilex 4553 or equivalent) is recommended to be installed on the native
soil subgrade prior to the backfilling of free draining base material in order to prevent the intrusion of fine
materials to the free draining material. Subsurface drainage pipes are also recommended to be wrapped
with nonwoven geotextile.
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |6
7.3
Field High-Mast Lighting Systems
7.3.1
Preliminary Comments
No design details have been provided for the field high-mast lighting systems. Based on our experience with
these types of lighting systems, for the purpose of preliminary commentary, we assume the following design
configuration:
poles for the high-mast lighting systems are about 25 m high, light steel structures;
foundation type consist of small diameter ( <600 mm) pre-cast or cast-in-place concrete piers
(relying on skin friction only); and,
for pre-cast concrete piers, the space between pier and drilled hole is backfilled with concrete.
Based on existing geotechnical conditions, it is our preliminary opinion that the field high-mast lighting
systems can be installed on the site. The following sections provide our preliminary commentary and
preliminary geotechnical design parameters that can be considered. Detailed geotechnical investigation
over actual high-mast lighting system locations should be conducted to confirm or modify the preliminary
information provided in the following sections.
7.3.2
Foundations
A foundation system of concrete friction piles can be considered for the high-mast lighting systems.
Preliminary skin friction values may be taken as given in Table 6. Friction piles should be designed solely
based on skin friction, and no extra capacity from end-bearing should be added to the pile capacity.
Table 6 Preliminary Skin Friction Values for Concrete Piers
Structure
High-Mast Lighting
Systems
Depth Below
Existing Grade
(m)
0 to 1
1 to 3
3 to 5
Soil Type
Fill Soil
Fill Soil / Native Clay
Native Clay / Native Silt
Un-Factored
Ultimate Skin
Friction (kPa)
0
20
35
Factored
Ultimate Skin
Friction (kPa) *
0
8
14
*Factored ultimate skin friction calculated using a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.4
Due to the presence of fill and the shrinkage effects that would otherwise not provide intimate contact
between the soil and concrete pile, the skin friction for that portion of the pile shaft within the upper 1.5 m
should be discounted as zero.
Casing of drilled holes for piling works may be necessary to seal off the water seepage and protect the soil
sloughing. A groundwater level of 4.5 m was encountered in BH13-01.
7.3.3
Additional Preliminary Commentary for Foundations
Piles should be casted to a minimum of 6 m embedment depth below ground surface in order to achieve
adequate resistance against frost heave jacking and/or soil swelling. A nominal percentage of longitudinal
steel reinforcement (0.50% of the cross sectional area of the pile) should be provided in the upper 4.5 m of
the pile to prevent potential uplift forces of the pile due to frost action and seasonal moisture variations. If
the piles are designated as tension elements, longitudinal reinforcing steel should extend into the bottom of
the piles, and the piles should be designed to resist the anticipated uplift stresses using the design values
provided above.
Casing of drilled holes for piling works may be necessary to seal off the water seepage and the sloughing of
soils.
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |7
Full-time pile reviews should be provided by Levelton during pile installation. Pile reviews should keep
complete and accurate records of the pile installation operation. For cast in place concrete piles, concrete
should be poured immediately after drilling out each pile location to reduce the risk of groundwater
seepage into the drilled out hole and sloughing of soil within the hole.
7.3.3.1 Lateral Pile Capacity

The analysis of pile lateral load resistance can be performed using computer programs such as LPILE. The
lateral pile analysis is used to determine the lateral pile capacity, the pile head deflections, and maximum
bending moments and shear forces induced by lateral loads.
Once the pile arrangements and loading conditions are known, Levelton can complete the lateral analyses of
piles up on request.
7.4
Surface and Subsurface Drainage
The drainage of the field is to be designed by others. At this preliminary stage, based on site native soil
conditions consisting generally of clay deposits, we do not recommend that clay deposits be relied upon to
assist in the drainage design based on potentially low porosity rates for clay soils.
Sulphate Exposure Classification
The result of water soluble sulphate test on selected soil sample has indicated a negligible potential for
sulphate attack on concrete in contact with native soils at this site. Any imported soils should be tested to
determine water soluble sulphate concentration and associated sulphate exposure classification.
Field Review
We recommend that on-site field reviews be performed to verify that actual site conditions are consistent
with assumed conditions, which meet or exceed design criteria. We recommend adequate levels of field
reviews to include: review of adequacy of site excavation, testing of engineered fill, review of all
completed bearing surfaces, and full time field reviews during construction of pile foundations.
10 Closure
This geotechnical report has been prepared by Levelton Consultants Ltd. exclusively for the Town of
Cochrane and their appointed agents. The report reflects our judgment in light of the information provided
to us at the time that it was prepared. Any use of the report by third parties, or any reliance on or decisions
made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Levelton Consultants Ltd. does not accept
responsibility for damages suffered, if any, by a third party as a result of their use of this report. The
attached Terms of Reference are an integral part of this geotechnical report.
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
Page |A
APPENDIX A
Site Plans (Figures 1 and 2)
Borehole Logs
Town of Cochrane
File: R713-0641-00
BH13-01
BH13-08
BH13-02
BH13-07
BH13-03
BH13-06
BH13-05
Borehole location plan
adopted from the site plan
provided by Dialog
Vancouver
LEGEND
BH13-04
Approximate
Borehole Locations
Town Of Cochrane.
8884 - 48 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6E 5L1

Phone: (780) 438-0844
Fax: (780) 435-1812
Synthetic Field - Bow Valley High School

Cochrane, AB
Site Plan Showing Borehole Locations
Job: R713-0641-00
Date: May 31, 2013
Figure: 2
BH13-01
Levelton Consultants Ltd.
Cochrane, AB
Description
Type
(ft)
Piezo 1
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Project No: R713-0641-00
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Edmonton, AB T6E 5L1
Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Brown, silty, CLAY, trace sand, grey mottled,

occasional sand or silt seam, medium plastic,
moist
G
Brown, sandy, SILT, fine grained, moist
12
SPT
6
2
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic, moist
10
11
SPT
13
SPT
12
4
14
16
Brown, sandy, SILT, wet
May 30
2013
Bottom of Hole at 5.1 Meters

18
20
22
1 LOG PER PAGE R713-0641-00 BOREHOLE LOGS.GPJ LEVELTON.GDT 5/31/13
24
26
28
30
32
C: Condition of Sample
Type: Type of Sampler
N: Number of Blows
Good
SPT : 2 in. standard
WH : Weight of Hammer
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
Standard Penetration Test : ASTM D1586
G : Grab
Hammer Type: Trip Hammer
CORE
THIS LOG IS FOR GEOTECHNICAL PURPOSES ONLY
THIS LOG IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF LEVELTON
CONSULTANTS LTD AND CANNOT BE USED OR DUPLICATED
IN ANY WAY WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION.
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Shear strength in kPa (Torvane or
Penetrometer)
Shear strength in kPa (Unconfined)
Shear strength in kPa (field vane)
Remolded strength in kPa
Percent Passing # 200 sieve
Bentonite/Grout Plug
Solid Pipe
Cuttings
Slotted Pipe
Sand/Pea-Gravel
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
BH13-02
Cochrane, AB
Description
Type
(ft)
Piezo 1
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Very stiff, brown, silty, FILL, clay, trace gravel,

trace sand, trace organics, grey mottled, medium
plastic, moist
G
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, trace gravel,

rust stains, grey mottled, medium plastic, moist
32
SPT
6
2
10
25
SPT
23
SPT
12
4
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
N: Number of Blows
Good
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Penetrometer)
Solid Pipe
Cuttings
Slotted Pipe
Sand/Pea-Gravel
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
BH13-03
Cochrane, AB
(ft)
Description
Type
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Medium dense, brown, sandy, FILL, silt, trace

organics, damp
Very stiff, brown, silty, FILL, clay, moist
-organic soil layer encountered at 1.5 m
25
SPT
6
2
Stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, trace gravel, grey

mottled, rust stains, medium plastic
10
SPT
14
SPT
12
4
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
N: Number of Blows
Good
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Penetrometer)
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
BH13-04
Cochrane, AB
Description
Type
(ft)
Piezo 1
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Brown, silty, FILL, trace clay, trace sand, black

organic soil admixing, damp
G
20
SPT
6
2
10
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, grey mottled, medium

plastic, moist
10
SPT
10
SPT
12
4
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
N: Number of Blows
Good
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Penetrometer)
Solid Pipe
Cuttings
Slotted Pipe
Sand/Pea-Gravel
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
BH13-05
Cochrane, AB
(ft)
Description
Type
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Dense, brown, sandy, FILL, silt, trace organics,

brown, damp to moist
G
34
SPT
6
2
10
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, grey mottled,

sand layers, medium plastic, damp
-SO4= 0.00%
26
SPT
Medium dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp
19
SPT
12
4
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
N: Number of Blows
Good
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Penetrometer)
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
BH13-06
Cochrane, AB
(ft)
Description
Type
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Stiff, brown, silty, sandy, FILL, clay, trace gravel,

trace organic, medium plastic, damp to moist
G
23
SPT
6
2
10
12
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, grey mottled,

silt and sand seam, medium plastic
-SO4=0.006%
Loose to medium dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp

10
SPT
11
SPT
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic
4
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
N: Number of Blows
Good
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Penetrometer)
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
BH13-07
Cochrane, AB
(ft)
Description
Type
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Brown, sandy, FILL SILT, trace organics, black

mottled, damp
G
Dense, brown, sandy, SILT, damp
24
SPT
6
2
10
Very stiff, brown, silty, sandy, CLAY, silt and sand

layers, medium plastic
Medium dense, brown ,silty, SAND, damp
27
SPT
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic
14
SPT
12
4
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
N: Number of Blows
Good
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Penetrometer)
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
BH13-08
Cochrane, AB
(ft)
Description
Type
Depth
(m)
Pg 1 of 1
Water
Level
8884 - 48th Avenue

Tel: 780-438-0844
Fax: 780-435-1812
www.levelton.com
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
TOPSOIL
2
Dense, brown, silty, SAND, occasional clay layer,

damp
G
Stiff to very stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, moist,

occasional silt and sand layer, medium plastic
12
SPT
10
Medium dense, brown, SILT, sand, trace clay,

occasional clay layer, wet
19
SPT
Stiff, brown, silty, CLAY, medium plastic, moist
15
SPT
12
4
14
16

18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
N: Number of Blows
Good
Disturbed
ST : Shelby
WR : Weight of Rod
No Recovery
FP : Fixed Piston
G : Grab
CORE
Moisture Content %
Plastic Limit %
Liquid Limit %
Ground Water Level
Penetrometer)
Drill Method:
Solid Stem Auger

Date Drilled:
By:
5/6/2013
T.W
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

ISSUED BY LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD.

"
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
'
<
'
&
'
&
'
<
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
'
&
'
<
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
'
&
'
&
<
'
&
"
&
&
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
&
'
'
&
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
&
'
'
&
<
'
'
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
'
"
&
'
'
&
&
&
'
>
"
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
'
"
'
&
&
'
'
'
'
'
&
'
'
&
&
'
<
'
"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"
"
>
>
>
>
>
>
&
&
'
&
<
&
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
"
'
'
&
&
'
<
&
&
&
'
'
'
'
'
"
'
&
&
'
'
'
&
'
<
<
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
'
<
<
'
'
&
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
'
'
&
"
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
<
'
&
&
&
'
'
<
&
'
&
<
'
'
'
<
&
&
&
>
"
'
&
'
>
'
&
'
&
&
<
'
>
&
'
'
&
&
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
<
'
'
&
'
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
>
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
&
'
'
&
&
'
&
>
'
<
&
&
>
&
'
&
&
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
<
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
<
&
&
&
&
<
'
'
'
<
'
'
'
"
&
&
&
<
'
'
'
&
'
<
'
&
&
'
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
'
'
'
"
<
<
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
<
&
&
<
'
'
"
&
"
'
'
&
<
'
&
&
&
'
'
'
&
&
&
<
<
&
'
'
<
&
&
&
&
'
"
&
'
&
'
&
'
'
&
'
&
'
'
'
'
<
&
&
&
&
"
'
<
'
&
&
'
&
&
'
>
'
'
&
&
'
'
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
&
<
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
>
&
'
&
<
&
<
'
&
<
&
&
'
'
'
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
'
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
'
&
'
<
&
'
'
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
<
&
'
&
&
<
'
&
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
>
"
'
&
'
'
'
'
'
'
&
<
&
&
'
&
'
&
<
'
&
&
'
&
<
<
&
&
&
&
'
'
<
&
&
'
>
&
&
'
&
<
'
&
&
'
&
'
'
'
'
'
'
"
>
&
'
'
&
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
"
&
&
'
>
>
<
&
&
'
'
'
&
'
'
&
'
"
&
<
&
'
&
<
&
"
'
'
"
&
<
>
>
'
'
'
&
'
&
&
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
'
>
&
&
<
&
&
"
'
"
&
>
'
'
&
>
'
'
'
'
<
&
&
"
>
&
'
&
&
"
&
&
&
'
"
&
<
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
'
'
'
'
&
>
&
&
'
'
'
&
<
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

ISSUED BY LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD. (continued)

'
'
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
'
&
<
'
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
'
&
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
<
'
&
'
&
&
'
&
<
'
'
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
'
'
'
'
&
'
'
&
'
'
&
&
"
&
&
&
<
&
'
'
&
<
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
'
&
"
'
<
"
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
'
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
<
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
<
&
&
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
'
<
<
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
&
'
&
<
'
'
&
'
'
&
'
&
'
&
'
&
'
&
'
'
&
'
&
'
'
&
&
&
'
'
<
'
&
&
"
<
'
&
'
'
<
&
&
'
'
&
<
&
<
<
&
'
&
'
&
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
'
<
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
'
'
<
&
'
"
&
'
'
&
'
'
&
<
"
'
'
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
<
<
'
'
&
<
&
&
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
'
&
&
&
<
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
<
&
'
&
&
<
'
'
<
&
&
&
'
&
"
'
<
'
&
'
'
'
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
<
&
'
<
"
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
<
<
&
&
'
<
&
&
'
&
'
'
<
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
'
<
'
&
&
<
&
&
'
&
&
"
'
'
<
&
<
&
&
"
'
'
&
&
<
&
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
'
&
'
'
&
<
'
&
'
'
'
&
'
'
&
&
<
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
"
<
<
&
'
&
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
&
'
"
<
"
<
<
'
'
'
<
'
'
&
&
'
&
&
&
&
<
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
'
'
'
'
&
'
'
'
&
'
"
'
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
"
&
'
'
<
&
'
<
&
<
'
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
<
&
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
'
'
&
'
'
&
'
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
'
'
'
'
&
&
"
&
<
&
<
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
&
'
&
&
&
'
&
&
'
'
'
&
'
'
<
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
&
'
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
"
'
'
'
&
&
<
<
"
'
&
&
'
&
&
"
'
'
&
&
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
&
&
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
'
'
&
'
&
"
'
&
'
&
&
&
&
<
'
&
'
<
&
&
&
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
&
'
&
&
'
&
<
<
'
"
<
'
&
'
'
'
&
&
'
&
'
<
&
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
&
'
'
<
&
'
&
'
&
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
&
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
'
'
'
&
&
'
<
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
'
'
'
&
&
&
<
&
'
'
&
<
'
'
'
'
&
'
&
'
&
&
"
&
"
'
'
'
&
"
'
'
&
<
&
"
'
'
&
&
&
&
&
'
'
'
&
'
&
&
&
'
'
'
&
&
&
"
&
'
'
&
&
&
&
'
&
'
'
"
&
&
'
'
&
'
'
'

APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINE
BACKFILL MATERIALS AND COMPACTION (ALBERTA)
1.0
DEFINITIONS
Landscape fill is typically used in areas such as berms and grassed areas where settlement of the fill and
noticeable surface subsidence can be tolerated. Landscape fill may comprise soils without regard to engineering
quality.
General engineered fill is typically used in areas where a moderate potential for subgrade movement is
tolerable, such as asphalt (i.e., flexible) pavement areas. General engineered fill should comprise clean,
inorganic granular or clay soils.
Select engineered fill is typically used below slabs-on-grade or where high volumetric stability is desired, such
as within the footprint of a building. Select engineered fill should comprise clean, well-graded granular soils or
inorganic low to medium plastic clay soils.
Structural engineered fill is used for supporting structural loads in conjunction with shallow foundations.
Structural engineered fill should comprise clean, well-graded inorganic granular soils.
Lean-mix concrete is typically used to protect a subgrade from weather effects including excessive drying or
wetting. Lean-mix concrete can also be used to provide a stable working platform over weak subgrades.
Lean-mix concrete should be low strength concrete having a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3.5 MPa.
Standard Proctor Density (SPD) as used herein means Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (ASTM Test
Method D698). Optimum moisture content is defined in ASTM Test Method D698.
2.0
GENERAL BACKFILL AND COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Backfill adjacent to and above footings, abutment walls, basement walls, grade beams and pile caps or below
highway, street or parking lot pavement sections should comprise general engineered fill materials as defined
above.
Exterior backfill adjacent to footings, foundation walls, grade beams and pile caps and within 600 mm of final
grade should comprise inorganic, cohesive general engineered fill. Such backfill should provide a relatively
impervious surface layer to reduce seepage into the subsoil.
Backfill should not be placed against a foundation structure until the structure has sufficient strength to withstand
the earth pressures resulting from placement and compaction. During compaction, careful observation of the
foundation wall for deflection should be carried out continuously. Where deflections are apparent, the compactive
effort should be reduced accordingly.
In order to reduce potential compaction induced stresses, only hand held compaction equipment should be used
in the compaction of fill within 1 m of retaining walls or basement walls.
All lumps of materials should be broken down during placement. Backfill materials should not be placed in a
frozen state, or placed on a frozen subgrade.
Where the maximum-sized particles in any backfill material exceed 50 percent of the minimum dimension of the
cross-section to be backfilled (e.g., lift thickness), such particles should be removed and placed at other more
suitable locations on-site or screened off prior to delivery to site.
Bonding should be provided between backfill lifts, if the previous lift has become desiccated. For fine-grained
materials the previous lift should be scarified to the base of the desiccated layer, moisture-conditioned and
recompacted and bonded thoroughly to the succeeding lift. For granular materials, the surface of the previous lift
should be scarified to about a 75 mm depth followed by proper moisture-conditioning and recompaction.
3.0
COMPACTION AND MOISTURE CONDITIONING
Landscape fill material should be placed in compacted lifts not exceeding 300 mm and compacted to a density
of not less than 90 percent of SPD.
General engineered fill and select engineered fill materials should be placed in layers of 150 mm compacted
thickness and should be compacted to not less than 98 percent of SPD. Note that higher compaction levels may
be specified within 300 mm of the design elevation. Cohesive materials placed as general engineered fill or
select engineered fill should be compacted at 0 to 2 percent above the optimum moisture content. Granular
materials placed as general engineered fill or select engineered fill should be compacted at slightly below the
optimum moisture content.
Structural engineered fill material should be placed in compacted lifts not exceeding 150 mm in thickness and
compacted to not less than 100 percent of SPD at slightly below the optimum moisture content.
4.0
GENERAL ENGINEERED FILL SPECIFICATIONS
Low to high plastic clay is considered acceptable for use as general engineered fill, assuming this material is
inorganic and free of deleterious materials.
Materials meeting the specifications for select engineered fill or structural engineered fill as described below
would also be acceptable for use as general engineered fill.
5.0
SELECT ENGINEERED FILL SPECIFICATIONS
Low to medium plastic clay with the following range of plasticity properties is generally considered suitable for use
as select engineered fill:
Liquid Limit
= 20 to 40%
Plastic Limit
= 10 to 20%
Plasticity Index
= 10 to 30%
Pit-run gravel and fill sand that meet the following specifications are generally considered acceptable for use
as select engineered fill.
Granular Select Engineered Fill Percent Passing by Weight
80 mm
Pit-run Gravel
(AT D6-C80)
100
50 mm
55 100
--
25 mm
38 100
100
Sieve Size
Fill Sand
--
16 mm
32 85
--
5.0 mm
20 65
75 100
630 m
--
45 80
315 m
6 30
--
80 m
2 10
2 10
The pit-run gravel should be free of any form of coating and any gravel or sand containing clay, loam or other
deleterious materials should be rejected. No oversize material should be tolerated.
The materials above are also suitable for use as general engineered fill.
6.0
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERED FILL SPECIFICATIONS
Crushed gravel used as structural engineered fill should be hard, clean, well graded, crushed aggregate, free of
organics, coal, clay lumps, coatings of clay, silt and other deleterious materials. The aggregates should conform
to the following gradation requirement when tested in accordance with ASTM C136:
Structural Engineered Fill Percent Passing by Weight

Sieve Size
20 mm Crush
(AT D2-C20)
40 mm
25 mm
40 mm Crush
(AT D2-C40)
100
70 94
20 mm
100
--
16 mm
84 94
55 85
10 mm
63 86
44 74
5.0 mm
40 67
32 62
1.25 mm
20 43
17 43
630 m
14 34
12 34
315 m
9 26
8 26
160 m
5 18
5 18
80 m
2 10
2 10
In addition to the above grading limits, the following criteria should be met:
Structural Engineered Fill Additional Material Properties
20 mm Crush
Percentage of Material Retained on

5 mm Sieve having Two or More
Fractured Faces
60 min
40 mm Crush
50 min
Material Type
Plasticity Index
(<400 m)
L.A. Abrasion Loss

(percent Mass)
6 max
50 max
6 max
50 max
Materials that meet the above grading limits and material property criteria are also suitable for use as select
engineered fill.
7.0
DRAINAGE MATERIALS
Coarse gravel for drainage or weeping tile bedding should conform to the following grading:
Coarse Gravel Drainage Material Percent Passing by Weight

Sieve Size
25 mm Gravel
(AT D8-C25)
40 mm
--
--
28 mm
--
100
25 mm
100
--
20 mm
--
85 100
16 mm
90 100
--
14 mm
--
60 90
10 mm
45 75
--
5 mm
0 15
0 10
2.5 mm
--
05
1.25 mm
05
--
20 mm Gravel
Coarse sand for drainage should conform to the following grading limits:
Coarse Sand Drainage Material Percent Passing by Weight

Sieve Size
Coarse Sand*
10 mm
100
5 mm
95 100
2.5 mm
80 100
1.25 mm
50 90
630 m
25 65
315 m
10 35
160 m
2 10
80 m
03
* From CSA A23.1-09, Table 10, Grading Limits for Fine Aggregate, Class FA1
Note that the coarse sand above is also suitable for use as pipe bedding material.
4
8.0
BEDDING MATERIALS
The fill sand gradation presented above in Section 5.0 is suitable for use as pipe bedding and as backfill within
the pipe embedment zone. If drainage is also a consideration, coarse sand presented in Section 7.0 above
should be used.
PROOF-ROLLING
Proof-rolling is a method of detecting soft areas in an 'as-excavated' subgrade for fill, pavement, floor or
foundations or detecting non-uniformity of compacted embankment. The intent is to detect soft areas or areas of
low shear strength not otherwise revealed by means of testholes, density testing, or visual examination of the site
surface and to check that any fill placed or subgrade meets the necessary design strength requirements.
Proof-rolling should be observed by qualified geotechnical personnel.
Proof-rolling is generally accomplished by the use of a heavy (15 to 60 tonne) rubber-tired roller having
four wheels abreast on independent axles with high contact wheel pressures (inflation pressures ranging from
550 kPa (80 psi) up to 1030 kPa (150 psi).
A heavily loaded tandem axle gravel truck may be used in lieu of the equipment described in the paragraph
above. The truck should be loaded to approximately 10 tonnes per axle and a minimum tire pressure of 550 kPa
(80 psi).
Ground speed - maximum 8 km/hr recommended 4 km/hr.
The recommended procedure is two complete coverages with the proof-rolling equipment in one direction and a
second series of two coverages made at right angles to the first series; one 'coverage' means that every point of
the proof-rolled surface has been subjected to the tire pressure of a loaded wheel. Less rigorous procedures may
be acceptable under certain conditions subject to the approval of an engineer.
Any areas of soft, rutted, or displaced materials detected should either be recompacted with additional fill or the
existing material removed and replaced with general engineered fill, or properly moisture conditioned as
necessary.
The surface of the grade under the action of the proof-roller should be observed, noting; visible deflection and
rebound of the surface, formation of a crack pattern in the compacted surface or shear failure in the surface of
granular soils as ridging between wheel tracks.
If any part of an area indicates significantly more distress than other parts, the cause should be investigated, by,
for example, shallow auger holes.
In the case of granular subgrades, distress will generally consist of either compression due to insufficient
compaction or shearing under the tires. In the first case, rolling should be continued until no further compression
occurs. In the second case, the tire pressure should be reduced to a point where the subgrade can carry the load
without significant deflection and subsequently gradually increased to its specified pressure as the subgrade
increases in shear strength under this compaction.
CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATIONS
Construction should be in accordance with good practice and comply with the requirements of the responsible
regulatory agencies.
All excavations greater than 1.5 m deep should be sloped or shored for worker protection.
Shallow excavations up to about 3 m depth may use temporary sideslopes of 1H:1V. A flatter slope of 2H:1V
should be used if groundwater is encountered. Localized sloughing can be expected from these slopes.
Deep excavations or trenches may require temporary support if space limitations or economic considerations
preclude the use of sloped excavations.
For excavations greater than 3 m depth, temporary support should be designed by a qualified geotechnical
engineer. The design and proposed installation and construction procedures should be submitted to Tetra Tech
EBA for review.
The construction of a temporary support system should be monitored. Detailed records should be taken of
installation methods, materials, in situ conditions and the movement of the system. If anchors are used, they
should be load tested. Tetra Tech EBA can provide further information on monitoring and testing procedures if
required.
Attention should be paid to structures or buried service lines close to the excavation. For structures, a general
guideline is that if a line projected down, at 45 degrees from the horizontal from the base of foundations of
adjacent structures intersects the extent of the proposed excavation, these structures may require underpinning
or special shoring techniques to avoid damaging earth movements. The need for any underpinning or special
shoring techniques and the scope of monitoring required can be determined when details of the service ducts and
vaults, foundation configuration of existing buildings and final design excavation levels are known.
No surface surcharges should be placed closer to the edge of the excavation than a distance equal to the depth
of the excavation, unless the excavation support system has been designed to accommodate such surcharge.

APPENDIX D
FIELDTURF BASE DESIGN GUIDELINES

Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School Artificial Turf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Evaluation Review - Bow Valley High School Artificial Turf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD

Tetra Tech EBA Inc.

This page intentionally left blank.

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

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

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

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

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 3

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

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

Artificial Turf Field Design

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

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

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

Prepared subgrade, inclusive of pipe drains.

Excavation and Backfill

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES

Backfill Materials and Compaction.

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

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

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

4.0 NATURE AND EXACTNESS OF SOIL AND

This geotechnical report pertains to a specific site, a specific

Classification and identification of soils and rocks are based upon

This report and the recommendations contained in it are intended

Classification and identification of geological units are judgmental in

This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either

5.0 LOGS OF TESTHOLES

2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT

6.0 STRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

7.0 PROTECTION OF EXPOSED GROUND

11.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Excavation and construction operations expose geological materials

Where temporary or permanent drainage systems are installed

8.0 SUPPORT OF ADJACENT GROUND AND STRUCTURES

12.0 BEARING CAPACITY

9.0 INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

Because of the nature of geological deposits, the judgmental nature

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REVIEW BOW VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL ARTIFICIAL TURF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Site and Project Description

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

The scope of work for the geotechnical assessment included:

Details of the Investigation

Field Drilling and Soil Sampling