EM1299A-Geotechnical Site Investigation Near Tomahawk

620
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

INSTALLATION OF HIGH TENSIONED CABLE BARRIER
HWY 759 NORTH OF THE HAMLET OF TOMAHAWK
PARKLAND COUNTY, ALBERTA
PREPARED FOR
FRONTIER FENCE & GUARD RAIL LTD.
EDMONTON, ALBERTA
PREPARED BY
PARKLAND GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL LTD.
SHERWOOD PARK, ALBERTA
PROJECT No.: EM-1299A
DATE: AUGUST 19, 2016

Frontier Fence & Guard Rail Ltd. Project EM-1299A
Hwy 620 West of Lodgepole and Hwy 759 North of Hwy 39, Alberta August 19, 2016
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page i of 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 GENERAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3.0 LABORATORY AND FIELD PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.1 SAND AND GRAVEL FILL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4.2 LACUSTRINE CLAY FILL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5.1 EMBEDMENT DEPTHS OF TERMINAL POSTS TO RESIST LATERAL STRESS. . . . . 2

5.2 EMBEDMENT DEPTHS TO RESIST FROST AND CABLE TENSION UPLIFT.. . . . . . . 3
6.0 LIMITATIONS AND CLOSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Minimum Embedment Depths for Gibraltor Cable Barrier System to Resist
Lateral Forces
TABLE 2: Minimum Embedment Depths for Gibraltor Cable Barrier System to Resist
Pull-out and Frost Forces
P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

Geotechnical Site Investigation Page ii of 5
APPENDICES
FIGURES Area Plan

Site Plan
Site Photographs
APPENDIX A Borehole Logs
Explanation Sheets
Laboratory Results
APPENDIX B Anchor Post Minimum Depth Charts for Trinity and Gibraltar High Tension
Cable Barrier Systems
LIMITATIONS General Terms, Conditions and Limitations

Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 1 of 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Frontier Fence & Guard Rail Ltd. (Frontier) is proposing to install high tensioned cable road
barriers (HTCB) at one site along Highway (HWY) 759 north of the Hamlet of Tomahawk, Alberta
as shown on Figure 1.
Parkland Geo-Environmental Ltd. (ParklandGEO) was retained to complete a geotechnical site

investigation and provide recommendations for the design and construction of anchor posts for the
HTCB. This report summarizes the results of the field and laboratory testing programs and the
corresponding foundation and construction recommendations.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this study was to assess the soil conditions along the proposed section of HWY 759
to provide recommended minimum embedment depths for the HTCB anchor posts.
Recommendations have been made in regard to groundwater conditions, lateral capacity of the soil
and precautions to mitigate frost action. The general scope of work was communicated through
email and phone calls and included drilling supervision, soil sampling, laboratory analysis and
reporting. The authorization to proceed with this investigation was given via phone call by
Mr. Dennis Duma, Owner of Frontier on July 19, 2016.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site was located along HWY 759 approximately 300 m north of the Hamlet of Tomahawk and
included drilling a total of two boreholes. The boreholes were drilled on the eastern side of the two-
lane highway. Highway barriers were not present at any of the drill locations. The highway was
paved and generally raised approximately 2 to 3 m from the surrounding landscape with
approximately 4(H):1(V) sideslopes directed away from the highway to drainage ditches on either
side of the road embankment. The surrounding topography was generally flat and consisted mainly
of farmland and natural areas.
The site location is shown on Figure 1 and site photographs are attached.
3.0 LABORATORY AND FIELD PROGRAM

A total of 2 boreholes were drilled to 3.0 m on July 20, 2016 by Frontier using a truck mounted,
fence post auger. The supervision of the drilling, soil sampling, and logging of the soil profile was
completed by Mr. Drew Chrapko, E.I.T. of ParklandGEO.
The soil encountered was visually examined during drilling and logged according to the Modified
Unified Soil Classification System. Discrete samples were collected from the auger flights at 1.0 m

intervals to determine the moisture profile. Pocket Penetrometer tests were completed at 1.0 m
intervals to determine soil strength parameters. Additional samples were collected at representative
locations throughout the soil profile. All soil samples were returned to ParklandGEO's Sherwood
Park laboratory for further examination and moisture content analysis.
All boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings once completed. The site details and borehole
locations are presented on Figure 2 (Site Plan).
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subgrade soil conditions at the site consisted of sand and gravel fill underlain by lacustrine clay
fill which extended to below the borehole completion depths.
4.1 SAND AND GRAVEL FILL
Sand and gravel fill was found in both boreholes from surface to 0.2 m below grade. The sand and
gravel fill was compact, non-plastic, crumbly, damp and brown.
4.2 LACUSTRINE CLAY FILL
Lacustrine clay fill was encountered in both boreholes below the sand and gravel fill and extended
to below the borehole completion depths of 3.0 m. The lacustrine clay fill contained some silt and
was mottled, medium to high plastic and brown and grey. Moisture content of the lacustrine clay
fill was between 37 and 44 percent, which is considered at or above the optimum moisture content
(OMC). The lacustrine clay fill was stiff with pocket penetrometer values ranging from 88 to
113 kPa.
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

In general, the subgrade encountered within the boreholes along HWY 759 medium to high plastic
lacustrine clay fill with pocket penetrometer measurements ranging in undrained shear
strength (Cu) values from 88 to 113 kPa (stiff to very stiff). These values of Cu are considered
indicative only as they were measured on disturbed samples from the auger drilling. Groundwater
was not encountered in any of the boreholes while drilling and it can be assumed that the water
table is below 3.0 m.
5.1 EMBEDMENT DEPTHS OF TERMINAL POSTS TO RESIST LATERAL STRESS
The letter attached in Appendix B was used to determine the minimum depth for Gibraltor anchor
posts in medium plastic cohesive soils with a relatively deep groundwater level (> 3.0 m), as per
the site conditions. The design charts used were specifically formulated for cast-in-place concrete
and driven piles for Gibraltor anchor posts. The method used in the letter and charts was Broms
method for cohesive soils which calculates the ultimate capacity of piles and the deflection of piles

as reaction to the tension stresses applied. Soil resistence from the upper 0.9 m (3.0 ft) of
subgrade was neglected in the method.
An average of the soil strength values measured in the upper 3.0 m of the encountered subgrade
(Cu between 88 to 113 kPa) was used to assess the minimum embedment depths for the cohesive
soils from the provided design charts. The following is a summarized chart for the minimum
embedment depths for terminal posts to provide a factor of safety of 1.5 against overturning for the
site.
TABLE 1: MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTHS FOR GIBRALTOR CABLE

BARRIER SYSTEM TO RESIST LATERAL FORCES
RECOMMENDED EMBEDMENT MANUFACTURER MINIMUM
DEPTHS EMBEDMENT DEPTH
SITE
DESCRIPTION DRIVEN ANCHOR DRIVEN ANCHOR
ANCHOR POST IN ANCHOR POST IN
POSTS CONCRETE POSTS CONCRETE
Hwy 759 300 M
8.0 ft (2.4 m) 8.0 ft (2.4 m)
North of Tomahawk
A soil plate may be used if the recommended minimum embedment depth for driven piles is
considered prohibitive but would require further consultation with the manufacturer.
The site for the proposed HTCB installation are next to the paved highway which are raised from
2 to 3 m from the drainage ditches on either side of the embankment. Gibraltor recommends
HTCB systems are installed on shoulders with slopes of 6H:1V or less. If the slope of the proposed
installation site is steeper than 6H:1V, further consultation with the manufacturer is recommended.
Embedment depths for line posts have not been included as their function is to keep the cables in
line and not to sag. Therefore, they can be embedded to reasonable depths in accordance to
common construction practices or manufacturer recommended depths.
5.2 EMBEDMENT DEPTHS TO RESIST FROST AND CABLE TENSION UPLIFT
An average of the soil strength values measured in the upper 3.0 m of the encountered subgrade
(Cu between 88 and 113 kPa) was used to assess the minimum embedment depths for the
cohesive soils to resist upward frost adfreezing stresses and the upward force from the tensioned
cables for the terminal end posts. A minimum frost uplift stress of 80 kPa and the manufacturer
recommended tension of 8000 lbs (35 kN) at 6 degrees from the horizontal for each of the three
cables was used to determine minimum embedment depths. Depth of frost penetration was not
assumed to be a 1 in 30 year return period frost depth, but rather a typical depth of frost for a snow
covered grassy area and a depth of 1.0 m was assumed. A factor of safety of 1.5 against pull-out
was also included in the calculations. The recommended embedment depth to resist pull-out and
frost forces for the site is summarized in the table below.

TABLE 2: MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTHS FOR GIBRALTOR CABLE

BARRIER SYSTEM TO RESIST PULL-OUT AND FROST FORCES
RECOMMENDED EMBEDMENT DEPTHS
SITE DESCRIPTION DRIVEN ANCHOR ANCHOR POSTS IN
POSTS CONCRETE
Hwy 759 300 M North of Tomahawk 10.0 ft (3.0 m)
The embedment depths to resist frost heave should be compared to embedment depths to resist
lateral forces (Table 1) for each site. The deeper of the two depths shall govern.
Movement of the cable supporting posts in between the terminal end posts by frost action is
expected due to their limited embedment depths.
As frost cycles will impact the long term embedment of the terminal end posts, any posts that have
been in place for 10 years or more should be inspected to ensure heaving due to frost has not
impacted the integrity of the anchor posts and cable barrier system.

6.0 LIMITATIONS AND CLOSURE

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of FRONTIER FENCE AND
GUARDRAIL LTD. and their respective agents for specific application to the project and site
described in this report. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or
decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. It has been prepared
in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty is
made either express or implied. Parkland Geotechnical Ltd. and the ParklandGEO Consulting
Group accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of
decisions made or actions based on this report.
We trust that this report meets with your current requirements. If there are any questions, please
contact the undersigned.
Respectfully Submitted,

APEGA Permit to Practice No. P - 8867
August 19, 2016
Drew Chrapko, E.I.T. Melissa Kober Meier, P.Eng.

Geo-Environmental Engineer Geotechnical Engineer
Reviewed by:
Ramon Facundo, P.Eng.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Geotechnical Site Investigation
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: AREA PLAN
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

HIGHWAY 759
INVESTIGATION AREA
TOMAHAWK
IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH
CLIENT:
AREA PLAN
FRONTIER GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
FENCE AND HIGHWAY 759 NORTH OF TOMAHAWK, ALBERTA
DRAWN: CHK'D.: REV #: DATE:
GUARD RAIL LTD. DC RF 0 AUGUST, 2016
SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWING NO.
NTS EM-1299A FIGURE 1
HIGHWAY 759
16-02
16-01
TOMAHAWK
SCALE (metres)
LEGEND:
PARKLANDGEO BOREHOLE
-80 -40 0 40 80 160
CLIENT:
SITE PLAN
FRONTIER GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
FENCE AND HIGHWAY 759 NORTH OF TOMAHAWK, ALBERTA
DRAWN: CHK'D.: REV #: DATE:
GUARD RAIL LTD. DC RF 0 JUNE, 2016
SCALE: JOB NO. DRAWING NO.
1:5000 EM-1299A FIGURE 2
Highway 620 West of Lodgepole and Hwy 759 North of Hwy 39, Alberta August 19, 2016
Photograph 1: Drilling of Borehole 16-01 along Hwy 759.
Photograph 2: Drilling of Borehole 16-02 along Hwy 759.
*Photographs taken July 20, 2016.

APPENDIX A
PARKLANDGEO BOREHOLE LOGS
EXPLANATION SHEETS

BOREHOLE NO.: 16-01
CLIENT: Frontier Fence and Guardrail Ltd.
SITE: Drayton Valley Area PROJECT NO.: EM1299A
BH LOCATION: Site 1 - North of Tomahawk
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Moisture Content

and Atterburg
Pocket Pen Limits
Depth (m)
Comments (%)
Description
Symbol
Depth
Cu (kPa) (Wp |-----X-----| W l)
Elev.
Type
25 75 125 175 25 50 75
GROUND SURFACE 0.00

0
Sand and Gravel Fill
Compact, non-plastic, crumbly, damp,
brown -0.20
Lacustrine Clay Fill
Som silt, stiff, medium to high plastic,
mottled, damp to moist, brown and grey
88 37
1 1G1
88 38
2 1G2
100 38
1G3
-3.00 1G4 100 44

3
END OF BOREHOLE
Open and dry upon completion
LOGGED BY: DC GROUND ELEVATION:

CONTRACTOR: Frontier Fence NORTHING: 5919577 m
RIG/METHOD: Truck/Auger EASTING: 648702 m
DATE: July 20, 2016
PAGE 1 of 1
BOREHOLE NO.: 16-02
CLIENT: Frontier Fence and Guardrail Ltd.
SITE: Drayton Valley Area PROJECT NO.: EM1299A
BH LOCATION: Site 1 - North of Tomahawk
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Moisture Content

and Atterburg
Pocket Pen Limits
Depth (m)
Comments (%)
Description
Symbol
Depth
Cu (kPa) (Wp |-----X-----| W l)
Elev.
Type
25 75 125 175 25 50 75
GROUND SURFACE 0.00

0
Sand and Gravel Fill
Compact, non-plastic, crumbly, damp,
brown -0.20
Lacustrine Clay Fill
Som silt, stiff, medium to high plastic,
mottled, damp to moist, brown and grey
113 39
1 2G1
88 39
2 2G2
113 39
2G3
-3.00 2G4 88 41
3
END OF BOREHOLE
Open and dry upon completion
LOGGED BY: DC GROUND ELEVATION:

CONTRACTOR: Frontier Fence NORTHING: 5919828 m
RIG/METHOD: Truck/Auger EASTING: 648676 m
DATE: July 20, 2016
PAGE 1 of 1
THE PARKLANDGEO CONSULTING GROUP
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
The terms and symbols used on the borehole logs to summarize the results of the field investigation and subsequent
laboratory testing are described on the following two pages.
The borehole logs are a graphical representation summarizing the soil profile as determined during site specific field
investigation. The materials, boundaries, and conditions have been established only at the borehole location at the
time of drilling. The soil conditions shown on the borehole logs are not necessarily representative of the subsurface
conditions elsewhere across the site. The transitions in soil profile usually have gradual rather than distinct unit
boundaries as shown on the borehole logs.
1. PRINCIPAL SOIL TYPE The major soil type by weight of material or by behaviour.
Material Grain Size
Boulders Larger than 300 mm

Cobbles 75 mm to 300 mm
Coarse Gravel 19 mm to 75 mm
Fine Gravel 5 mm to 19 mm
Coarse Sand 2 mm to 5 mm
Medium Sand 0.425 mm to 2 mm
Fine Sand 0.075 mm to 0.425 mm
Silt & Clay Smaller than 0.075 mm
2. DESCRIPTION OF MINOR SOIL TYPE Minor soil types are identified by weight of minor component.
Percent Descriptor
35 to 50 and
20 to 35 some
10 to 20 little
1 to 10 trace
3. RELATIVE STRENGTH OF COARSE GRAINED SOIL The following terms are used relative to Standard
Penetration Test (SPT), ASTM D1586, N value for blows per 300 mm.
Description N Value
Very Loose Less than 4

Loose 4 to 10
Compact 10 to 30
Dense 30 to 50
Very Dense Over 50
4. CONSISTENCY OF FINE GRAINED SOILS The following terms are used relative to undrained shear
strength and Standard Penetration Test (SPT), ASTM D1586, N value for blows per 300 mm. It is noted that
this correlation needs to be used with caution as the correlation is only very approximate.
Undrained Shear
Description N Value
Strength, Cu (kPa)
Very Soft Less than 12 Less than 2

Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4
Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8
Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15
Very Stiff 100 to 150 15 to 30
Hard Over 150 Over 30
Environmental Geotechnical and Materials Engineering

Red Deer Sherwood Park Grande Prairie Calgary Peace River Fort McMurray
1 of 2
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
MODIFIED UNIFIED CLASSIFCATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS

GROUP GRAPH LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION
MAJOR DIVISION TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL SYMBOL CRITERIA
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-
(D30)2
MORE THAN HALF COARSE GRAINS
D60
GW SAND MIXTURE, LITTLE OR NO CU =
D10
> Cc =
D10 X D60
= 1 to 3
FINES
LARGER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN GRAVELS
(MORE THAN HALF BY WEIGHT LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVELS
GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS

OR NO FINES
ATTERBERG LIMITS
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-
COARSE GRAINED SOILS
GM SILT MIXTURES CONTENT

BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I.
LESS THAN 4
DIRTY GRAVELS OF FINES
(WITH SOME FINES) EXCEEDS
12% ATTERBERG LIMITS
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-
GC CLAY MIXTURES
ABOVE "A" LINE OR P.I.
LESS THAN 7
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY D60 (D30)2

SW CU = > Cc = = 1 to 3
MORE THAN HALF FINE GRAINS
SANDS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES D10 D10 X D60

SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
POORLY GRADED SANDS,
SP GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS
SANDS
FINES
ATTERBERG LIMITS
SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT
SM MIXTURES CONTENT
BELOW "A" LINE OR P.I.
LESS THAN 4
DIRTY SANDS OF FINES
(WITH SOME FINES) EXCEEDS
12% ATTERBERG LIMITS
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY
SC MIXTURES
ABOVE "A" LINE OR P.I.
LESS THAN 7
ORGANIC CONTENT
INORGANIC SILTS & VERY FINE

BELOW "A" LINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

WL < 50% ML
NEGLIGIBLE
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

(MORE THAN HALF BY WEIGHT PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE)
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

WL > 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR
SILTY SOILS
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW

WL < 30% CL PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY, SANDY,
NEGLIGIBLE ORGANIC
OR SILTY SOILS
ABOVE "A" LINE
CONTENT
CLASSIFICATION IS
CLAYS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM

BASED UPON
30% < WL < 50% CI PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS,
PLASTICITY CHART
SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS
(SEE BELOW)
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

WL > 50% CH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

BELOW "A" LINE
WL < 50% OL
ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW AND MEDIUM

SILTS &
CLAYS
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

WL > 50% OH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY STRONG COLOR OR ODOR, AND OFTEN

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt ORGANIC SOILS FIBROUS TEXTURE
50
NOTES ON SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION:
PLASTICITY INDEX, P.I. (%)
45
40 CH 1. Soil are classified and described according to their engineering
35 properties and behaviour.
30 2. Boundary classification for soil with characteristics of two groups
are given combined group symbols (e.g. GW-GC is a well graded
25 CI gravel sand mixture with clay binder between 5 and 12%).
20 3. Soil classification is in accordance with the Unified Soil
A LINE
15 CL Classification System (ASTM D2487) with the exception that an
MH & OH
10 inorganic clay of medium plasticity (CI) is recognized.
CL - ML
ML & OL 4. The use of modifying adjectives may be employed to define the
5
estimated percentage range by eight of minor components.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
LIQUID LIMIT, WL (%)

Red Deer Sherwood Park Grande Prairie Calgary Peace River Fort McMurray
2 of 2
APPENDIX B
ANCHOR POST MINIMUM DEPTH CHARTS
FOR TRINITY AND GIBRALTAR
HIGH TENSION CABLE BARRIER SYSTEMS

Parkland Geo-Environmental Ltd.
189 Pembina Road
Sherwood Park, AB, T8H 2W8
www.parklandgeo.com
T: 780 416 1755
F: 780 416 1752
July 7, 2015
Project No. ED1588
Via e-mail frontierfence@live.ca

Original will remain on file
Frontier Fence and Guard Rail Ltd.

12041 32 St. NE
Edmonton, Alberta
T6S 1G8
ATTN: Mr. Dennis Duma

Owner
RE: Anchor Post Minimum Depth Charts for Trinity and Gibraltar High Tension Cable Barrier
Systems.
Dear Mr. Duma:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document contains Anchor Post Minimum Depth Charts for Trinity and Gibraltar High
Tensioned Cable Barrier (HTCB) systems, for both concrete and driven steel anchors. For the
Trinity HTCB system, anchor posts with a soil plate attachment have been assessed. For the
Gibraltar HTCB system, soil plates have not been included in the driven anchor post assessment
due to the manufacturers general recommendations.
The charts have been developed using Broms Method for lateral pile loading. The appropriate
technical publications should be consulted for complete details on design terminology,
assumptions, theory and methods. If any conditions in the design chart limitations as outlined in
this document are not met, a supplementary geotechnical assessment is recommended specific
to the site in question.
2.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Piles resist laterally applied loads by deflecting until the necessary resistance is mobilized in the
surrounding soils. The ultimate load carrying capacity of the soil is reached when: the capacity of
the soil is exceeded; excessive bending moments are generated in the pile shaft resulting in
structural failure; or the deflections of the pile head are too large for the structure. The design of
laterally loaded piles is dependent on the strength of the surrounding soil, the stiffness of the pile,
the number of piles in a group, the fixity of the pile cap and the point of load application with respect
to the pile/pile cap.

Red Deer ! Sherwood Park ! Grande Prairie ! Airdrie ! Peace River
P:\Projects 1550-1599\ED1588 Frontier Fence Design Charts\Design Chart\ED1588 Design Chart Memo GEO.wpd
Frontier Fence and Guardrail Ltd. Project No. ED1588
Anchor Post Minimum Design Chart July 7, 2015
Geotechnical Assessment Page 2 of 5
As described in the Canadian Foundation Manual, the most common graphical method for
determining the resistance of piles against lateral loads and moments may be calculated using the
Method of Broms for cohesive1 and cohesionless soils2. This method calculates the ultimate
capacity for two types of failure: short piles where the lateral capacity of the soil is fully mobilized;
and long piles where the bending resistance of the pile is fully mobilized. This method also
determines the deflection based on theory of subgrade reaction. Since the majority of the lateral
resistance is developed in the near-surface soils, the soil characteristics used in this analysis
should be consistent with that of the upper soil deposits.
Most theoretical methods for lateral pile resistance, including the methods discussed above, treat
the soil layers around the pile as a series of springs which simulate the elastic reaction of the soil
to pile deformation when subjected to horizontal load. The elastic behaviour of the soil can be
estimated using an equivalent spring constant known as the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (kS).
3.0 DESIGN CHART LIMITATIONS
The charts contained in this document are only valid for certain pile and soil conditions. If any one
of the conditions outlined below are not met, a supplementary geotechnical assessment is
recommended at the site in question:
1) For Piles - a) Short Pile (L<2.25)

b) Free headed pile
c) Serviceability limit of 25 mm deflection at top of pile
d) Type of pile as specified on Anchor Post Minimum Depth Charts
2) For Soil - a) Soil type (i.e. cohesive or non-cohesive) as specified on Anchor

Post Minimum Depth Charts
b) Low to medium plastic soil for cohesive soils
c) Homogenous subsurface conditions
d) Water table below pile embedment depth
1
Broms, B.B., (1964), Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesive Soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics
Division, American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 90, SM 2, March, pp. 27-63.
2
Broms, B.B., (1964), Lateral Resistance of Piles in Cohesionless Soils, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 90, SM 3, May, pp. 23-56.
4.0 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE
A preliminary geotechnical investigation is required at each site. The minimum requirements for
this investigation require a minimum 3.0 meter investigation hole near the proposed anchor post
location. All typical soil sampling and laboratory testing should be conducted during and post
drilling. A field analysis of plasticity and water level by a qualified geotechnical technician is
required. For non-cohesive soils, standard penetrometer (SPT) or equivalent testing is required.
To use an Anchor Post Minimum Depth Chart:
For cohesive soils
1) For Design - Enter the chart with an average field Pocket Penetrometer (PP) value of the
upper 3.0 meters on the horizontal axis. Proceed vertically to the required
Factor of Safety Line (either F.S. = 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0). From this intersection,
proceed horizontally across to read the required design minimum depth. If
the intersection is to the left of the serviceability line, use the intersection of
the vertical and serviceability lines to proceed horizontally. If the intersection
is less than (above) the manufacturers recommended embedment depth,
use the manufacturers recommended depth.
2) For Evaluation - Enter the chart with the depth of pile on the vertical axis. Proceed
horizontally to the required Factor of Safety Line (either F.S. = 1.0, 1.5 or
2.0). Proceed vertically from this intersection to the horizontal axis. If the
intersection is to the left of the serviceability line, use the intersection of the
horizontal and serviceability lines to proceed vertically. If the horizontal axis
value is less than the field reading, full operations are permitted.
For non-cohesive soils
1) For Design - Determine the average unit weight () and internal friction angle () of the
upper 3.0 m of soils. Standard Penetrometer Testing and an experienced
geotechnical engineer are recommended to determine these parameters.
Enter the chart with the determined internal friction angle () of the upper
3.0 m of subgrade and proceed vertically from the internal friction angle to
the required Factor of Safety Line (either F.S. = 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0). The chart
has been developed for an average = 18 kN/m3, however the range in
embedment depths is shown for a F.S = 1.5 from = 16 kN/m3 (greater
embedment depth) to = 22 kN/m3 (lower embedment depth). From this
intersection, proceed horizontally across to read the required design
minimum depth. If the intersection is less than (above) the manufacturers
recommended embedment depth, use the manufacturers recommended
depth.
2) For Evaluation - Using the appropriate chart as per the average soil unit weight (), enter the
chart with the depth of pile on the vertical axis. Proceed horizontally to the
required Factor of Safety Line (either F.S. = 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0). Proceed
vertically from this intersection to the horizontal axis. If the horizontal axis
value is less than the soil parameters determined ( and adjusted for ), full
operations are permitted.
To obtain Anchor Post Minimum Depth Chart for pile type not included in the package, or for
determination of soil parameters of non-cohesive soils please contact ParklandGEOs office.
6.0 LIMITATIONS AND CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of FRONTIER FENCE AND GUARDRAIL
LTD. and their respective agents for specific application to the project and site described in this
report. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made
based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. It has been prepared in accordance with
generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty is made either express
or implied. Parkland Geotechnical Ltd. and the ParklandGEO Consulting Group accepts no
responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or
actions based on this report.
We trust that this report meets with your current requirements. If there are any questions, please
contact the undersigned.
Respectfully Submitted,

APEGA Permit to Practice No. P - 8867
Graeme Law, E.I.T. Ramon Facundo, P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Attached:
Anchor Post Minimum Depth Charts:
Chart 1: Cohesive Soil - CASS S4 Trinity High Products - Terminal Post in Concrete
Chart 2: Cohesive Soil - CASS S4 Trinity High Products - Terminal Post Driven with Soil Plate
Chart 3: Cohesive Soil - Gibraltar TL-4 Cable System - Terminal Post in Concrete
Chart 4: Cohesive Soil - Gibraltar TL-4 Cable System - Terminal Post Driven
Chart 5: Non-Cohesive Soil - CASS S4 Trinity High Products - Terminal Post Driven, = 18 kN/m3
Chart 6: Non-Cohesive Soil - Gibraltar TL-4 Cable System - Terminal Post Driven, = 18 kN/m3
General Terms, Conditions and Limitations
CHART1:ANCHORPOSTMINIMUMDEPTHCHART V2.020150318
CASSS4TRINITYHIGHWAYPRODUCTS TERMINALPOSTINCONCRETE COHESIVESOILS

PocketPenetrometer Qu(tsf)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
4.0 1.22
5.0 1.52
6.0 1.83
7.0 2.13
MinimumDepth(m)
MinimumDepth(ft)
F.S.=1.0
8.0 F.S.=1.5 2.44
F.S.=2.0
Manufacture'sMin.
Serviceability
9.0 2.74
INSTRUCTION:
AveragePocketPenetromerreadingsforupper10ft
Drawverticallinepastthemanufacture'sminimumtoFSofOverturnlinerequired
Iftheintersectionistotherightoftheservicibiltyline,readoffmimumdepth
10.0 Iftheintersectionistotheleft,useintersectionofservicibilityandPPvaluetoreadoff 3.05
minimumdepth
VALIDFOR:
1)TrinityAnchorPost(18"diameterconcrete)
11.0 2)4"(max.)cableattachmentabovegradewith8500lb.tensionat6 abovehorizontal 3.35
3)Deepwatertableandcohesivesoil
Brom'sLateralPileMethodusedforanalysis shortandfreeheadpiledesign
Frostheaveneglectedinconcretedesign,asperJune26,2014letterfromTrinityHighway
12.0 3.66
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
PocketPenetrometer Cu(kPa)
CASSS4TRINITYHIGHWAYPRODUCTS DRIVENTERMINALPOSTWITHSOILPLATE COHESIVESOILS

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
4.0 1.22
5.0 1.52
6.0 1.83
7.0 2.13
MinimumDepth(m)
MinimumDepth(ft)
F.S.=1.0
8.0 F.S.=1.5 2.44
F.S.=2.0
Manufacture'sMin.
Serviceability
9.0 2.74
INSTRUCTION:
Ifintersectiontotherightoftheservicibiltyline,readoffmimumdepth
10.0 Iftotheleft,useintersectionofservicibilityandPPvaluetoreadoffminimumdepth 3.05
VALIDFOR:
1)TrinityAnchorPost(W6x15 beamwith2'wide,4'deepsteelplateattached)
11.0 2)4"(max.)cableattachmentabovegradewith8500lb.tensionat6 abovehorizontal 3.35
Frostheaveneglectedindesign,asperJune26,2014letterfromTrinityHighway
12.0 3.66
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
GIBRALTARCABLEBARRIERSYSTEM ANCHORPOSTINCONCRETE COHESIVESOILS

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
4 1.22
5 1.52
6 1.83
7 2.13
MinimumDepth(m)
MinimumDepth(ft)
8 Manufacture'sMin. 2.44
Serviceability
9 2.74
INSTRUCTION:
Iftheintersectionistotherightoftheservicibiltyline,readoffmimumdepth
10 Iftheintersectionistotheleft,useintersectionofservicibilityandPPvaluetoreadoff 3.05
minimumdepth
VALIDFOR:
1)GibraltarAnchorPost(CSectionpostwith2ftdiameterconcrete)
11 2)4"(max.)cableattachmentabovegradewith8500lb.tensionat6 abovehorizontal 3.35
Frostheaveneglectedinconcretedesign,asperJune26,2014letterfromTrinityHighway
12 3.66
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
GIBRALTARCABLEBARRIERSYSTEMDRIVENANCHORPOST COHESIVESOILS
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
4.0 1.22
5.0 1.52
6.0 1.83
7.0 2.13
MinimumDepth(m)
MinimumDepth(ft)
F.S.=1.0
F.S.=1.5
8.0 F.S.=2.0 2.44
Manufacture'sMin.
Serviceability
9.0 INSTRUCTION: 2.74

Ifintersectiontotherightoftheservicibiltyline,readoffmimumdepth
Iftotheleft,useintersectionofservicibilityandPPvaluetoreadoffminimumdepth
10.0 3.05
VALIDFOR:
1)DrivenGibraltarAnchorPost8"diameter
2)4"(max.)cableattachmentabovegradewith8500lb.tensionat6 abovehorizontal
11.0 3)Deepwatertableandcohesivesoil 3.35
12.0 3.66
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
TRINITY CABLEBARRIERSYSTEM DRIVENTERMINALPOSTWITH2FOOTSOILPLATE,NONCOHESIVESOILS, =18kN/m3

INTERNALFRICTIONANGLE()
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
1.0 3.3
F.S.=1.0
F.S.=1.5
1.5
F.S.=2.0 5.3
Min.Depth
2.0
7.3
MINIMUMDEPTH(m)
2.5
9.3
3.0
11.3
3.5
4.0 13.3
4.5
15.3
5.0
INSTRUCTION: VALIDFOR:
Characterizetheinternalfrictionangle()andunitweight()ofsubgradeintheupper10ft.This 1)UnitWeight()of18kN/m.Errorbarson F.S.=1.5indicaterangeof minimumembedment
shouldbecompletedbyanexperiencegeotechnicalengineer. depthdependenton rangingfrom16 to22kN/m.
Fromtheappropriatevalue,drawaverticallinepastthemanufacturesminimumtotheFSof 2)DrivenTrinityAnchorPostwith2'soilplate
Overturnlinerequired. 3)4"(max.)cableattachmentabovegradewith8500lb.tensionat6 abovehorizontal.
Dependingontheunitweight,therequiredminimumembedmentdepthmaybereduced( of18to 4)Deepwatertableandgranularsoil.
22)orincreased( of16to18)upto0.2masshownontheerrorbarsfortheFS=1.5line. Brom'sLateralPileMethodusedforanalysis shortandfreeheadpiledesign
GIBRALTAR CABLEBARRIERSYSTEM DRIVENTERMINALPOST,8INCHDIAMETER,NONCOHESIVESOILS, =18kN/m3
INTERNALFRICTIONANGLE()
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
1.5 4.9
F.S.=1.0
2.0 F.S.=1.5
6.9
F.S.=2.0
2.5
8.9
3.0
MINIMUMDEPTH(m)
MINIMUMDEPTH(ft)
10.9
3.5
4.0 12.9
4.5 14.9
5.0
16.9
5.5
18.9
6.0
INSTRUCTION: VALIDFOR:
Characterizetheinternalfrictionangle()andunitweight()ofsubgradeintheupper10ft.This 1)UnitWeight()of18kN/m.Errorbarson F.S.=1.5indicaterangeof minimumembedment
shouldbecompletedbyanexperiencegeotechnicalengineer. depthdependenton rangingfrom16 to22kN/m.
Fromtheappropriatevalue,drawaverticallinepastthemanufacturesminimumtotheFSof 2)DrivenGibraltarAnchorPost(8''diamter)
Overturnlinerequired. 3)4"(max.)cableattachmentabovegradewith8500lb.tensionat6 abovehorizontal.
Dependingontheunitweight,therequiredminimumembedmentdepthmaybereduced( of18to 4)Deepwatertableandgranularsoil
22)orincreased( of16to18)upto0.2masshownontheerrorbarsfortheFS=1.5line. Brom'sLateralPileMethodusedforanalysis shortandfreeheadpiledesign.Frostheave
neglectedindesign,asperJune26,2014letterfromTrinityHighway
GENERAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The use of this attached report is subject to the following general The CLIENT acknowledged that:
terms and conditions. a) the investigation findings are based solely on the
information generated as a result of the specific scope of
1. STANDARD OF CARE - In the performance of professional the investigation authorized by the CLIENT;
services, ParklandGEO used the degree of care and skill b) unless specifically stated in the agreed Scope of Work, the
ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable investigation will not, nor is it intended to assess or detect
members of its profession practicing in the same or similar potential contaminants or environmental liabilities on the
localities. No other warranty expressed or implied is made in Site;
any manner. c) any assessment regarding geological conditions on the Site
is based on the interpretation of conditions determined at
2. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT - The CLIENT specific sampling locations and depths and that conditions
recognizes that subsurface conditions will vary from those may vary between sampling locations, hence there can be
encountered at the location where borings, surveys, or no assurance that undetected geological conditions,
explorations are made and that the data, interpretations and including soils or groundwater are not located on the Site;
recommendation of ParklandGEO are based solely on the d) any assessment is also dependent on and limited by the
information available to him. Classification and identification of accuracy of the analytical data generated by the sample
soils, rocks, geological units, contaminated materials and analyses;
contaminant quantities will be based on commonly accepted e) any assessment is also limited by the scientific possibility
practices in geotechnical or environmental consulting practice of determining the presence of unsuitable geological
in this area. ParklandGEO will not be responsible for the conditions for which scientific analyses have been
interpretation by others of the information developed. conducted; and
f) the laboratory testing program and analytical parameters
3. SITE INFORMATION - The CLIENT has agreed to provide all selected are limited to those outlined in the CLIENT's
information with respect to the past, present and proposed authorized scope of investigation; and
conditions and use of the Site, whether specifically requested or g) there are risks associated with the discovery of hazardous
not. The CLIENT acknowledged that in order for ParklandGEO materials in and upon the lands and premises which may
to properly advise and assist the CLIENT, ParklandGEO has inadvertently discovered as part of the investigation. The
relied on full disclosure by the CLIENT of all matters pertinent to CLIENT acknowledges that it may have a responsibility in
the Site investigation. law to inform the owner of any affected property of the
existence or suspected existence of hazardous materials
4. COMPLETE REPORT - The Report is of a summary nature and and in some cases the discovery of hazardous conditions
is not intended to stand alone without reference to the and materials will require that certain regulatory bodies be
instructions given to ParklandGEO by the CLIENT, informed. The CLIENT further acknowledges that any such
communications between ParklandGEO and the CLIENT, and discovery may result in the fair market value of the lands
to any other reports, writings or documents prepared by and premises and of any other lands and premises
ParklandGEO for the CLIENT relative to the specific Site, all of adjacent thereto to be adversely affected in a material
which constitute the Report. The word "Report" shall refer to respect.
any and all of the documents referred to herein. In order to
properly understand the suggestions, recommendations and 6. COST ESTIMATES - Estimates of remediation or construction
opinions expressed by ParklandGEO, reference must be made costs can only be based on the specific information generated
to the whole of the Report. ParklandGEO cannot be responsible and the technical limitations of the investigation authorized by
for use of any part or portions of the report without reference to the CLIENT. Accordingly, estimated costs for construction or
the whole report. The CLIENT has agreed that "This report has remediation are based on the known site conditions, which can
been prepared for the exclusive use of the named CLIENT. Any vary as new information is discovered during construction. As
use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on some construction activities are an iterative exercise,
or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of ParklandGEO shall therefore not be liable for the accuracy of
such third parties. ParklandGEO accepts no responsibility for any estimates of remediation or construction costs provided.
damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of
decisions made or actions based on this report." 7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - The CLIENT has agreed that to the
fullest extent permitted by the law ParklandGEOs total liability
The CLIENT has agreed that in the event that any such report to CLIENT for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses or
is released to a third party, the above disclaimer shall not be damages whatsoever arising out of or in anyway relating to the
obliterated or altered in any manner. The CLIENT further Project is contractually limited, as outlined in ParklandGEOs
agrees that all such reports shall be used solely for the purposes standard Consulting Services Agreement. Further, the CLIENT
of the CLIENT and shall not be released or used by others has agreed that to the fullest extent permitted by law
without the prior written permission of ParklandGEO. ParklandGEO is not liable to the CLIENT for any special, indirect
or consequential damages whatsoever, regardless of cause.
5. LIMITATIONS ON SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND
WARRANTY DISCLAIMER 8. INDEMNIFICATION - To the fullest extent permitted by law, the
There is no warranty, expressed or implied, by ParklandGEO CLIENT has agreed to defend, indemnify and hold
that: ParklandGEO, its directors, officers, employees, agents and
a) the investigation uncovered all potential geo-hazards, subcontractors, harmless from and against any and all claims,
contaminants or environmental liabilities on the Site; or defence costs, including legal fees on a full indemnity basis,
b) the Site is entirely free of all geo-hazards or contaminants damages, and other liabilities arising out of or in any way related
as a result of any investigation or cleanup work undertaken to ParklandGEO's work, reports or recommendations.
on the Site, since it is not possible, even with exhaustive
sampling, testing and analysis, to document all potential
geo-hazards or contaminants on the Site.
M:\Contracts\ParklandGEO Limitations Terms and Conditions Jan 2014.wpd

LIMITATIONS
GENERAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND

LIMITATIONS

GENERAL TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The use of this attached report is subject to the following general The CLIENT acknowledged that:
terms and conditions. a) the investigation findings are based solely on the
information generated as a result of the specific scope of
1. STANDARD OF CARE - In the performance of professional the investigation authorized by the CLIENT;
services, ParklandGEO used the degree of care and skill b) unless specifically stated in the agreed Scope of Work, the
ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable investigation will not, nor is it intended to assess or detect
members of its profession practicing in the same or similar potential contaminants or environmental liabilities on the
localities. No other warranty expressed or implied is made in Site;
any manner. c) any assessment regarding geological conditions on the Site
is based on the interpretation of conditions determined at
2. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT - The CLIENT specific sampling locations and depths and that conditions
recognizes that subsurface conditions will vary from those may vary between sampling locations, hence there can be
encountered at the location where borings, surveys, or no assurance that undetected geological conditions,
explorations are made and that the data, interpretations and including soils or groundwater are not located on the Site;
recommendation of ParklandGEO are based solely on the d) any assessment is also dependent on and limited by the
information available to him. Classification and identification of accuracy of the analytical data generated by the sample
soils, rocks, geological units, contaminated materials and analyses;
contaminant quantities will be based on commonly accepted e) any assessment is also limited by the scientific possibility
practices in geotechnical or environmental consulting practice of determining the presence of unsuitable geological
in this area. ParklandGEO will not be responsible for the conditions for which scientific analyses have been
interpretation by others of the information developed. conducted; and
f) the laboratory testing program and analytical parameters
3. SITE INFORMATION - The CLIENT has agreed to provide all selected are limited to those outlined in the CLIENT's
information with respect to the past, present and proposed authorized scope of investigation; and
conditions and use of the Site, whether specifically requested or g) there are risks associated with the discovery of hazardous
not. The CLIENT acknowledged that in order for ParklandGEO materials in and upon the lands and premises which may
to properly advise and assist the CLIENT, ParklandGEO has inadvertently discovered as part of the investigation. The
relied on full disclosure by the CLIENT of all matters pertinent to CLIENT acknowledges that it may have a responsibility in
the Site investigation. law to inform the owner of any affected property of the
existence or suspected existence of hazardous materials
4. COMPLETE REPORT - The Report is of a summary nature and and in some cases the discovery of hazardous conditions
is not intended to stand alone without reference to the and materials will require that certain regulatory bodies be
instructions given to ParklandGEO by the CLIENT, informed. The CLIENT further acknowledges that any such
communications between ParklandGEO and the CLIENT, and discovery may result in the fair market value of the lands
to any other reports, writings or documents prepared by and premises and of any other lands and premises
ParklandGEO for the CLIENT relative to the specific Site, all of adjacent thereto to be adversely affected in a material
which constitute the Report. The word "Report" shall refer to respect.
any and all of the documents referred to herein. In order to
properly understand the suggestions, recommendations and 6. COST ESTIMATES - Estimates of remediation or construction
opinions expressed by ParklandGEO, reference must be made costs can only be based on the specific information generated
to the whole of the Report. ParklandGEO cannot be responsible and the technical limitations of the investigation authorized by
for use of any part or portions of the report without reference to the CLIENT. Accordingly, estimated costs for construction or
the whole report. The CLIENT has agreed that "This report has remediation are based on the known site conditions, which can
been prepared for the exclusive use of the named CLIENT. Any vary as new information is discovered during construction. As
use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on some construction activities are an iterative exercise,
or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of ParklandGEO shall therefore not be liable for the accuracy of
such third parties. ParklandGEO accepts no responsibility for any estimates of remediation or construction costs provided.
damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of
decisions made or actions based on this report." 7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY - The CLIENT has agreed that to the
fullest extent permitted by the law ParklandGEOs total liability
The CLIENT has agreed that in the event that any such report to CLIENT for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses or
is released to a third party, the above disclaimer shall not be damages whatsoever arising out of or in anyway relating to the
obliterated or altered in any manner. The CLIENT further Project is contractually limited, as outlined in ParklandGEOs
agrees that all such reports shall be used solely for the purposes standard Consulting Services Agreement. Further, the CLIENT
of the CLIENT and shall not be released or used by others has agreed that to the fullest extent permitted by law
without the prior written permission of ParklandGEO. ParklandGEO is not liable to the CLIENT for any special, indirect
or consequential damages whatsoever, regardless of cause.
5. LIMITATIONS ON SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND
WARRANTY DISCLAIMER 8. INDEMNIFICATION - To the fullest extent permitted by law, the
There is no warranty, expressed or implied, by ParklandGEO CLIENT has agreed to defend, indemnify and hold
that: ParklandGEO, its directors, officers, employees, agents and
a) the investigation uncovered all potential geo-hazards, subcontractors, harmless from and against any and all claims,
contaminants or environmental liabilities on the Site; or defence costs, including legal fees on a full indemnity basis,
b) the Site is entirely free of all geo-hazards or contaminants damages, and other liabilities arising out of or in any way related
as a result of any investigation or cleanup work undertaken to ParklandGEO's work, reports or recommendations.
on the Site, since it is not possible, even with exhaustive
sampling, testing and analysis, to document all potential
geo-hazards or contaminants on the Site.
M:\Contracts\ParklandGEO Limitations Terms and Conditions Jan 2014.wpd

EM1299A-Geotechnical Site Investigation Near Tomahawk

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

EM1299A-Geotechnical Site Investigation Near Tomahawk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

620

GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

SHERWOOD PARK, ALBERTA

PROJECT No.: EM-1299A

DATE: AUGUST 19, 2016

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3.0 LABORATORY AND FIELD PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

4.1 SAND AND GRAVEL FILL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

5.1 EMBEDMENT DEPTHS OF TERMINAL POSTS TO RESIST LATERAL STRESS. . . . . 2

6.0 LIMITATIONS AND CLOSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

FIGURES Area Plan

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

Parkland Geo-Environmental Ltd. (ParklandGEO) was retained to complete a geotechnical site

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

3.0 LABORATORY AND FIELD PROGRAM

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 SAND AND GRAVEL FILL

4.2 LACUSTRINE CLAY FILL

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

5.1 EMBEDMENT DEPTHS OF TERMINAL POSTS TO RESIST LATERAL STRESS

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

TABLE 1: MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTHS FOR GIBRALTOR CABLE

5.2 EMBEDMENT DEPTHS TO RESIST FROST AND CABLE TENSION UPLIFT

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

TABLE 2: MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTHS FOR GIBRALTOR CABLE

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

6.0 LIMITATIONS AND CLOSURE

PARKLAND GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL LTD.

August 19, 2016

Drew Chrapko, E.I.T. Melissa Kober Meier, P.Eng.

Ramon Facundo, P.Eng.

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

FIGURE 1: AREA PLAN

FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH

Photograph 1: Drilling of Borehole 16-01 along Hwy 759.

Photograph 2: Drilling of Borehole 16-02 along Hwy 759.

*Photographs taken July 20, 2016.

PARKLANDGEO BOREHOLE LOGS

P:\Materials Projects\EM1250-EM1299\EM1299 Frontier - Drayton Valley Area\Site 1\Report\EM1299-Site 1 Report.wpd

SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Moisture Content

GROUND SURFACE 0.00

-3.00 1G4 100 44

LOGGED BY: DC GROUND ELEVATION:

SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Moisture Content

GROUND SURFACE 0.00

LOGGED BY: DC GROUND ELEVATION:

Material Grain Size

Boulders Larger than 300 mm

Very Loose Less than 4

Very Soft Less than 12 Less than 2

Environmental Geotechnical and Materials Engineering

MODIFIED UNIFIED CLASSIFCATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS

GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS

GM SILT MIXTURES CONTENT

WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY D60 (D30)2

SANDS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES D10 D10 X D60

INORGANIC SILTS & VERY FINE