amec foster wheeler Technical Memorandum To: Conrad Bemard of Tetra Tech ‘Adrian Frantescu of Acciona From: Blair Gohl, Ph.D., P.Eng, (Amec Foster Wheeler) Catherine Tatarniuk, Ph.D., P.Eng. (Amec Foster Wheeler) Date 23 August 2016 Ref: TE166002.2000.003 Re: Lions Gate WWTP: Excavation/Shoring Design Recommendations & Dewatering Analysis 1.0 INTRODUCTION ‘Amec Foster Wheeler Enviro ler) has prepared this 1s of excavation jater Treatment Plant ) seepage modelling formed al the base of rized. The resulting land shoring during (LGWWTP) in Nor performed in order potential settlement d the southern boundar ‘Some refinement to modeled depths of excavation and dewatering may need to be carried out in the future once a final excavation plan, sequencing, and types of foundation to be installed are determined. Given variability in soil stratigraphy and soil permeability, seepage quantities ‘computed should be considered “order of magnitude” estimates but could be refined with future field permeability testing where more precise definition of seepage inflows into excavations required. 20 BACKGROUND INFORMATION {A summary of antpeted excavation depths at vas plant site locations based on he ndcatve Design Grawngs provid by AECOM and GHOMMILL s gven Table The excavation cept asa guclioa are ased naitior ee Seve oablnd ernioace Slams eICUTO sie ose eh +43.11m (geodetic datum) based on existing survey data. The plant site structures requiring the deepest excavations are highlighted in Tale 1 wheh inicales maximum excaveton deptha of Upto aboe Some of he seucures have beve sa olevelone above BGI OOASanTsonSSOne? (based on earlier geotechnical data provided for the site by Golder Associates) and therefore will require no excavation devetenng otal tose structures, Paget 4385 Boban Drive ‘Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure Nanaimo, BC VT Svo Registered office: 2020 Winston Park Drive, Suite 700, Oakville, Ontario L6H 6X7 (W) 1-(280)-758-1887 Registered in Canada No. 773288-9; GST: 899879050 RT0008, DUNS: 25-362-8842 (©) 1-(250)-526-0103ons Gate WWTP: Excavation/Shoring Design ‘Amec Foster Wheeler Recommendations & Dewatering Analysis Environment & Infrastructure ‘TE168002.2000.003 23 August, 2018 Page 3 3.0 GENERAL METHODOLOGY ‘A seepage model was developed in SEEP/W (Geo-Slope Intemational Ltd, 2012) in order to examine the extent of potential drawdown of the static groundwater table, The model stratigraphy was based on the boreholes in close proximity to the excavations. in general, the soil strtigraphies are expected to consist of granular fil over native granular soils (sand and gravel, sand, sity sand) over a thin layer (up to 3 m thick) of clayey sit This is underlain by a relatively thick sand and gravel deposit. An average pre- ‘construction groundwater elevation of +1.0 m was considered in all the models. Four dewatering ‘scenarios were examined as described in detail in Appendix A and itemized as follows: * Scenario 1 - A total excavation depth of 10.2 m below site grade with dewatering cartied out to the base ofthe excavation. The frst 5 m of excavation is carried out using open cut ata slope of 2H:1V. The lower 5.2 m is assumed to have neary vertical side walls, stablized using shotcrete and anchors, with the shotcrete considered to be impermeable. A layer of low permesbilty clayey sill is assumed to exist at the base ofthe excavation. A free draining gravel layer witha thickness of 1.0 m is assumed to be placed over the clayey silt at the base of the excavation to facitate drainage and dewatering. The base of the excavation is assumed to be at elevation - 5.8 m, ‘which approximates the deepest excavation inthe vicinity ofthe Influent Pumping and Headworks structure ‘© Scenario 2 - A total excavation depth of 5 m below site grade using open cut excavation at a slope of 2H:1V. The by elevation -1.6 m, which approximates the e) ‘excavation is considerel © Scenario 3 - lie above the clayey sit layer. ‘clayey silt over the ‘on top of the clayey silt to faci jevation -6.8 m, which ‘approxima structure For Scenarios 1 and 2, pumping from the base of the excavation is assumed in the modeling which simulates a broad zone of drawdown beyond the excavation. However, in practise, well points (or equivalent) will need to be installed extemal to the excavation to permit excavations below the groundwater table using open cut or shotcrete and anchor procedures. For Scenarios 3 and 4, the diaphragm walls are assumed installed below the groundwater table with no inital dewatering. Where tiebacks are required for wall stably it will be necessary to do partial dewatering to permit installation of tiebacks. This would be followed by excavation inside the diaphragm walls and pumping from the base of the excavation The saturated hydraulic conductivities for the various soil layers were estimated from available grain size data and using our engineering judgement. Horizontal hydraulic conductivities were set equal to vertical hydraulic conductivities. Unsaturated ~ saturated flow was modeled during groundwater drawdown in soil regions adjacent to the excavations. Saturated permeabilities used in the modeling are presented in ‘Appendix A. The permeabilities should be considered to be ‘order of magnitude" estimates and should be confirmed using appropriate field testing where seepage quantities into excavations need to be refined,Lions Gate WWTP: Excavation’Shoring Design ‘Amec Foster Wheeler Recommendations & Dewatering Analysis Environment & Infrastructure ‘TE168002,2000 003 23 August, 2016 Pages Calculated seepage flow rates into excavations simulated for Scenarios 1 to 4 are described in Appendix ‘Aand summarized below in Table 2 ‘Table 2: Flow rate into excavation for Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4. Flow rate into excavation Scenario per unit length (litersihour) ‘Scenario 1 - Excavation to 10.2 m, sloped & vertical side walls, with oa clayey silt barier ‘Scenario 2 - Open cut excavation to 6 m, no clayey sil barrier 285. ‘Scenario 3 — Diaphragm wall~ with clayey silt barrier 0.24 ‘Scenario 4— Diaphragm wall- dig out clayey sit 5400" to 17,600" Notes: (1) From SEEPAW modeling (2) From fow net estimates For deeper excavations, where the clayey silt underlies the base of the excavation (Scenarios 1 and 3), flows into the excavation are very low. For deeper excavations where the clayey sit is considered to be. dug out (Scenario 4), flows increase substantially. For shallower excavations above the clayey sit layer involving more limited dewa Seepage gradients very high and could ‘out (Scenario 4) and 1e modeling indicates ulic base heave may not be easily replaced with gra very low hydraulic J However seepage fio controlled, 6.0 POTENTIAL SETTLEMENTS IN CLAYEY SILT CAUSED BY DEWATERING Calculations of potential settlements in the layer of clayey sil resuting from dewatering are summarized in Table 3 using one dimensional compression theory. Various depths below existing grade to the top of the clayey silt and various sit thicknesses have been considered. The soil profiles used are based on ‘existing borehole information in closest proximity to the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the CN. Rail lin. The key assumption used in the modeling is that the clayey sit is normally consolidated. A review of geotechnical properties ofthe sil is cartied out in Appendix B. This review indicates a normally Consolidated assumption is reasonable and supports Golder Associates earlier statement that the clayey sits normally consolidated. Key assumptions inthe settlement calculations include ‘+ A primary compression index C. = 0.3 is representative of clayey sit material. Where these compressible layers consist primarily of sandy sit to sit a C. value has been reduced to 0.2. ‘+ Groundwater level reductions (and changes in vertical effective stress at the top of the clayey sit) relative to mean groundwater levels depend on maximum drawdowns (and excavation depths) and horizontal distance from excavations as shown in Figure 2.The centre of the CN Rail tracks is, assumed to be 13 m from the crest of the nearest excavation. The difference between mean groundwater level and lowest groundwater level is assumed to be 0.3 m or a hydraulic pressure ‘drop of 3 kPa. Rebound compression in the clayey silt over this small stress level change is ‘assumed to be less than primary compression based on a rebound compression index C, = C./5. ‘+ An inital void ratio in the clayey sit and sandy sit of 1.0 and 0.8, respectively, has been assumed based on available data,Lions Gate WWTP: Excavation/Shoring Design ‘Amec Foster Wheeler Recommendations & Dewatering Analysis Environment & Infrastructure ‘TE166002.2000.003 23 August, 2016 Page 7 7.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXCAVATION AND SHORING DESIGN WITH LIMITED DEWATERING Based on the various seepage and settlement analyses carried out, the following recommendations are provided: ‘+ Where open cut excavations are made below the groundwater table, dewatering should not result in groundwater levels at the base of the excavation that are more jthanr'gim’ below mean groundwater level. Geotechnical data provided by Golder Associates for the site indicates mean ‘groundwater level is at about elevation +1 m. ‘+ Provided dewatering is carried out (using pumping from the base of excavations or well points external to the excavations), open cut excavations may be carried out at slopes not to exceed 1.5H:1V. Flatter slopes equal to 2H:1V should be used for excavations adjacent to the CN Rail line based on criteria which we understand have been imposed by CN Rail. Where dewatering is not carried out and open cut excavations are used, considerably flatter slopes will result due to water flow down the slope. + Combinations of open cut excavations along with vertical shotcrete and anchor excavations can be considered subject to the restriction on groundwater lowering recommended above. Use of shoterete and anchor methods will require control of groundwater in order to permit excavation of nearly vertical excavation faces in short sections followed by placement of wire mesh and shoterete. ‘+ Shoterete and anchor excavations across. diaphragm benching of interior is carried out using 19. The perimeter benched excavations cavation procedures could be us = The use 0 2 (ie. the DWs are fi stability and to limit recommended for deeper excaval ld be carried out, ‘a8 recommended above, where it is necessary to install iebacks near the top of the DW. Where possible, the DW's should be designed to act as cantilever walls, subject to achieving appropriate wall stabilty and minimizing soil deformations adjacent to the excavation. —rby 7T CO + Where differential water pressures acting between external groundwater level and the base-f the DW excavation are high enough that hydraulic base heave of the clayey sit is considered probable then it is recommended that the clayey sit be dug out and replaced with a suitable gravel. This approach can only be carried out if the potential seepage quantities into the excavation can be accommodated using sump pumps or equivalent The DW will need to be designed taking into account this additional internal soil removal. Consideration may also be given to plugging the bottom of the DW excavation using lean mix concrete. This approach will largely eliminate seepage flows into the excavation. However the concrete plug must be designed to resist differential water pressures acting on the base of the plug. This uplift resistance will come from the weight of the plug, shear resistance between the plug and the diaphragm walls (which could be reduced due to soil smearing effects), and added surcharge loads placed on top of the concrete plug (e.g. gravel surcharge). It may be necessary to provide further uplift resistance by connecting the plug to “tie down piles’ which could be constructed using a variety of methods. nt of pumped groundwater is considered likely, either to control Cit ‘F to deal with potential contaminant issues, estimated volume wf pump? oS grundaraler tebe trealed ? Design VA Conerere Z pleg needled +o compare yl “aS.sn undo 209- 1 . ‘New ON enn TEEHON-| = cat) = Tae apt =O aun] ot re z os fosus z ieee ToS a Sam soyanaemeseer| ypoeeaye aia eee eee | 8 re te [wesueme-| zon onus L oy void tose 3o605- ieuser w a we am = a = jog em | (w)adsa | AadesBnens | ounce ypuag Kepunog woeneoea 09 98 oa ong nears | scoreuem | unden | Aut es J3j3ayM severe Woon tees aang 9 2480} “) 3awe‘TE166002.2000.003 Lions Gate WWTP Geotechnical Design Appendix A ‘Seepage Modelling: Dewatering of Excavations. Methodology and Results. AA General Methodology Seepage models were developed in SEEPIW (Geo-Slope Intemational Ltd., 2012) in order to examine the potential extent of drawdown of the static groundwater table depending on the depth of excavation ‘The model stratigraphy was based on the boreholes in close proximity to the excavations based on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 geotechnical site investigations carried out by Golder Associates in 2012 and 2013, The borehole logs referred to are summarized in Appendix B. Some refinement to modeled depths of ‘excavation and dewatering may need to be carried out in the future once a final excavation plan, sequencing, and types of foundation to be installed are determined. Given variability in soil stratigraphy and soil permeabilities, seepage quantities computed should be considered “order of magnitude” estimates but could be refined with future field permeability testing where more precise definition of seepage inflows into excavations is required. Four dewatering scenarios were ‘examined as described below and summarized in Table AV ‘+ Scenario 1: A total excavation depth of 10.2 m below site grade at time of construction. The first § 1m of depth are at a slope of 2H:1V. The lower 5.2 m has vertical side walls, assumed to be stabilized using shotcrete and anchors. The shotcrete is assumed to be impermeable. A free draining gravel layer with a thickness of 1.0 m is assumed to be placed over the base of the ‘excavation to facilitate drainage and dewatering. The top of the gravel is 9.2 m below external ‘ground surface. The strligraphy for this scenario is based on '3-05 and an average ‘groundwater level in the model was at elevation +3.4 n -5.8 m, which approximate \g and Headworks structure, = Scenario 2: Instruction using open cout excav. based on boreholes vicinity ofthe digesters and secondary clarifiers + Scenario 3: An excavation depth of 10.2 m below site grade at time of construction with an impermeable diaphragm wall installed to 82 m below the base of the excavation. The stratigraphy for this scenario is also based on borehole SH13-06, but has been simplified, and assumes an average groundwater level elevation of +1.0 m. There is a layer of low permeability clayey sit over the base of the excavation with a 1 m thick layer of gravel assumed to be placed on top of the clayey sift to facilitate drainage. The diaphragm wall is made impermeable with the Use of a zero permeability interface. The external site grade considered in the model was at elevation +3.4 m and the base of the excavation is assumed to be at elevation -5.8 m, which approximates the deepest excavation in the vicinity of the Infiuent Pumping and Headworks structure. + Scenario 4: Same 2s Scenario 3, but all of the clayey silt at the base of the excavation is assumed to be completely removed and replaced with clean gravel For Scenarios 1 and 2, pumping from the base of the excavation is assumed in the modeling, arios 3 and 4, the diaphragm walls are assumed installed below the groundwater table with no initial dewatering. Where tiebacks are required for wall stability it may be necessary to do partial dewatering to Permit installation of tiebacks. This would be followed by excavation inside the diaphragm walls and Pumping from the base of the excavation. Comment: unl hat signfrcantl, change rhe eutput of Ke modeling C Appendic A: Page of 13TE166002.2000.003 Lions Gate WWTP Geotechnical Design Figures A1, A2 and A3 assume that the stratigraphy recorded at Boreholes SH13-05, SH13-07, SH13-08 and SH13-10 is representative of the stratigraphy and is continuous over a 150 m radius from the ‘excavation. The borehole stratigraphy used for the various model scenarios is summarized as follows: ‘© Scenario 1: The subsurface profile considered consists of 2 m of fil, underiain by 3 m of sand and gravel, which in turn is undertain by 1.5 m of sand, The sand layer is underiain by a 1.5 m sand land gravel layer, and a 1 m layer of sand, which is underiain by 3 m of clayey silt. Below the clayey sit is 3.5 m of sand and gravel, underiain by several meters of sand. A model ground surface elevation of +3.4 mwas assumed. * Scenario 2: The subsurface profile considered consists of 2 m of fil, underlain by 6 m of sand and gravel, which in turn is underlain by 1 m of sand. The sand layer is underlain by a 0.5 m silty sand, and a 1 m layer of sand, which is underlain by 1 m of clayey sift. Below the clayey silt is 1 m Of sand, 6.5 m of sand and gravel and then several meters of sand. A model ground surface elevation of +3.4 m was assumed, * Scenarios 3 and 4: The subsurface profile consists of 5 m of sand and gravel underlain by 1.5 m of silly sand, underiain by 1.5 m of sand and gravel and another 1 m of sand. Below that is 3 m of clayey silt, underlain by several meters of sand and gravel. A model ground surface elevation of +3.4 mwas assumed. ‘+ Horizontal hydraulic conductivity is equivalent to vertical hydraulic conductivity ‘The saturated hydraulic conductivities (Kya) for the sand-gravel, sit-sand, and sand units were estimated based on the grain size distribution curves using the Hazen Equation (Hazen, 1892), and the results are presented in Table A2, The grain size distribution results used (based gp information provided in the Golder site investigation data) albrovided in Appendix B ‘The Hazen empitical where K is the hyd finer. The Hazen et Jc condu tr (i 10% of the material is ) folldiling conliints: Cys (Dee/Do)<5 where Cu is the coefficient of uniformity. Hazen later (in his 1901 paper) showed that the empirical relationship is additionally dependent upon grain shape, mineralogical composition, degree of ‘compactness and clay content (Vujovic and Soro, 1982). Generally, hydraulic conductivity increases with Uniformity of the sand. The points to be made in reviewing the limitations of the Hazen empirical relationship are as follows: ‘+The Hazen relationship is empirical and involves variables beyond those included in the formula; and ‘+ Hydraulic conductivities estimated from the Hazen empirical relationship are order of magnitude estimates and should be confirmed through appropriate field or laboratory testing during final design of excavations, ‘The hydraulic conductivity of the clayey silt was estimated based on engineering judgement. Table AS presents the ksa Values used in the model. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (kx) was assumed equal to Vertical hydraulic conductivity (k,). However, preliminary modeling indicated that the shape of the drawdown curve versus lateral distance from the excavation, once steady state seepage conditions were established, was not greatly influenced by the ratio of ky : k, Considering ratios of up to 10. ‘Appendix A: Page 30f 13,TE166002.2000.003 Lions Gate WWTP Geotechnical Design 4) Initial conditions: An intial groundwater table was established by applying a piezometric elevation of +1 mat the right-hand and left-hand boundaries of the model. 2) Long term conditions: The groundwater table at the base of the model was removed. The far left boundary condition was Kept at a piezometric elevation of +1m, representing the far-field conditions unaffected by dewatering. The pressure head at the base of the excavation was set to Zero to represent continuous pumping conditions (i.e. maintaining zero ponding of water at the excavation base), and a potential seepage face boundary condition was applied to the left side wall of the excavation. A2 — Results and Discussion ‘Scenario 1: ‘The seepage flow rate into the excavation was found to be 9.8x10° m/s per unit out of plane length of the excavation and considering @ 20 m wide excavation base (ie. 2 times the flow rate computed in the ‘model considering an excavation half-width of 10 m). Figure A4 presents the total head contours and water table (dotted blue line) due to pumping for the long-term (steady-state) conditions for Scenario 1 Here total head is defined as the total of pressure head plus elevation head. The water table is lowered to some degree out into the far field, but due to the low hydraulic conductivity of the clayey silt layer, this layer is acting as a barrier to the flow created from pumping. Thus, there is limited flow into the “150-142 134-128 50-54 tb -4298 -90-24 TE-T2 -6-2 2468 121620 Distance (m) Figure A4: Total head contours (m) and water table after dewatering at steady state for Scenario 1. The pressure head was calculated at the top of the clayey silt layer in order to view the extent of the ‘draw-down with distance from the excavation. This is plotted in Figure AS for Scena 1. Appendix A: Page 5 of 13TE166002.2000.003 Lions Gate WWTP Geotechnical Design Pe a 30 g 25 = i . 5 io cm ° 40 “hs Depth (m) Figure A6: Hydraulic gradients below excavation base (Scenario 1). ‘transient analysis (approximately 30 days long) was also examined in order obtain an estimate of the time to steady state. The pressure head at Location At (top ofthe clayey sit layer at a horizontal distance equal tothe edge of the excavation is presented in Figure A7 for both the transient and steady state models. Most of the pore pressure draw-down occurs within the first day, and steady state is reached by approximately 8 days. 7 = 3 & 4 §3 ~~] ~e-Transient Model 82 é 1 Steady State Model 0 Ja a 0 5 10 a5 20 25 30 35 Time (Days) Figure A7: Pressure head (m) at Location A with time for transient analysis. Scenario 2: ‘The seepage through the excavation was estimated to be 8.2x10° m°/s per unit out of plane length of the excavation and considering a 20 m wide excavation base. This flow rate is about 1000 times greater than Computed for Scenario 1 since the clayey si layer does not restrict flow into the excavation. Figure AB Presents the total head contours and water table (dotted blue line) due to pumping for the long-term ‘Appendix A: Page 7 of 13‘TE166002.2000.003 Lions Gate WWTP Geotechnical Design excavation are less than 0.1 so that instability at the base of the excavation due to upward seepage is not anticipated for this condition, av cradlent 02 00 pth (im) Figure A10: Gradient below excavation (Scenario 2). ‘A transient analysis (approximately 30 days long) was also examined in order obtain an estimate of the time to steady state. The pressure head at Location A2 (top of the sand-sit layer at a horizontal distance equal to the edge of the excavation, shown in Figure 9) is presented in Figure A11 for both the transient and steady state models. As with, Scenario 1, most of the pore pressure drawerdown occurs within the first day, and steady state is reached By approximately 8 days. “+ Transient Model “Steady State Model 0 5 10 35 2 2 30 35 Time (Days) Figure A11: Pressure head (m) at Location A2 with time for transient analysis (Scenario 2). ‘Scenarios 3 & 4: Scenarios 3 and 4 were developed in order to examine the hydraulic gradients in the clay below the ‘excavation. Figure A12 shows that in Scenario 3, most of the total head loss occurs in the clayey sil, as it is @ low hydraulic conductivity material compared to the other materials, and therefore this area ‘experiences high hydraulic gradients. There is also limited drop in groundwater table adjacent to the ‘excavation relative to groundwater levels a far distance from the excavation. Figure A13 shows that the hydraulic gradient exceeds the critical gradient of 1 which could potentially lead to base heave of the clayey sit: The total pressure head at the base of the clayey silt below the excavation is 9.6 m based on the SEEP-W output. The excess pressure head relative to the water table at the base of the excavation is 6.8 m giving an upward hydraulic pressure of approximately 68 KPa over and above hydrostatic water ‘Appendix A: Page 9 of 13TE166002.2000.003 Lions Gate WWTP Geotechnical Design Figure A14: Scenario 4 Elevation (m) BBREESe0—. OAK 10--1G42- 1610 8-2 DH LH NH BNE? MOLE stance (r) Figure A1S: Scenario 4 — hydraulic XY gradient contours. ‘Appendix A: Page 11 of 13‘TE166002.2000.003 Lions Gate WWTP Geotechnical Design Referencé Geo-Slope International Ltd., 2012, Seepage Modeling with SEEPIW, Hazen, A. 1892. Some physical properties of sands and gravels. Massachusetts State Board of Health, ‘Annual Report, pp. 639-556. Metro Vancouver, Miller Hull, AECOM, and CH2MHILL, February 2014, Lions Gate Waste Water Treatment Plant Project Definition Report, Volume 2 Appendices. van Genuchten, M. Th. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of Unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44, pp. 892-898, \Vukovie, M and Soro, A. 1992. Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity of Porous Media from Grain-Size Composition. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, USA. 68 p. draft Appendix A: Page 13 of 13