GDM Ch-14 Ground Improvement

Technical Memorandum
FROM: Blair Gohl, Ph.D., P.Eng. (Amec Foster Wheeler) Our ref: TE166002.100
Eric Mohlman, P.Eng. (AMEC Foster Wheeler)
TO: FILE
DATE: September 21, 2016
SUBJECT: Lions Gate Secondary WWTP:
30% Geotechnical Design Report
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure Ltd. (Amec Foster Wheeler, AFW) has prepared
this technical memorandum for the benefit of the ADAPT consortium to summarize recommendations for
geotechnical aspects of foundation design for the proposed Lions Gate Secondary Waste Water
Treatment Plant (LGSWWTP) in North Vancouver, B.C. These recommendations represent an
approximately 30% completion state in geotechnical aspects of design and include static and seismic
design considerations. Reference is made to a series of earlier technical memos and e-mails provided by
both AFW and Tetra Tech (TT) in preparing the present technical memorandum. AFW’s scope of
geotechnical work for this project was to provide “static” foundation design recommendations and TT’s
scope was to provide “seismic” design recommendations. There has been significant overlap of both
aspects of geotechnical design in order to move the project forward.
1.0 Background Information
The proposed LGSWWTP facility is to be located in the District of North Vancouver, B.C. The site is
bounded on the north by 1st Street, on the south by McKeen Avenue, on the west by Philip Avenue and
on the east by Pemberton Avenue. A CN Rail line lies immediately south of the site within approximately
3 m of the south property line. The Philip Avenue Overpass is located within approximately 20 m of the
southwest corner of the site. The WWTP facility comprises an interconnected series of buildings
composed of treatment process facilities, a power generation and heating building, and an operations and
maintenance building. The existing site is generally flat with a nominal area of about 3 hectares and an
average site elevation of +3.1 m geodetic (variation of about ±0.3 m occurs across the site). Proposed
final site elevation is at +4.1 m.
A buried contaminant barrier wall exists along the southern boundary of the site parallel to the CN Rail
tracks. The wall is located near the eastern end of the site and has a length of approximately 46 m and a
depth of approximately 5 m. The wall was constructed using jet grout columns and was tied back using
soil anchors installed within CN Rail property. The wall was designed to minimize environmentally
contaminated groundwater from entering the LGSWWTP site from the CN Rail site.
The project Indicative Design drawings have been used to calculate plan areas, foundation widths and
lengths, and depths of embedment below original ground surface (OGS) of each foundation area.
Preliminary calculations of gross bearing pressure have been made by AFW structural engineers working
on behalf of the ADAPT team. Based on the calculated depths of foundation embedment below average
existing site grade, net bearing pressures have been calculated. The above information is summarized in
Table 1. Table 1 indicates foundation embedment depths below OGS of up to about 11 m and that many
foundations will involve excavations below the regional groundwater table.
Design criteria under static and seismic loading for the structure foundations are as per the Project
Agreement (PA) Schedule 3. The latter states that structure foundations must be designed to have the
following performance criteria:
 Foundations must be designed to meet the requirements of a post-disaster facility in accordance

with the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC, 2010) and the BC Building Code (2012).
 Essential services as defined in the PA will be at full functionality after a Safe Shutdown
Earthquake (SSE) and the remainder of the Facility achieves full functionality within 180 days.
The SSE is defined as the 2475 year return period seismic event.
 The entire facility will be at full functionality after an Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE). The
OBE means a seismic event with 1/3 of the ground motions associated with the SSE.
Page 1
 Design earthquake input ground motions and response spectra applicable to Site Class C ground
conditions as defined in the NBCC (2015) have been specified for the project consistent with the
seismic source zone models (5th generation seismic hazard model developed by Natural
Resources Canada) used in NBCC (2015). Crustal earthquake, deep in-slab and offshore
subduction earthquake ground motion time histories have been specified.
 Total settlement of all structures under static and seismic loading conditions is less than 50 mm.
 Differential settlements of all structures under static and seismic loading conditions is less than
L/1000 (where L = length of the foundation element).
 Provide adequate foundation stability against overturning, uplift, sliding and buoyancy under static
and seismic loading conditions consistent with Section 11.7.9 of Schedule 3.
 Meet the allowable seismic drift limits in accordance with NBCC (2010) and BCBC (2012) under
seismic loading conditions.
 Carry out foundation design in accordance with CAN/CSA-S6-14, NBCC (2010) and BCBC
(2012).
Table 1 – Summary of Basic Foundation Design Parameters
Location Area Raft Slab Raft Slab Fdn. Depth Net Bearing
(m2) Width Length Below OGS (m) Pressure (kPa)
(m) (m)
Digesters 1368 24 57 5.5 137
Solids 1995 35 57 0 135
Sludge Dewatering 396 11 36 0 60
Influent Pumping and 504 12 42 11.2 27
Headworks
Wet Well 155 5 31 11.2 85
Stores Building 420 12 35 0 60
Primary Clarifiers 2322 43 54 1 102
Bioreactor 3120 39 80 2.3 168
Power Generation and 792 27 36 0 60
Heating
UV Disinfection 409 17 43 2.3 40
Secondary Clarifiers (A) 2229 32 62 4.3 163
RSS Pumps 320 10 32 7.2 14
Secondary Clarifiers (B) 1984 32 62 4.3 163
Operations and 1488 32 52 0 85
Maintenance
Notes: (1) Assumes 1 m thick base slab

(2) Assumes average existing GS elev. +3.1 m.
2.0 General Soil and Groundwater Conditions
Background geotechnical information for the site was provided by Golder Associates (GA) based on 2
phases of site investigation carried out in 2012 and 2013 (Reference 1). Piteau Associates provided
background environmental screening assessments in 2010 (Reference 2) which was reviewed by TT in
2016 (Reference 3).
The existing geotechnical site investigation information consists of: Becker Density Testing, sonic drilling
to obtain disturbed soil cores, cross-hole and downhole seismic shear wave velocity measurements, and
one electronic cone penetration test carried out to the 30 m depth within selected finer grained soil layers.
There were only 3 deeper drill holes advanced at the site to maximum depths in the range of
approximately 51 to 96 m. The remainder of sonic drill holes and Becker Density Tests were advanced to
depths of less than about 50 m. The Becker Density Tests (BDT’s) were used by GA to infer equivalent
Standard Penetration Test N60 values based on measured BDT raw blow counts and bounce chamber
pressures. The BDT’s were carried out by Foundex Explorations Ltd. We understand that periodic pull-
back of the Becker casing drill string was used to reduce casing friction. The inferred N 60 values were
subsequently corrected for fines content (based on measured soil gradation results within specific soil
samples) and vertical effective stress levels to give stress level corrected, equivalent clean sand N 1,60,ecs
Page 2
G:\PROJECTS\Other Offices\TE\TE166002\Geotech Info\TE166002 Memo-Infiltration Gallery Seepage-Aug 8.doc
values. It has not been possible to do an independent evaluation of the BDT data and we have relied on
the GA interpretation of N1,60,ecs to infer granular soil relative density and seismic liquefaction resistance.
Laboratory testing of recovered soil samples was limited to routine soil classification tests (moisture
contents, Atterberg limits, grain size distributions).
The subsurface conditions on site typically consisted of a 1 m to 3 m thick upper granular Fill, which is
underlain by a 5 m to 8 m thick generally compact Upper Gravel, Sand, and Cobbles layer. The fill
generally consists of granular mineral soil but also includes man-made debris. Based on the Piteau data,
portions of the fill are also environmentally contaminated and will require stripping and offsite disposal.
Where soil contamination has been identified, it is inferred to be within the upper 4 m. Additional
environmental sampling of the fill will be carried out to delineate those fill zones not identified by Piteau in
2010 to be contaminated. If contaminated, these fills will need to be removed offsite as part of a proper
environmental management program during site development.
The Upper Gravel, Sand, and Cobbles is underlain by 3 m to 5 m of Interbedded Silt, Sand, and Clayey
Silt. The silt (typically non plastic), silty sand, and sand are typically loose to compact. The encountered
thickness of the generally soft to firm medium plastic Clayey Silt to Silty Clay was up to 2.9 m. This
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay was inferred by Golder Associates to be generally soft to firm. Based on the
Atterberg Limits and the water contents tests conducted by Golder Associates, it is suspected that the
Clayey Silt to Silty Clay might be normally consolidated, and therefore significantly compressible.
Consolidation testing was not conducted by Golder Associates on the Clayey Silt to Silty Clay.
In turn, these soils are underlain by a Lower Gravel, Sand, and Cobbles layer up to a depth of 14 m to 19
m approximately. This layer is generally compact to dense and is believed to contain cobbles and
possibly boulders. This layer is underlain by Sand down to a depth of 30 m to 45 m approximately. The
upper portion of the Sand is typically compact, which becomes dense at depth. It is possible that cobbles
can be encountered in this layer.
Underlying the Sand layer, a layer of dense low- to non-plastic silt occurring at an approximate depth of
41 to 45 m below ground surface and extending to depths of 46 m to 49 m where the bottom of the
deposit was determined. A deep layer of interbedded sand, silt, clay and gravel/sand mixtures at depths
ranging between 46 and 49 m below ground surface was encountered based on 3 deeper drill holes. The
bottom of this deposit was not determined. Based on two boreholes drilled by Golder Associates, up to
40% of this layer could consist of compressible low to medium plastic silt and clay. Limited amount of
index laboratory testing and no consolidation testing was carried on samples within the plastic fine
grained soils. The deeper silt and clayey silt layers are expected to have low to moderate compressibility.
At the time of Golder’s site investigation, the groundwater table was measured between elevation +0.7 m
to +1.4 m (or 1.2 to 1.9 m below existing ground surface). However, the groundwater level is expected to
fluctuate with changes in sea level and precipitation. TT’s review of background environmental testing of
groundwater carried out by Piteau Associates indicates any groundwater contamination is localized to the
upper portion (<4 m depth) of the shallow aquifer located above the upper layers of clayey silt. Typically,
groundwater samples collected below 4 m depth have shown contaminant concentrations less than
Contaminated Sites Regulations standards for aquatic life.
3.0 General Foundation Design Considerations
Based on subsurface information provided by Golder Associates and subsequent confirmatory 1D

seismic modeling carried out by TT, seismically induced liquefaction is anticipated to occur in the upper
25 m to 30 m of the soil profile under design levels of earthquake shaking corresponding to the 2475 year
return period seismic event. The reader is referred to References 4 and 5 for additional details of the
seismic modeling, methods of evaluating seismically induced soil liquefaction triggering based on the
inferred N1,60,ecs data, and empirically based methods of evaluating post-seismic ground settlements and
lateral deformations. The latter refer to post-seismic ground deformations that occur in the free field (i.e.
uninfluenced by the stiffness and mass of structures which will generate additional cyclic stresses and
strains in the soil mass as a result of structural inertia loads).
Post-seismic free field ground settlements are expected to take place in the upper 30 m, which would be
detrimental to the structures of the LGWWTP. Therefore, the foundations must be designed to mitigate
post-seismic vertical settlements caused by soil liquefaction effects. Moreover, the foundations must be
designed to resist or mitigate seismically induced, lateral ground movements occurring in the free field.
Page 3
The latter have been estimated to be in the range of 100 to 200 mm, assuming generally level ground site
conditions and a distance of about 500 m from Burrard Inlet.
The background geotechnical reports provided by Golder Associates for the project indicate the use of
driven piling to support foundation raft slabs might be one method of foundation support (Method A).
They also suggest the use of shallow foundations supported on improved ground (Method B) might be
another method, subject to appropriate analysis of acceptable static settlement performance as well as
acceptable seismic performance under seismic loading conditions.
The above 2 methods are considered viable, subject to review of static and seismic performance
characteristics and relative costing.
Discussions with local piling contractors have been carried out to indicate the most suitable pile types
given the high gravel and cobble content of the soil profile. It was concluded that driving of open end,
steel pipe piles would be most suitable. Installation of these pile types is also common in the Vancouver
Lower Mainland, potentially reducing costs.
While a variety of ground improvement methods exist to deal with seismic soil liquefaction issues, the use
of vibro-replacement (stone columns) was considered to be the most cost effective solution relative to
other methods such as deep soil mixing, jet grouting or compaction grouting. The depth of soil
liquefaction (estimated to be about 25 m) precludes the use of deep dynamic compaction (which is only
effective to about the 10 to 12 m depth), along with the fact that the site is located in an urban
environment. The presence of cobbles and potential boulders in the subsoils implies that pre-drilling may
be required at most stone column locations. The use of a “bottom feed” method of stone column
installation is recommended to ensure a continuous gravel column. Control of silt and water generated
during SC construction will be necessary as well as limiting the effects of SC construction on vibration
and settlement of the CN Rail line, and movements or cracking to the buried contaminant barrier wall.
It is noted that the Piteau Associates reports for the site indicate portions of the fill site are contaminated
and will require sub-excavation and offsite disposal. Once this is done, there is no evidence of deeper
groundwater contamination according to TT’s environmental review. Therefore the installation of stone
columns should be of no concern in providing hydraulic channels between the upper and lower soils
(separated by a lower permeability clay/silt barrier) since there should be no remaining environmental
contamination of the upper soils after the fill is removed.
3.1 Comparison of Long-Term Static Settlements
While the upper layers of sand, silty sand, and sand and gravel contribute to long term static settlements
under the proposed structures under sustained vertical loading, most settlements are expected to take
place in the upper clayey silt and silty clay (occurring at depths in the range of 8 to 12 m based on
available geotechnical data), and the lower layers of low to medium plastic silt and clay (occurring below
depths of 45 m to 50 m).
In order to assist in the selection of the most appropriate foundation option (Method A or Method B), the
static long-term settlement for each foundation alternative was evaluated to see whether one option
would result in significantly different estimates of settlement.
The digestor was considered for the settlement evaluations, given that it is one of the structures that is
most heavily loaded (205 kPa gross sustained pressure currently estimated). Further details of the
settlement modeling is provided in Appendix A. A raft slab having plan dimensions of 24 m x 57 m was
considered, subjected to a net bearing pressure of about 134 kPa (reduced below the gross bearing
pressure to account for foundation embedment below existing grade).
One dimensional settlement methods were employed using Boussinesq stress distributions and the
program SETTLE-3D. The stress distributions are 3D in nature. Compressibility properties in the most
compressible materials (the upper plastic silts and clays located above about the 12 m depth and the
deeper interbedded silt/sand/clayey silt deposits below about the 42 m depth) were estimated based on
available moisture content and Atterberg limit data and the inferred over-consolidation properties of these
materials. The upper layer(s) of silt and clayey silt were assumed to be normally consolidated while the
deeper layers of silt and clayey silt below about the 42 m depth were assumed to be lightly over-
consolidated with an over-consolidation ratio (OCR) of 1.1. There is considerable uncertainty in these
Page 4
parameters. One dimensional compressibility properties (constrained moduli) in granular soil units with or
without ground improvement were estimated based on inferred N 1,60,ecs values. Where ground
improvement is assumed to be carried out, the influence of stone column densification and reinforcement
was considered based on the percentage of ground replaced using stone columns.
A summary of the computed static settlements is presented below:
Method A - Raft slab supported by steel pipe piles driven to a depth of 35 m below base of raft slab:
- Settlement in deep silt/sand ≈ 42 mm based on net pressure applied at 2/3 depth along piles
(neutral plane).
- Elastic pile compression settlements including pile group interaction effects ≈ 10 mm to 20 mm
- Therefore total settlements ≥ 50 mm
Method B - Raft underlain by stone columns to a depth of 21 m below base of raft slab:
- Settlement in deep silt/sand below 42 m depth ≈ 8 mm

- Settlement in upper densified/reinforced soils above 42 m depth ≈ 45 mm (includes upper
clayey silt)
- Therefore total settlements ≥ 50 mm
The settlement analyses considering either a pile supported raft slab or raft slab underlain by stone
columns for the digestor foundations indicates generally comparable settlements and that settlements
could potentially exceed the 50 mm design limit specified in the Project Agreement. Therefore there is no
specific advantage to using a pile supported raft slab in terms of static settlement reduction. While the
stone column option causes most of the settlement to take place in the upper clayey silt, the piles transfer
the foundation loads deeper causing greater compression in the deeper silts and clay. Considering the
uncertainties in the stress history, compressibility characteristics, and thicknesses of the upper clayey silt
and deeper silt and clay, a preload + surcharge is recommended to be able to keep the static total
settlements to within 50 mm and minimize differential settlements, in conformance with Project
Agreement requirements.
3.2 Static and Post-Seismic Axial Capacity Analysis
Static and post-seismic axial capacities of open end, driven steel pipe piles were estimated by TT (see
Reference 6) based on shaft friction and pile tip end bearing parameters. The latter were developed from
empirical correlations between soil type, relative density (for granular soils, as inferred from N1,60,ecs
values), and cohesive soil undrained strength for the upper clay/silt deposits above about the 12 m depth.
Shaft friction was estimated using the “beta method” where shaft friction is proportional to vertical
effective stress times a “beta factor” as referenced in CAN/CSA S6-14. Pile tip bearing resistances were
estimated based on a pile tip bearing capacity factor Nq times the vertical effective stress at the pile tip.
Both plugged and unplugged pile conditions were considered in the pile capacity calculations. Axial
capacities were calculated for both pre-earthquake and post-earthquake conditions with seismically
induced soil liquefaction effects being considered. In the latter case, pile shaft friction was reduced to
account for soil liquefaction. Axial pile capacities were calculated for steel pipe piles with outside
diameters in the range of 610 to 1220 mm and pipe wall thicknesses of 19 mm. Axial capacities were
calculated for pile lengths in the range of 30 to 42 m with all piles assumed to be driven below the
computed maximum depth of soil liquefaction (25 m) under the design earthquake ground motions.
3.3 Post-Seismic Lateral Pile Capacity
Post-seismic lateral pile capacity was estimated by TT for fixed head, steel pipe piles using the program
L-PILE. Only 914 mm OD pipe piles with a wall thickness of 19 mm were considered in order to provide
comparative pricing between a pile-supported raft slab and a raft slab underlain by stone columns.
Lateral soil resistance, expressed in terms of nonlinear lateral soil resistance (p) versus lateral pile
deflection (y), was computed for granular soils using API (2010), referenced in the CAN/CSA-S6-14. No
ground improvement was considered around the piles and, therefore, soil liquefaction was considered
could occur over portions of the pile above the 25 m depth. Where soil liquefaction was considered could
occur, lateral soil resistance was set to a small value.
Page 5
The analyses indicated ultimate lateral pile capacities of about 1700 kN per pile at lateral pile head
deflections of about 50 mm. The LPILE calculations are summarized in an email from TT dated Aug. 31,
2016 (see Appendix B).
3.4 Preliminary Relative Costing
Relative costs between Methods A (pile supported) versus Method B (stone column supported) raft slabs
have been based on the following assumptions:
 The use of 914 mm OD steel pipe piles with ultimate lateral capacities of 1700 kN per pile,
factored (reduced) by 0.7 to achieve elastic response of the pile and limited lateral pile head
deflections (< 25 mm)
 The use of stone columns spaced at 2.75 m arranged in a triangular grid over the entire
foundation footprint, plus an allowance of 10 m beyond the building envelopes to protect
structures from seismically induced, free field ground deformations. The assumed spacing of
2.75 m is typical of spacing used to achieve adequate soil densification to resist seismic soil
liquefaction based on our experience and discussions with ground improvement contractors
 Seismic lateral loads applied to each structure area based on the sustained vertical dead load of
each structure times a peak (elastic) spectral acceleration of 0.5. This is based on a Site Class D
response spectrum and is representative of peak structural response around a period of 0.6 to
0.7 seconds. The value of 0.5 may be un-conservative for shorter period structures.
 The number of piles under a particular structure is controlled by resistance to seismic base shear
loads and elastic response of the piles is required.
Using the above assumptions and based on unit pricing provided by pile installation and ground
improvement contractors, the use of raft slabs underlain by stone column improved ground appears to be
a more economic solution. Given that the stone column foundation alternative has a lower cost, it is
considered that this is the preferred option subject to seismic performance review.
4.0 Review of Excavation and Support Methods
A variety of relatively shallow and rather deep excavations (up to about 11 m) will be required to install
various foundations as summarized in Table 1. Based on local experience with excavations in the North
Vancouver area and discussions with qualified excavation contractors, a number of excavation methods
are being considered and will be further developed. These include:
 Open cut excavations for excavations less than about 5 m deep in areas where sufficient space
exists on site and with limited dewatering (discussed later in Section 5). Excavation slopes will
need to be selected with due regard to soil type, groundwater levels in the slope (after full or
partial dewatering), and proximity to adjacent existing facilities. Excavation slopes should never
exceed 1.5H:1V.
 Shotcrete and anchors for nearly vertical excavations less than about 5 m deep where limited
space exists on site and with limited dewatering. It is noted that installation of shotcrete and
anchors will require full dewatering over the full depth of the supported excavation face.
 Tied back or cantilevered diaphragm walls with concrete base plugs for deeper excavations to
prevent hydraulic base heave and minimize seepage flows into the base of the excavation.
These excavations will be tanked to resist uplift water pressures on the bases of the excavations
and to minimize seepage inflows into the excavation. Limited dewatering adjacent to the
excavations will be carried out to permit installation of tieback anchors to provide additional lateral
support, where required. The diaphragm walls will likely be extended below the base of the
excavations to provide partial seepage cut-offs and to increase lateral wall stability. Installation of
the concrete base plugs will also increase lateral stability at the excavation base.
Further work remains to be done to fine tune the various potential methods of excavation, outlined below.
Limit equilibrium methods using programs such as SLOPE-W will be used to assess 2D slope stability for
open cut excavations. Shear strength and soil unit weight parameters in the excavated soils will be
estimated from available descriptions of soil profiles, N 1,60,ecs values in granular soil units, and moisture
content/Atterberg limit values in cohesive soil units. The extent of dewatering within open cut excavations
will strongly influence stability and stable slope angles. A minimum factor of safety of 1.3 will be required
for short term construction stability of slopes.
Page 6
Discussions with contractors specializing in shotcrete and anchor (S & A) support methods for
excavations will be carried out to identify typical S & A designs for similar soil profiles. The designs will be
checked by the ADAPT geotechnical design team using limit equilibrium analysis to assess global stability
of the retained soil mass. Finite element modeling will also be carried out of a typical 2D cross-section
employing shotcrete and anchor support systems to analyse anchor – soil interaction and excavation
deformations in response to self-weight loads of the soil mass. The excavation models will take into
account elastic-plastic soil response and potential slip between the soil and anchor over the anchor bond
length. Various soil shear strength and soil unit weight parameters will be estimated as described above.
Deep diaphragm walls will be analysed using 2D finite element models incorporating nonlinear soil stress-
strain response and the appropriate soil shear strength characteristics developed from the available
geotechnical data. The walls will be designed to resist all static earth and water pressures. Constructing
diaphragm walls using secant pile methods is presently being considered, given its ability to penetrate
large cobbles or boulders, and to provide close control on lateral wall stiffness. Other potential methods
of diaphragm wall construction will also be evaluated. Discussions with contractors specializing in
constructing deep diaphragm walls is essential in developing appropriate construction methodologies for
wall and base plug construction. Diaphragm walls will be incorporated into the design of the basement
walls to provide the required seismic lateral and moment resistance.
5.0 Review of Dewatering Methods
Two dimensional seepage modeling considering various methods and depths of excavation has
previously been carried out using SEEP-W and considering unsaturated – saturated groundwater flow
(see Reference 7). Mean groundwater levels at elevation +1.0 m have been assumed with various levels
of groundwater lowering at the base of excavations. Saturated permeabilities in granular soil units have
been estimated using available gradational information using the Hazen formula. The seepage modeling
carried out indicates, as expected, a broad zone of groundwater lowering beyond the excavations with
increasing groundwater drawdown the deeper the excavation (and maximum lowering of groundwater
level at the excavation base). The groundwater lowering is highest closest to the excavations and could
extend a few hundred metres from excavations where the regional groundwater level is arrived at. The
extent of groundwater lowering at a specific distance from the excavation determines how much increase
in vertical effective stress occurs within compressible soil layers, which in turn causes settlement. This is
of particular concern to the adjacent CN Rail line located along the southern boundary of the site. The 2D
SEEP-W modeling carried out, along with appropriate settlement modeling, indicates that groundwater
levels should not be lowered more than about 3 m relative to mean groundwater levels in order for
settlements to be limited (< 25 mm) due to compression of compressible soil layers below the railway
tracks. This analysis result will be used for excavation dewatering design.
Estimates of seepage flows into excavations depends on extent of groundwater lowering relative to mean
groundwater levels, soil layering, and the presence of impermeable clay/silt layers influencing seepage
into the excavations. Further 2D groundwater modeling may be carried out once details of excavation
depths and support methods are further defined.
Discussions are ongoing with dewatering contractors to determine methods available for dewatering
(sump pumps and well points are most likely). Seepage quantities are required for sizing pumps and
number of well points around a particular excavation.
6.0 Overall Geotechnical Design and Construction Approach
Based on review of the available background geotechnical and environmental contaminant data provided
by Golder Associates and Piteau Associates for the site, and the geotechnical analysis/review carried out
to date, the following foundation design and construction approach is proposed:
 Carry out additional environmental sampling and testing to identify the extent of contaminated fill
soils and to evaluate the potential applicability of drinking water standards (rather than aquatic life
standards) within the primary Project Area. This will supplement earlier data provided by Piteau
Associates.
 Carry out additional environmental site investigations along the Pemberton Ave. right of way.
 Carry out additional geotechnical site investigation and soils testing to define in greater detail the
following: thickness and depth of cohesive soil units (primarily clayey silt, silt and sandy silt)
Page 7
above about the 18 m depth; compressibility properties of deep silt/clayey silt layers below about
the 40 m depth.
 Remediate, risk assess, and remove offsite all contaminated soils over building area.
 Sub-excavate all remaining fill soils to a maximum of about the 3 m depth below the existing
ground surface over building area and stockpile on site for future use. Where open cut
excavation is required below the groundwater level (maximum groundwater level at elevation
+1.4 m, average groundwater elevation +1.0 m) limited excavation dewatering will be carried out
down to a minimum elevation -2 m.
 Screen sub-excavated fill to create 75 mm minus, well graded sand and gravel with 3% passing a
U.S. no. 200 sieve size. The exact gradation will be selected after discussion with the Ground
Improvement Contractor. Place the screened fill over the site to provide a minimum thickness of 1
m above maximum groundwater level or a minimum thickness of 1 m above excavated grade,
whichever gives the highest elevation.
 Carry out ground improvement (GI) using vibro-replacement (stone columns) using bottom feed
methods (dry method) to elevation -27 m (30 m below average existing site grade). The use of GI
is intended to mitigate seismically induced soil liquefaction potential and minimize post-seismic
settlements and lateral movements of structures. It is anticipated that an average area
replacement ratio of 10% will be used for stone column construction (i.e. the plan area of stone
columns is 10% of the total ground area treated). Locally higher area replacement ratios may be
required in some areas where greatest thicknesses of cohesive soil units above the 18 m depth
are identified (after further site investigation) and where static and/or seismic foundation loadings
are highest. Water and silt control will be required during stone column construction using
appropriate ditching and settlement ponds. Periodic environmental sampling of silt/sand
materials coming to the ground surface during stone column construction will be required to
ensure these materials are not contaminated (although this is not anticipated based on available
information). If materials are deemed to be contaminated, these will be removed off site. If
silt/sand materials are not contaminated, these will be considered unsuitable for use as structural
fill but could be used for preload fills (discussed below) or as future landscaping fill.
 Stone columns will be extended on the order of 10 m beyond building envelopes to mitigate the
influence of free field lateral and vertical ground movements under the structure raft slabs.
Further analysis is required to confirm the 10 m buffer zone. Discussions with District of
North Vancouver will be required to determine if stone columns can be extended beyond
property lines to achieve the 10 m distance beyond building envelopes. Where space is
more limited (depending on property boundaries and proximity to existing facilities) and
does not permit stone columns to be installed 10 m from building envelopes, other
methods of ground improvement or piling solutions may need to be considered. This
potential constraint is of greatest concern to installation of the Operations and
Maintenance building foundations.
 Where subsequent site investigation and foundation analysis indicates significant thicknesses of
softer clayey silt or silt zones above about the 8 to 12 m depth, it may be necessary to locally
increase the stone column area replacement ratio to improve seismic bearing capacity under
more heavily loaded foundations, particularly in areas having higher transient bearing pressures
under the outside edges of raft slabs.
 Place preload fills over the site to fully compensate for net sustained bearing pressures, including
a 20% surcharge fill over and above these net bearing pressures. Placement of preload fills can
start once stone column installation has been completed over a certain area in order to maximize
the time of preloading. The preload plus surcharge fills will be left in place for a minimum of 4 to 8
months to attempt to achieve almost full consolidation of the subsoils, including the deeper
silt/clayey silt units. Importing of sand fill will likely be required to carry out the preloading. The fill
will be placed at maximum 1.5H:1V slopes where sufficient space exists on site, or else will be
retained using lock block or gabion walls. Pore pressure transducers will be placed at various
depths and locations prior to placement of preload fill. Settlement gauges will also be placed at
the construction grade prior to placement of preload. Up to two inclinometers will also be placed
along the CN Rail line where it is closest to the site. Monitoring of settlements and pore water
pressures versus time will be carried out to determine time rates of consolidation and whether full
consolidation has been achieved during the time of preloading. Monitoring of settlements under
the existing CN Rail line and any other adjacent facilities deemed necessary will also be carried
out. The impact of preloading on settlement and lateral movements of the CN Rail line will need
to be reviewed. It may be necessary to periodically relevel the rail line during preloading or design
a ground improvement system along the south property line boundary adjacent to the rail line so
that near surface settlements caused by preloading are mitigated.
Page 8
 Once at least 95% consolidation has been obtained or at a time deemed acceptable by the
Geotechnical Engineer of Record, the preload fills can be removed under a specific foundation
area. Excavation and suitable dewatering using the methods described below will then be carried
out within a specific foundation area to 1 m below underside of raft slab level. All foundations will
be placed on raft slabs, constructed using undulations or ribs to provide maximum frictional
resistance under the base of the slab. The rafts will be underlain by 1 m of highly compacted,
well graded sand and gravel fill having a minimum peak friction angle of 40 degrees determined
from appropriate testing.
 Excavations to a maximum of 5 m depth below construction grade will be carried out using a
combination of open cut excavations or shotcrete and anchors (depending on available space
relative to property line) along with suitable dewatering using sump pumps and/or well points.
Dewatering at the excavation location should not be carried out below elevation -2 m in order to
minimize the risk of excessive settlement along the CN Rail line located immediately south of the
site. Dewatering may involve the requirement for treatment of the pumped groundwater to ensure
environmental compliance prior to discharge into the local storm drain system or into a suitable
groundwater recharge pit.
 Excavations deeper than 5 m below construction grade will be carried out using diaphragm wall
technology with limited dewatering, as described above, to permit the installation of any required
tieback systems at the upper levels of the wall. Diaphragm walls may be extended below the
base of the excavation to maximize excavation stability through cantilever action and lengthen
seepage paths. It is anticipated that a base plug of concrete will need to be placed over the base
of the excavation to counteract hydraulic uplift pressures and prevent base heave (particularly
where the excavation base is underlain by low permeability clay/silt materials), and to minimize
seepage flows into the excavation where low permeability materials are not present. In this way,
fully tanked excavations will be designed and constructed to withstand all water and earth
pressures and to minimize groundwater lowering around the deep excavation. Construction of the
base plug will also provide lateral support to the base of the excavation. Methods to construct the
diaphragm walls and base plug are currently under review but are likely to involve the use of
either secant pile, deep soil mix or jet grout walls. Discussions with the ground improvement
contractor Hayward Baker are currently underway to identify the most cost effective and lowest
risk approach to constructing the tanked excavations.
 The majority of structure foundations will be placed on raft slabs after ground improvement and
site preloading unless space restrictions limit the distance stone columns can be installed beyond
building envelopes. To maximize shear resistance on the base of the raft slabs, important under
lateral seismic loading conditions, the slabs will be constructed with undulations or ribs and will be
underlain by highly frictional, compacted structural fill. Seismic lateral and overturning resistance
of foundations will also be maximized through use of compacted structural fill placed adjacent to
embedded foundations and, where necessary, higher area replacement ratios of stone columns
where static or seismic bearing stresses are higher. Structure raft slabs and basement walls for
the deepest embedded structures will be integrated with the walls of the tanked excavations to
maximize seismic lateral and overturning resistance. In these situations, it may not be necessary
to use ribbed raft slabs. More detailed seismic soil-structure interaction analysis will be required
during detailed final design to ana
 lyse the complex interaction between embedded structures and the ground, including the effect of
ground improvement and the tanked excavations.
 The impact of ground improvement (GI) using stone columns on the adjacent CN Rail line and the
existing cut-off wall along the south boundary of the site will need to be carefully assessed. It
may be necessary to use other forms of ground improvement that do not involve vibration that
could cause settlement of the rail line or cracking of the cut-off wall. These alternate GI methods
could involve the use of deep soil mix columns or other methods to stiffen the lateral boundaries
of the improved ground areas, minimize settlements of the rail line during stone column
construction, and mitigate the influence of seismically induced ground movements beyond the
zones of GI under structures. These methods are currently being discussed with ground
improvement contractors to develop a robust, cost effective solution.
7.0 Plant Site Settlement Calculations under Sustained Dead Load
Calculations of overall plant site settlements, taking into account stress overlap effects between adjacent
foundations, have been carried out as described in Appendix A. The program SETTLE-3D was used for
this analysis, employing 3D elastic stress distributions computed using Boussinesq theory. Vertical stress
increases are used in computation of 1D settlements. The modelling assumes that preloading is not
Page 9
carried out over building envelopes. For granular soils and cohesive soils within the depth of the stone
columns, constrained moduli are used in the calculations. For cohesive soils (e.g. the deeper
interbedded silts and clayey silts below about the 42 m depth) settlements are computed based on 1-D
primary consolidation (using recompression and compression indices) and the estimated degree of over-
consolidation of the layer relative to pre-existing effective overburden stresses. Details of settlement
model parameters are provided in Appendix A. Key model assumptions include:
 Net bearing stresses at various underside of raft slab foundation levels were estimated using
preliminary gross bearing pressures provided by the structural engineers for the project, less the
pre-existing vertical effective stresses at foundation level. It is the application of net bearing
stresses that is considered to cause long term settlement. Boussinesq theory was then used to
calculate vertical stress changes at various depths (Z) and horizontal (X,Y) locations in the 3D
model.
 Raft slabs were considered to be rigid.
 The soil profile used in the analyses is generally based on stratigraphy from the deeper borehole
data.
 The interbedded silt/clayey silt layers below about the 42 m depth are assumed to extend to only
the 90 m depth and to comprise up to 40% of the combined soil layer thickness. Relatively dense
sand, silty sand, and sand and gravel layers are assumed to be interbedded with the clayey silt
and silt layers. The sand, silty sand, and sand and gravel layers are assumed to be
incompressible.
Computed settlement results are summarized in Table 2 assuming slightly over-consolidated behaviour of
the deeper interbedded silt and clayey silt using an OCR of 1.1.
Table 2: Summary of Settlement below Heavily Loaded Structures

Location Settlement above Settlement within Total Settlement
Lower Silt (mm) Lower Silt (mm) (mm)
Digesters 36 15 51
Solids 31 25 56
Primary Clarifiers 25 23 48
Bioreactor 44 30 74
Secondary Clarifier (A) 50 21 71
Secondary Clarifier (B) 48 15 63
Key conclusions from the settlement modeling are:
 In absence of site preloading, the effects of stress superposition could lead to total settlements
well in excess of the 50 mm project limit and potentially large differential settlements
 Uncertainty in the various compressibility parameters used in the modeling and the potential for
unacceptably large static settlements emphasizes the need for site preloading.
 Settlements due to stress increases from plant site structure loads under the CN Rail line are
calculated to be less than 25 mm. Similar settlements would be expected during preload fill
placement.
8.0 Foundation Design Parameters
The following sections provide preliminary foundation design recommendations on static bearing capacity
of raft slabs placed over stone column improved ground, coefficients of vertical subgrade reaction to be
considered in raft slab design, base shear resistance on raft slabs to be considered in static and seismic
design, static and seismic passive earth pressures against embedded basement walls, elastic response
spectra to be considered in seismic design (previously provided by TetraTech), and static earth pressures
to be considered in design of basement walls and retaining walls.
Earth pressures to be considered in design of deep excavations using diaphragm wall (DW) technologies
will be provided by AFW in a later geotechnical design memo after discussions with qualified contractors
as to the most appropriate method of DW construction.
Page 10
Seismic active and rigid wall earth pressures against embedded walls are to be provided in later technical
memos by TT.
The foundation design recommendations presented below are based on commonly accepted
geotechnical engineering procedures but are somewhat simplified in approach. More detailed soil-
structure interaction analysis using finite element or finite difference procedures (incorporating nonlinear
static or cyclic stress-strain soil response) is recommended for final design stages where raft slab static
and seismic response is sensitive to the foundation design parameters provided.
8.1 Factored Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Static Vertical Loading
Where sufficient space exists to extend stone columns beyond building envelopes, then raft slabs
underlain by a 1 m thick base layer of compacted gravel underlain by stone column improved ground is
recommended for foundation support. The required distance of stone columns from building envelopes
(termed a “buffer zone”) is currently estimated at 10 m but needs to be confirmed with additional analysis.
Where space does not exist to exist to create this buffer zone then other methods of foundation support
will need to be considered, including the use of pile foundations. This may be the case for the Operations
and Maintenance building, subject to further discussions with the District of North Vancouver.
The factored ultimate bearing capacity of raft slabs underlain by stone columns has been calculated using
2 methods, described in Appendix C. Under purely vertical loading, the minimum factored ultimate
bearing capacity (using a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.5) is about 900 kPa for smaller size
foundation areas (sludge dewatering area) with minimal depths of embedment. Much higher factored
ultimate bearing capacities are computed for larger size raft slabs.
Foundation design under sustained vertical static loading will be governed by settlement tolerances under
Service Limit State (SLS) conditions. We recommend for design a factored ultimate bearing capacity of
600 kPa and that SLS net bearing pressures not exceed 300 kPa. Preloading will be required to
compensate for net bearing pressures to minimize post-construction settlement to less than 50 mm,
discussed previously.
8.2 Factored Ultimate Bearing Capacity Under Inclined Eccentric Loading
Under seismic or wind loading conditions, raft slab foundations will be subjected to lateral and over-
turning moment loading, resulting in inclined eccentric loads applied to the raft slabs. Methods of
calculating ultimate bearing capacity using pseudo-static methods are described in Appendix D with no
consideration of cyclic loading effects. An analysis of the digestor raft slab subjected to preliminary design
estimates of lateral and moment loading induced by structural inertia forces during earthquake shaking
(considering Site Class D ground motion response) has been carried out. This indicates transient
maximum bearing stresses of close to 600 kPa and ultimate bearing capacities in the range of about 900
to 1200 kPa, depending on method of calculation and various soil parameter assumptions. The critical
case (lowest ultimate bearing capacity) exists when a layer of clayey silt exists in close proximity to the
underside of the raft slab (e.g. within 1 to 2 foundation widths below the base of the slab). Based on
assumed stone column diameters of 900 mm and stone column spacing of 2.75 m arranged in a
triangular grid, the calculations indicate minimum factors of safety against bearing failure of 1.5 under
these transient seismic loading conditions.
Once seismic loads on the most heavily loaded foundations are confirmed, we recommend the following
course of action:
 Additional numerical (finite element or finite difference) modeling to examine raft slab – soil –
stone column interaction under cyclic seismic loading conditions, including the influence of
upper clayey silt or silt layers (where present) based on existing geotechnical drill hole
information. This modeling will be used to confirm that seismic deflections and rotations of the
raft slabs are within the Project Agreement tolerances.
 If seismically induced deflections/rotations are deemed excessive due to the presence of
significant upper layers of clayey silt or silt then additional stone columns may need to be placed
under the outside edges of these more heavily loaded foundations.
Page 11
 Where the upper clayey silt/silt layers are thin or absent and adequate densification of granular
soil layers is carried out using stone column methods, bearing capacity under inclined eccentric
load conditions is believed will be more than adequate under design seismic loadings.
For foundation design purposes, it is recommended that factored ultimate bearing pressures under the
outside edges of raft slabs during conditions of inclined eccentric loading not exceed 800 kPa (33%
increase above the factored ultimate bearing pressure under vertical static loading conditions), subject to
additional confirmation of acceptable deflection/rotation response of the raft slab.
8.3 Coefficients of Vertical Subgrade Reaction for Static Loading
Recommended equivalent linear, static coefficients of vertical subgrade reaction for various assumed
thicknesses of raft slabs are provided below. The calculations assume 1 m of highly compacted structural
fill (crushed gravel or equivalent) underlies the slabs, followed by stone column improved ground. The
stone columns are assumed to be placed in a triangular grid using centre to centre stone column
spacings of 2.75 m and to extend to the 30 m depth. The methods of calculation employed in computing
the static coefficients of subgrade reaction are provided in Appendix E. The theory of elastic slabs resting
on homogeneous elastic subgrades (Scott, 1981) has been used in the calculations, which relies on the
following parameters:
 Young’s modulus of concrete = 2.17e7 kPa

 Poisson’s ratio of concrete = 0.17
 Slab thickness (varies)
 An equivalent linear, soil Young’s modulus Es averaged over the depth of influence of the slab
Selection of Es relies on use of an averaging procedure, based on the stiffness properties of the structural
fill, the stone column improved ground and the stone columns. The Es value is based on the area
replacement ratio method, in other words, increasing the effective stiffness of the ground based on the
percentage of the ground area that contains stone columns. An area replacement ratio of 0.097 has been
assumed.
A range of stiffness properties of the stone column improved ground underlying the compacted structural
fill has been assumed. The following static vertical subgrade reaction coefficients (kvert) have been
computed and are recommended for preliminary design:
 Slab thickness = 1.0 m kvert = 8 to 15 MN/cu.m.

 Slab thickness = 1.5 m kvert = 6.5 to 12 MN/cu.m.
The calculated equivalent linear, coefficients of static subgrade reaction are based on equivalent elastic
methods of analysis. If reinforcing details of raft slabs are strongly sensitive to the range of subgrade
reaction coefficients provided, it is recommended that a more detailed slab – soil interaction analysis be
undertaken, incorporating the nonlinear response of the soil and stone columns occurring in response to
loads applied to the raft slabs.
The subgrade reaction coefficients provided are appropriate only for static loading conditions (i.e. under
sustained dead loads applied to the raft slabs). Under dynamic small strain conditions (e.g. where specific
raft slab elements are subject to low amplitude vibration, machine foundation loads), dynamic vertical
subgrade reaction coefficients will be different than static values depending on strain levels in the soil
mass and the frequency of excitation. Under seismic loading conditions, interaction stresses between the
slabs and the underlying soil mass will be highly nonlinear and equivalent linear methods of analysis (as
implied by use of equivalent coefficients of vertical subgrade reaction) may not be appropriate. In such
cases, a nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis is recommended.
8.4 Sliding Shear Resistance on Bases of Raft Slabs
To increase seismic lateral resistance of raft slabs. It is recommended that these incorporate “ribbed”
waffle slabs overlying stone column improved ground. A nonlinear finite element model was developed to
Page 12
examine ribbed slab – soil interaction and the level of frictional base shear resistance that could be
developed. This modeling is described in Appendix F. It is assumed that 1 m of highly compacted
structural fill (crushed gravel or equivalent) lies under the base of the raft slab and the top of stone
columns. Details of fill type and methods of compaction will need to be supplied later. It is also assumed
that suitable construction methods will be used to build the waffle “ribbed” raft slab.
The finite element calculations summarized in Appendix F indicates that use of the ribbed slab concept
increases frictional resistance to develop the full shear resistance of the compacted structural fill under
the slab. In other words, shear failure is forced through the compacted fill soil under the slab rather than
at the interface between the concrete slab and the adjacent soil. Therefore ultimate lateral base shear
resistance on the base of the slab may be calculated as the vertical dead load stress on the slab base x
tan φ x slab base area where φ is the peak friction angle of the compacted fill under the slab.
Assuming compacted, free draining, crushed gravel fill (with less than 3% fines) is placed under the slab,
a peak friction angle of 40 degrees is recommended for preliminary design. The peak base shear
resistance is mobilized at relatively small displacements (<5 mm) based on the finite element modeling
carried out. It is recommended that suitable shear box testing be carried out on compacted fill samples
during final design to confirm that a minimum peak friction angle of 40 degrees is obtained for the fill
material selected. It is also recommended that a small size, waffle footing be constructed and placed on
compacted structural fill during final design. The footing could then be loaded vertically and then
subjected to a lateral load test to confirm the level of shear resistance developed.
The Project Agreement (Section 11.7.9 in Schedule 3) states that structures must be designed to
resist sliding using a factor of safety of 1.5. We interpret this to apply to both static and seismic
design conditions but this point should be confirmed with Metro Vancouver. We note that under
seismic design conditions reduced factors of safety are typically used subject to the constraint
that foundation and superstructure displacements not be excessive in order to satisfy post-
disaster performance requirements. Under the Limit States Design philosophy adopted in NBCC
(2010) and BCBC (2012) ultimate lateral sliding resistances would be factored using a
geotechnical capacity reduction factor of 0.8 for both static design and for seismic design of
structures required to have “post-disaster” performance.
8.5 Passive Soil Resistance on Embedded Foundations
Additional levels of foundation static and seismic lateral resistance may be developed on embedded
foundations due to the influence of passive earth pressures acting against perimeter basement walls and
the edges of the raft slabs. However, relatively large lateral movements of the embedded foundation are
required to develop the ultimate passive soil resistance, of the order of 1 to 8% of the foundation
embedment depth, depending on the density and gradation of compacted structural fill placed against the
embedded foundation as well as the mode of deformation / rotation of the wall. Therefore passive soil
resistance should be factored (reduced) to limit lateral displacements required to mobilize a certain
percentage of the ultimate resistance.
Nonlinear finite element analysis incorporating embedded basement wall – soil interaction under static
lateral loading conditions has been carried out as described in Appendix G. The modeling indicated that
the use of Coulomb earth pressure theory predicted closely the ultimate lateral passive soil resistance
and that, for the soil parameters considered, the ultimate resistance was mobilized at a lateral deflection
level of about 6% of the embedded depth of the basement wall. The use of highly compacted structural
fill consisting of well graded sand and gravel against the wall was assumed in the modeling. In order to
limit lateral foundation movements to less than about 25 mm under static and seismic loading conditions,
the following recommendations are provided.
8.5.1 Static Passive Soil Resistance
For purposes of assessing passive soil resistance under static loading conditions, the following
recommendations are provided:
 Calculate ultimate passive soil resistance for a given wall embedment depth, neglecting the upper
1 m of wall embedment, using Coulomb passive earth pressure theory. An ultimate static passive
earth pressure coefficient of 10.2 is calculated based on a minimum peak friction angle of 38
Page 13
degrees in the compacted wall backfill, and assuming a backfill – wall interface friction angle of 20
degrees.
 A static passive earth pressure coefficient equal to 1/3 of the ultimate static passive earth
pressure coefficient shall be considered in static design, in order to limit the required lateral wall
deflections to mobilize the passive earth pressure. Thus, an effective static passive earth
pressure coefficient equal to 3.4 is recommended for use in design.
 Static passive earth pressures shall be calculated based on total soil unit weights of 21 kN/cu.m.
and considering a maximum groundwater table elevation at elevation +1.4 m. Passive earth
pressures shall be calculated using total unit weights above the groundwater table and buoyant
unit weights below the ground water table.
Suitable testing shall be carried out on wall backfill materials (gradational analysis, shear box
tests) to confirm that the assumption of a 38 degree friction angle is achieved as a minimum
during construction.
8.5.2 Seismic Passive Soil Resistance
For purposes of assessing passive soil resistance under seismic loading conditions, the following
recommendations are provided:
 Calculate ultimate passive soil resistance for a given wall embedment depth, neglecting the upper
1 m of wall embedment, using Mononobe – Okabe dynamic passive earth pressure theory. An
ultimate dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient of 8.0 is calculated based on the friction
angle parameters given in Section 8.5.1 and assuming a horizontal seismic inertial coefficient of
0.235 (67% of the peak ground surface acceleration computed from 1D seismic site response
analysis using SHAKE-2000 carried out by TetraTech – see Reference 4). A vertical seismic
inertia coefficient equal to 0.16 was also considered, 2/3 of the horizontal inertia coefficient.
 A dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient equal to 1/3 of the ultimate dynamic passive earth
pressure coefficient shall be considered in seismic design, in order to limit the required lateral wall
deflections to mobilize the passive earth pressure. Thus, an effective dynamic passive earth
pressure coefficient equal to 2.7 is recommended for use in design.
 Dynamic passive earth pressures shall be calculated based on total soil unit weights of 21
kN/cu.m. and considering a maximum groundwater table elevation at elevation +1.4 m. Passive
earth pressures shall be calculated using total unit weights above the groundwater table and
buoyant unit weights below the ground water table.
A similar factored value of the dynamic passive earth pressure coefficient has been provided by TT in an
email dated Sept. 8, 2016 provided in Appendix H.
8.6 Design Elastic Surface Response Spectra
TT has previously carried out equivalent linear, 1D site response analysis using SHAKE-2000, described
in Reference 4. Vertically propagating seismic shear waves are assumed in the 1D modeling using
earthquake input motions specified in the Project Agreement. Dynamic soil properties used in the
modeling are based on average soil properties versus depth determined from available geotechnical data,
prior to ground improvement. Computed surface response spectra for the case of no ground
improvement are presented in Reference 4.
Where ground improvement using stone columns is carried out, TT has recommended use of Site Class
D response spectra specified in the NBCC 2010 and BCBC (2012).
8.7 Static Earth Pressures on Embedded Basement Walls or Retaining Walls
The magnitude of earth pressures that develop on a wall is a function of the amount of movement
(translation and/or rotation) that a wall experiences. Walls that are unyielding or which can tolerate little or
no movement should be designed for the “at rest” (ko) earth pressure. Walls that are allowed to yield (i.e.
which can move away from the soil mass) should be designed for earth pressures between active (ka)
and at-rest (ko) conditions, depending on the magnitude of movements that are expected. The magnitude
of wall movement that is required to reach the minimum active pressure or the maximum passive
pressure is a function of the wall height and the soil type. Typical values of these mobilizing movements
relative to wall height are given in Table 3.
Page 14
Table 3 – Relative Movements to Reach Active or Passive Earth Pressure Conditions
Values of /H (see note)
Maximum
Soil Type
Minimum Active Passive
Conditions Conditions
Medium Dense Sand 0.002 – 0.004 0.02 – 0.06
Dense (i.e. well compacted) Sand and/or Gravel 0.001 - 0.002 0.01 - 0.02
Notes:  = Movement of top of wall required to reach minimum active or maximum passive earth
pressure by tilting or lateral translation.
H = Height of wall
Earth retaining structures (non MSE) and below-grade walls must be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures. Lateral earth pressures can be estimated by:
p = k ((γ · h) + q)
Where: p = Lateral earth pressure (kPa) at depth h

k = Earth pressure coefficient (active, at-rest, or passive)
γ = unit weight of soil (kN/m3) or γ’ if below the groundwater surface
h = depth (m)
q = surcharge load at ground surface (kPa)
The active earth pressure coefficient (k A) applies to structures that are permitted to translate or rotate
slightly, such as cantilever retaining walls. To attain active earth pressure conditions, the displacement at
the top of the wall should be considered at least 0.004 times the height of the wall.
The at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (k 0) should be used for design of structures that are rigid and
are not allowed to rotate about their bases.
The passive earth pressure coefficient (k P) is applied to model the resistance of the soil in front of the
permanently buried portion of a structure to resist translation and overturning. Relatively large wall
displacements would be necessary to realize full passive resistances, discussed earlier in Section 8.5.1.
Recommended lateral earth pressure coefficients and unit weights (γ) for static loading conditions are
provided in Table4.
Table 4: Static Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients
Soil Type Active At rest Passive Total γ Buoyant γ φ

ka k0 kp (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (deg.)
Structural
0.22 0.40 3.4 21 11 38
fill*
Notes: *Structural fill assumed to consist of compacted, well graded, sand and gravel
The lateral earth pressure equation is based on backfill conditions level with the top of the wall and
vertical walls. If sloped backfill conditions or non-vertical walls are to be considered, AFW can provide
the appropriate lateral earth pressure equation and values.
Below the groundwater table, or in the case where sub-drainage will not be provided behind a wall,
buoyant soil unit weights should be used, and a hydrostatic pressure component will need to be included
in the design. Buoyant soil unit weights are given in Error! Reference source not found.2.
Page 15
A rectangular pressure distribution equal to the vertical surcharge pressure (q) multiplied by the
appropriate lateral earth pressure coefficient can be used to model the horizontal pressure from surface
surcharge such as construction traffic or fill surcharge loads. AFW recommends modelling construction
traffic loads as a vertical surcharge of at least 12kPa.
Nearby structures can also impose additional lateral pressures on retaining structures. The pressure
distribution depends primarily on the distance between the retaining wall and the structure. AFW can
provide further load distributions from adjacent structural loadings if loading details are provided.
Heavy compaction equipment should not be used within 1 m of walls in order to minimize the build-up of
lateral compaction stresses against the wall.
For Limit States Design of walls under static loading conditions, the appropriate Load Factors based on
NBCC (2010) or BCBC (2012) should be applied to destabilizing loads calculated from the pressure
distributions given above.
In the design of retaining walls, overturning stability as well as global stability will need to be evaluated.
For overturning stability, location of the resultant of the reaction forces should be in the middle one-third
of the base width. The global stability of the combined wall and backfill configuration should be evaluated
using limit equilibrium methods.
The resistance to sliding can be determined by multiplying the normal stresses acting at the base of the
wall foundation by coefficient of friction (tan δ where δ is the friction angle between the structural fill and
the concrete). Unless special measures are used to roughen the base of retaining walls as described in
Section 8.4, for wall foundations constructed of mass concrete bearing on compacted structural fill, the
coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.58. Only the dead load with a load factor of 0.85 should be used
to calculate the normal stress. For the sliding resistance, a resistance factor, Ф, of 0.8 should be used to
determine the factored resistance. Passive resistance along the front side of the wall within the upper 1.0
m should not be relied upon. If passive soil resistance below 1.0 m is to be relied on to resist lateral
movements, the factored passive earth pressure coefficient given in Table 3 may be used in design. The
latter assumes compacted, well graded sand and gravel is placed next to the wall. In the design of
retaining walls, the frictional resistance between the side of the wall and the soil should be neglected.
9.0 Ground Improvement
Stone column supported rafts are presently considered to be the foundation of choice for the structures of
the LGWWTP. Following construction of stone columns, preload fills including a 20% surcharge would be
placed.
9.1 Stone Column Construction
The stone column method of ground improvement (also called vibro-replacement) has been used
extensively to densify loose to compact cohesionless soils, and has typically demonstrated excellent
performance in increasing the liquefaction resistance of such soils during large magnitude earthquakes.
Stone columns that are 30 m in depth are presently believed to be required to mitigate seismically
induced liquefaction, and associated lateral movements and post-earthquake settlements.
Vibro-replacement consists of constructing dense gravel columns (or stone columns) by means of a
crane-suspended downhole vibrator (also called a vibroflot), to densify the granular soils and reinforce all
soils in general. Stone columns are constructed with either the wet top feed process, or the dry bottom
feed process. Given the subsurface conditions provided in Golder Associates’ reports and the presently
anticipated length of the stone columns, the dry bottom feed method of construction is deemed required
to enable construction of a continuous gravel column.
In the dry method of stone column installation (also called bottom feed), the vibroflot penetrates to the
design depth by means of vibrations and the vibrator’s weight, as well as air jets located in the vibrator’s
tip that help cut through the soil. The crushed rock is fed to the vibrator tip through a feed pipe attached
to the vibrator. The aggregate falls to the bottom of the hole, and fills the void created as the vibrator is
lifted. The vibroflot is then lowered, densifying and displacing the underlying stone. This process is
repeated at various depth intervals until a dense stone column is constructed over the full depth of
Page 16
treatment, which results in a high modulus column that densifies surrounding granular soils and reinforces
the treatment area.
Given the likely presence of cobbles and possibly boulders in the upper 18 m approximately, pre-drilling is
expected to be required at all stone column locations over that depth interval. Cutting sediments,
comprised primarily of sand and silt materials, will be generated at the ground surface using the vibroflot
process and these will require control and clean-up. The materials generated will be unsuitable for use as
structural fill but could likely be used for landscaping or preload fill, provided they were not too wet.
Cuttings will also need to be sampled for environmental contamination. Since portions of pre-existing fill
soils are environmentally contaminated and will be moved off site prior to stone column installation, and
there is no current evidence of deeper soil contamination below the fills, it is considered unlikely that the
sand/silt spoil generated will be contaminated. This aspect will need to be addressed with the project
Environmental Engineer.
Bottom feed stone columns are expected to be installed in a triangular grid pattern, with a center-to-
center spacing of around 2.75 m. An area replacement ratio (ARR) of around 10% is believed to be
required (ARR is defined as the cross-sectional area of all stone columns divided by the surface area of
the ground being improved). The SC spacing of 2.75 m is an initial estimate but will need to be confirmed
by vibro-replacement contractors based on meeting a performance specification to achieve adequate
resistance to seismic soil liquefaction. This performance specification will be developed later.
A 1 m thick layer of clean crushed gravel is expected to be required between the raft slab and the top of
the stone columns. Stone columns will need to extend around 10 m beyond structure envelopes to
mitigate the influence of seismic ground movements occurring beyond the zone of ground improvement
on raft slab foundations. Further analysis is required to confirm the 10 m buffer zone. Where structures (in
particular, the Operations and Maintenance building) are constructed tight to the property line,
discussions with District of North Vancouver will need to be held to get permission to install stone
columns beyond the property line. If this is not permitted, other ground improvement measures or the
possible use of piling for these structures will need to be considered.
9.2 Site Preloading
Due to uncertainty in compressibility parameters, depths and thicknesses of the upper layers of
compressible clayey silt and silt deposits as well as deeper silt and clayey silt deposits below about the
42 m depth, it is considered probable that structure settlements under sustained static loading could
exceed the 50 mm limit mandated in the Project Agreement. Therefore placement of preload fills,
including an additional surcharge fill (equal to 20% of the preload height), is proposed to fully compensate
for sustained net bearing pressures on the foundations. Here, net bearing pressure is defined as the
gross bearing pressure less the effective overburden stress at the foundation depth below existing ground
surface (approximately elevation +3.0 m geodetic). Gross bearing pressures are presently being
confirmed by the structural engineering team which will then be used to calculate the thicknesses of
preload + surcharge fill required. It is anticipated that total fill thicknesses of up to 12.5 m will be required.
Fill heights will vary across the site, depending on variability in sustained bearing pressure between
different structures.
Preload + surcharge fills should be placed, where space permits, at slopes not to exceed 1.5H:1V. In
areas of limited space, the fills can be retained using lock block or gabion walls. The design of these
walls will be carried out once fill heights and layouts are better defined. The preload + surcharge fills
would be placed following completion of stone column installation in a particular area. It is not considered
necessary to wait until all stone columns have been placed across the site for commencement of fill
placement. In this way, fill could be placed in stages across the site.
It is anticipated that the duration of preloading will be in the range of 2 to 8 months, depending on
thickness and permeability characteristics of the deeper silty/clayey silt sediments. It is expected that
consolidation will be fairly rapid in the upper zones of clayey silt and silt above about the 12 m depth due
to the drainage achieved by stone column installation. Preload fills should be placed as soon as possible
in the construction process to maximize the duration of time available for preloading.
10.0 Closure
Page 17
This memorandum presents general recommendations for geotechnical aspects of foundation design at
the 30% design phase for the Lions Gate WWTP project. It has been prepared for the exclusive use of
the ADAPT Lions Gate WWTP design team. Any use which a third party makes of this memo, or any
reliance on or decisions made based on it are the responsibility of such third parties. Amec Foster
Wheeler accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions
made or actions based on this memorandum.
This memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We trust this memorandum provides the
information required at the present time. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at
your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure
A Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited
Reviewed by:
W. Blair Gohl, Ph.D., P.Eng. Makram El Sabbagh, M.Sc., P.Eng.

Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer Associate Geotechnical Engineer
Page 18
References:
1. Metro Vancouver, Miller Hull, AECOM, and CH2MHILL, February 2014, Lions Gate Waste Water
Treatment Plant Project Definition Report, Volume 2 Appendices.
2. Piteau Associates. 2010. Contamination of Remediation – Former North Vancouver Freight Shed
and Passenger Station – 1311, 1321 and 1350 West 1st Street, North Vancouver, BC. February.
3. Tetra Tech (2016), “Technical Memo – LGSWWTP – Soil and Groundwater Management”, Aug.
19, 2016
4. Tetra Tech (2016), “Technical Memo – Preliminary Seismic Ground Response and Liquefaction
Triggering Assessment, LGSWWTP”, Aug. 16, 2016
5. Tetra Tech (2016), “Technical Memo – Preliminary Post-Seismic Ground Displacements,

LGSWWTP”, Aug. 23, 2016
6. Tetra Tech (2016), “Technical Memo – Preliminary Axial Pile Capacities, LGSWWTP”, Aug. 23,
2016
7. Amec Foster Wheeler (2016), “Technical Memo - Lions Gate WWTP: Excavation/Shoring Design
Recommendations and Dewatering Analysis”, Aug. 23, 2016
8. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (2006), 4th edition
9. Greenwood, D.A. and K. Kirsch (1983), “Specialist Ground Treatment by Vibratory and Dynamic
Methods”, Piling and Ground Treatment, Inst. of Civil Engineers, March, 1983.
10. Barksdale, R.D. (1987), “Applications of the State of the Art of Stone Columns – Liquefaction,
Local Bearing Failure and Example Calculations”, School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Inst. of
Technology, Dec. 1987
11. Vesic, A.S. (1972), “Expansion of Cavities in an Infinite Soil Mass”, ASCE, Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, vol. 93, SM3, pp. 265-290
Appendices:
Appendix A – Static Foundation Settlement Analysis

Appendix B – Lateral Pile Capacity Estimate (email from TT dated Aug. 31, 2016)
Appendix C – Ultimate Bearing Capacity Analysis Under Static Loading Conditions
Appendix D – Ultimate Bearing Capacity Analysis Under Inclined Eccentric Loading Conditions
Appendix E – Simplified Methods of Calculation of Static Coefficients of Vertical Subgrade Reaction
Appendix F – Ribbed Raft Slab Shear Interaction with Compacted Structural Fill
Appendix G – Passive Static Earth Pressure Resistance – Finite Element Modeling
Appendix H – Review of Seismic Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient (email from TT dated Sept. 8, 2016).
Page 19
Appendix A
Lions Gate Secondary WWTP
Evaluation of Static Settlement
Sept. 21, 2016
1
Technical Memorandum
FROM: Makram El Sabbagh, M.Sc., P.Eng. (Amec Foster Wheeler) Ref: TE166002.2000.003
Eric Mohlmann, P.Eng. (Amec Foster Wheeler)
TO: FILE
DATE: September 21, 2016
SUBJECT: Lions Gate Secondary Waste Water Treatment Plant:
Evaluation of Static Settlement
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents a summary of preliminary settlement evaluations that were carried out for the
proposed Lions Gate Secondary Waste Water Treatment Plant. Information considered in the evaluations
was primarily based on the following reports:
 Golder Associates, 18 December 2013, Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Phase 1 Geotechnical Data Report, Submitted to AECOM Canada Ltd.;
Phase 2 Geotechnical Data Report, Submitted to AECOM Canada Ltd.; and
Geotechnical Design Brief, Submitted to AECOM Canada Ltd.
2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND ENGINEERING CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 General Subsurface Conditions
Golder and Associates indicate that “the site is likely underlain by lowland and mountain stream deltaic
sediments associated with a number of creeks and rivers, including the Capilano River”. These are
underlain by deeper, post-glacial, raised deltaic and channel fill deposits known as Capilano Sediments.
Deeper glaciated Pleistocene deposits are present at depth based on available geological information but
these sediments were not encountered during the drilling program carried out at the site.
Subsurface conditions described in the reports noted above generally consist of a 1 to 3 m thick surface
layer of Granular Fill, over a 5 to 8 m thick layer of Gravel, Sand and Cobbles. The layer of Gravel, Sand
and Cobbles was noted to be compact, although interpreted corrected Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
(N1)60 values from Becker Penetration Testing (BPT) greater than 50 were encountered, which could
reflect the presence of cobbles or boulders.
The Gravel, Sand and Cobbles are underlain by a 3 to 5 m thick layer of interbedded Silt, Sand and
Clayey Silt. The Silt is typically non-plastic, and the Sand is typically loose to compact. Higher interpreted
SPT (N1)60 values could reflect the presence of cobbles in the sand layers. The encountered thickness of
the Clayey Silt was up to 2.9 m, and the interpreted (N1)60 values were between 2 and 14. The Clayey Silt
was inferred in the reports as being soft to firm. Two Atterberg Limits tests carried out on samples of the
Clayey Silt indicate a Plasticity Index (PI) of 17% and a Liquid Limit (LL) of 41 and 43%. Considering that
the natural water content of the Clayey Silt is 41 and 45%, Golder Associates concluded that “these
results are consistent with normally consolidated, medium-plastic silty clay”.
In turn, the interbedded, Silt, Sand and Clayey Silt is underlain by a lower layer of Gravel, Sand and
Cobbles up to a depth of 14 to 19 m below original ground surface (OGS). This layer is generally compact
to dense and based on some of the interpreted (N1)60 values between 50 and 70 it could contain cobbles
and possibly boulders.
The lower layer of Gravel, Sand and Cobbles is underlain by Sand which extends down to a depth of 30
to 45 m below OGS. The upper portion of the Sand layer is typically compact and becomes dense with
depth. Interpreted (N1)60 values are up to 47, suggesting the presence of cobbles.
Underlying the Sand is a layer of dense Silt occurring between 41 to 45 m below OGS and, where the
bottom of the deposit was determined, extending down to 46 to 49 m below OGS. At some locations,
boreholes were terminated in the deposit and the bottom of the deposit was not determined. Interpreted
2
(N1)60 values are generally between 27 to 51, suggesting a dense state. A limited amount of routine
laboratory testing was carried out on samples from the Silt. Water contents are between 18 and 25%,
three Atterberg Limits tests indicate the material is low to non-plastic with Plasticity Indices of up to 2%
and Liquid Limits between 23 and 26%.
Based on information from three deeper drill holes, a layer of interbedded Sand, Silt, Clay, and Gravel
and Sand mixtures is present at depths between 46 and 49 m below OGS. The bottom of the deposit was
not determined. Interpreted (N1)60 values are generally between 23 and 31. Routine laboratory testing
was carried out on samples from finer grained layers. Water contents were carried out on three samples
and are between 7 and 22%. Two Atterberg Limits tests were carried out on plastic fine grained soils,
which indicated the samples have a Plasticity Index of 9 and 12%, and a Liquid Limit of 29 and 30%.
At the time of Golder’s investigation, the groundwater table was observed between 1.2 and 1.9 m below
OGS. This generally corresponds to elevation +1.0 m to +1.5 m above sea level. It is expected that the
groundwater table will fluctuate with precipitation and changes in sea level.
2.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy Considered in Settlement Evaluations
A generalized subsurface stratigraphy was considered in the settlement evaluations. The stratigraphy is
based on information presented in the reports noted in Section 1.0, and is summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Subsurface Stratigraphy Considered in the Settlement Evaluations

Layer Soil Type Thickness (m) Layer Mid-Depth below Final
Number Grade (m)
1 Structural Fill (above GWT) 3 1.5
2 Structural Fill (below GWT) 3.5 4.75
3 Structural Fill below Foundations 1 7
4 Sand and Gravel, to Silty Sand 2.5 8.75
5 Upper Clayey Silt 3 11.5
6 Sand and Gravel to Silty Sand (1) 3 14.5
7 Sand and Gravel to Silty Sand (2) 5 18.5
8 Sand to Silty Sand (1) 5 23.5
10 Sand to Silty Sand (3) 6 34
12 Lower Silt (1) 10 49
13 Lower Silt (2) 10 59
14 Lower Silt (3) 13 70.5
15 Lower Silt (4) 13 83.5
Although the thickness of Layer 5, Clayey Silt, encountered in the site investigation was up to 2.9 m, it is
possible that greater thicknesses could be encountered during subsequent investigation programs, which
could have a direct impact on the magnitude of the total and differential settlements under the proposed
LGSWWTP.
The Lower Silts (Layers 12 to 15), encountered 40 and 45 m below OGS, are highly layered and include
zones of sand and non-plastic silts that are not anticipated to settle significantly under static loading
conditions, and zones of clay and plastic silt that will consolidate under the weight of the proposed
LGSWWTP. A summary of stratigraphic conditions encountered by the two boreholes advanced in the
Lower Silts is presented in Tables 2.2a, and 2.2b.
3
Table 2.2a: Stratigraphy of Lower Silt, Borehole CHS13-01A
Depth below Thickness Soil Type
OGS (m) (m)
46.33 4.88 Clayey Silt to Silt, low plasticity, trace to some sand, wc=25%
47.55 1.22 Sand, some Silt with Silty Sand interlayers
48.31 0.76 Silty Clay, with Silty Sand and Clayey Silt interlayers
51.51 3.20 Silty Sand to Sand, some Silt
52.43 0.92 Silty Clay with interlayers of Silty Sand
58.52 6.09 Sand, some Silt to Silty, with occasional thin layers of Clayey Silt
76.81 18.29 Gravelly Sand to Sand, to Sand and Gravel
81.08 4.27 Silty Clay, trace to some Sand, wc=18%
Sum: 39.6 m
% Silt and Clay 27.3%
Table 2.2b: Stratigraphy of Lower Silt, Borehole CHS13-02A

Depth below Thickness Soil Type
OGS (m) (m)
46.94 4.73 Sandy Silt with Sand interlayers
48.16 1.22 Sand, some Silt, with thin interlayers of clayey silt
50.22 2.06 Silty Sand to Silt and Sand
53.19 2.97 Sand to Silty Sand
54.10 0.91 Clayey Silt
55.32 1.22 Sand, trace Silt
56.69 1.37 Clayey Silt, interlayers of Sand
57.61 0.92 Sand to Gravelly Sand
58.22 0.61 Silty Clay to Clayey Silt
64.26 6.04 Sand to Silty Sand, to Sand and Gravel
65.00 0.74 Silty Clay
66.37 1.37 Sand, some Silt
69.49 3.12 Silty Clay to Clayey Silt, with Sand interlayers
74.45 4.96 Sand
79.25 4.80 Clayey Silt to Sandy Silt
89.76 10.51 Sand, trace to some Silt
90.45 0.69 Silty Clayey Sand
91.44 0.99 Sand, some Silt, with thin interlayers of Silty Clayey Sand
92.96 1.52 Silty Clay to Clay, some Sand
93.88 0.92 Sand, some Silt to Clayey Sand
96.32 2.44 Silty Clay to Clay
Sum 54.1 m
% Silt and Clay 38.7%
Based on the stratigraphic conditions noted above, it was considered in the settlement evaluation that
only 40% of the Lower Silt consists of compressible low to medium plastic silt and/or clay layers, the
remaining 60% portion of the Lower Silt is considered incompressible at this stage of the evaluations.
2.3 Moduli in Cohesionless Soils
The hyperbolic representation (Duncan et al., 1980, and Byrne et al., 1987) was used to evaluate the bulk
modulus (B) in the cohesionless soils underlying the LGSWWTP structures, considering the following
relationship:
m
 ' 
B  K b Pa  m  ...................................................... (1)
 Pa 
4
Where, Kb is the bulk modulus number (dimensionless);
m is the bulk modulus exponent (dimensionless);
'm is the mean effective stress;
Pa is the atmospheric pressure, expressed in the same units as 'm and B.
The constrained modulus or oedometric modulus (Eoed) was evaluated using the following relationship:
1   
Eoed  3 B   ..................................................... (2)
 1   
Where,  is the drained Poisson’s ratio.
Table 2.3 presents a summary of the compressibility parameters that were used in evaluating the static
settlement in the cohesionless soils, prior to any ground improvement.
Table 2.3: Summary of Compressibility Parameters in Cohesionless Soils (Prior to any Ground
Improvement)
Layer Soil Type Kb m B  Eoed
Number (kPa) (kPa)
1 Structural Fill (above GWT) 750 0.5 36500 0.35 52800
2 Structural Fill (below GWT) 750 0.5 60200 0.35 87000
3 Structural Fill below Foundations 1250 0.5 11600 0.35 167000
4 Sand and Gravel, to Silty Sand 500 0.5 45200 0.35 65200
6 Sand and Gravel to Silty Sand (1) 500 0.5 53300 0.35 77000
7 Sand and Gravel to Silty Sand (2) 500 0.5 58800 0.35 84900
8 Sand to Silty Sand (1) 500 0.5 64800 0.35 93500
Stone column ground improvement (discussed in Section 3.0) will increase the relative density of the
treated soils, which in turn will result in higher moduli in this zone. The effective bulk modulus of the
improved ground (Beff) was evaluated using the following relationship:
Beff  1  ARR  Bsoil  ARR BSC ........................................... (3)
Where, ARR is the area replacement ratio (defined as the ratio of the plan area of the stone columns
divided by the total surface area of improved ground);
BSC is the bulk modulus of the stone columns.
Table 2.4 presents a summary of the compressibility parameters that were used in evaluating the static
settlements of soil improved using stone columns. Note that for preliminary evaluations, stone columns
are assumed to extend to approximately 30 m depth, or near the bottom of Layer 9.
5
Table 2.4: Summary of Compressibility Parameters in Soils Following Stone Column Ground
Improvement
Layer Soil Type Kb m Kb m ARR Beff  Eoed-eff
Number (Soil) (Soil) (SC) (SC) (kPa) (SC) (kPa)
1 Structural Fill (above 750 0.5 - - - 36500 0.35 52800
GWT)
2 Structural Fill (below 750 0.5 - - - 60200 0.35 87000
GWT)
3 Structural Fill below 1250 0.5 - - - 11600 0.35 167000
Foundations
4 Sand and Gravel, to 500 0.5 1250 0.5 10% 62200 0.35 89800
Silty Sand
5 Upper Clayey Silt - - 1250 0.5 10% 16300 0.35 23500
6 Sand and Gravel to 500 0.5 1250 0.5 10% 73400 0.35 106000
Silty Sand (1)
7 Sand and Gravel to 500 0.5 1250 0.5 10% 81000 0.35 117000
Silty Sand (2)
8 Sand to Silty Sand 500 0.5 1250 0.5 10% 89200 0.35 129000
(1)
9 Sand to Silty Sand 500 0.5 1250 0.5 10% 96300 0.35 139000
(2)
Notes:
- Beff is the bulk modulus of the stone column improved ground
- Eoed - eff is the constrained modulus of the stone column improved ground
2.4 Stress History and Compressibility Parameters in Cohesive Soils
2.4.1 Upper Clayey Silt (Layer 5)
Stress History
As noted in the reports by Golder Associates, the fact that the Liquid Limits in the in the Clayey Silt are
generally close to its in-situ water content is “consistent with normally consolidated, medium-plasticity silty
clay”.
Consolidation testing on high-quality tube samples of this material does not appear to have been carried
out. The results of consolidation testing would have been used in assessing the stress history and
compressibility characteristics of the Clayey Silt.
Electronic cone penetration testing (CPT) was conducted at the location of SH/SCPT12-07. A sonic drill
was used to drill and set a casing from surface to a depth of 8.9 m, prior to pushing the cone in the
ground. Based on interpreted information from the CPT, a clayey silt layer was encountered between
approximately 11.0 m and 11.4 m depth. A total cone tip resistance (qt) of approximately 8 bars was
observed in the central portion of this layer. Based on in-situ CPT dissipation testing, the water table at
the time of testing was estimated to be at a depth of 1.5 m below ground surface. The undrained shear
strength (Su) in the clayey silt can be evaluated from the CPT data using the following relationship:
qt   vo
S u CPT  ........................................................ (4)
N kt
Where, σvo is the total vertical stress (approximately 220 kPa in the zone of interest); and
Nkt is an empirical factor that typically varies between 10 and 20 in soft clays.
Based on prior experience with shallow soft clays in the greater Vancouver area, the Nkt factor is
generally on the order of 16 to 17. This is based on field vane test results to calibrate the CPT data that
have been corrected for the rate of strain during testing (Bjerrum (1972), Ladd et al. (1977), and Chandler
(1988)).
6
Considering an Nkt value of 17 and qt of 8 bars (or 800 kPa), the Su value in the clayey silt is estimated to
be on the order of 34 kPa.
The maximum past pressure profile can be developed from the undrained shear strength following the
Stress History and Normalized Soil Engineering Properties (SHANSEP) method (Ladd and Foott, 1974).
This procedure is based on the fact that many clays follow normalized behavior. In simple terms, this
means that many clayey soils have a unique value of undrained shear strength ratio, S u/v, in the
normally consolidated state; and there is a well-defined relationship between Su/v and overconsolidation
ratio, expressed by the equation:
 S  OCR ....................................................... (5)

Su m
 vo

Where, vo is the in-situ vertical effective stress;

S is the normalized strength ratio, Su/v, of normally consolidated soil
(typically 0.22 ± 0.03);
OCR is the overconsolidation ratio (p /v, where p is the maximum past pressure); and
m is an empirically determined exponent, typically varying between 0.7 and 0.9.
Equation 5 can be rearranged to determine OCR from the normalized strength parameters of the soil, as
follows:
1
 Su  m
 p   v 
OCR  
 v  S 
....................................................... (6)
 
Considering the water table at 1.5 m at the time of CPT testing, the vertical effective stress is estimated to
be 125 kPa. This results in Su/v being equal to 0.27, approximately.
Given that results of CKoU-DSS tests are not available at the site, preliminary values of S and m of 0.22
and 0.8, respectively, are considered herein. These values will need to be refined for any detailed level
design, once advanced laboratory test data becomes available.
Equation 6 can be rearranged to estimate the maximum past pressure,  p as:

1.25
 Su 
  
 p   v   v  ..................................................... (7)
 0.22 
 
 
For v = 125 kPa and Su/v = 0.27, the maximum past pressure and OCR are estimated to be on the
order of 160 kPa and 1.3, respectively.
However; given the lack of reliable advanced laboratory testing information, it was assumed in the
settlement evaluations that the Upper Clayey Silt will undergo virgin compression only (i.e., no
recompression) under the net load applied by the LGSWWTP structures.
Compressibility Parameters
Given that consolidation testing was not performed, a number of correlations from literature that are
based on index characteristics and in-situ void ratio were used to evaluate the compression index (C c).
The following index properties were considered:
7
 Liquid Limit, LL = 42;
 Plasticity Index, PI = 17;
 Natural water content, wn = 43%;
 Specific gravity, Gs = 2.6;
 In-situ void ratio, e = wn . Gs = 1.1; and
 In-situ porosity, n = e / (1+ e) = 0.52.
A summary of some of the relevant correlations for Cc are presented in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5: Compression index from index tests

Reference Relation Cc
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) Cc = 0.009 (LL - 10) 0.29
Nagaraj and Murty (1985) Cc = 0.2343 (LL/100) Gs 0.26
Park and Koumoto (2004) Cc = n / (371.747 – 4.275 n) 1 0.35
Holtz and Kovacs (1981) Cc = (0.156 e + 0.0107) (1 + e) 0.38
Based on the information presented above, a compression index of 0.3 was assigned to the Silty Clay.
2.4.2 Lower, Low to Medium Plastic Silt and Clay (within Layers 12 to 15)
Stress History
As noted in Section 2.1, two Atterberg Limits tests were carried out on the Lower low to medium plastic
silt and clay, which indicated Plasticity Index values of 9 and 12%, and Liquid Limit values of 29 and 30%.
Golder Associates described the above sediments as post-glacial Capilano sediments which are
considered to be raised glaciofluvial deltas. These deltas were formed as the rivers developed during
post-Vashon deglaciation which occurred approximately 11,000 to 13,000 years ago (Armstrong, 1983).
We note that the inferred (N1)60 values have been based on Becker Penetration Testing and measured
fines contents in the various strata. The degree to which skin friction during Becker casing advance could
have affected measured blow counts, possibly making the blow counts and inferred (N1)60 values too
high, is unknown. We have carried out a comparison of (N1)60 values determined from electronic cone
penetration testing at location SCPT12-07. It is noted that only one electronic cone test has been carried
out at the site. The (N1)60 values determined from the cone data between 20 and 30 m depth (within Silty
Sand and Sand deposits at the cone hole location) were in close agreement with data determined from
various Becker Density Tests at other locations. Therefore we have relied on the inferred (N1)60 values
cited in the reports by Golder Associates as being representative of soil density states at greater depths
in the deeper Silt and Clayey Silt layers.
Estimates of degree of over-consolidation of the Lower low to medium plastic silt and clay are important
primarily in assessment of long term settlements of LGSWWTP structures under sustained static loading
conditions. Cyclic pore pressure generation under design levels of seismic shaking is also influenced by
the ratio of cyclic shearing stresses to dynamic undrained strength of these materials with the latter
influenced by degree of over-consolidation. The amount of post-seismic pore pressure generation would
dictate how much post-seismic consolidation could potentially occur in these deeper silt and clay deposits
Estimates of pre-consolidation pressure have been made using the following methods:
1) Estimate static undrained strength (Su) based on typical published correlations between N 60 and
Su (NAVFAC, 1971) using the equation S u = 3N60 considered appropriate for low plasticity clayey
silts (Method 1).
2) Estimate Su by converting N60 to equivalent cone tip resistance using correlations suggested by
Jefferies and Davies (1993) for silt subsoils, and then Equation 4 to evaluate Su from the tip
resistance (Method 2). Nkt = 20 was considered in Equation 4.
1 The porosity is used as a percentage in this equation

8
3) Estimate Su based on typical correlations with small strain shear modulus G max for low plasticity
silts (Vardanega and Bolton, 2013; Kim and Novak, 1981) where the following correlations have
been developed based on published laboratory test data using isotropically consolidated, triaxial
compression tests for soils with plasticity indices less than 15% (Method 3):
Gmax = 1700 Su
Gmax = (ɣt /g) Vs2
ɣt = total unit weight of soil
Vs = in situ shear wave velocity
Using the above estimates of Su, the OCR was computed based on the SHANSEP approach discussed
above. The lab based correlations reviewed by Vardanega and Bolton for low plasticity silts give S = 0.2
(see Equation 5) and this has been adopted in the present review. A value for the exponent m of 0.8 was
adopted as well in Equation 5.
Another method (Method 4) has also been used based on empirical correlations provided by Kootahi and
Mayne (2016) between pre-consolidation pressure, vertical effective overburden stress and basic index
tests (water content and Liquid Limit).
We reviewed field and laboratory test data presented in the reports by Golder Associates for the
interbedded Lower Silt unit; at 48 m depth it is calculated to have a vertical effective stress of
approximately 500 kPa. Using the four methods discussed above, and the laboratory test results, a
summary of estimated Su, pre-consolidation pressure p and OCR is provided in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Estimated Su, p, and OCR of Interbedded Lower Silt Deposits(1)
Method Su p OCR
(kPa) (kPa)
1(2) 140 761 1.52
2(3) 419 3000 5.99
3(4) 123 645 1.29
4(5) 125 663 1.33
Notes: (1) Effective vertical overburden stress at 48 m depth calculated equal to approximately 500 kPa
(2) Minimum equivalent clean sand N1,60 = 28 from Golder Associates data from 40 to 50 m depth. An
equivalent N1,60 of 28 has been assumed accounting for high fines content in the silt. An overburden stress
correction factor Cn = 0.6 has been calculated based on Idriss and Boulanger (2008), giving an equivalent
N60 = 47.
(3) A qc / N60 ratio of 2 has been used where qc is in units of bars. An N60 of 47 has been considered, as per
Note (2) above, giving an equivalent qc of 94 bars.
(4) Vs of 320 m/sec assumed at 48 m depth from the design V s versus depth profile given by Golder
Associates (2013). A total unit weight of 20 kN/m 3 has been used for the Lower Silt.
(5) A moisture content and liquid limit of 22% and 30%, respectively, have been considered based on
available Golder Associates data. The moisture content is at the upper end of the range of data presented
by Golder Associates.
Based on the various methods outlined above and available in-situ test or laboratory test data, the deep
interbedded sand/silt/clayey silt is considered to be lightly over-consolidated. Given the uncertainties
involved in some of the methods that were used and the lack of actual consolidation testing an effective
OCR of 1.1 has been adopted for purposes of settlement analyses.
Compressibility Parameters
Given that consolidation testing was not performed, a number of correlations from the literature that are
based on the index characteristics and the in-situ void ratio were used to evaluate the compression index
(Cc). The following index properties were considered:
9
 Liquid Limit, LL = 30;
 Natural water content, wn = 22%;
 Specific gravity, Gs = 2.6;
 In-situ void ratio, e = wn . Gs = 0.57; and
 In-situ porosity, n = e / (1+ e) = 0.36.
A summary of some of the relevant correlations for Cc are presented in Table 2.7.
Table 2.7: Compression Index from Index Tests

Reference Relation Cc
Terzaghi and Peck (1967) Cc = 0.009 (LL - 10) 0.18
Nagaraj and Murty (1985) Cc = 0.2343 (LL/100) Gs 0.18
Park and Koumoto (2004) Cc = n / (371.747 – 4.275 n) 0.17
Holtz and Kovacs (1981) Cc = (0.156 e + 0.0107) (1 + e) 0.16
Based on the information presented in Table 2.7, a compression index of 0.2 was considered for the
interbedded Lower Silt undergoing virgin compression. A rebound compression index, Cr, (used to
estimate compression settlements in the over-consolidated range) equal to 0.2xCc has also been
considered in settlement analyses, based on typical published data and our experience.
3.0 SETTLEMENT EVALUATIONS
One dimensional settlement methods were employed using the computer program Settle3D, Version
3.019 by Rocscience Inc. The program calculates three dimensional stresses due to foundation loads;
however displacements (settlement) and pore pressures are computed in one-dimension, assuming only
vertical displacements can occur. This is in keeping with general geotechnical engineering practice.
Material parameters are specified to reflect the one-dimensional nature of the analysis.
Initially the long-term static settlement of two foundation options were evaluated for the Digesters; this
structure is one of the most heavily loaded with an estimated gross sustained bearing pressure of
208 kPa provided by structural engineers for the project. The following parameters were used for the raft
foundation:
 24 m by 57 m in plan dimensions;
 Dead load of 280 MN;
 Gross sustained bearing pressure of 205 kPa;
 Existing grade at elevation +3.1 m;
 Groundwater table at +1 m;
 Underside of foundation at -2.5 m;
 Unit weight of surficial soil of 19 kN/m 3; and
 Net bearing pressure of 134 kPa.
The two foundation options evaluated are:
A) Raft slabs supported on driven steel pipe piles (Option A); and
B) Shallow foundations supported on stone columns (Option B).
Option A, Raft Slab Supported on Driven Piles
Option A assumes foundations will be supported on steel pipe piles driven to approximately 30 m depth.
Assuming a pure friction pile, the neutral plane is estimated at about 2/3 the depth of the pile. Fellenius
(2016) suggests using a 5 Vertical to 1 Horizontal (5V:1H) stress distribution from the neutral plane to the
pile tip; below the pile tip a Boussinesq stress distribution was used.
The subsurface parameters used in the settlement evaluation are based on the analyses described in the
preceding sections. A summary of the parameters used in this evaluation is provided in Table 3.1.
10
Table 3.1: Summary of Subsurface Parameters for Option A, Raft Slab Supported on Driven Piles
Layer Soil Type Thickness Bulk Eoed, Cc, Cr, OCR
Number (m) Density Constrained Compression Re-
(kN/m3) Modulus Index compression
(kPa) Index
1-3 Structural 7.5 21.3 167000 - - -
Fill
4 Sand and 2.5 20 65200 - - -
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(1)
5 Clayey Silt 3 18 2940 - - -
6 Sand and 3 20 77000 - - -
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(2)
7 Sand and 5 20 84900 - - -
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(3)
8 Sand to 5 19 93500 - - -
Silty Sand
(1)
9 Sand to 5 19 101000 - - -
Silty Sand
(2)
10 Sand to 6 19 109000 - - -
Silty Sand
(3)
11 Sand to 7 19 117000 - - -
Silty Sand
(4)
12 Lower Silt 10 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(1)*
13 Lower Silt 10 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(2)*
14 Lower Silt 13 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(3)*
15 Lower Silt 13 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(4)*
* Based on the interlayered nature of the Lower Silt layers, it is assumed that only 40% of the thicknesses undergoes
consolidation settlement.
Based on the loading conditions and subsurface parameters noted above, it is estimated that settlement
could be approximately 42 mm. Note that this does not include elastic pile compression. Separate
analyses of elastic pile compression were carried out using the program GROUP (Ensoft, 2016) which
indicated under average vertical loads per pile equal to 2333 kN (with no group interaction effect) pile
head elastic settlements of approximately 4 mm. Group interaction is estimated to increase pile head
settlements to between 10 and 20 mm.
Option B: Shallow Foundation Supported on Stone Columns
Option B assumes rigid foundations will be supported on stone columns that extend to approximately
30 m depth. Analyses assumed a Boussinesq stress distribution below the foundation and an increase in
relative density of the treated soil, which in turn will result in higher modulus.
The subsurface parameters used in the settlement evaluation are based on the parameters described in
the preceding sections. A summary of the parameters used in this evaluation is provided in Table 3.2.
11
Table 3.2: Summary of Subsurface Parameters for Option B, Shallow Foundations Supported on
Stone Columns
Layer Soil Type Thickness Bulk Eoed, Cc, Cr, OCR
Number (m) Density Constrained Compression Re-
(kN/m3) Modulus Index compression
(kPa) Index
1-3 Structural 7.5 21.3 167000 - - -
Fill
4 Sand and 2.5 20 89800 - - -
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(1)
5 Clayey Silt 3 18 23500 - - -
6 Sand and 3 20 106000 - - -
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(2)
7 Sand and 5 20 117000 - - -
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(3)
8 Sand to 5 19 129000 - - -
Silty Sand
(1)
9 Sand to 5 19 139000 - - -
Silty Sand
(2)
10 Sand to 6 19 109000 - - -
Silty Sand
(3)
11 Sand to 7 19 117000 - - -
Silty Sand
(4)
12 Lower Silt 10 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(1)*
13 Lower Silt 10 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(2)*
14 Lower Silt 13 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(3)*
15 Lower Silt 13 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(4)*
* Based on the interlayered nature of the Lower Silt layers, it is assumed that only 40% of the thicknesses undergoes
consolidation settlement.
Based on the loading conditions and subsurface parameters noted above, it is estimated that settlement
could be approximately 45 mm in the upper soils treated with stone columns, and 8 mm in the
compressible layers within the Lower Silt, for a total settlement of approximately 53 mm.
Comparison of Option A with Option B settlements indicates no significant difference in computed

settlements using the estimated compressibility parameters. The use of a pile foundation solution leads to
greater stress transfer to the deep seated silt deposits and more settlement occurring at larger depths.
The use of a raft slab supported on stone columns leads to more settlement in the upper compressible
layers and less stress transfer to the deep silt deposits.
Considering the uncertainties in the stress history, compressibility characteristics, and stratigraphy
(particularly the Lower Silt) it is recommended that additional investigation and analyses be carried out for
design.
Based on discussions with the project design team it is understood that Option B, Shallow Foundations
Supported on Stone Columns is the preferred foundation alternative.
12
3.1 Additional Evaluation of Option B
Further evaluation of foundation Option B was carried out to account for stress superposition from loading
by adjacent foundations, the foundation loads noted in Table 3.3 were applied to the LGSWWTP
indicative site plan configuration. These loads should be considered preliminary and were provided by the
structural engineers for the design team.
Table 3.3: Summary of Foundation Loads

Location Area (m2) Foundation Depth Net Foundation
Below OGS (m) Pressure (kPa)
Digesters 1368 5.5 134
Solids 1995 0 135
Sludge Dewatering 396 0 60
Influent Pumping and Headworks 504 11.2 27
Wet Well 155 11.2 85
Stores Building 420 0 60
Bioreactor 3120 2.3 168
Power Generation and Heating 792 0 60
UV Disinfection 409 2.3 40
Secondary Clarifiers (A) 2229 4.3 163
RSS Pumps 320 7.2 14
Secondary Clarifiers (B) 1984 4.3 163
Operations and Maintenance 1488 0 85
To account for future site grading and landscaping, 19 kPa was applied to the site area outside of the
plant footprint.
Settlement below the center of heavily loaded structures was calculated and is summarized in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Summary of Settlement below Heavily Loaded Structures

Location Settlement above Settlement within Total Settlement
Lower Silt (mm) Lower Silt (mm) (mm)
Digesters 36 15 51
Solids 31 25 56
Bioreactor 44 30 74
Secondary Clarifier (A) 50 21 71
Secondary Clarifier (B) 48 15 63
3.2 CN Rail Line
A CN Rail line lies immediately south of the site, generally between 3 and 8 m from the south property
line. To analyze settlement below the railway, the stress distribution for the LGSWWTP was applied to an
average soil stratigraphic profile developed from boreholes near the southern edge of the site. The
subsurface parameters used in the stratigraphic profile are those discussed, and are summarized in
Table 3.5.
13
Table 3.5: Summary of Subsurface Parameters below Railway
Layer Layer Bulk Eoed, Cc, Cr, OCR
Thickness Density Constrained Compression Re-
(m) (kN/m3) Modulus (kPa) Index compression
Index
A† Rail Ballast 1.5 20 - - - -
B† Sand Fill 1 20 - - - -
C† Clayey Silt 0.5 18 - - - -
D† Sandy 5.5 20 - - - -
Gravel
E† Sand and 2 20 - - - -
Silt to Fine
Sand (1)
F† Sand and 2 19 - - - -
Silt to Fine
Sand (2)
5 Clayey Silt 0.8 18 - 0.3 - 1.0
and Sandy
Silt
6 Sand and 2.7 20 77000 - - -
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(1)
7 Sand and 5 20 84900
Gravel to
Silty Sand
(2)
8 Sand to 5 19 93500 - - -
Silty Sand
(1)
9 Sand to Silty 5 19 101000
Sand (2)
10 Sand to Silty 6 19 109000
Sand (3)
11 Sand to Silty 7 19 117000
Sand (4)
12 Lower Silt 10 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(1)*
13 Lower Silt 10 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(2)*
14 Lower Silt 13 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(3)*
15 Lower Silt 13 20 - 0.2 0.04 1.1
(4)*
† Layers do not experience significant loading stress from plant site, and are considered incompressible
for this analysis.

* Based on the interlayered nature of the Lower Silt layers, it is assumed that only 40% of the thicknesses
undergoes consolidation settlement.
Settlement below the railway is summarized in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Summary of Settlement below Railway

Location Immediate Consolidation Total Settlement
Settlement (mm) Settlement (mm) (mm)
16 m South of Influent 4 8 12
Pumping and Headworks
14 m South of UV 7 10 17
Disinfection
17 m South of RSS 8 10 18
Pumps
14
Note that the settlement presented in Table 3.5 does not include drawdown effects from temporarily
lowering the groundwater table during construction.
Closure
This memorandum presents the results of preliminary settlement modelling and evaluation for two
foundation scenarios at the Lions Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant project. It has been
prepared for the exclusive use of the ADAPT Lions Gate WWTP design team. Any use which a third party
makes of this memo, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it are the responsibility of such third
parties. Amec Foster Wheeler accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as
a result of decisions made or actions based on this memorandum.
This memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We trust this memorandum provides the
information required at the present time. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at
your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure
A Division of Amec Foster Wheeler Americas Limited
Eric Mohlmann, P.Eng.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Reviewed by:
Makram El Sabbagh, M.Sc., P.Eng. W. Blair Gohl, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Associate Geotechnical Engineer Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer
15
List of References
Armstrong, J.E. (1983), “Environmental and Engineerinng Applications of the Surficial Geology of the
Fraser Lowland, British Columbia”, Geologic Survey of Canada, paper 83-23.
Bjerrum, L. (1972). “Embankments on Soft Ground: State of the Art Report,” Proc. ASCE, Specialty
Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures, Vol. 2, pp. 1-54.
Byrne, P. M., Cheung, H., and Yan, L., 1987. Soil Parameters for Deformation Analysis of Sand Masses.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 366 – 376.
Chandler, R.J. (1988). “The In-Situ Measurement of the Undrained Shear Strength of Clays Using the
Field Vane: State of the Art Paper,” ASTM, STP 1014, Vane Shear Strength Testing in Soils, Field,
and Laboratory Studies, Conshohoken, PA, pp. 13-44.
Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P., Wong, K. S., and Marby, P., (1980). Strength, Stress-Strain, and Bulk Modulus
Parameters for Finite element Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses. University of
California, Berkeley, CA. Report No. UCB/GT/80-01.
Fellenius, B.H. (2016), “Basics of Foundation Design”, Electronic Edition. www.Felinius.net.
Holtz, R.D., and Kovacs, W.D. (1981), “An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering”, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008), “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes”, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, MNO-12.
Jefferies, M.G. and Davies, M.P. (1993), “Use of CPTu to Estimate Equivalent SPT N60”, Geotechnical
Testing Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, December 1993, pp. 458-468.
Kim, T.C. and Novak, M. (1981), “Dynamic Properties of Some Cohesive Soils of Ontario”, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, vol. 18, pp. 371-389.
Kootahi, K., and Mayne, P.W. (2016), “Index Test Method for Estimating the Effective Preconsolidation
Stress in Clay Deposits”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, May
2016, pp.
Ladd, C.C., Foott, R., Ishihara, K., and Poulos, H.G. (1977). “Stress, Deformation, and Strength
Characteristics,” Proc. 9th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Tokyo, Vol. 2, pp. 421-494.
Ladd, C.C., and DeGroot, D.J. (2003). “Recommended Practice for Soft Ground Site Characterization:
Arthur Casagrande Lecture”, Proc. of the 12th Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Boston, MA, 1:3-57.
NAVFAC (1971), “Soil Mechanics, Foundations and Earth Structures”, Design Manual DM-7, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA.
Vardanega, P.J. and M.D. Bolton (2013), “Stiffness of Clays and Silts: Normalizing Shear Modulus and
Shear Strain”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, vol. 139, no. 9,
September 2013, pp. 1575-1589.
16
Appendix B
Lateral Pile Capacity Estimate
(email from TT dated Aug. 31, 2016)

Makram/Eric/Blair:
Lateral Pile Capacity/Number of Piles:
Following shows the pile head stiffness plot for a 914 mm x 19 mm pile under seismic conditions
(no ground improvement). Based on the pushover analysis, the maximum shear load that can be
carried by this pile is about 1700 kN. At this load the pile head would deform by ~ 50 mm.
Structural engineer should confirm whether this is acceptable. If not, we will need more piles. The
estimated plastic moment is about 5800 kNm.
Dragisa provided a base shear force of 70,000 kN for seismic loading. Without considering the
contributions from passive earth pressures and base shear, I can calculate the number of piles
required as 70,000/1700 ~ 40 piles. This is a conservative estimate because we have not
considered the additional resistances.
Appendix C
Ultimate Bearing Capacity Under Static Loading

Conditions
Analysis of the ultimate bearing capacity of raft slab foundations underlain by stone column improved
ground has been carried out considering static vertical loading. Under static loading conditions, it is
assumed that loads will be applied gradually and therefore full drainage will occur in the soils surrounding
the stone columns. This is considered to be a reasonable assumption given the added drainage that stone
columns impart to the soil mass. It is noted that since bottom feed methods of stone column construction
are proposed, the stone should be relatively uncontaminated by silt/clay size material and should therefore
be free draining.
Two methods have been used to calculate vertical ultimate bearing capacity, described below.
Method 1:
Classical, plasticity based, bearing capacity has been used as outlined in the Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual (2006) – Reference 8, and using the bearing capacity factors given in this publication.
This takes into account foundation area and shape, depth of foundation embedment, groundwater table
depth relative to the underside of the raft slab, load combinations applied to the slab (vertical, lateral, and
moment loading), and basic soil properties such as effective friction angle, effective cohesion, and soil unit
weight. The key assumption in application of this method is a requirement to assume a homogenized set
of soil strength properties that approximately reflects the influence of stone column densification of the soil
mass and the reinforcing effect of the stone columns within the soil. No interaction between closely spaced
foundations is also considered directly but we have considered this approximately by considering a very
wide foundation width encompassing a number of closely space foundations. The range of potential widths
and lengths of foundations is provided in Table 1 of the main part of this report.
We have neglected effective cohesion in the analysis. The method of computing the effective friction angle
of the soil mass and stone columns is outlined by Greenwood and Kircsch (1983) – Reference 9. The
effective friction angle depends on the area replacement ratio of the stone columns, the friction angle of the
stone columns, the drained friction angle of the soil surrounding the stone columns, and the stress
concentration factor in the stone column. While the soil profile and shear strength properties will be variable
over the length of the stone column, the minimum bearing capacity results from assuming a layer of softer,
normally consolidated clayey silt could exist near the top of the stone column. This is a conservative
assumption since a potential bearing failure would mobilize shear resistance over all soil layers down to
about the 2B depth below the raft slab, where B = the raft slab width. The following parameters have been
assumed in calculation of the effective friction angle:
 Friction angle of stone columns = 42 degrees

 Drained friction angle of silt to clayey silt = 30 degrees (considered representative of normally
consolidated material with a plasticity index of 10 to 15)
 Area replacement ratio of 0.10
 Ratio of stone column Young’s modulus to soil Young’s modulus = 3
 Stress concentration factor = 3
Based on the above assumptions an effective friction angle of the stone column – soil mass was calculated
equal to 34 degrees.
Considering the range of foundation sizes given in Table 1 in the main part of this report, assuming a
groundwater table at the underside of each raft slab, and using an average buoyant unit weight of the soil
mass equal to 10 kN/cu.m., the factored ultimate vertical bearing capacities for each foundation are
summarized in Table C-1. The depth of embedment of each raft is assumed to be 1 m greater than the
depth below original ground surface (elevation +3.1 m). The factored ultimate bearing capacities have been
computed from the ultimate resistances using a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.5. A minimum factored
ultimate bearing pressure of 925 kPa was computed under static vertical loading conditions. For
comparison, the preliminary gross bearing pressures under sustained dead load (termed Service Limit
State conditions) provided by the ADAPT structural engineering team are also shown. This comparison
indicates a very high factor of safety against bearing capacity failure. Sustained bearing pressures will
govern foundation design due to the relatively stringent static settlement tolerances of the various
foundations.
To examine the potential influence of stress overlap effects caused by closely spaced foundations, an
average foundation width of 14 m was assumed based on the Indicative Design Drawings. A foundation
length of 300 m was considered. Assuming a foundation embedment depth of 1 m below final site grade,
a factored ultimate bearing pressure of 1200 kPa was computed, far greater than the average sustained
gross bearing pressures acting on the foundations.
The above calculations are considered, in general, to be conservative where the upper layers of silt and
clayey silt are thin or absent. If this is the case, the equivalent drained friction angle will be increased by
about 3 degrees considering a silty sand material around the stone columns.
Table C-1
Summary of Ultimate and Factored Bearing Capacities – Method 1 Calculation
Location Fdn. Fdn. Fdn. Depth Gross Factored

Width Length Below OGS Bearing Ult. Bng.
(m) (m) (m) Pressure Capacity
(kPa) (kPa)
Digesters 24 57 5.5 208 2760
Solids 35 57 0 135 2250
Sludge 11 36 0 60 925
Dewatering
Influent Pumping 12 42 11.2 150 2900
and Headworks
Wet Well 5 31 11.2 208 2290
Stores Building 12 35 0 60 980
Primary Clarifiers 43 54 1 120 2720
Bioreactor 39 80 2.3 208 3010
Power Generation 27 36 0 60 1680
and Heating
UV Disinfection 17 43 2.3 80 1660
Secondary 32 62 4.3 222 2940
Clarifiers (A)
RSS Pumps 10 32 7.2 100 2080
Secondary 32 62 4.3 222 2940
Clarifiers (B)
Operations and 32 52 0 60 2075
Maintenance
Method 2:
The vertical bearing capacity of the composite stone column – soil system is computed using the following
series of steps based on general methods outlined in Reference 10:
 Calculate the ultimate vertical capacity of an isolated stone column based on cavity expansion
theory assuming a bulging mechanism failure. Vesic (1972) cavity expansion theory was used –
Reference 11. The calculations assumed a potential bulging failure at a depth where the stone
column was surrounded by clayey silt having an average effective friction angle of 30 degrees. The
clayey silt was assumed to exist at a depth of 8.5 m below original ground surface (or 9.5 m below
final site grade) with a vertical effective stress of 130 kPa at the top of the silt. Using a K0 value of
0.8 in the silt, the mean effective stress (σmo’) at the top of the silt is 112 kPa. Using typical rebound
compressibility properties of the silt after vibro-replacement, the Vesic theory gave the lateral soil
resistance to bulging failure of the stone column (based on spherical cavity expansion) as equal to
Nσ σmo’ with Nσ calculate equal to 10.4. The ultimate vertical bearing capacity of an isolated stone
column is then given as to Nσ σmo’ tan2(45 + φcol/2) where φcol is the friction angle of the stone
column (= 42 degrees). This gave an ultimate bearing capacity (σult,sc) of 5911 kPa for an individual
column.
 Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of the raft slab footing (q ult,soil) considering only the influence
of the soil mass, i.e. without the reinforcing effect of the stone columns. This calculation is carried
out using classical bearing capacity theory as discussed in Method 1 above based on an effective
friction angle of 34 degrees. The latter represents a global average of peak friction angles
throughout multiple layers with an emphasis on lower strength silt, sandy silt and clayey silt zones.
 Calculate the number of stone columns (Ncol) supporting the raft slab as Aslab/Agross where Aslab is
the raft slab area and Agross is the ground area treated by an individual stone column = S 2 sin(60º)
for a triangular grid spacing and S = 2.75 m.
 Allowing for vertical stress concentration in the stone columns, the maximum vertical load that can
be carried by all the stone columns supporting the raft slab is Vult,sc= SCF x Ncol (σult,sc)Acol where
Acol is the cross-sectional area of the stone column. A stone column diameter of 900 mm has been
assumed resulting in a cross-sectional area of 0.636 sq.m. A stress concentration factor SCF of
3.0 has been calculated based on an estimated stone column to soil modulus ratio of 3. The
calculation of SCF is based on principles of vertical strain compatibility between the soil and the
stone column. A value of SCF = 3 implies that the stone column carries 3 times the vertical stress
within the adjacent soil mass. This has typically been verified in embankment loading tests
supported by stone columns as well as nonlinear finite element analysis.
 The ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the soil mass is Vult,soil = qult,soil Aslab (1 – ARR) x SRF
where ARR is the area replacement ratio of the stone columns (=0.10). Here SRF is a strain
compatibility reduction factor, reflecting the fact that the bearing capacity of the soil mass will not
be fully mobilized by the time the ultimate bearing capacity of the stone column is developed. A
SRF value of 0.20 has been assumed.
 The ultimate bearing capacity of the combined stone column – soil system is then given as
qult= (Vult,sc + Vult,soil)/Aslab. The average stress in the stone columns σult,col = qult /[ARR(1-m) + m].
The average stress in the soil is σult,soil = m σult,col . The ratio of σult,col / σult,soil = SCF. Checks are
made that the average vertical stresses in the stone columns and the soil do not exceed the ultimate
bearing capacity of either component.
The composite ultimate bearing capacity for the Sludge Dewatering raft slab was checked using Method 2
since this has the lowest ultimate bearing capacity of all raft slab foundations. An ultimate bearing capacity
of 2060 kPa was computed, resulting in a factored bearing capacity of about 1000 kPa. This is similar to
the Method 1 result.
The interaction between the densified/reinforced ground and stone columns is complex. For situations
where foundation bearing pressures are highest and there are thicker zones of softer clayey silt or silt near
the top of the stone columns (i.e. within about 2 foundation widths below the raft slab), then nonlinear finite
element or finite difference modeling should be carried out to confirm that raft slab deflections are not
excessive under the design bearing pressures.
Appendix D
Ultimate Bearing Capacity Under Inclined Eccentric

Loading Conditions
Sept 21, 2016

Analysis of the ultimate bearing capacity of raft slab foundations underlain by stone column improved
ground has been carried out considering static inclined eccentric loading. Inclined eccentric loading of raft
slabs will occur during seismic loading when structural inertia loads will be applied (lateral and vertical
loads, overturning moment loads). These loads are applied cyclically. Use of a static bearing capacity
analysis is considered appropriate to evaluate whether bearing capacity failure is likely under peak loading
conditions and factors of safety against bearing failure. However a static bearing capacity analysis provides
no information on cyclic deformations and rotations of the raft slab foundation for which more detailed soil
– stone column – raft slab interaction analysis is required using finite element or finite difference methods.
This type of advanced analysis is recommended for future work once cyclic foundation loads are better
defined.
We have considered herein lateral and moment loads applied to the digestor raft slab based on the following
design parameters provided by the ADAPT team structural engineers:
 Raft slab area = 24 m x 57 m

 Raft slab embedment = 6.5 m below final site grade
 Sustained vertical load = 280 MN
 Lateral inertia load at foundation level = 140 MN
 Moment load at foundation level about longitudinal axis of slab = 2010 MN-m
The inertial loads have been estimated assuming Site Class D soil conditions after ground improvement.
The two methods to evaluate ultimate bearing capacity described in Appendix C have been used with the
following adjustments to consider inclined eccentric loading:
Method 1:
Classical, plasticity based, bearing capacity has been used as outlined in the Canadian Foundation
Engineering Manual (2006) – Reference 8, and using the bearing capacity factors given in this publication.
Application of combined vertical, lateral and moment loading about the longitudinal axis of the raft slab is
considered. This results in inclined eccentric loading and reduction in effective plan area (effective width
and length) of the raft slab to resist the applied loads.
The following parameters have been assumed in calculation of the effective “homogenized” friction angle:
 Friction angle of stone columns = 42 degrees

 Drained friction angle of silt to clayey silt = 30 degrees (considered representative of normally
consolidated material with a plasticity index of 10 to 15)
 Area replacement ratio of 0.10
 Ratio of stone column Young’s modulus to soil Young’s modulus = 3
 Stress concentration factor = 3
Based on the above assumptions an effective friction angle of the stone column – soil mass was calculated
equal to 34 degrees. An average buoyant unit weight of the soil mass equal to 10 kN/cu.m. was also used
in the calculations.
Under the loads and moments provided above and considering rigid raft slab rotation a peak bearing stress
at the outside edge of the raft slab of 572 kPa was computed (over and above soil overburden stress levels).
An ultimate bearing capacity of 1240 kPa was computed, providing a factor of safety against bearing failure
under the outside edge of the raft slab of about 2.2. This satisfies the requirements of the Project Agreement
since factors of safety of at least 1.5 have to be achieved against overturning.
Method 2:
The reduced effective width and effective length of the raft slab computed from Method 1 were used in the
calculations to determine the number of stone columns under the effective area of the slab. An effective
width and length of 9.6 m and 42.6 m, respectively, were used in the calculations. Bearing capacity was
computed considering a potential bulging failure of the stone column in an assumed thick clayey silt layer
near the tops of the stone columns. Under rapid cyclic loading conditions, undrained response of the clayey
silt has been assumed. The following parameters have been assumed in the calculations specific to soil
conditions in the vicinity of the digestor based on available geotechnical information:
 Clayey silt layer assumed to be at a depth of 10 m below final site grade and to have a thickness
of 3 m
 Initial vertical effective stresses at the top of the clayey silt layer after 1 m of additional grade fill
placement = 145 kPa. This assumes the following soil profile: 6.5 m of compacted structural fill
down to the underside of the raft slab, underlain by 1 m of compacted structural fill followed by 2.5
m of stone column improved sand and gravel and silty sand, overlying the clayey silt layer. A
groundwater table at a depth of 3.1 m below final ground surface was assumed.
 Undrained shear strength of the clayey silt = 0.25 times the vertical effective stress = 36 kPa.
 Modulus ratio between stone column and clayey silt = 3 to 4 resulting in a stress concentration
factor in the range of 3 to 4 (i.e. the stone column carries 3 to 4 times more vertical load than the
adjacent soil mass)
 A strain reduction factor (SRF) = 0.20
The calculations indicated an ultimate bearing capacity in the range of 880 to 1100 kPa providing a factor
of safety of at least 1.5 against bearing failure under inclined eccentric loading (considering maximum edge
pressures of 572 kPa discussed above). Calculations are sensitive to the stress concentration factor
(modulus ratio) assumed for the stone columns. Where the clayey silt is not present and the stone columns
reinforce/densify the native granular soils, the bearing capacity under the raft slab edges under inclined
eccentric loading will be much higher than the above numbers indicate. Where significant thicknesses of
normally consolidated clayey silt or silt are found to be present under heavily loaded foundations it may be
necessary to locally increase the concentration of stone columns (increase the area replacement ratio) to
improve bearing capacity under inclined eccentric loading conditions and reduce cyclic deflections/rotations
of the raft slabs.
The interaction between the densified/reinforced ground and stone columns is complex. For situations
where foundation bearing pressures are highest and there are thicker zones of softer clayey silt or silt near
the top of the stone columns (i.e. within about 2 foundation widths below the raft slab), then nonlinear finite
element or finite difference modeling should be carried out to confirm that raft slab deflections and rotations
are not excessive under the design bearing pressures. The modeling will also be useful to examine the
potential for bulging failure of softer clayey silt zones (where present) located near the tops of the stone
columns and stress concentration effects.
Appendix E
Simplified Methods of Calculation of Static

Coefficients of Vertical Subgrade Reaction
Sept. 21, 2016

Coefficients of vertical subgrade reaction were calculated using approximate simplified procedures for
purposes of raft slab structural design for the Lions Gate WWTP project. The following design assumptions
were used:
 Raft slab thicknesses in the range of 1 to 2.5 m

 Young’s modulus of concrete = 2.17 x 107 kPa
 Poisson’s ratio of concrete = 0.17
 Raft slabs underlain by 1 m of well compacted structural fill consisting of 25 mm minus clean
crushed gravel underlain by pre-existing fill or native soils improved using stone columns
 Stone columns anticipated to have a constructed diameter of 0.9 m spaced at 2.75m centres
arranged in a triangular grid configuration. The latter results in an area replacement ratio (ARR) of
0.097 where ARR = stone column cross section divided by the tributary area treated of an individual
stone column (= S2 sin(60º) where S = 2.75 m).
Using the theory of elastic slabs resting on homogeneous elastic subgrades (Scott, 1981) coefficients of
vertical subgrade reaction have been calculated in terms of the slab properties, and the effective Young’s
modulus (Es,eff) and Poisson’s ratio (νs) of the underlying subgrade. Given the composite nature of the
subgrade (thin layer of compacted structural fill underlain by stone column reinforced/densified fills and
native ground), determination of an effective Es,eff is not straightforward. The methodology to calculate Es,eff
is outlined as follows:
 Calculate a tangent bulk modulus (Bfill) of the upper 1 m thick layer of structural fill at the mid-depth
of the layer using the formula Bfill = Kb patm (σm0/patm)m where patm is atmospheric pressure, σm0 is
the in situ horizontal effective stress prior to foundation load application, and K b and m are empirical
constants. σm0 was calculated in terms of the effective overburden pressure (σv0) using the formula
σm0 = [(1+2K0)/3] σv0 where K0 is the earth pressure at rest. A groundwater table at the underside
of raft slab was assumed and therefore buoyant soil unit weights were used in the calculations. The
various parameters used in the analysis are given in Table E-1 which are considered appropriate
for well compacted structural fill. From the tangent bulk modulus and using an assumed Poisson’s
ratio in the fill of 0.32, the tangent Young’s modulus of the structural fill (Es,str) was calculated using
the standard equations of isotropic elasticity.
 Calculate an average tangent bulk modulus of the underlying densified ground over the depth range
of hstr to Heff where hstr = 1.0 m and Heff is an effective depth. The assumed bulk modulus
parameters used to define the densified ground are given in Table E-1. A range of bulk modulus
parameters was assumed reflecting approximately potential differences in soil type treated using
stone columns. Heff is defined as α/β where β is the inverse of the characteristic length of the soil-
slab system defined by Scott in terms of the slab characteristics (modulus, Poisson’s ratio,
thickness) and the effective Young’s modulus (Es,eff) and Poisson’s ratio (νs) of the soil, and α is a
depth factor. The tangent Young’s modulus of the densified ground (Es,ground) is calculated in terms
of the bulk modulus and Poisson’s ratio using a Poisson’s ratio of 0.32. Heff is calculated after
successive iterations of Es,eff described below.
 Calculate the average tangent bulk modulus of a stone column over the depth range of h str to Heff
using the bulk modulus parameters given in Table E-1 and from the average stone column bulk
modulus calculate the tangent Young’s modulus (Es,sc) using the equations of elasticity and a
Poissons’ ratio of 0.25.
 The effective Young’s modulus is calculated by pro-rating the moduli of the various soil and stone
column components using the formula:
Es,eff = [(Es,str hstr) + (Es,ground (Heff – hstr)(1-ARR) + Es,sc (Heff – hstr) ARR]/Heff
where ARR is the stone column area replacement ratio. Since H eff depends on the inverse of the
characteristic length parameter β which in turn depends on E s,eff and slab properties, an iterative
calculation procedure is required to calculate H eff and Es,eff.
From the Es,eff value, the coefficient of subgrade reaction k vert is computed from the following equation
based on the theory of three dimensional (3D) slabs on elastic media (Scott, 1981 after Vesic, 1973):
kvert = 0.91 Es,eff/(h(1 - νs2)) [(Es,eff(1-ν2))/(E(1-νs2))]0.33
where ν is the Poisson’s ratio of the concrete slab (= 0.17), E is the Young’s modulus of the slab (=
2.17 x 107 kPa) and h is the slab thickness. The computed kvert values are given in Table E-2.
Scott has recommended averaging moduli over a depth equal to 2.5 times β for soil media whose
moduli increases with depth and therefore α = 2.5 was used in the calculations.
A summary of computed k vert values and the effective depth of slab influence H eff is provided in Table
E-2.
Table E-1
Summary of Soil Properties
Coefficient of Subgrade Reaction Analysis
Soil Type Thk. γ' K0 Kb m ν

(m) (kN/m3)
Structural fill 1.0 11.6 0.6 1250 0.5 0.32
Densified
30 10.0 0.6 500 - 1000 0.5 0.32
Ground
Stone Column 30 11.0 0.6 1250 0.5 0.25
Notes: Kb = tangent bulk modulus parameter

m = tangent bulk modulus parameter
ν = Poisson’s ratio
γ’ = buoyant unit weight of structural fill, densified ground or stone column
Table E-2
Summary of Computed Static Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction
Slab Thk. kvert Heff

(m) (MN/m3) (m
1.0 8 - 15 8.4 – 9.8
1.5 6.5 - 12 11.9 – 13.9
2.0 6 - 11 15.2 – 17.7
2.5 5 - 10 18.4 – 21.5
List of References
1. Byrne, P. M., Cheung, H. and Yan, L. (1987), “Soil parameters for deformation analysis of sand
masses”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 24, pp. 366-376.
2. Duncan, J.M. et al. (1980), “Strength, Stress-Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite
Element Analysis of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses”, University of California, Berkeley,
report no. UCB/GT/80-01.
3. Scott, R.F. (1981), “Foundation Analysis”, chapter 5, “Flexible Beams and Slabs on Winkler
Foundation”, Prentice-Hall Inc.
4. Vesic, A.S.(1973), “Slabs on Elastic Subgrade and winkler’s Hypothesis”, 8 th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow
Appendix F
Ribbed Raft Slab Shear Interaction with Compacted

Structural Fill
Sept. 21, 2016

A nonlinear, 2D, finite element model incorporating ribbed raft slab – structural fill interaction subjected to
static lateral shear loading was developed using the program LSDYNA, version 970. The purpose of the
modeling was to confirm that by increasing the roughness at the base of the slab through incorporation of
spaced ribs (sometimes referred to as a “waffle slab”) the lateral resistance on the base of the slab would
be increased to develop the full frictional shear resistance of the underlying structural fill.
The 2D FE model features include:
 24 m wide ribbed slab with ribs spaced at 2 m intervals

 Incorporation of raft slab – soil slip and gapping through use of contact elements
 Rigid raft slab behaviour
 1 m thick zone of compacted structural fill under the slab
 Compacted structural fill placed beyond the slab
 All soils under the water table
 Application of self-weight gravity loads plus a sustained vertical bearing stress of 208.3 kPa on the
slab prior to application of lateral shear loading to the top of the slab
 Elastic – plastic soil response incorporating a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion using the soil
properties given in Table F-1.
The layout of the 2D model is shown in Figure F-1. The displaced shape of the model showing lateral X-
displacement contours at the point of maximum lateral load applied to the slab (5500 kN/m) is shown in
Figure F-2. The computed lateral load versus lateral X-displacement at the top of the slab is shown in Figure
F-3. This indicates that the ultimate lateral resistance is in excess of V tan φ where V is the vertical load (=
208.3 * 24 = 5000 kN/m) applied to the slab and φ is the peak friction angle of the fill (= 40 degrees). The
additional lateral resistance is apparently due to interaction between the ribs and the soil, generating
passive soil resistance. From the analysis, it appears conservative to assume an ultimate lateral shear
resistance on the base of the ribbed slab = V tan φ.
Figure F-1: Two dimensional FE model layout showing 24 m wide, ribbed raft slab on compacted
structural fill.
Table F-1
Soil Type Thk. γ' Gmax B Vs Φ

(m) (kN/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (m/sec) (deg.)
Structural fill
1.0 12.5 181 116 281 40
under slab
Structural fill
1.0 12.5 157 60 262 38
beyond slab
Notes: γ’ = buoyant unit weight of structural fill

Gmax= small strain shear modulus
B = bulk modulus
Vs= small strain shear wave velocity
Φ = peak friction angle
Figure F-2: Contours of lateral X-displacement in the fill at maximum lateral loading (applied to the left
in the model) showing soil heave on the LHS of the model and gapping between the raft
slab and the soil at the RHS of the model.
Lateral Base Shear Resistance Vs. Lateral Movement
(24 m wide digestor ribbed base slab)
6000
5000
Lateral Load (kN/m)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Lateral Movement (mm)
LSDYNA model sigv' * tan(phi)*B
Figure F-3: Lateral load applied to the top of the raft slab versus lateral X-displacement of the slab.
List of References
1. Livermore Software (2001), “LSDYNA User’s Manual, version 970”

Appendix G
Lions Gate WWTP
Passive Static Earth Pressure Resistance

Finite Element Modeling
Sept. 21, 2016

A nonlinear, 2D, finite element model incorporating embedded basement wall – structural fill interaction
subjected to static lateral loading to develop passive earth pressures against the wall was developed using
the program LSDYNA, version 970. The purpose of the modeling was to calculate displacement levels
required to mobilize various levels of passive soil resistance and to check computed ultimate passive
resistances against traditional Coulomb earth pressure theory.
The 2D FE model features include:
 6.5 m deep basement wall with compacted structural fill placed next to the wall.
 Incorporation of basement wall – fill soil slip through use of contact elements.
 Rigid wall behaviour.
 The upper 3.0 m of the fill is assumed to be above the water table.
 Application of self-weight gravity loads prior to application of lateral loading to the wall. The lateral
loading was uniformly distributed over the wall height.
 Elastic – plastic soil response incorporating a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion using the soil
properties given in Table G-1.
The layout of the 2D model is shown in Figure G-1. The displaced shape of the model showing lateral X-
displacement contours at the point of maximum lateral load applied to the wall (4030 kN/m) is shown in
Figure G-2. A combination of lateral movement and rotation of the wall is seen at ultimate failure. The total
applied lateral load versus lateral X-displacement at the top of the wall is shown in Figure G-3. This
indicates that the ultimate passive soil resistance is about 4000 kN/m.
Figure G-1: Two dimensional FE model layout showing 6.5 m deep, rigid basement wall (shown in pink)
next to compacted structural fill.
Table G-1
Soil Type Thk. γ' Gmax B Vs Φ

(m) (kN/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (m/sec) (deg.)
Structural fill above
3.0 21.3 95 36 210 38
GWT behind wall
Structural fill below
3.5 12.5 157 60 262 38
GWT behind wall
Structural fill below
1.0 12.5 116 181 281 40
wall
Notes: γ’ = buoyant unit weight of structural fill (use total unit weight above GWT)
Gmax= small strain shear modulus
B = bulk modulus
Vs= small strain shear wave velocity
Φ = peak friction angle
Figure G-2: Contours of lateral X-displacement in the fill at maximum lateral loading applied to the wall.
Passive Earth Pressure Vs. Lateral Movement at Top of Wall
(6.5 m high basement wall)
4500
4000
Lateral Load (kN/m)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Lateral Movement (mm)
LSDYNA model
Figure G-3: Lateral load applied to the wall versus lateral X-displacement of the wall.
Using Coulomb earth pressure theory, the following parameters were considered:
 Wall embedment depth of 6.5 m

 Groundwater table equal to 3.0 m below site grade
 Backfill total unit weight of 21.3 kN/cu.m. represented of compacted sand and gravel fill above the
groundwater table
 Backfill buoyant unit weight of 12.5 kN/cu.m. below the groundwater table
 Friction angle of 38 degrees in the backfill
 Soil – wall interface friction angle of 20 degrees
 Coulomb passive earth pressure coefficient of 10.2
Based on the above parameters, an ultimate lateral passive soil resistance under static loading conditions
of 4034 kN per metre out of plane length of wall was computed using Coulomb earth pressure theory, in
good agreement with the FE model results. The FE model results indicate ultimate passive earth pressure
is mobilized at lateral deflections about equal to 6% of the wall embedment depth. The FE model results
indicate that passive earth pressure resistance equal to 1500 kN/m was mobilized at a lateral wall
movement of 25 mm which is considered to be a reasonable maximum wall deflection level that can be
tolerated in seismic design. This corresponds to an equivalent earth pressure coefficient of
(1500/4034)*10.2 = 3.8. This is 37% of the peak passive earth pressure coefficient. For design, a 1/3
reduction factor on ultimate passive earth pressure is recommended.
List of References
1. Livermore Software (2001), “LSDYNA User’s Manual, version 970”

Appendix H
Review of Seismic Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient
(email from TT dated Sept. 8, 2016)

Blair:
I have reviewed the values for earth pressures and sliding and they look reasonable.
PA refers to the CAN/CSA- S6 for the shallow foundation design. CAN/CSA- S6-14 states that kh
= ½ k0 can be used if the wall is allowed to deform by 25 mm to 50 mm. However k0 is equal to
F(PGA) x PGA_ref. Both PA (see Cl. 9.7.5. (g)) and CAN/CSA-S6 refers to site coefficients (i.e.,
F(PGA)) to estimate k0 instead of using the values from a site-specific analysis (SHAKE). Also I
think it is reasonable to use the site coefficients for a Site Class D site, if we are planning to
undertake ground improvement. If I use this approach, I obtain a kh of 0.168 and kv of
0.112. Then KPE is 7.4. CAN/CSA- S6-14 says that ….” The displacement required to mobilize
the seismic passive pressures against a wall should be taken as the same as the static
design”. Therefore using the same argument as in the static calculation, effective dynamic
passive earth pressure coefficient = (1500/4034)*7.4 = 2.7. Although I have used a slightly
different approach, I ended up with the same value as yours.
Regards
Lalinda Weerasekara, Ph.D., P.Eng. | Geotechnical Engineer

Direct +1 (778) 945-5887 | Mobile +1 (778) 877-5223 | Business +1 (604) 685-0275 |

GDM Ch-14 Ground Improvement

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GDM Ch-14 Ground Improvement

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Technical Memorandum

1.0 Background Information

 Foundations must be designed to meet the requirements of a post-disaster facility in accordance

Table 1 – Summary of Basic Foundation Design Parameters

Notes: (1) Assumes 1 m thick base slab

2.0 General Soil and Groundwater Conditions

3.0 General Foundation Design Considerations

Based on subsurface information provided by Golder Associates and subsequent confirmatory 1D

3.1 Comparison of Long-Term Static Settlements

A summary of the computed static settlements is presented below:

- Settlement in deep silt/sand below 42 m depth ≈ 8 mm

3.2 Static and Post-Seismic Axial Capacity Analysis

3.3 Post-Seismic Lateral Pile Capacity

3.4 Preliminary Relative Costing

4.0 Review of Excavation and Support Methods

5.0 Review of Dewatering Methods

6.0 Overall Geotechnical Design and Construction Approach

7.0 Plant Site Settlement Calculations under Sustained Dead Load

Table 2: Summary of Settlement below Heavily Loaded Structures

Key conclusions from the settlement modeling are:

8.0 Foundation Design Parameters

8.1 Factored Ultimate Bearing Capacity under Static Vertical Loading

8.2 Factored Ultimate Bearing Capacity Under Inclined Eccentric Loading

8.3 Coefficients of Vertical Subgrade Reaction for Static Loading

 Young’s modulus of concrete = 2.17e7 kPa

 Slab thickness = 1.0 m kvert = 8 to 15 MN/cu.m.

8.4 Sliding Shear Resistance on Bases of Raft Slabs

8.5 Passive Soil Resistance on Embedded Foundations

8.5.1 Static Passive Soil Resistance

8.5.2 Seismic Passive Soil Resistance

8.6 Design Elastic Surface Response Spectra

8.7 Static Earth Pressures on Embedded Basement Walls or Retaining Walls

Where: p = Lateral earth pressure (kPa) at depth h

Table 4: Static Lateral Earth Pressure Coefficients

Soil Type Active At rest Passive Total γ Buoyant γ φ

9.0 Ground Improvement

9.1 Stone Column Construction

9.2 Site Preloading

W. Blair Gohl, Ph.D., P.Eng. Makram El Sabbagh, M.Sc., P.Eng.

5. Tetra Tech (2016), “Technical Memo – Preliminary Post-Seismic Ground Displacements,

8. Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (2006), 4th edition

Appendix A – Static Foundation Settlement Analysis

Lions Gate Secondary WWTP

Evaluation of Static Settlement

Sept. 21, 2016

2.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND ENGINEERING CHARACTERIZATION

2.1 General Subsurface Conditions

2.2 Subsurface Stratigraphy Considered in Settlement Evaluations

Table 2.1: Subsurface Stratigraphy Considered in the Settlement Evaluations

Table 2.2b: Stratigraphy of Lower Silt, Borehole CHS13-02A

2.3 Moduli in Cohesionless Soils

Where,  is the drained Poisson’s ratio.

Beff  1  ARR  Bsoil  ARR BSC ........................................... (3)

2.4 Stress History and Compressibility Parameters in Cohesive Soils

2.4.1 Upper Clayey Silt (Layer 5)

 S  OCR ....................................................... (5)

Where, vo is the in-situ vertical effective stress;

Equation 6 can be rearranged to estimate the maximum past pressure,  p as:

Table 2.5: Compression index from index tests

1 The porosity is used as a percentage in this equation

Gmax = (ɣt /g) Vs2

ɣt = total unit weight of soil

Vs = in situ shear wave velocity

Table 2.7: Compression Index from Index Tests