SNYE AND HANGINGSTONE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES FORT ... · SNYE AND HANGINGSTONE RIVER PEDESTRIAN...

November 13, 2012 File: 14-32-72 Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo 309 Powder Drive Fort McMurray, AB T9K 0M3 Attention: Ms. Amie Dawe

SNYE AND HANGINGSTONE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES FORT MCMURRAY, AB

DESKTOP DATA REVIEW AND FIELD INVESTIGATION Dear Madame:

This letter presents the results of a desktop data review and limited field investigation carried out by Thurber Engineering Ltd. (Thurber) for The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) for the proposed Snye and Hangingstone River Pedestrian Bridges. A desktop study for the Snye Waterfront Development Area was also conducted and will be included in a separate report.

The purpose of the desktop study and field investigation program was to provide a preliminary summary of expected subsurface conditions for a future design-build bid package for the bridge projects.

Use of this report is subject to the Statement of Limitations and Conditions that is included at the end of the text of this report. The reader’s attention is specifically drawn to these conditions as it is considered essential that they be followed for proper use and interpretation of this report.

1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The RMWB is planning to construct two pedestrian bridges in the Lower Townsite area of Fort McMurray. One will span the Snye to connect the MacDonald Island Recreation Area to Borealis Park and the adjacent proposed Snye Waterfront Development Area. The second will span the Hangingstone River near its confluence with the Clearwater River at the east end of the Lower Townsite area. The locations of the bridges are shown on Drawings No. 14-32-72-1 and 14-32-72-3, Appendix A.

2. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

2.1 Desktop Data Review

The results of previous geotechnical investigations carried out by Thurber in the general project area were reviewed to determine what existing test holes were available for the current study. This included the review of the following two reports:

200, 9636 - 51 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6E 6A5 T: 780 438 1460 F: 780 437 7125 thurber.ca

Client: Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Date: November 13, 2012 File: 14-32-72 e-file: \\H\14-32-72 Edm of 4

"Fort McMurray Sanitary Sewer Forcemain Geotechnical Investigation" report dated March 20, 2009; and

"The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo MacDonald Island Sports Park Geotechnical Investigation", report dated June 29, 2012.

The locations of the test holes that were drilled as part of these previous investigations are shown on Drawing No. 14-32-72-1, Appendix A. Copies of the logs of the test holes located close to the proposed Snye bridge are included in Appendix B.

2.2 Field Investigation

Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) were carried on each side of the Snye and the Hangingstone River to supplement the available test hole information. A total of 5 locations were identified for CPTs.

Prior the field investigation, site visits were made to each bridge crossing location to assess CPT rig access. Of the five proposed CPT locations, two (CPT 12-01 and CPT 12-04) were identified as inaccessible in their current state, due to encroachment of bush cover. It was determined that in order to reach these two CPT locations the existing trails would need to widened and lengthened using a mulcher. The necessary paperwork to conduct the mulching was obtained by Ms. Amie Dawe of the RMWB. The mulching work was undertaken by Bear Slashing Ltd. under the supervision of Mr. Kyle Moyle, E.I.T, of Thurber, on September 8, 2012.

Along with routine Alberta one-call, all five locations were scanned for private locates by Tierra Geomatic Services Inc. on September 21, 2012 under the supervision of Mr. Moyle. The RMWB was also contacted in order to get clearance of any utilities that belong to the Municipality. All five locations were cleared of utilities before proceeding with the CPT program.

The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program at the Snye was conducted by ConeTec Investigations Ltd. (ConeTec) on September 27, 2012 under the supervision of Ms. Ada Lao, E.I.T of Thurber. Three CPTs (CPT12-01 to CPT12-03) were carried out. CPT12-01 and CPT12-02 were attempted twice and CPT12-03 was attempted three times due to earlier than anticipated refusal on hard surfaces. The CPT locations are shown on Drawing No. 14-32-72-1 in Appendix A.

The CPT program for the Hangingstone River crossing was also conducted by ConeTec on September 29, 2012 under the supervision of Mr. Kyle Moyle, E.I.T. of Thurber. Two CPTs (CPT12-04 and CPT12-05) were carried out, one on each side of the river crossing at the locations shown on Drawing No. 14-32-72-3 in Appendix A.

The results of the CPT program, showing cone tip and sleeve resistance values, friction ratio, pore pressure dissipation rates and interpreted soil stratigraphy are presented on the CPT test hole logs in Appendix C.

Client: Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo Date: November 13, 2012 File: 14-32-72 e-file: \\H\14-32-72 Edm of 4

3. RESULTS

3.1 Snye Pedestrian Bridge

Drawing No. 14-32-72-2, Appendix A, displays a cross section along the proposed bridge alignment. Relevant test holes from previous projects are included in the cross section along with the results of the recent CPTs to aid in the establishment of soil stratigraphy. Based on this available information, the subsurface conditions along the bridge alignment consist of interbedded alluvial clay, silt, sand and gravel overlying limestone and clay shale bedrock. The depth of refusal in the CPTs corresponds to a hard surface that is likely either the contact of the bedrock or a gravel/cobble layer within the alluvium. The bedrock depth and type in TH07-03 was accurately identified by coring the bedrock. The groundwater table appears to closely follow the river water level.

3.2 Hangingstone River Pedestrian Bridge

Drawing No. 14-32-72-4, Appendix A, shows a cross section along the proposed bridge alignment with the results of the recent CPTs plotted on it. Based on the CPTs, the subsurface conditions along the bridge alignment consist of interbedded alluvial silt and sand overlying bedrock. The depth of refusal in the CPTs corresponds to a hard surface that has been interpreted as the likely contact of the bedrock. A layer of clay is present over the silt and sand at CPT12-04. The groundwater table appears to closely follow the river water level.

4. CLOSURE

We trust that the above is suitable for your current needs. However if you have any questions or require any additional information please do not hesitate to call us.

If multi-span bridges are designed, additional test holes should be carried out at each bridge pier, complete with coring, to confirm the depth and quality of the bedrock located below the alluvial soil materials. To access the pier locations the holes will either need to be drilled in the winter working off of river ice or in the summer working off platforms placed/skidded into the rivers. Depending on prevalent weather conditions, the winter ice may need to be built up to create an ice bridge to provide sufficient support for the weight of the drill rig and support equipment.

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS

1. STANDARD OF CARE

This study and Report have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering or environmental consulting practices in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

2. COMPLETE REPORT

All documents, records, data and files, whether electronic or otherwise, generated as part of this assignment are a part of the Report which is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to us by the Client, communications between us and the Client, and to any other reports, writings, proposals or documents prepared by us for the Client relative to the specific site described herein, all of which constitute the Report.

IN ORDER TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN, REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT. WE CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR USEBY ANY PARTY OF PORTIONS OF THE REPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE WHOLE REPORT.

3. BASIS OF REPORT

The Report has been prepared for the specific site, development, design objectives and purposes that were described to us by the Client. The applicability and reliability of any of the findings, recommendations, suggestions, or opinions expressed in the document, subject to the limitations provided herein, are only valid to the extent that this Report expressly addressesproposed development, design objectives and purposes, and then only to the extent there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the said descriptions provided to us unless we are specifically requested by the Client to review and revise the Report in light of such alteration or variation or to consider such representations, information and instructions.

4. USE OF THE REPORT

The information and opinions expressed in the Report, or any document forming part of the Report, are for the sole benefit of the Client. NO OTHER PARTY MAY USE OR RELY UPON THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF WITHOUT OURWRITTEN CONSENT AND SUCH USE SHALL BE ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS WE MAY EXPRESSLY APPROVE. The contents of the Report remain our copyright property. The Client may not give, lend or, sell the Report, orotherwise make the Report, or any portion thereof, available to any person without our prior written permission. Any use whicha third party makes of the Report, are the sole responsibility of such third parties. Unless expressly permitted by us, no person other than the Client is entitled to rely on this Report. We accept no responsibility whatsoever for damages suffered by anythird party resulting from use of the Report without our express written permission.

5. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT

a) Nature and Exactness of Soil and Contaminant Description: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, geological units, contaminant materials and quantities have been based on investigations performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1. Classification and identification of these factors are judgmental in nature. Comprehensive sampling and testing programs implemented with the appropriate equipment by experienced personnel, may fail to locate some conditions. All investigations utilizing the standards of Paragraph 1 will involve an inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected and all documents or records summarizing such investigations will be based on assumptions of what exists between the actual points sampled. Actual conditions may vary significantly between the points investigated and the Client and all other persons making use of such documents or records with our express written consent should be aware of this risk and this report is delivered on the express condition that such risk is accepted by the Client and such other persons. Some conditions are subject to change over time and those making use of the Report should be aware of this possibility and understand that the Report only presents the conditions at the sampled points at the time of sampling. Where special concerns exist, or the Client has special considerations or requirements, the Client should disclose them so that additional or special investigations may be undertaken which would not otherwise be within the scope of investigations made for the purposes of the Report.

b) Reliance on Provided Information: The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report have been prepared on the basis of conditions in evidence at the time of site inspections and on the basis of information provided to us. We have relied in good faith upon representations, information and instructions provided by the Client and others concerning the site. Accordingly, we cannot accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the Report as a result of misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations, or fraudulent acts of the Client or other persons providing information relied on by us. We are entitled to rely on such representations, information and instructions and are not required to carry out investigations to determine the truth or accuracy of such representations, information and instructions.

(see over …)

INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT (continued. . . )

c) Design Services: The Report may form part of the design and construction documents for information purposes even though it may have been issued prior to the final design being completed. We should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of the Report. Any differences that may exist between the report recommendations and the final design detailed in the contract documents should be reported to us immediately so that we can address potential conflicts.

d) Construction Services: During construction we must be retained to provide field reviews. Field reviews consist of performing sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the site conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of the report. Adequate field reviews are necessary for Thurber to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities.

6. RISK LIMITATION

Geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting projects often have the potential to encounter pollutants or hazardous substances and the potential to cause an accidental release of those substances. In consideration of the provision of the services by us, which are for the Client's benefit, the Client agrees to hold harmless and to indemnify and defend us and our directors, officers, servants, agents, employees, workmen and contractors (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, demands, disputes, liability and legal investigative costs of defence, whether for personal injury including death, or any other loss whatsoever, regardless of any action or omission on the part of the Company, that result from an accidental release of pollutants or hazardous substances occurring as a result of carrying out this Project. This indemnification shall extend to all Claims brought or threatened against the Company under any federal or provincial statute as a result of conducting work on this Project. In addition to the above indemnification, the Client further agrees not to bring any claims against the Company in connection with any of the aforementioned causes.

7. SERVICES OF SUBCONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS

The conduct of engineering and environmental studies frequently requires hiring the services of individuals and companies with special expertise and/or services which we do not provide. We may arrange the hiring of these services as a convenience to our Clients. As these services are for the Client's benefit, the Client agrees to hold the Company harmless and to indemnify and defend us from and against all claims arising through such hirings to the extent that the Client would incur had he hired those services directly. This includes responsibility for payment for services rendered and pursuit of damages for errors, omissions or negligence by those parties in carrying out their work. In particular, these conditions apply to the use of drilling, excavation and laboratory testing services.

8. CONTROL OF WORK AND JOBSITE SAFETY

We are responsible only for the activities of our employees on the jobsite. The presence of our personnel on the site shall not be construed in any way to relieve the Client or any contractors on site from their responsibilities for site safety. The Clientacknowledges that he, his representatives, contractors or others retain control of the site and that we never occupy a position of control of the site. The Client undertakes to inform us of all hazardous conditions, or other relevant conditions of which the Client is aware. The Client also recognizes that our activities may uncover previously unknown hazardous conditions or materials and that such a discovery may result in the necessity to undertake emergency procedures to protect our employees as well as the public at large and the environment in general. These procedures may well involve additional costs outside of any budgets previously agreed to. The Client agrees to pay us for any expenses incurred as the result of such discoveries and to compensate us through payment of additional fees and expenses for time spent by us to deal with the consequences of such discoveries. The Client also acknowledges that in some cases the discovery of hazardous conditions and materials will require that certain regulatory bodies beinformed and the Client agrees that notification to such bodies by us will not be a cause of action or dispute.

9. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENTS OF CLIENT

The information, interpretations and conclusions in the Report are based on our interpretation of conditions revealed through limited investigation conducted within a defined scope of services. We cannot accept responsibility for independent conclusions, interpretations, interpolations and/or decisions of the Client, or others who may come into possession of the Report, or any part thereof, which may be based on information contained in the Report. This restriction of liability includes but is not limited to decisions made to develop, purchase or sell land.

SLC20120601_HKH/KDG

APPENDIX A

Drawing 14-32-72-1 Site Plan Showing Test Holes Locations and Approximate CPT Locations Drawing 14-32-72-2 Cross Section A-A’

Drawing 14-32-72-3 Site Plan Showing Approximate CPT Locations Drawing 14-32-72-4 Cross Section B-B’

APPENDIX B

Modified Unified Soils Classification System Symbols and Terms Used on the Test Hole Logs

Rock Material Description Relevant Test Hole Logs

APPENDIX C

CPT Results

Field Data Report

ConeTec Investigations Ltd.

12140 Vulcan Way Richmond, BC V6V 1J8

- Tel: 604-273-4311 Fax: 604-273-4066

- Toll Free: 800-567-7969

- Email: [email protected]

Prepared for:

Thurber Engineering Ltd. Snye Waterfront,

Fort McMurray, AB

Job No: 12-245

-

- September 27th to September 29th, 2012-

of 2 CPTU Tests

Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU)

The cone penetration tests (CPTU) with pore pressure measurement were carried out by ConeTec using an integrated electronic cone system.

All soundings were performed using compression type cone penetrometers (refer to Figure CPTU). ConeTec has cones of various cross-sectional areas and capacities. ConeTec’s 10 ton cones have a tip area of 10 cm2, a friction sleeve area of 150 cm2 and tip capacity of 1000 bar. ConeTec’s 20 Ton cones have a tip area of 15 cm2, a friction sleeve area of 225 cm2 and a tip capacity of 1500 bar. ConeTec’s Medium Capacity cones (MC375) have a tip area of 15 cm2, a friction sleeve area of 225 cm2 and a tip capacity of 375 bar. The compression cones are designed with an equal end area friction sleeve and a tip end area ratio of 0.80. A porewater pressure filter is located directly behind the cone tip. The filter is made of porous plastic and is 5.0 mm thick. Each porewater pressure filters is saturated under vacuum pressure prior to penetration. Porewater pressure dissipation data is recorded at 5-second intervals during pauses in penetration as directed by the field representative.

The cone system is capable of recording the following parameters at varying depth intervals:

Tip Resistance (qc)Sleeve Friction (fs)Dynamic Pore Pressure (u)Temperature (T)Cone Inclination (I)

Figure – CPTU

of 2 CPTU Tests

A summary of the cone penetration tests carried out and graphical plots are presented in Table CPTU (Appendix CPTU). All cone penetration testing was carried out in accordance with ASTM D-5778-07.

A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to and at the completion of each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Corrections for temperature shifts and zero load offsets can be extremely important, especially when the recorded loads are relatively small. In sandy soils, however, these corrections are generally negligible. Graphical plots of all CPT data are presented in Appendix CPTU.

The inferred stratigraphic profile at each CPT test location is included with this report. The stratigraphic interpretations are based on relationships between cone bearing, qt, sleeve friction, fs, and dynamic pore pressure, u. The friction ratio, Rf (100 x fs/qt), is a calculated parameter which is used to identify the type of soil and hence gives an indication of its behavior. Generally, soft cohesive soils have high friction ratios, low cone bearing pressures and generate large porewater pressures during penetration. Cohesionless soils have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing pressures and generate little in the way of excess porewater pressure during penetration. The classification of soils is based on correlations summarized by Robertson (1990), as shown in Figure SBT. It is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on qt and fsalone. Experience, judgment and analyses of porewater pressure generation during penetration and subsequent dissipation tests should be used in arriving at the soil type in these ambiguous situations.

Figure SBT – Non-Normalized Soil Behavior Type Chart, Robertson (1990)

It should be noted that stratigraphic interpretation using CPTU data can also be carried out using a normalized (stress corrected) soil behavior type chart (Robertson, 1990). The Robertson publication emphasizes when normalized stratigraphic interpretation is appropriate.

Con

eB

earin

g(b

ar),

qt

Friction Ratio (%), Rf

1000

10

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

100

3

1

45

6

78

9

10 12

11

2

Zone qt / N Soil Behavior Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112

Sensitive fine grainedOrganic soil

ClaySilty clay to clay

Clayey silt to silty claySandy silt to clayey siltSilty sand to sandy silt

Sand to silty sandSand

Gravelly sand to sandVery stiff fine-grained soil *

Very stiff sand to clayey sand *

* overconsolidated or cemented

2111.522.5345612

Rev 03, April 12, 2011 Page 1 of 2 PPD

Pore Pressure Dissipation Testing (PPD)

The penetration of the piezocone was halted at specific depths to carry out pore pressure dissipation tests as directed by the field representative. The variation of the penetration pore pressure (u) with time was measured and recorded. All pore pressure data was recorded immediately behind the cone tip at the u2

location (refer to Figure PTL).

Figure – PTL

Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of:

- equilibrium piezometric pressure, ueq

- depth to phreatic surface (apparent groundwater table)- in situ horizontal coefficient of consolidation, ch

- in situ horizontal coefficient of permeability, kh

In order to interpret the equilibrium piezometric pressure, ueq, and/or the phreatic surface, ideally, the pore pressure should be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time (refer to Figure PPD). This time is commonly referred to as t100, the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated. In a lot of cases this can take an excessive amount of time and it is actually impractical to take a dissipation to t100.

Estimates of ch and kh are based upon the methods described in detail by Robertson et al (1992), the framework of which is based on the work by Teh and Houlsby (1991). In most cases, ConeTec uses the time to 50% dissipation (T50) to calculate Ch. In order to do this, ConeTec must make an estimate of the equilibrium pore pressure (ueq) at the depth of interest. This equilibrium value may be determined from one or a combination of several sources such as letting a dissipation go to completion thereby measuring the value directly, estimating it from other dissipations in the same profile, from an estimate of the groundwater

Rev 03, April 12, 2011 Page 2 of 2 PPD

table and assuming hydrostatic conditions, from neighbouring soundings, from client provided information, from site observations and/or past experience, or from other site instrumentation.

When requested to provide estimates of groundwater tables, phreatic surfaces, equilibrium pore pressure profiles, horizontal coefficient of consolidation, ch and/or horizontal coefficient of permeability, kh , ConeTec typically produces a Pore Pressure Dissipation summary table (Table PPD in Appendix PPD) providing the results along with a comment as to the means by which ueq was estimated or calculated.

Figure - PPD

CONETEC INTERPRETATION METHODS

A Detailed Description of the Methods Used in ConeTec’s CPT Interpretation and Plotting Software

Revision SZW-Rev 05A April 8, 2011

Prepared by Jim Greig

ConeTec Environmental and Geotechnical Site Investigation Contractors

ConeTec Interpretations as of April 8, 2011 ConeTec’s interpretation routine provides a tabular output of geotechnical parameters based on current published CPT correlations and is subject to change to reflect the current state of practice. The interpreted values are not considered valid for all soil types. The interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully scrutinized for consideration in any geotechnical design. Reference to current literature is strongly recommended. ConeTec does not warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the program and does not assume liability for any use of the results in any design or review. Representative hand calculations should be made for any parameter that is critical for design purposes. The end user of the interpreted output should also be fully aware of the techniques and the limitations of any method used in this program. The purpose of this document is to inform the user as to which methods were used and what the appropriate papers and/or publications are for further reference. The CPT interpretations are based on values of tip, sleeve friction and pore pressure averaged over a user specified interval (e.g. 0.20m). Note that qt is the tip resistance corrected for pore pressure effects and qc is the recorded tip resistance. Since all ConeTec cones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore

pressure corrections to sleeve friction, fs, are not required.

The tip correction is: qt = qc + (1-a) • u2

where: qt is the corrected tip resistance qc is the recorded tip resistance u2 is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u2 position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the cone (typically 0.80 for ConeTec cones)

The total stress calculations are based on soil unit weights that have been assigned to the Soil Behavior Type zones, from a user defined unit weight profile or by using a single value throughout the profile. Effective vertical overburden stresses are calculated based on a hydrostatic distribution of equilibrium pore pressures below the water table or from a user defined equilibrium pore pressure profile (this can be obtained from CPT dissipation tests). For over water projects the effects of the column of water have been taken into account as has the appropriate unit weight of water. How this is done depends on where the instruments were zeroed (i.e. on deck or at mud line). Details regarding the interpretation methods for all of the interpreted parameters are provided in Table 1. The appropriate references cited in Table 1 are listed in Table 2. Where methods are based on charts or techniques that are too complex to describe in this summary the user should refer to the cited material. The Soil Behavior Type classification charts (normalized and non-normalized) shown in Figures 1 and 2 are based on the charts developed by Dr. Robertson and Dr. Campanella at the University of British Columbia. These charts appear in many publications, most notably: Robertson, Campanella, Gillespie and Greig (1986); Robertson (1990) and Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997). The Bq classification charts shown in Figures 3a and 3b are based on those described in Robertson (1990) and Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997). The Jefferies and Davies SBT chart shown in Figure 3c is based on that discussed in Jefferies and Davies, 1993. Where the results of a calculation/interpretation are declared ‘invalid’ the value will be represented by the text strings “-9999” or “-9999.0”. In some cases the value 0 will be used. Invalid results will occur because of (and not limited to) one or a combination of:

1. Invalid or undefined CPT data (e.g. drilled out section or data gap).

2. Where the interpretation method is inappropriate, for example, drained parameters in an undrained material (and vice versa).

CPT Interpretation Methods Page 2/9

ConeTec Interpretation Methods SZW-Rev 05A Revised 2011-04-08

3. Where interpretation input values are beyond the range of the referenced charts or specified limitations of the interpretation method.

4. Where pre-requisite or intermediate interpretation calculations are invalid.

The parameters selected for output from the program are often specific to a particular project. As such, not all of the interpreted parameters listed in Table 1 may be included in the output files delivered with this report. The output files are provided in Microsoft Excel XLS format. The ConeTec software has several options for output depending on the number or types of interpreted parameters desired. Each output file will be named using the original COR file basename followed by a three or four letter indicator of the interpretation set selected (e.g. BSC, TBL, NLI or IFI) and possibly followed by an operator selected suffix identifying the characteristics of the particular interpretation run.

Table 1

CPT Interpretation Methods Interpreted Parameter

Description Equation Ref

Depth

Mid Layer Depth (where interpretations are done at each point then Mid Layer Depth = Recorded Depth)

Depth (Layer Top) + Depth (Layer Bottom) / 2.0

Elevation Elevation of Mid Layer based on sounding collar elevation supplied by client

Elevation = Collar Elevation - Depth

Avgqc Averaged recorded tip value (qc)

n

i

cqn

Avgqc1

1

n=1 when interpretations are done at each point

Avgqt Averaged corrected tip (qt) where: uaqq ct )1(

n

i

tqn

Avgqt1

1


Avgfs Averaged sleeve friction (fs)

n

i

fsn

Avgfs1

1


AvgRf

Averaged friction ratio (Rf) where friction ratio is defined as:

qt

fsRf %100

Avgqt

AvgfsAvgRf %100


Avgu Averaged dynamic pore pressure (u)

n

iiu

nAvgu

1

1


AvgRes Averaged Resistivity (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module)

n

iiYRESISTIVIT

nAvgu

1

1


AvgUVIF Averaged UVIF ultra-violet induced fluorescence (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module)

n

iiUVIF

nAvgu

1

1


AvgTemp Averaged Temperature (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test)

n

iiETEMPERATUR

nAvgu

1

1




Interpreted Parameter


AvgGamma Averaged Gamma Counts (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module)

n

iiGAMMA

nAvgu

1

1


SBT Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson and Campanella

See Figure 1 2, 5

U.Wt.

Unit Weight of soil determined from one of the following user selectable options: 1) uniform value 2) value assigned to each SBT zone 3) user supplied unit weight profile

See references 5

T. Stress

v

Total vertical overburden stress at Mid Layer Depth. A layer is defined as the averaging interval specified by the user. For data interpreted at each point the Mid Layer Depth is the same as the recorded depth.

hi

n

ii

TStress1

where I is layer unit weight hi is layer thickness

E. Stress

v’

Effective vertical overburden stress at Mid Layer Depth Estress = Tstress - ueq

Ueq

Equilibrium pore pressure determined from one of the following user selectable options: 1) hydrostatic from water table depth 2) user supplied profile

For hydrostatic option:

wtweq DDu

where ueq is equilibrium pore pressure

w is unit weight of water D is the current depth Dwt is the depth to the water table

Cn SPT N60 overburden correction factor Cn=( v’)

-0.5

where v’ is in tsf 0.5 < Cn < 2.0

N60 SPT N value at 60% energy calculated from qt/N ratios assigned to each SBT zone. This method has abrupt N value changes at zone boundaries.

See Figure 1 4, 5

(N1)60 SPT N60 value corrected for overburden pressure (N1)60 = Cn • N60 4

N60Ic SPT N60 values based on the Ic parameter (qt/pa)/ N60 = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6) 5

(N1)60Ic SPT N60 value corrected for overburden pressure (using N60 Ic). User has 2 options.

1) (N1)60Ic= Cn • (N60 Ic) 2) qc1n/ (N1)60Ic = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6)

4 5

(N1)60csIc Clean sand equivalent SPT (N1)60Ic. User has 3 options.

1) (N1)60csIc = α + β((N1)60Ic) 2) (N1)60csIc = KSPT * ((N1)60Ic) 3) qc1ncs)/ (N1)60csIc = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6) FC ≤ 5%: α = 0, β=1.0 FC ≥ 35% α = 5.0, β=1.2 5% < FC < 35% α = exp[1.76 – (190/FC

2)]

β = [0.99 + (FC1.5

/1000)]

10 10 5

Su Undrained shear strength based on qt Su factor Nkt is user selectable N kt

vqt

Su

1, 5

Su Undrained shear strength based on pore pressure Su factor NΔu is user selectable N u

equuSu

2 1, 5

k Coefficient of permeability (assigned to each SBT zone) 5





Bq Pore pressure parameter

vqt

uBq

where:

equuu

and u = dynamic pore pressure ueq = equilibrium pore pressure

1, 5

Qt

Normalized qt for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson, 1990

'

v

vqt

Qt

2, 5

Fr

Normalized Friction Ratio for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson, 1990

vqt

fsFr %100

2, 5

Net qt Net tip resistance v

qt

qe Effective tip resistance 2uqt

qeNorm Normalized effective tip resistance '

2

v

uqt

SBTn Normalized Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson and Campanella

See Figure 2 2, 5

SBT-BQ Non-normalized Soil Behavior type based on the Bq parameter

See Figure 3 2, 5

SBT-BQn Normalized Soil Behavior based on the Bq parameter See Figure 3 2, 5

SBT-JandD Soil Behaviour Type as defined by Jeffries and Davies See Figure 3 7

SBT-BQn Normalized Soil Behavior base on the Bq parameter See Figure 3 2, 5

Ic Soil index for estimating grain characteristics

Ic = [(3.47 – log10Q)2 + (log10 Fr + 1.22)

2 ]

0.5

Where: n

v

a

a

v PP

qtQ

'

2

And Fr is in percent Pa = atmospheric pressure Pa2 = atmospheric pressure n varies from 0.5 to 1.0 and is selected in an iterative manner based on the resulting Ic

3, 8

FC Apparent fines content (%)

FC=1.75(Ic3.25

) - 3.7 FC=100 for Ic > 3.5 FC=0 for Ic < 1.26 FC = 5% if 1.64 < Ic < 2.6 AND Fr<0.5

3

Ic Zone This parameter is the Soil Behavior Type zone based on the Ic parameter (valid for zones 2 through 7 on SBTn chart)

Ic < 1.31 Zone = 7 1.31 < Ic < 2.05 Zone = 6 2.05 < Ic < 2.60 Zone = 5 2.60 < Ic < 2.95 Zone = 4 2.95 < Ic < 3.60 Zone = 3 Ic > 3.60 Zone = 2

3

PHI

Friction Angle determined from one of the following user selectable options:

a) Campanella and Robertson b) Durgunoglu and Mitchel c) Janbu d) Kulhawy and Mayne

See reference

5 5 5 11





Dr

Relative Density determined from one of the following user selectable options:

a) Ticino Sand b) Hokksund Sand c) Schmertmann 1976 d) Jamiolkowski - All Sands

See reference 5

OCR Over Consolidation Ratio

a) Based on Schmertmann’s method involving a

plot of Su/ v’ /( Su/ v’)NC and OCR where the Su/p’ ratio for NC clay is user selectable

9

State Parameter

The state parameter is used to describe whether a soil is contractive (SP is positive) or dilative (SP is negative) at large strains based on the work by Been and Jefferies

See reference 8, 6, 5

Es/qt Intermediate parameter for calculating Young’s Modulus, E, in sands. It is the Y axis of the reference chart.

Based on Figure 5.59 in the reference 5

Young’s Modulus E

Young’s Modulus based on the work done in Italy. There are three types of sands considered in this technique. The user selects the appropriate type for the site from: a) OC Sands b) Aged NC Sands c) Recent NC Sands Each sand type has a family of curves that depend on mean normal stress. The program calculates mean normal stress and linearly interpolates between the two extremes provided in the Es/qt chart.

Mean normal stress is evaluated from:

3''''

3

1hhvm

where v’= vertical effective stress

h’= horizontal effective stress

and h = Ko • v’ with Ko assumed to be 0.5

5

qc1

qt normalized for overburden stress used for seismic analysis

qc1 = qt (Pa/ v’)0.5

where:

Pa = atm. Pressure qt is in MPa

3

qc1n

qc1 in dimensionless form used for seismic analysis qc1n = (qc1 / Pa)(Pa/ v’)

n

where:

Pa = atm. Pressure and n ranges from 0.5 to 0.75 based on Ic.

3

KSPT Equivalent clean sand factor for (N1)60 KSPT = 1 + ((0.75/30) • (FC – 5)) 10

KCPT Equivalent clean sand correction for qc1N Kcpt = 1.0 for Ic 1.64 Kcpt = f(Ic) for Ic > 1.64 (see reference)

10

qc1ncs Clean sand equivalent qc1n qc1ncs = qc1n Kcpt 3

CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio (for Magnitude 7.5)

qc1ncs < 50: CRR7.5 = 0.833 [(qc1ncs/1000] + 0.05

50 qc1ncs < 160: CRR7.5 = 93 [(qc1ncs/1000]

3 + 0.08

10





CSR Cyclic Stress Ratio

CSR = ( av/ v’) = 0.65 (amax / g) ( v/ v’) rd

rd = 1.0 – 0.00765 z z 9.15m

rd = 1.174 – 0.0267 z 9.15 < z 23m

rd = 0.744 – 0.008 z 23 < z 30m rd = 0.50 z > 30m

10

MSF Magnitude Scaling Factor See Reference 10

FofS Factor of Safety against Liquefaction FS = (CRR7.5 / CSR) MSF 10

Liquefaction Status

Statement indicating possible liquefaction Takes into account FofS and limitations based on Ic and qc1ncs.

10

Cont/Dilat Tip

Contractive / Dilative qc1 Boundary based on (N1)60 ( v’)boundary = 9.58 x 10

-4 [(N1)60]

4.79

qc1 is calculated from specified qt(MPa)/N ratio

13

Cq Normalizing Factor Cq = 1.8 / (0.8 + (( v’/Pa)) 12

qc1 (Cq) Normalized tip resistance based on Cq qc1 = Cq * qt (some papers use qc) 12

Su(Liq)/s’v Liquefied Shear Strength Ratio Su(Liq)

= 0.03 + 0.0143(qc1) v’

13



Friction Ratio (%), Rf

Con

e B

ea

rin

g (

bar)

, qt

1000

10

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

100

3

1

45

6

7

8

9

10 12

11

2

Zone qt / N Soil Behavior Type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112

sensitive fine grainedorganic material

claysilty clay to clay

clayey silt to silty claysandy silt to clayey siltsilty sand to sandy silt

sand to silty sandsand

gravelly sand to sandvery stiff fine grained *sand to clayey sand *

* overconsolidated or cemented

2111.522.5345612

Figure 1 Non-Normalized Behavior Type Classification Chart

Norm

aliz

ed

Co

ne

Re

sis

tance

q-

t

vo

' vo

0.11

100

10

1000

1 10

Normalized Friction Ratio

1

23

4

5

6

7 8

9

fsx 100%q -t vo

Zone Normalized Soil Behavior Type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

sensitive fine grainedorganic materialclay to silty clay

clayey silt to silty claysilty sand to sandy silt

clean sands to silty sandsgravelly sand to sand

very stiff sand to clayey sandvery stiff fine grained

Figure 2 Normalized Behavior Type Classification Chart



Figure 3 – Alternate Soil Behaviour Type Charts



Table 2 References

No. References

1 Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone

Data”, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia.

2 Robertson, P.K., 1990, “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical

Journal, Volume 27.

3 Robertson, P.K. and Fear, C.E., 1998, “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone

penetration test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 442-459.

4 Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1998, “Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation Based on SPT and

CPT”, NCEER Workshop Paper, January 22, 1997

5 Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “ Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical

Practice,” Blackie Academic and Professional.

6 Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P. and Jefferies, M.G., 1992, “CPT Based Screening Procedure for

Evaluating Liquefaction Susceptibility”, 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Ontario, October 1992.

7 Jefferies, M.G. and Davies, M.P., 1993. “Use of CPTu to Estimate equivalent N60”, Geotechnical

Testing Journal, 16(4): 458-467.

8 Been, K. and Jefferies, M.P., 1985, “A state parameter for sands”, Geotechnique, 35(2), 99-112.

9 Schmertmann, 1977, “Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and Design”, Federal

Highway Administration Report FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Department of Transportation

10

Proceedings of theNCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt LakeCity, 1996. Chaired by Leslie Youd. 11

11 Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W. ,1990, “Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design,

Report No. EL-6800”, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, August 1990, 306 p.

12 Olson, S.M. and Stark, T.D., 2002, “Liquefied strength ratio from liquefied flow filaure case histories”,

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: 951-966.

13 Oslon, Scott M. and Stark, Timothy D., 2003, “Yield Strength Ratio and Liquefaction Analysis of

Slopes and Embankments”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, August 2003.

1

Revised April 04, 2012

ConeTec Digital File Formats

CPT Data Files (COR Extension)

ConeTec data files are stored in ASCII text files that are readable by almost any text editor. ConeTec CPT data files are named such that the first 3 characters contain the job number; the next two characters are CP followed by two characters indicating the sounding number. The last 8

th character position is

reserved for the letters a, b, c, d etc to uniquely identify multiple soundings at the same location. The CPT sounding file has the extension COR, and the pore pressure dissipation file has the extension PPD or PPF. As an example, for job number 08-127 the first sounding will have file names 127CP01.COR and 127CP01.PPD. The sounding (COR) file consists of the following components: 1. Two lines of header information 2. Data records 3. End of data marker 4. Units information

Header Lines Line 1: Columns 1-6 may be blank or may indicate the version number of the recording software

Columns 7-21 contain the sounding Date and Time Columns 22-36 contain the sounding Operator

Columns 51-100 contain extended Job Location information Line 2: Columns 1-16 contain the Job Location Columns 17-31 contain the Cone ID Columns 32-47 contain the sounding number

Data Records The data records contain 4 or more columns of data in floating point format. A comma (and spaces) separates each data item: Column 1: Sounding Depth (meters) Column 2: Tip (qc) data (bar) Column 3: Sleeve (fs) data in (bar) Column 4: Dynamic pore pressure (u) data (meters of water) Column 5: Empty or may contain other requested data such as Gamma, Resistivity or UVIF data

End of Data Marker After the last line of data there will be a line containing an ASCII 26 (CTL-Z) character (small rectangular shaped character) followed by a newline (carriage return / line feed). This is used to mark the end of data.

Units Information The last section of the file contains information about the units that were selected for the sounding. A separator bar makes up the first line. The second line contains the type of units used for depth, qc, fs and u. The third line contains the conversion values required for ConeTec’s software to convert the recorded data to an internal set of base units (bar for qc, bar for fs and meters for u).

ConeTec Digital File Formats 2

Revised March 12, 2009

CPT Dissipation Files (PPx Extension)

CPT Dissipation files have the same naming convention as the CPT sounding files and have the extension PPD, PPF or PPM. PPF (PPM and PPD) files consist of the following components: 1. Two lines of header information 2. Data records

Header Lines (same as COR file): Line 1: Columns 1-6 may be blank or may indicate the version number of the recording software

Columns 7-21 contain the sounding Date and Time Columns 22-36 contain the sounding Operator

Line 2: Columns 1-16 contain the Job Location Columns 17-31 contain the Cone ID Columns 32-47 contain the sounding number

Data Records The data records immediately follow the header lines. Each data record can occupy several lines in the file and is a complete record of a dissipation test at a particular depth. Each data record starts with a line containing two values separated by spaces; the first value being an index number (not currently used by the Software) and the second being the dissipation test depth in meters. Following this line are the dissipation pore pressure values stored at 5 second intervals with a maximum of 12 entries per line. The last line of the dissipation record may not contain a full 12 entries. The data record is terminated with an ASCII 30 character (appears as a triangle in some editors). This sequence is repeated for every dissipation test in the sounding. No marker is used to indicate end of file. Unit information is not stored in this file. Users need to check the CPT file for the units that were used.



CPT Basic Interpretations (TBL Extension)

ConeTec’s basic CPT interpretation output files are generally delivered in text files with a TBL extension. The root file name is the same as the COR files. A number of calculated geotechnical parameters are presented in these files. The files are stored as ASCII text files that can be viewed using any text editor such as Notepad or Wordpad. The files do not contain any page formatting. These files are not distributed if the enhanced interpretation files are provided.

CPT Enhanced Interpretations (IFI, IFP, XLS Extension)

ConeTec’s enhanced CPT interpretation output files are delivered in several formats, each file type containing the exact same information but formatted slightly differently. The files typically have any of the following file extensions:

1. IFI an importable TAB delimited ASCII text file containing approximately 47 data columns of geotechnical interpretations. The file is designed for easy import to Excel. A companion document describes the techniques used for the interpretations (usually reproduced at the beginning of the Interpretation Appendix). Text editors can be used to view the file contents, however, they may remove the tabs or replace the tabs with spaces upon saving the file destroying the feature that makes them easy to import into Excel. Because Excel imports the data as text and the sheet is protected two steps may be necessary to modify the data or use the values in certain Excel functions: a) Under Tools (Excel 2000) Select the Protection Option and then Unprotect the sheet b) Select the entire sheet, copy and then use Paste Special to paste as values to a second sheet.

Future versions of our interpretation routine will address these inconveniences. 2. IFP a printable ASCII text file containing the same 47 columns of geotechnical interpretations

as the IFI file. This file type has been formatted as a multi-page document with up to 132 characters per line and up to 68 lines per page. Each page has been separated into multiple sections to accommodate all the data fields. Each physical page has a header section and a page/section number. The file is designed for direct printing to laser printers set into compressed font mode. This output is typically provided in the Interpretation Appendix.

An abbreviated set of interpretations (containing 36 columns of output) may be generated instead. These files usually have the extensions NLI and NLP. XLS files can be generated from these as well.

3. XLS an Excel format file that has been generated directly from the corresponding IFI file. IFI

and IFP files are not distributed if the XLS files are generated. The XLS files may have been generated from abbreviated NLI interpretation files.

In each case root file name is the same as the COR files.



CPT Interpretations (Excel Format)

ConeTec’s latest software (September 2007) outputs CPT interpretations directly to Excel format (XLS extension) without creating intermediate ASCII files. Because of the desires of various clients, there are several different configurations of output parameters in ConeTec’s interpretation files. Since the Excel format file must have the XLS extension a suffix is used after the base name of the source CPT data file (COR) to identify the format of the file. The configurations still follow the formats described above and use the same extensions but now as suffixes. To allow for various runs (e.g. using a different water table, or user supplied equilibrium profile, or different methods for a particular parameter) of the same data an additional suffix may be specified by the engineer post processing the data to identify each particular run. This suffix will follow the one used to identify the format of the file. For example: If the selected format is ConeTec’s TBL configuration and each run is identified by a run number. The resultant files generated for 278CP01.COR would be: 78CP01-TBL-RUN01.XLS 78CP01-TBL-RUN02.XLS 78CP01-TBL-RUN03.XLS

CPT Data in Excel Format

ConeTec can now provide the equivalent of the ASCII COR files in Excel Format. These files will have the same base name as the COR files and an XLS extension.

Pore Pressure Dissipation Data in Excel Format

ConeTec can now provide the equivalent of the ASCII PPD format files in Excel format. These files will contain each dissipation trace that exceeds a minimum duration (selected by the engineer during post-processing) in a particular Excel spreadsheet column. The first column (Column A) will contain the time in seconds and the second column (Column B) will contain the time in minutes. Subsequent columns will contain dissipation trace data. The time columns will extend to the longest trace of the data set. Detailed header information is provided at the top of the spreadsheet. The test depth in meters and feet, the number of points in the trace and the particular units are identified at the top of each trace column. The Excel format file names will have the same base name as the original PPD format file followed by the suffix -PPD and then followed by a second suffix that the engineer doing the post processing can specify. Because the engineer can select various types of units for the dissipation data output (which can be different from the units used in the original recording) the secondary suffix is often used to identify the units in the XLS file, however, the original recorded units and the output units are clearly identified within the XLS spreadsheet file.

Bibliography ASTM D-5778-07 2007. "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone. and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils". ASTM, West Conshohocken, US. Robertson, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol 27, 1990 pp 151-158. Kurfurst, P.J. and D.J. Woeller, “Electric Cone Penetrometer – Development and Field Results From the Canadian Arctic”, Penetration Testing 1988 ISOPT, Orlando,Volume 2 pp 823-830. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., 1997, “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice”, E & FN Spon, ISBN 0 419 23750, www.sponpress.com, 312 pages, 3rd printing. Teh, C.I. and Houlsby, G.T. (1991) “An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay”, Geotechnique, 41(1), 17-34.

http://www.sponpress.com/

Job No: 12-245

Client: Thurber Engineering Ltd.

Project: Snye Waterfront, Fort McMurray, AB

Date: September 27th to September 29th, 2012

CPT Sounding File Name Date ConeAssumed Phreatic

Surface (m)

Final Depth

(m)

Handheld GPS UTM

Northing (m)

Handheld GPS UTM

Easting (m)Comments

CPT12-01 245CP01 09/27/12 295:T1500F15U500 1.2 6.225 6287767 476650

CPT12-01a 245CP01A 09/27/12 295:T1500F15U500 1.4 11.100 6287767 476650 Refer to notation 1

CPT12-02 245CP02 09/27/12 295:T1500F15U500 5.2 15.800 6287712 476686

CPT12-02a 245CP02A 09/27/12 295:T1500F15U500 5.3 15.975 6287712 476686 Refer to notation 1

CPT12-03 245CP03 09/27/12 295:T1500F15U500 2.0 6.675 6287564 477572

CPT12-03b 245CP03B 09/27/12 295:T1500F15U500 2.1 6.675 6287564 477572 Refer to notations 1 and 2

CPT12-03c 245CP03C 09/27/12 295:T1500F15U500 2.5 6.075 6287564 477572 Refer to notation 1

CPT12-04 245CP04 09/29/12 295:T1500F15U500 1.6 19.425 6284566 479260

CPT12-05 245CP05 09/29/12 295:T1500F15U500 1.7 19.525 6284626 479284

Note: Assumed phreatic surface based on pore pressure dissipations unless otherwise noted, assumed hydrostatic conditions for interpretation tables.

Datum: WGS 84 / UTM Zone 12 North.

1. Reported coordinates are based on adjacent sounding.

2. Phreatic surface assumed based on dynacmic pore pressure response.

CPT SUMMARY

Page 1 of 1

The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.

0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT

ThurberJob No: 12-245

Date: 09:27:12 14:47

Site: Snye Waterfront, Fort McMurray, AB

Sounding: CPT12-01

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Max Depth: 6.225 m / 20.42 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: 0.200 m

File: 245CP01.CORUnit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones

SBT: Lunne, Robertson and Powell, 1997Coords: UTM 12N N: 6287767m E: 476650m

Silt

Silty Clay

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/SandSand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/SandSandSandy Silt

Clayey Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

SandSilty Sand/Sand

Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal


0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:27:12 15:51


Sounding: CPT12-01a

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500


File: 245CP01A.CORUnit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones


SiltClay

Clayey SiltSilty Clay

Sand

Sandy Silt

Sandy SiltSilty Sand/Sand

Sand

Clayey Silt

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Silt

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

SandSilty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand



0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:27:12 17:10


Sounding: CPT12-02

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500




Sandy Silt

Silt

Clayey SiltSilt

Clayey Silt

Silt

Silt

Silt

Clayey Silt

Sandy Silt

Sandy SiltSilty Sand/SandSandy Silt

SandSandy Silt

Sand

Silty Sand/SandSandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sandy Silt

Sand

Silty Sand/SandSand

Sand



0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:27:12 18:17


Sounding: CPT12-02a

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500


File: 245CP02A.CORUnit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones


Sandy SiltSilt

Silt

Clayey Silt

Silty ClayClayey Silt

Silty ClayClayey Silt

Clayey SiltSilt

Silty Clay

Silt

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/SandSandGravelly SandSandy SiltGravelly Sand

Sand

Gravelly Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand



0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:27:12 10:45


Sounding: CPT12-03

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500




SiltSilty Clay

Silt

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Sandy Silt

Sensitive Fines

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand



0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:27:12 11:52


Sounding: CPT12-03b

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500


File: 245CP03B.CORUnit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones


SiltClayey SiltSilt

Silty Sand/SandSandSilty Sand/SandSandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Sandy Silt

Sensitive FinesClaySensitive FinesSiltSilty Sand/Sand

Sand



0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:27:12 12:42


Sounding: CPT12-03c

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500


File: 245CP03C.CORUnit Wt: SBT Chart Soil Zones


Sandy SiltSiltClayey Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand



0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:29:12 08:25


Sounding: CPT12-04

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500




Clay

Silt

Clayey Silt

Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sandy SiltSilty Sand/SandSand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/SandSand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand



0 100 200 300

0

5

10

15

20

qt (bar)

De

pth

(m

ete

rs)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

fs (bar)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rf (%)

0 10 20 30 400-10

u (m)

0 6 12

SBT


Date: 09:29:12 12:57


Sounding: CPT12-05

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500




Clayey Silt

Sandy Silt

Clayey Silt

Sandy Silt

Silt

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/SandSand

Sand

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand/Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

SandSilty Sand/Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand

Silty Sand/Sand

Sand


Job No: 12-245

Client: Thurber Engineering Ltd.

Project: Snye Waterfront, Fort McMurray, AB

Date: September 27th to September 29th, 2012

CPT Sounding Duration (s) Test Depth (m)Equilibrium Pore

Pressure Ueq (m)*

Calculated Phreatic

Surface (m)

CPT12-01 495 2.750 1.6 1.2

CPT12-01 300 4.950 3.7 1.2

CPT12-01a 300 9.950 8.5 1.4

CPT12-01a 300 11.100 9.7 1.4

CPT12-02 300 5.850 0.7 5.2

CPT12-02 300 9.875 Not Achieved

CPT12-02a 95 15.975 10.6 5.3

CPT12-03 95 0.825 0.0


CPT12-03 300 5.000 3.0 2.0


CPT12-03 300 6.700 4.5 2.2

CPT12-03b 300 5.000 Not Achieved

CPT12-03c 400 3.025 0.6 2.5

CPT12-03c 515 6.075 3.6 2.5

CPT12-04 300 5.000 3.4 1.6

CPT12-04 300 10.000 8.4 1.6

CPT12-04 300 15.000 13.4 1.6

CPT12-04 300 19.425 17.8 1.6

CPT12-05 300 5.000 3.3 1.7

CPT12-05 300 10.000 8.3 1.7

CPT12-05 300 19.525 17.8 1.7

* Equilibrium pore pressure estimated from dissipation tests.

PPD SUMMARY

Page 1 of 1

0 150 300 450 600

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 14:47


Sounding: CPT12-01

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:

Filename: 245CP01.PPF

Depth: 2.750 m / 9.022 ft

Duration: 495.0 s

U Min: 1.2 m

U Max: 1.6 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 14:47


Sounding: CPT12-01

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 4.950 m / 16.240 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 1.5 m

U Max: 3.7 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 15:51


Sounding: CPT12-01a

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:

Filename: 245CP01a.PPF

Depth: 9.950 m / 32.644 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 8.2 m

U Max: 9.1 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 15:51


Sounding: CPT12-01a

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 11.100 m / 36.417 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 3.0 m

U Max: 13.0 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 17:10


Sounding: CPT12-02

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 5.850 m / 19.193 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: -1.6 m

U Max: 4.9 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 17:10


Sounding: CPT12-02

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 9.875 m / 32.398 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 0.5 m

U Max: 4.1 m

0 25 50 75 100

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 18:17


Sounding: CPT12-02a

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 15.975 m / 52.411 ft

Duration: 95.0 s

U Min: 6.1 m

U Max: 10.7 m

0 25 50 75 100

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 10:45


Sounding: CPT12-03

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 0.825 m / 2.707 ft

Duration: 95.0 s

U Min: 0.2 m

U Max: 0.5 m

0 50 100 150 200

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 10:45


Sounding: CPT12-03

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 2.150 m / 7.054 ft

Duration: 105.0 s

U Min: 0.5 m

U Max: 0.9 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 10:45


Sounding: CPT12-03

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 5.000 m / 16.404 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 2.8 m

U Max: 3.0 m

0 25 50 75 100

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 10:45


Sounding: CPT12-03

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 6.675 m / 21.899 ft

Duration: 80.0 s

U Min: 0.8 m

U Max: 6.0 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 10:45


Sounding: CPT12-03

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 6.700 m / 21.981 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: -1.2 m

U Max: 5.0 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 11:52


Sounding: CPT12-03b

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:

Filename: 245CP03b.PPF

Depth: 5.000 m / 16.404 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 1.6 m

U Max: 2.4 m

0 150 300 450 600

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 12:42


Sounding: CPT12-03c

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:

Filename: 245CP03c.PPF

Depth: 3.025 m / 9.924 ft

Duration: 400.0 s

U Min: -0.2 m

U Max: 0.6 m

0 150 300 450 600

0.0

5.0

10.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/27/2012 12:42


Sounding: CPT12-03c

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:

Filename: 245CP03c.PPF

Depth: 6.075 m / 19.931 ft

Duration: 515.0 s

U Min: -4.5 m

U Max: 3.9 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/29/2012 08:25


Sounding: CPT12-04

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 5.000 m / 16.404 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 3.0 m

U Max: 3.4 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/29/2012 08:25


Sounding: CPT12-04

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 10.000 m / 32.808 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 8.1 m

U Max: 8.4 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/29/2012 08:25


Sounding: CPT12-04

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 15.000 m / 49.212 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 13.2 m

U Max: 13.8 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/29/2012 08:25


Sounding: CPT12-04

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 19.425 m / 63.730 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 14.7 m

U Max: 19.2 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/29/2012 12:57


Sounding: CPT12-05

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 5.000 m / 16.404 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 3.1 m

U Max: 3.4 m

0 100 200 300 400

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

-5.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/29/2012 12:57


Sounding: CPT12-05

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 10.000 m / 32.808 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 8.1 m

U Max: 8.4 m

0 100 200 300 400

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Time (s)

Po

re P

ressu

re (

m)


Date: 09/29/2012 12:57


Sounding: CPT12-05

Cone: 295:T1500F15U500

Cone Area: 15 sq cm

Trace Summary:


Depth: 19.525 m / 64.058 ft

Duration: 300.0 s

U Min: 17.7 m

U Max: 22.1 m

SNYE AND HANGINGSTONE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES FORT ... · SNYE AND HANGINGSTONE RIVER PEDESTRIAN...

Documents

Transcript of SNYE AND HANGINGSTONE RIVER PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES FORT ... · SNYE AND HANGINGSTONE RIVER PEDESTRIAN...