Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report ...

P (604) 439 0922

F (604) 439 9189

geopacific.ca

1779 W 75th Ave.

Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6P 6P2

File: 18183 Proposed Mixed-Use Development – 3340 Lakeshore Drive, Kelowna, B.C.

CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS

Stober Group October 30, 2020

1700 – 1631 Dickson Avenue File: 18183

Kelowna, B.C.

V1Y 0B5

Attention: Mr. Bob Dagenais

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report: Proposed Mixed Use Development

3340 Lakeshore Road, Kelowna, B.C.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

We understand that the Stober Group intends to re-develop the above referenced site with a mixed-use

development. Based on the provided development plans, the development will consist of a three storey

podium with residential townhomes along the west and northwest perimeter and commercial/retail space

with mezzanine for the remaining perimeter of the podium, which encompasses an interior parkade.

Furthermore, we understand that two residential towers above the podium will be constructed on the

northeast and southeast portions of up to 14 stories, inclusive of the podium. At this time the towers are

envisioned to be terraced with the tallest portions located fronting Lakeshore Road. The proposed

improvements are anticipated to cover the majority of the site with the northern portion allocated for the

extension of Lanfranco Road. We understand that the proposed improvements will be founded at or near

existing grades. Although structural loading was not available at this time, we understand that the structure

is intended to be of reinforced concrete construction for the podium and towers. We envision that the

proposed structure would have moderate to heavy loading for the podium and high-rise tower construction,

respectively.

This report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the

proposed development. We envision that this report will be finalized once development plans and loading

has been finalized. Any changes to the proposed development described above must be provided for

GeoPacific’s review well in advance of construction.

This preliminary report has been prepared exclusively for Stober Group, for their use, and the use of others

within their design and construction team. We expect that the City of Kelowna will rely on this report during

the permitting process. No other use is permitted without the written consent of GeoPacific Consultants

Ltd.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site is located along the west side of Lakeshore Road, within the South Pandosy neighbourhood of

Kelowna. The site is currently improved with a mobile home park on the northern property with private

parking on the southern portion. The mobile home park contains mature trees and shurbs along the

perimeter, with access off of Lakeshore road. Access for the private parking lot on the south is off of Watt

Road and is relatively flat with minor gravel cover. The site is bounded by multi-family residential

developments to the north, Lakeshore Road and commercial development to the east, Gyro Beach to the

south, and Watt Road and a single-family strata development to the west. The site is relatively flat at an

elevation of approximately 343 m geodetic with an approximate area of 17,820 m2, according to Kelowna

Map Viewer. The site is roughly triangular converging towards the south with approximate property

frontage along the north and east property lines of 158 m and 178 m, respectively.

File: 18183 Proposed Mixed-Use Development – 3340 Lakeshore Drive, Kelowna, B.C..


The site location relative to the surrounding improvements is shown on our Drawing No: 18183-01,

following the text of this report.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION & SITE DATA

Between October 6th and 8th, 2020, GeoPacific completed a site-specific investigation. A total of 13 augered

test holes were advanced to depths of up to 13.7 Metres Below Existing Grades (mbg). Supplementing the

augered test holes, 6 Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings, 2 Seismic CPT and 2 Dilatometer Modulus

Tests (DMT) were advanced up to 40 mbgs. The drill equipment was supplied by OnTrack Drilling of

Langley, B.C.

The CPT is an in-situ device which is pushed into the ground employing a hydraulic ram on the drill rig.

The cone penetrometer records measurements of tip resistance, sleeve resistance, dynamic pore water

pressure, temperature, and inclination in 50 mm increments. The data obtained may be correlated to

estimate engineering parameters such as shear strength, relative density, soil behavior type, and

consolidation coefficients. The stratigraphic interpretation was verified with the auger test holes as

described above.

The flat dilatometer (DMT) is an in-situ testing device which is pushed into the ground by employing a

hydraulic ram on the drill rig. The DMT is a stainless-steel blade having a flat, circular steel membrane

mounted flush on one side. The blade is connected to a control unit on the ground surface by a pneumatic-

electrical tube (transmitting gas pressure and electrical continuity) running through the insertion rods. A

gas tank, connected to the control unit by a pneumatic cable, supplies the gas pressure required to expand

the membrane. The DMT determine the soil in-situ lateral stress and soil lateral stiffness and to estimate

some other engineering properties of subsurface soils. The DMT records pressures readings are used to

estimate the in-situ lateral stress and lateral soil stiffness. The data obtained may be correlated to

engineering parameters such as shear strength, friction angle, soil behavior type, and consolidation

coefficients. DMT results have been interpreted and correlated with other soil properties and used as the

basis for some engineering design methodologies.

The field investigation was supervised and the soils encountered were logged in the field by one of our

geologists and selected samples were taken to our laboratory for testing. The test holes were backfilled with

drill cuttings upon completion of logging and sealed with bentonite chips in accordance with provincial

abandonment requirements.

The test hole logs are presented in Appendix A. The CPT sounding data is presented in Appendix B.

Interpreted soil parameters are presented in Appendix C, liquefaction assessment in Appendix D, shear

wave velocity data is presented in Appendix E, dilatometer modulus data is presented in Appendix F, shear

vane data is presented in Appendix G and laboratory index testing is presented in Appendix H.

The approximate locations of the test holes, CPT/SCPT soundings and DMT locations are shown on our

Drawing No: 18183-01, following the text of this report.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Soil Conditions

The general geology of the region under investigation is described as post-glacial alluvial fan sediments

according to the Geological Survey of Canada Open File 6146 map. The alluvial fan sediments are

comprised of poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt and clay. This description is relatively consistent with that was

observed during our investigation.



A general description of the soils encountered in our test hole locations is given below, depicted from the

ground surface downward:

Fill

The test holes show up to 0.9 m of compact sand to sand and gravel fill. The sand to sand and gravel

fills encountered across the site are generally compact, brown and moist to slightly moist. The fill

layer encountered were generally between 0.3 m thick (where encountered) to 0.9 m thick.

Laboratory index testing indicates in-situ moisture contents between about 7% for this stratum.

Peat/Organic Silt

Only limited to test holes 10 and 11, a layer of organic silt/peat was encountered. The thickness of

the organic silt/peat was between 0.5 m to 0.9 m and found at the depths of 1.5 mbg to 2.7 mbg.

The organic silt is soft, semi-fibrous, brown and wet. It is generally accepted that organic silts/ peat

is compressible and leads to excessive settlement over time as the organic components decompose.

Laboratory index testing indicates moisture contents between 90% and 200% for the peat/organic

silt indicating a high compressibility potential of the stratum.

Sand to Silty Sand (Alluvial Sediments)

The fill is underlain by the natural soil deposits consisting of sand to silty sand which extends to

depths of between approximately 5.2 mbg to 8.4 mbg. The sand is generally fine to medium grained,

loose to compact becoming compact with depth, moist to wet and grey/brown-grey in colour. At

test hole 2, 5, 8, 9 and 12 layers of firm to stiff sandy silt was encountered below the fills and were

generally less than 0.8 m in thickness. At test hole 12 a layer of soft silt was encountered between

2.7 mbg and 4 mbg. The correlated corrected SPT blow counts in this sand region averages between

approximately 6 to 20 blows per 300 mm of penetration indicating the layer is loose to compact.

Laboratory index testing indicates the moisture content of the sand to silty sand averages around

15% to 80%.

Intermediate Silt (Alluvial Sediments)

The upper sand to silty sand is underlain by a sequence of sandy silt to silt. The silt was encountered

between the depths of approximately 8 mbg and 12 mbg, with some layers of firm sandy silt

encountered at depths of 5.2 mbg. Based on interpreted soil parameters, index testing and our

observations, the silt sequence is soft to firm with average undrained shear strengths between about

40 kPa and 60 kPa and is lightly over consolidated. An Atterberg Limit test was performed on a

sample obtained in the field and indicates that the silt contains a liquid limit of 52%. Average

moisture contents of sample obtained ranged between 35% and 68%, indicating that the layer of

silt is compressible under the new anticipated development loading.

Lower Sand (Alluvial Sediments)

The silt to sandy silt is underlain by a thick sequence of sand, generally encountered at 12 mbg and

extending to the depths of between 22 mbg and 38 mbg and was generally the final layer

encountered in our investigation. The lower sand stratum is compact to dense with interpreted

normalized blow counts (SPTn) of between 15 and 30 blows per 300 mm indicating the layer is

compact to dense. The sand is generally grey, wet, and contains trace fines.



Lower Silty Clay/Clayey Silt (Glaciolacustrine Sediments)

Between the depths of 22 mbg and 38 mbg, a layer of silty clay to clayey silt was encountered at

test holes 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. The silty clay to clayey silt layer is firm to stiff with average undrained

shear strengths between about 80 kPa and 100 kPa. Based on the undrained shear strength and our

experience with the layer has shown that it becomes moderately over consolidated with depth. The

lower silty clay to clayey silt layer is considered lightly compressible under the anticipated loading

of the high-rise towers.

4.2 Groundwater Conditions

The static groundwater table was noted at a depth of approximately 0.7 to 1.1 mbg, shallowest on the

western site located closest to Okanagan Lake. The water table elevation should be expected to fluctuate

seasonally and with the water levels of nearby Okanagan Lake. Water levels in the late spring to early

summer can be expected to increase by up to 1 m, as the lake levels rise.

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 General Comments

As noted above, re-development of the property is currently envisioned to consist of a 3 level podium

structure with mid-rise construction of two towers on the northeast and southeast portions of the podium,

terraced up to 14 stories. The proposed development is anticipated to be constructed at grade at this time;

however, the final construction elevation has not been confirmed.

Given the subsurface conditions and to ensure post construction settlements are within acceptable levels,

some form of ground improvement, or unloading would be required for the support of the proposed

development. Three options for founding of the structures have been contemplated and are described further

in Section 6.2 of this report. These contemplated options include:

• Conventional foundations founded on densified ground via stone columns with the towers being

founded on piled foundations.

• A combination of a raft foundation founded on densified ground via stone columns with piles or

unloading at the tower locations.

• Soil unloading (below grade construction) of between 4.5 m to 6 m within the building area to

compensate the load of the structure and allow for a raft foundation. This will require the use of a

Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) groundwater cut-off wall around the perimeter of the site.

Although structural loading for the proposed structures has not been finalized at the time of this report, we

understand that the development team is contemplating utilizing fully reinforced concrete construction for

the development. We anticipate the loading of the structures to be moderate to heavy.

Given the anticipated structural loading and to increase the stiffness of the subgrade soil, reduce long-term

settlements and increase the local bearing pressures some amount of ground improvement will be required.

The ground improvement would consist of gravel columns using full displacement methods. We expect

that ground improvements using full-displacement methods such as dry, bottom-feed stone columns can be

used to improve the soil stiffness, increase the bearing capacity and effectively mitigating excessive

settlements within the intermediate silt layer. GeoPacific should be provided final loading and building

layout.



Dependant on final loading conditions for the terraced towers, building on a raft foundation at lower bearing

pressures for tower cores may be considered. Both raft layouts and piled foundations would depend on final

loading and building layout. The final foundation scheme and structural loading must be reviewed by

GeoPacific well in advance of construction to confirm the recommendations contained herein are consistent

with the proposed development.

We confirm, from a geotechnical point of view, that the proposed development is feasible provided the

recommendations outlined herein are incorporated into the overall design.

5.2 Seismic Analysis

It is generally accepted that loose to compact and saturated non plastic silts and sands are prone to

liquefaction or strain softening during cyclic loading caused by large earthquakes. The strength reduction

caused by soil liquefaction can cause foundations to punch. Furthermore, once liquefaction has been

triggered, experience has shown that significant, permanent vertical and horizontal movements may be

experienced.

GeoPacific has undertaken an assessment of CPT data collected. We have employed a design peak ground

acceleration of 0.07g, as provided by Natural Resources Canada for the Kelowna area, under the 2018 BC

Building Code (2018 BCBC) earthquake. The results of our analysis indicate that soil liquefaction is not

anticipated for the saturated sands at the site based on the 2018 BCBC design earthquake. Furthermore, any

ground improvements will likely further increase the factor of safety against liquefaction at the site. The

plot of our analyses are attached in Appendix D and the shear wave velocity data collected at SCPT-03,

-08 is attached in Appendix E.

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General Site Preparation

Irrespective of the foundation configuration, the general site preparation associated with the proposed

development includes removing any fill materials, peat/organic silt and any other material considered to

compromise the design recommendations stated herein. Any catch basins, storm lines or other abandoned

services within the proposed building area should be removed prior to construction of the new development.

Any grade reinstatement in the building or paved areas should be done using engineered fill. In the context

of this report, engineered fill is defined as clean sand, or sand and gravel fill, with less than 5% fines

(passing the #200 sieve), compacted in 300 mm loose lifts to a minimum of 95% of the ASTM D1557

(Modified Proctor) maximum dry density at a moisture content that is within 2% of optimum for

compaction. Placement of engineered fill below the static ground water table should be done with free

draining angular rock no greater than 75 mm in diameter. Where fills are placed below the water table, the

excavation should be lined with non-woven geotextile prior to placement of fills.

GeoPacific shall review site stripping and the placement and compaction of any engineered fills.

6.2 Foundation Options

As noted in Section 5.1 the development may be constructed in three primary ways to safely support the

proposed structures dependant on anticipated loading and building layout. A detailed description of the

options are presented below. GeoPacific may evaluate other foundation configurations that have not been

presented here as requested.



6.2.1 Conventional Foundations on Densified Ground

If the structural loading permits, a portion of the development could be founded on conventional pad and

strip foundations densification of the subsurface soils and treatment of the compressible intermediate silt

layer would be required for both podium and town homes. Densification would include the use of full

displacement stone columns to depths of between about 10 mbg to 15 mbg. If conventional foundations are

utilized in the podium and town homes the tower would require the use of piles located under the tower

cores. For pile capacity and length see below, Section 6.2.3. Piles could consist of steel pipe or concrete

and would be driven to depths of between about 38 mbg to 45 mbg, dependent on required loading.

We anticipate that conventional foundation elements founded on densified/improved ground may be

designed for average contact stress Serviceability Limit State (SLS) of 200 kPa on the compact sand to silty

sand with Factored Ultimate Limit State (ULS) bearing pressures not exceeding 300 kPa. Tower

foundations on piles would be required and layout scheme would depend on the required structural loading.

GeoPacific can provide a ground densification/soil strengthening and pile plan once the structural loads and

contact stresses at the foundation locations have been finalized.

Irrespective of the allowable bearing pressure, pad footings should not be less that 600 mm by 600 mm and

strip footings should not be less than 450 mm in width. Footings should also be buried a minimum of 600

mm below final grading elevations for frost protection.

6.2.2 Raft Foundation on Densified Ground

Another option would be to found the majority of the structure on a raft foundation supported on densified

ground. Tower cores and very heavy portions of the structure would need to be supported on a pile

foundation.

Based on a preliminary analysis of the existing soil profile, full displacement gravel columns extending to

a depth of approximately 10 m to 15 m below the underside of the foundation elements would be required

to allow relatively high bearing pressures. GeoPacific can provide a ground densification/soil strengthening

plan once the structural loads and contact stresses at the foundation locations have been finalized.

For areas that have been improved with densification works, a raft foundation can be designed with a SLS

bearing pressure of 150 kPa can be assumed for design. Factored Ultimate Limit State (ULS) bearing

pressures should not exceed 300 kPa. For raft foundations on densified ground may be designed on the

basis of 10 MPa/m.

6.2.3 Piled Foundations

Should conventional reinforced concrete construction be used and an insufficient amount of unloading is

achieved, the entire development could be supported on a piled foundation. A number of pile types could

be considered, however given the nature of the subsurface soils, the proximity of adjacent structures to the

development and the loads to be supported, we recommend the use of open-ended steel pipe piles to support

superstructure loads of the towers. The ends of the piles should be suitably reinforced to resist driving

forces during installation.

Based on our preliminary analysis nominal 600 mm, 760 mm and 910 mm (24, 30 and 36 inch) diameter

steel pipe piles are expected to have a factored Ultimate Limit State (ULS) capacity of 2000, 2800 and 3200

kN, respectively, when driven to a depth of between about 38 mbg to 45 mbg. The piles are expected to be

friction piles terminated in the stiff over-consolidated lower silty clay/clayey silt layer.



It should be appreciated that dependent on final loading of the towers, a localized raft foundation may be

required, supported on piles as described above.

Once the building designs are finalized and structural foundation loads are determined, we can provide final

pile designs and pile installation criteria dependant on structural loading. We recommend a program of test

piles be completed to assist in determining pile lengths and confirming safe service capacities. The pre-

production pile testing should be completed in accordance to the Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under

Static Axial Compressive Load (ASTM D1143/D1143M).

Piles should be separated by a minimum distance of 3 pile diameters to limit pile grounding effects.

The installation of piles must be reviewed on a full-time basis by the geotechnical engineer.

6.2.4 Unloading Discussion

If unloading is chosen we recommend that any structure greater than 8 to 10 storeys incorporate 1.5 to 2

levels of underground parking to allow for a sufficient amount of unloading and to ensure the net stress

imposed by the development is below the pre-consolidation stress of the natural cohesive soils. Light-

weight materials such as light steel or wood frame construction could also be used to reduce the amount of

unloading that would be required to avoid piled foundations.

Dependant on the amount of unloading we expect that foundations can be supported on a raft foundation.

Unloading would still require the use of full displacement stone columns to increase bearing pressures and

treat the intermediate silt layer as noted in Section 6.2.2.

GeoPacific can provide a ground densification/soil strengthening plan once the structural loads and contact

stresses at the foundation locations have been finalized.

For areas that have been improved with densification works and unloaded to expose a subgrade of dense

sand, a SLS bearing pressure of 250 kPa can be assumed for design. ULS bearing pressures should not

exceed 500 kPa. For raft foundations on densified ground may be designed on the basis of 10 MPa/m.

The geotechnical engineer shall be contacted for the review during densification installation and pile

installation (if required). Foundation subgrades must be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to

footing construction.

6.3 Building/Foundation Settlements

Long term settlement estimates are a function of final sustained loading, final ground improvements

employed and the foundation system utilized at the site, which have not been confirmed at the time of our

report preparation. However, based on our analysis and the anticipated loading, we estimate for foundations

designed as recommended, settlement will not exceed 50 mm to 150 mm total and the differential

settlements are expected to be less than 1:300. It should be noted that a piled foundation system would have

the least amount of long-term settlements

The long-term settlement estimate should be reassessed once sustained structural loading and foundation

options have been determined and the final densification plan is known.



6.4 Seismic Site Classification

The native soils are not considered prone to ground liquefaction or other forms of ground softening caused

by earthquake induced ground motions based on the 2018 BCBC design earthquake. A Shear wave velocity

profile was performed at SCPT20-03 and -08 to obtain the shear wave velocities of the soil profile. The

average shear wave velocity through the strata at this site is approximately 171 m/s. Based on the shear

wave velocity, moisture contents, and interpreted undrained shear strength, the site is classified as “Site

Class E” according to the 2018 BCBC Table 4.1.8.4.A.

Peak ground acceleration on firm ground for the approximate site location is 0.066g (National Resource

Canada, Site Coordinates: 49.857° North, 119.492° West).

6.5 Effects of Development on Adjacent Properties

Some ground vibrations should be expected as a result of displacement stone columns and/or pile

installation. Given the proximity of the adjacent roads, utilities and structures and the potential for impacts,

we recommend that the adjacent structures be evaluated in advance of construction to determine their

susceptibility to damage as a result of densification work and pile installation and to be able to compare pre

and post construction building conditions.

6.6 Grade Supported Floor Slabs

All grade supported concrete slabs should be underlain directly by a polyethylene moisture barrier and a

minimum of 100 mm of 19 mm clear crushed gravel, to prevent moisture from accumulating below the

slab.

In order to provide suitable support for any concrete slabs-on-grade or raft foundations, we recommend that

fill placed under the slab be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor)

maximum dry density at a moisture content that is within 2% of optimum for compaction.

GeoPacific shall review underslab fill placement and compaction prior to slab-on-grade or raft foundation

construction.

6.7 Site and Foundation Drainage

Above grade or at grade construction with floor slabs above the ground water table would not require a

perimeter drainage system provided the final slab elevation is 200 mm above the surrounding grade and

surrounding grades slope away from the buildings. Any below grade construction will require a perimeter

drain if feasible by the civil or mechanical designer, otherwise tanking of any below grade development

will be required.

6.8 Temporary Excavations and Construction Dewatering

We expect the excavations would be sloped where possible as it is typically more economical to do so. It

is anticipated that excavation for foundations would be relatively close to existing site grades. Excavation

is expected to be above the groundwater table; however, pumps and sumps should be adequate to manage

any groundwater encountered during installation of on-site utilities. All utility trenches should be sloped at

1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) above the water table and 2H:1V below the water table, if necessary.

Alternatively, the trenches could be shored in accordance with the latest Work Safe BC guidelines.



In the case of unloading, due to the static groundwater level and presence of relatively clean sands and

gravels, we recommend that any excavation greater than 3 metres be supported via Deep Soil Mix/Cutter

Soil Mix (DSM) walls be utilized in conjunction with hollow core tie back anchors. A DSM wall design

would extend to a depth of between 25 to 30 mbgs to form an effective groundwater cut-off. We anticipate

groundwater inflows during construction for the DSM walls would be in the range of 150 gallons per

minute, considered small based on the groundwater elevation. Dewatering of the interior of the excavation

may be completed with well points or sump pumps. As inflows are anticipated to be relatively light with

use of a DSM cut-off wall, well points are only anticipated to be effective during initial excavation and

sump pumps may be employed thereafter.

Any excavations exceeding 1.2 m in depth require review by a Professional Engineer prior to worker-entry,

in accordance with Work Safe BC requirements.

6.9 Earth Pressure on Foundation Walls

Although not anticipated, should unloading of the site be considered the below grade foundation walls would be required to support lateral soil pressures and uplift forces. Earth pressures on foundation walls depend on a number of factors including wall rigidity, backfill material and required degree of compaction, any surcharge loads, backfill slope, the drainage conditions and method and sequence of construction. The foundation wall is expected to be partially yielding and fully restrained between the parking floor and backfilled with a free draining granular soil. During the installation of the shoring wall (DSM and anchor tie-backs), the wall is expected to partially yield, thereby mobilizing the full shear strength of the retained soil. The partial yielding of the wall causes a dilation of the retained soil, which in turn decreases the lateral stress against the foundation wall. The full development of the active condition is expected within the retained soil and can be assumed under these conditions.

We recommend that the foundation walls be designed to resist the following lateral earth pressures,

assuming fully shored perimeter walls and single sided form construction with synthetic flat drain between

the shoring wall and the final basement wall:

Static: 5.5H kPa triangular soil pressure where H is the total height of the wall in metres.

Hydrostatic: Water pressure equivalent to 9.8H kPa, beginning at the high groundwater level and

extending to the base of the foundation wall. Assume the groundwater level is at 1.0 m

below existing site grades.

Seismic: 1.5H kPa inverted triangular soil pressure where H is the total height of the wall in metres.

Seismic loads should be added to the static loads.

Uplift pressures on the bottom of rafts will be equivalent to the volume of water displaced by the structure.

The structural designer may assume uplift pressure in kilopascals to be equivalent to the height in metres

of the water above the bottom of the rafts (assume water table elevation of 1.0 m below grade) multiplied

by the unit weight of water of 9.8 kN/m3.



6.10 New On-Site Roads

Following the recommended site preparation, it is our opinion that the minimum asphalt pavement structure,

provided in Table 1 below. The design should be based on a subgrade CBR value between 5 and 10.

Therefore, the pavement structure should be as follows:

Table 1: Recommended Minimum Pavement Structure for New On-site Drive Aisles and Parking

Material Thickness (mm) CBR

Asphaltic Concrete 75 N/A

19 mm minus crushed gravel base course 100 80

75 mm minus, well graded, clean, sand and

gravel subbase course 200 20

Asphalt thickness may be decreased to 65 mm in parking areas to be occupied by automobiles and light

trucks only.

Additionally, off-site roads (Lanfranco extension) should be designed following the thicknesses outlined in

the City of Kelowna’s Standard Pavement Structures guideline, based on a subgrade CBR value of between

5 and 10. The design should be completed to the designated road classification, as determined by the City

or Civil Consultant.

The sub-base and base course materials shall be compacted to 95% Modified Proctor Dry Density (MPDD)

as determined by ASTM D1557. Compaction should occur with moisture content within 2% of optimum.

Density testing should be conducted on the base and sub-base materials to confirm that they have been

compacted to the required standard.

Pavement structure fill materials and compaction should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.

7.0 FIELD REVIEWS

As required for Municipal “Letters of Assurance”, GeoPacific Consultants Ltd. will carry out sufficient

field reviews during construction to ensure that the geotechnical design recommendations contained within

this report have been adequately communicated to the design team and to the contractors implementing the

design. These field reviews are not carried out for the benefit of the contractors and therefore do not in any

way effect the contractor’s obligations to perform under the terms of his/her contract.

It is the contractors’ responsibility to advise GeoPacific Consultants Ltd. (a minimum of 48 hours in

advance) that a field review is required. Geotechnical field reviews are normally required at the time of the

following:

1. Stripping – Review of stripping depth and subgrade

2. Ground Improvement/Piles – Review of ground densification/pile installation and testing

3. Subgrade – Review of subgrade soils prior to foundation construction

4. Excavation/Shoring – Review of slope cuts and excavations greater than 1.2 m deep

requiring worker entry. DSM construction and testing, if required.

5. Slab-on-Grade – Review of slab-on-grade subgrade and fill material

6. Engineered Fill – Review of fill material and compaction



It is critical that these reviews are carried out to ensure that our intentions have been adequately

communicated. It is also critical that contractors working on the site view this document in advance of any

work being carried out so that they become familiarised with the sensitive aspects of the works proposed.

It is the responsibility of the developer to notify GeoPacific Consultants Ltd. when conditions or situations

not outlined within this document are encountered.

8.0 CLOSURE

This report has been prepared exclusively for our client Stober Group, for the purpose of providing

preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development

described herein. We envision that upon final development layout and structural loading requirements, this

report would be revised to suit the final development plan. This report remains the property of GeoPacific

Consultants Ltd. and unauthorized use of, or duplication of this report is prohibited.

We are pleased to be of assistance to you on this project and we trust that our recommendations are both

helpful and sufficient for your current purposes. If you would like further details or would like clarification

of any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact GeoPacific.

For:

GeoPacific Consultants Ltd.

Mitchell Lange, B.A.Sc., E.I.T. Roberto Avendano, B.Eng., P.Eng.

Geotechnical Engineer-in-Training Senior Geotechnical Engineer

1779

Wes

t 75t

h Av

e.Va

nco u

ver,

B.C.

V6 P

6P2

P 60

4.43

9.09

22F

604.

439.

9189

APPENDIX A – TEST HOLE LOGS

Test Hole Log:File:Project:Client:Site Location:

Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:

Page: 1 of 2Figure Number:

1779 West 75th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V6P 6P2Tel: 604-439-0922 Fax:604-439-9189

Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)

DCPT (blows per foot)

10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-01 (CPT20-01 & DMT20-01)18183

Proposed Mixed-Use DevelopmentStober Group

3340 Lakeshore Road, Kelowna, BC

Ground SurfaceSand and Gravel [FILL]

Sand [FILL]compact SAND fill, gravelly, brown, slightly moist

Sandcompact SAND, medium-fine grained, gravelly, brown-grey, wet

grey @ 1.4 m

Sandloose silty SAND, fine grained, trace organics, grey, wet

Sandcompact SAND, medium-fine grained, grey, wet

0.0

0.9

3.7

5.5

8.4

15.6

27.9

25.6

35.2

1.0 m estimated water table depth

Sieve Analysis (ASTM C117 & C136) performed @ 1.8 m

CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020

Ground ElevationA.01


Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

31

3233

34

3536

3738

39

4041

4243

44

4546

4748

49

5051

5253

54

5556

5758

59

60

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-01 (CPT20-01 & DMT20-01)18183



Siltfirm SILT, trace sand, trace organics, grey, wet

soft @ 10.4 m

some organics @ 12.6 m to 13.1 m

Sandcompact SAND, medium grained, trace silt, grey, wet

End of Borehole

13.1

13.7

65.1

34.4

22.2

CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-02 (CPT20-02)18183




Sand [FILL]compact SAND fill, brown, moist

Siltfirm-stiff sandy SILT, grey-brown, moist

Sandcompact SAND, medium grained, gravelly, brown-grey, wet

grey @ 1.5 m

some silt @ 2.1 to 2.4 m



Siltfirm sandy SILT, grey, wet

0.0

0.5

0.9

4.0

5.5

8.2

9.0

23.8

19.4

23.7


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

31

3233

34

3536

3738

39

4041

4243

44

4546

4748

49

5051

5253

54

5556

5758

59

60

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-02 (CPT20-02)18183



Siltsoft SILT, trace sand, trace organics, grey, wet



End of Borehole

11.7

12.5

13.7

36.4

63.6

35.9

15.0

CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-03 (SCPT20-03)18183




compact SAND and GRAVEL fill, brown, moist

Sandcompact-loose SAND, medium grained, brown-grey, moist

grey and wet @ 1.5 msome organics @ 1.8 m to 3.0 m

some silt @ 3.4 to 3.7 m



Siltfirm-soft sandy SILT, grey, wet

0.0

0.5

4.3

4.9

7.0

8.8

23.2

60.4

33.2

27.3

34.0


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

31

3233

34

3536

3738

39

4041

4243

44

4546

4748

49

5051

5253

54

5556

5758

59

60

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-03 (SCPT20-03)18183




Siltfirm sandy SILT, trace organics, grey, wet


End of Borehole

11.6

12.0

13.7

69.7

15.5

Atterberg Test (ASTM D4318) performed @ 11.3 m

CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-0418183





Sandcompact SAND, fine-medium grained, brown-grey, wet

grey @ 1.5 m



End of Borehole

0.0

0.9

4.0

4.9

6.1

6.7

18.0

27.0


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-0518183





Siltfirm-stiff sandy SILT, brown-grey, moist

Sandcompact SAND, fine-medium grained, grey, wet

some gravel @ 1.2 m to 1.8 mtrace organics @ 1.8 m



End of Borehole

0.0

0.6

1.2

3.7

5.5

6.1

27.7

22.0

31.7


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-0618183






Sandloose-compact silty SAND, fine-medium grained, grey, wetsome organics @ 3.7 m to 4.6 m


End of Borehole

0.0

0.6

3.4

5.5

6.1

19.4

81.4

21.6


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-07 (CPT20-04 & DMT20-02)18183





Sandcompact silty SAND, trace organics, brown-grey, moist

Sandcompact-loose SAND, fine-medium grained, grey, wet

gravelly @ 3.4 m to 3.7 m

Sandcompact silty SAND, grey, wet


0.0

0.9

4.6

5.2

9.0

32.1

16.0

33.6

35.8


CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

31

3233

34

3536

3738

39

4041

4243

44

4546

4748

49

5051

5253

54

5556

5758

59

60

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-07 (CPT20-04 & DMT20-02)18183





End of Borehole

11.4

12.2

65.8

17.7

CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-08 (CPT20-05)18183





Siltfirm sandy SILT, some organics, brown-black, moist

Sandcompact silty SAND, brown, moist


Sandloose-compact silty SAND, fine grained, grey, wet



0.0

0.8

1.5

3.7

4.6

6.4

23.7

26.4

36.8


CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

31

3233

34

3536

3738

39

4041

4243

44

4546

4748

49

5051

5253

54

5556

5758

59

60

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-08 (CPT20-05)18183






End of Borehole

9.8

11.6

12.2

13.7

70.8

CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-0918183





Siltfirm-stiff SILT, grey-black, some organics, slightly moist

Sandcompact SAND, medium grained, grey, wet

Sandloose silty SAND, fine-medium grained, trace organics, grey, wet


End of Borehole

0.0

0.5

4.3

5.0

6.1

22.6

28.4


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-10 (CPT20-06)18183




compact SAND and GRAVEL fill, cobbly, brown, slightly moist

Sandcompact silty SAND, some organics, trace gravel, grey-black, wet

Peat / Organic Siltfirm silty PEAT / organic SILT, semi-fibrous, brown, wet

Sandcompact SAND, medium grained, grey, wet

Sandloose silty SAND, fine-medium grained, trace organics, grey, wet


End of Borehole

0.0

0.8

1.5

2.1

3.7

5.0

6.1

47.9

202.7

26.0

30.2


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-11 (CPT20-07)18183





Sand and Gravelcompact-dense silty SAND and GRAVEL, dark grey, moist-wet

Peat / Organic Siltfirm silty PEAT / organic SILT, semi-fibrous, brown, wet


Sandloose silty SAND, fine grained, grey, wet


Sandcompact silty SAND, trace organics, grey, wet


0.0

1.8

2.7

4.0

4.6

6.1

7.3

12.7

91.0

28.5

41.8


CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

31

3233

34

3536

3738

39

4041

4243

44

4546

4748

49

5051

5253

54

5556

5758

59

60

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-11 (CPT20-07)18183



Siltsoft-firm SILT, trace sand, trace organics, grey, wet



End of Borehole

10.1

12.2

13.7

39.7

66.0

23.7

CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-12 (CPT20-08)18183





Sandcompact SAND, some silt, fine-medium grained, grey, moist-wet

Siltsoft-firm sandy SILT, grey, wet



0.0

0.6

2.7

4.0

6.1

25.0

23.0

36.0


CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

31

3233

34

3536

3738

39

4041

4243

44

4546

4748

49

5051

5253

54

5556

5758

59

60

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-12 (CPT20-08)18183



Siltsoft-firm SILT, trace sand, grey, wet


End of Borehole

9.8

11.3

12.2

68.8

19.2

CGSolid Stem Auger

07-OCT-2020



Logged:Method:Date:

Datum:



Dep

th

0 0ft m

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Sym

bol

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dep

th (m

)/Ele

v (m

)

Moi

stur

e C

onte

nt (%

)


10 20 30 40

Gro

undw

ater

/ W

ell

Remarks

INFERRED PROFILE

TH20-1318183





Sandcompact silty SAND, brown-grey, moist

Sandcompact SAND, fine-medium grained, trace silt, grey, wet

Sandcompact silty SAND, fine-medium grained, grey, wet

Siltfirm sandy SILT, trace organics, grey, wet

End of Borehole

0.0

0.9

4.9

5.5

6.1

22.0

24.7

34.5


CGSolid Stem Auger

06-OCT-2020


APPENDIX B - ELECTRONIC CONE PENETRATION RESULTS

The system used is owned and operated by GeoPacific and employs a 35.7

mm diameter cone that records tip resistance, sleeve friction, dynamic pore

pressure, inclination and temperature at 5 cm intervals on a digital computer

system. The system is a Hogentogler electronic cone system and the cone

used was a 10 ton cone with pore pressure element located behind the tip

and in front of the sleeve as shown on the adjacent figure.

In addition to the capabilities described above, the cone can be stopped at

specified depths and dissipation tests carried out. These dissipation tests

can be used to determine the groundwater pressures at the specified depth.

This is very useful for identifying artesian pressures within specific layers

below the ground surface.

Interpretation of the cone penetration test results are carried out by

computer using the interpretation chart presented below by Robertson1.

Raw data collected by the field computer includes tip resistance, sleeve

friction and pore pressure. The tip resistance is corrected for water

pressure and the friction ratio is calculated as the ratio of the sleeve friction

on the side of the cone to the corrected tip resistance expressed as a percent.

These two parameters are used to determine the soil behaviour type as

shown in the chart below. The interpreted soil type may be different from

other classification systems such as the Unified Soil Classification that is

based upon grain size and plasticity.

1 Robertson, P.K., 2010, "Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update.", 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration

Testing, CPT’10, Huntington Beach, CA, USA.

** Based on Robertson et. al 1990

1 Sensitive Fine Grained 4 Clayey Silt to Silty Clay 7 Gravely Sand to Sand

2 Organic Material 5 Silty Sand to Sandy Silt 8 Very Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand

3 Clay to Silty Clay 6 Clean Sand to Silty Sand 9 Very Stiff Fine Grained

Figure: B.01

GeoPacific Project #: 181832020-Oct-6

Sounding: CPT20-01

STOBER GROUP

3340 LAKESHORE ROAD, KELOWNA

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)

TIP RESISTANCEQt (bar)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

FRICTION RATIO Rf (%)

1.0m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50

PORE PRESSURE U2 (m H2O)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SOIL BEHAVIOUR TYPE **

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

SLEEVE FRICTIONFs (bar)

Refusal at 36.6 m





Figure: B.02


Sounding: CPT20-02

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


1.1m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 0.5 1 1.5 2






Figure: B.03


Sounding: SCPT20-03

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


0.9m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


Drilled out to 0.95 m





Figure: B.04


Sounding: CPT20-04

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


1.0m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


Refusal at 38.2 m





Figure: B.05


Sounding: CPT20-05

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


1.0m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 0.5 1 1.5 2






Figure: B.06


Sounding: CPT20-06

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


0.7m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 0.5 1 1.5 2






Figure: B.07


Sounding: CPT20-07

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


0.8m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


Drilled out to 0.9 m





Figure: B.08


Sounding: SCPT20-08

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


1.0m

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 0.5 1 1.5 2


Drilled out to 0.95m

APPENDIX C - INTERPRETED PARAMETERS

The following charts plot the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values and the undrained strength of fine grained soils

based upon generally accepted correlations. The methods of correlation are presented below.

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST CORRELATION

The Standard Penetration Test N1(60) value is related to the cone tip resistance through a Qc/N ratio that depends upon

the mean grain size of the soil particles. The soil type is determined from the interpretation described in Appendix B

and the data of Table C.1 below is used to calculate the value of N(60).

Table C.1. Tablulated Qc/N1(60) Ratios for Interpreted Soil Types

Soil Type

Qc/N Ratio

Organic soil - Peat

1.0

Sensitive Fine Grained

2.0

Clay

1.0

Silty Clay to Clay

1.5

Clayey Silt to Silty Clay

2.0

Silt

2.5

Silty Sand to Sandy Silt

3.0

Clean Sand to Silty Sand

4.0

Clean Sand

5.0

Gravelly Sand to Sand

6.0

Very Stiff Fine Grained

1.0

Sand to Clayey Sand

2.0

The Qc/N1(60) ratio is based upon the published work of Robertson (1985)2. The values of N are corrected for

overburden pressure in accordance with the correction suggested by Liao and Whitman using a factor of 0.5. Where

the correction is of the form:

N1 = σ0.5 * N

All calculations are carried out by computer using the software program CPTint.exe developed by UBC Civil

Engineering Department. The results of the interpretation are presented on the following Figures.

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH CORRELATION

It is generally accepted that there is a correlation between undrained shear strength of clay and the tip resistance as

determined from the cone penetration testing. Generally the correlation is of the form:

where qc = cone tip resistance, σ = in situ total stress, Nk = cone constant

The undrained shear strength of the clay has been calculated using the cone tip resistance and an Nk factor of 12.5.

All calculations have been carried out automatically using the program CPTeT-IT2. The results are presented on the

figures following.

2 Robertson, P.K., 1985, "In-Situ Testing and Its Application to Foundation Engineering", 1985 Canadian Geotechnical

Colloquium, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 23, 1986

Su=

(qc_σ

v)

Nk

APPENDIX C - OVER CONSOLIDATION RATIO ANALYSIS

The over consolidation ratio (OCR) is defined as the ratio between the maximum past vertical pressure on

the soil versus the current in-situ vertical pressure. The maximum past vertical pressure is typically caused

by the presence of excess overburden which is removed by either natural or man-made reasons. Soil ageing

and other chemical precipitation affects can also cause a soil to behave as if it has a higher maximum past

pressure, which is sometimes described as pseudo-overconsolidation.

Research by Schmertmann (1974) showed the following equation reasonably approximates the OCR of

medium plastic to clayey soils:

OCR

Su p oc

Su p nc=

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟ +

⎛

⎝

⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟

/ '

/ '.

.

/5 3

082

182

Su/p’oc = The undrained shear strength to effective stress ratio of the over consolidated soil

Su/p’nc = The undrained shear strength to effective stress ratio of a normally consolidated soil

(OCR = 1). Typically = ~0.2

Soils which are subject to loads less than the maximum past pressure of the soil are typically subject to

relatively small elastic settlements. Loads which exceed the maximum past pressure on the soil typically

cause consolidation which is the gradual settlement of the ground as a result of expulsion of water from the

pores of the soil. The rate of settlement and the time to complete consolidation is a function of the

permeability of the soil.

The Schmertman equation has been employed to estimate the OCR of the soils with depth employing the CPT

data provided in Appendix B and C.





Figure: C.01


Sounding: CPT20-01

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTHSu (kPa)

Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) N1(60)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

OVER CONSOLIDATION RATIO (OCR)





Figure: C.02


Sounding: CPT20-02

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250


Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






Figure: C.03


Sounding: SCPT20-03

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250


Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






Figure: C.04


Sounding: CPT20-04

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250


Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






Figure: C.05


Sounding: CPT20-05

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250


Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






Figure: C.06


Sounding: CPT20-06

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250


Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10






Figure: C.07


Sounding: CPT20-07

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250


Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


= Shear vane results

54

46

42





Figure: C.08


Sounding: SCPT20-08

STOBER GROUP


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 50 100 150 200 250


Nkt=12.5

0 10 20 30 40 50


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


APPENDIX D - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

Assessment of the liquefaction potential of the ground has been determined by the Cone Penetration Test (CPT).

The method of analysis is presented in the following sections.

FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST LIQUEFACTION

The factor of safety against liquefaction calculated here is the ratio of the cyclic resistance of the soil (CRR) to the

cyclic stresses induced by the design earthquake (CSR). Where the ratio of CRR/CSR is greater than unity the

soils ability to resist cyclic stresses is greater than the cyclic stresses induced by the earthquake and liquefaction will

be unlikely. Where the CRR/CSR is less than unity then liquefaction could occur. This ratio is presented as the

FOS against Liquefaction on the following charts. Calculation of the factor of safety is based on NCEER (1998)1

which evaluates the CRR directly from cone penetration test sounding data. The value of the cyclic stress ratio has

been calculated based on peak horizontal ground acceleration of the 2015 National Building Code interpolated

seismic hazard value.

SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT

In the event of a significant earthquake, settlement of the ground surface could occur as a result of densification of

the looser soil layers as a result of liquefaction or due to the expulsion of sand in the form of sand dykes or sills from

beneath the site. Tokimatsu and Seed (1987)2 suggest a method of analysis for estimating vertical settlements as a

result of earthquake induced accelerations. In this method the normalized standard penetration blow counts (N1(60))

is compared with the cyclic stress ratio for the induced earthquake to determine the volumetric strain resulting from

the earthquake shaking. The volumetric strain is assumed to result in only vertical settlement. The vertical

settlement is summed for each depth at which settlement is predicted to occur and accumulated from the bottom of

the test hole. The results are presented on the following charts labelled as Settlement.

HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT

Horizontal ground displacements known as "free field" displacements occur as a result of liquefaction of the ground

and are assumed to occur without the influence of any structures. The horizontal displacements presented in our

report are generally based upon the lateral spread method by of Youd, Bartlett, & Hansen (2002). Displacements

are calculated based on an empirical relationship developed from observations from other earthquake sites on

sloping ground or near a free face, such as an abrupt slope. The presence of the proposed embankment on-site is

expected to induce a static bias within the soils at the margin of the embankment making the soils and embankment

in this area subject to lateral spread induced movements. In the event of a real earthquake of significant magnitude

to cause limited liquefaction, actual movements will be influenced by a wide variety of factors including the

characteristics of the earthquake including duration, number of significant cycles, variations in peak particle

velocity, wavelength, amplitude and frequencies as well as soil damping and variations in density and continuity of

the soil layers.

1 Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M. (2001). “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 and 1998

NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 127, 10, pp. 817-833

2 Tokimatsu, K.A.M. and Seed, H.B., 1987. "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking", Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878.

3 Youd, T.L., Bartlett, S.F., Hansen, C.M. (2002), "Revised MultiLinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral

Spread Displacements", Journal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 12, pp. 1007-1017

Liquefaction interpretation: PGA = 0.07

magnitude = 7.0

settlement accumulation max depth = 15m

2020-Oct-6 STOBER GROUP GeoPacific Project #: 18183

Sounding: CPT20-01 3340 LAKESHORE ROAD, KELOWNA Figure: D.01

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Cyclic Stress (CSR) and Cyclic Resistance (CRR)

Ratios

CSR CRR

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Factor of Safety (FL)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Fines Content FC (%)

0 100 200 300 400 500

Settlement (mm)


magnitude = 7.0




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5


Ratios

CSR CRR

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0


0 20 40 60 80 100


0 100 200 300 400 500

Settlement (mm)


magnitude = 7.0



Sounding: SCPT20-03 3340 LAKESHORE ROAD, KELOWNA Figure: D.03

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5


Ratios

CSR CRR

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0


0 20 40 60 80 100


0 100 200 300 400 500

Settlement (mm)


magnitude = 7.0




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5


Ratios

CSR CRR

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0


0 20 40 60 80 100


0 100 200 300 400 500

Settlement (mm)


magnitude = 7.0



Sounding: SCPT20-08 3340 LAKESHORE ROAD, KELOWNA Figure: D.08

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

0 50 100 150 200

DE

PT

H (

m)


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5


Ratios

CSR CRR

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0


0 20 40 60 80 100


0 100 200 300 400 500

Settlement (mm)

APPENDIX E - SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY DATA (Vs)

File: 18183

Project: Mixed-Use Development

Client: Stober Group

Location: 3340 Lakeshore Road, Kelowna, BC

Sounding: SCPT20-03

Date: 2020-Oct-06

Seismic Source: Beam

Source to cone (m): 0.1

Depth

(m)

Geophone

Depth

(m)

Ray Path

(m)

Ray Path

Difference d

(m)

Midpoint

(m)

Time

Difference

(ms)

Shear Wave

Velocity Vs

(m/s)

d/Vs

1.10 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.45 7.00 129 0.0070

2.10 1.90 1.90 1.00 1.40 6.66 150 0.0067

3.10 2.90 2.90 1.00 2.40 8.32 120 0.0083

4.10 3.90 3.90 1.00 3.40 7.72 129 0.0077

5.10 4.90 4.90 1.00 4.40 8.15 123 0.0082

6.10 5.90 5.90 1.00 5.40 6.56 152 0.0066

7.10 6.90 6.90 1.00 6.40 6.54 153 0.0065

8.10 7.90 7.90 1.00 7.40 7.24 138 0.0072

9.10 8.90 8.90 1.00 8.40 7.33 136 0.0073

10.10 9.90 9.90 1.00 9.40 6.76 148 0.0068

11.10 10.90 10.90 1.00 10.40 7.15 140 0.0071

12.10 11.90 11.90 1.00 11.40 6.95 144 0.0070

13.10 12.90 12.90 1.00 12.40 4.99 201 0.0050

14.10 13.90 13.90 1.00 13.40 5.21 192 0.0052

15.10 14.90 14.90 1.00 14.40 5.68 176 0.0057

16.10 15.90 15.90 1.00 15.40 5.45 183 0.0055

17.10 16.90 16.90 1.00 16.40 5.67 176 0.0057

18.10 17.90 17.90 1.00 17.40 5.49 182 0.0055

19.10 18.90 18.90 1.00 18.40 5.47 183 0.0055

20.10 19.90 19.90 1.00 19.40 5.30 189 0.0053

21.10 20.90 20.90 1.00 20.40 4.86 206 0.0049

22.10 21.90 21.90 1.00 21.40 4.79 209 0.0048

23.10 22.90 22.90 1.00 22.40 4.34 230 0.0043

24.10 23.90 23.90 1.00 23.40 4.43 226 0.0044

25.10 24.90 24.90 1.00 24.40 4.18 239 0.0042

26.10 25.90 25.90 1.00 25.40 3.91 256 0.0039

27.10 26.90 26.90 1.00 26.40 5.13 195 0.0051

28.10 27.90 27.90 1.00 27.40 4.98 201 0.0050

29.10 28.90 28.90 1.00 28.40 4.34 230 0.0043

30.10 29.90 29.90 1.00 29.40 4.62 216 0.0046

Σ(d/Vs) 0.1752

average Vs = Σd / Σ(d/Vs) 171

Shear Wave Velocity Data (Vs)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0 100 200 300 400D

ep

th (

m)

Velocity (m/s)Tip Resistance Qt (bar)

File: 18183Project: Mixed-Use Development

Client: Stober GroupLocation: 3340 Lakeshore Road, Kelowna, BC

Sounding: SCPT20-03Date: 2020-OCT-6

Vs at midpoint (m/s)

Geophone depth

Qt (bar)

File: 18183




Sounding: SCPT20-08

Date: 2020-Oct-08

Seismic Source: Beam

Source to cone (m): 0.1

Depth

(m)

Geophone

Depth

(m)

Ray Path

(m)

Ray Path

Difference d

(m)

Midpoint

(m)

Time

Difference

(ms)

Shear Wave

Velocity Vs

(m/s)

d/Vs

1.10 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.45 7.00 129 0.0070

2.10 1.90 1.90 1.00 1.40 7.15 140 0.0071

3.10 2.90 2.90 1.00 2.40 7.41 135 0.0074

4.10 3.90 3.90 1.00 3.40 8.79 114 0.0088

5.10 4.90 4.90 1.00 4.40 8.97 111 0.0090

6.10 5.90 5.90 1.00 5.40 6.52 153 0.0065

7.10 6.90 6.90 1.00 6.40 6.77 148 0.0068

8.10 7.90 7.90 1.00 7.40 6.49 154 0.0065

9.10 8.90 8.90 1.00 8.40 7.09 141 0.0071

10.10 9.90 9.90 1.00 9.40 6.81 147 0.0068

11.10 10.90 10.90 1.00 10.40 6.42 156 0.0064

12.10 11.90 11.90 1.00 11.40 6.41 156 0.0064

13.10 12.90 12.90 1.00 12.40 4.53 221 0.0045

14.10 13.90 13.90 1.00 13.40 4.86 206 0.0049

15.10 14.90 14.90 1.00 14.40 5.64 177 0.0056

16.10 15.90 15.90 1.00 15.40 5.17 193 0.0052

17.10 16.90 16.90 1.00 16.40 5.32 188 0.0053

18.10 17.90 17.90 1.00 17.40 5.03 199 0.0050

19.10 18.90 18.90 1.00 18.40 4.61 217 0.0046

20.10 19.90 19.90 1.00 19.40 4.64 215 0.0046

21.10 20.90 20.90 1.00 20.40 4.69 213 0.0047

22.10 21.90 21.90 1.00 21.40 5.41 185 0.0054

23.10 22.90 22.90 1.00 22.40 4.19 239 0.0042

24.10 23.90 23.90 1.00 23.40 4.87 205 0.0049

25.10 24.90 24.90 1.00 24.40 4.03 248 0.0040

26.10 25.90 25.90 1.00 25.40 5.00 200 0.0050

27.10 26.90 26.90 1.00 26.40 4.74 211 0.0047

28.10 27.90 27.90 1.00 27.40 4.44 225 0.0044

29.10 28.90 28.90 1.00 28.40 4.12 243 0.0041

30.10 29.90 29.90 1.00 29.40 4.90 204 0.0049

Σ(d/Vs) 0.1720

average Vs = Σd / Σ(d/Vs) 174

Shear Wave Velocity Data (Vs)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0 100 200 300 400D

ep

th (

m)

Velocity (m/s)Tip Resistance Qt (bar)

File: 18183Project: Mixed-Use Development

Client: Stober GroupLocation: 3340 Lakeshore Road, Kelowna, BC

Sounding: SCPT20-08Date: 2020-OCT-8

Vs at midpoint (m/s)

Geophone depth

Qt (bar)

APPENDIX F – DMT (Dilatometer Modulus Test)

The system used is owned and operated by GeoPacific Consultants. The flat dilatometer is a stainless steel blade

having a flat, circular steel membrane mounted flush on one side. The blade is connected to a control unit on the

ground surface by a pneumatic-electrical tube (transmitting gas pressure and electrical continuity) running through

the insertion rods. A gas tank, connected to the control unit by a pneumatic cable, supplies the gas pressure required

to expand the membrane.

The general layout of the dilatometer test is shown in the below figure. The test starts by inserting the dilatometer

into the ground and by use of the control unit, the operator inflates the membrane and takes two readings:

1) The A-pressure, required to just begin to move the membrane against the soil (“lift-off”) 2) The B-pressure, require to move the membrane 1.1 mm against the soil

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH CORRELATION

The correlation for determining Su from DMT (Marchetti 1980) is the following:

Su = 0.22 σ’v0 (0.5 KD)1.25

Where σ’v0 = pre-insertion in situ overburden stress, KD = horizontal stress index


The over consolidation ratio (OCR) is defined as the ratio between the maximum past vertical pressure on the soil

versus the current in-situ vertical pressure. The maximum past vertical pressure is typically caused by the presence

of excess overburden which is either removed by either natural or man-made reasons. Soil aging and other chemical

precipitation effects can also cause a soil to behave as if it has a higher maximum past pressure, which I sometimes

described as a pseudo-over consolidation.

The correlation for deriving the over consolidation ratio OCR from the horizontal stress index KD was proposed by

Marchetti (1980) (based on data only for uncemented clays).

OCRDMT = (0.5KD)1.56

MATERIAL INDEX ID (SOIL TYPE) The material index ID is defined as follows:

ID = p1 – p0

P0 – u0

According to Marchetti (1980), the soil type can be identified as follows:

clay 0.1 < ID < 0.6

silt 0.6 < ID < 1.8

sand 1.8 < ID < (10)

In general, ID provides an expressive profile of soil type, and, in ‘normal’ soils, a reasonable soil description.

HORIZTONAL STRESS INDEX KD

The horizontal stress index KD is defined as follows:

KD = p0 – u0

σ’v0

KD provides the basis for several soil parameter correlations and is a key result of the dilatometer test. The horizontal

stress index KD can be regarded as K0 amplified by the penetration. The KD profile is similar in shape to the OCR

profile, hence generally helpful for “understanding” the soil deposit and its stress history (Marchetti 1980, Jamiolkowski et al. 1988).

CONSTRAINED MODULUS M

The modulus M determined from DMT (MDMT) is the vertical drained confined (one-dimensional) tangent modulus

at σ’v0 and is the same modulus which, when obtained by oedometer, is called Eoed = 1/mV.

MDMT is obtained by applying to ED the correction factor RM according to the following formula:

MDMT = RM ED

Figure: F.01A


Sounding: DMT20-01

STOBER GROUP


0 50 100 150 200

Undrained Shear StrengthSu (KPa)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Over Consolidation Ratio (OCR)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Horiztonal Stress IndexKd

0.1 5.0

Material IndexId

0.6 1.8

CLAY SILT SAND

10.00 10 20 30 40 50

Friction Angle (cohesionless)PHI (deg)

Figure: F.01B


Sounding: DMT20-01

STOBER GROUP


0 20 40 60 80 100

Dilatometer ModulusEd

0.0 40.0 80.0 120.0

Constrained ModulusM (MPa)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0.1 5.0

Material Index

0.6 1.8

CLAY SILT SAND

10.00 10 20 30 40 50


Figure: F.02A


Sounding: DMT20-02

STOBER GROUP


0 50 100 150 200

Undrained Shear StrengthSu (KPa)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Over Consolidation Ratio (OCR)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00

13.00

14.00

15.00

16.00

17.00

18.00

19.00

20.00

21.00

22.00

23.00

24.00

25.00

26.00

27.00

28.00

29.00

30.00

31.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0.1 5.0

Material IndexId

0.6 1.8

CLAY SILT SAND

10.00 10 20 30 40 50


Figure: F.02B


Sounding: DMT20-02

STOBER GROUP


0 10 20 30 40 50

Dilatometer ModulusEd

0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0

Constrained ModulusM (MPa)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


0.1 5.0

Material Index

0.6 1.8

CLAY SILT SAND

10.00 10 20 30 40 50


APPENDIX G – SHEAR VANE RESULTS

File: 18183




Date: 2020-Oct-08

Vane Type: slip vane

Vane Diameter: 3 inches

TEST

LOCATION DEPTH (ft) Peak Friction Remoulded Shear*** Peak Remoulded Shear***

CPT20-07 30 75 10 25 65 62 21 54

35 70 15 18 55 58 15 46

38 80 30 20 50 67 17 42

* Measured in field with torque wrench.

** Undrained Shear Strength (Cu) calculated from the following: Cu(lb/ft^2) = T(lb*ft) / 0.0021d3

*** Shear = Peak - Friction

TORQUE (lb*ft)* Su (kPa)**

SHEAR VANE TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX H – LABORATORY INDEX TESTING

MOISTURE CONTENT REPORT

(ASTM D2216)

Vancouver Lab

1779 West 75th Avenue

Vancouver, BC

V6P 6P2

31.7% 19.4% 81.4% 21.6%

TH20 - 05 TH20 - 06 TH20 - 06 TH20 - 06

8' 17' 2' 12' 16'

TH20 - 05

22.0%

2' 7' 18' 3'

15.5% 6.7% 18.0% 27.0% 27.7%

33.2% 27.3% 34.0% 72.0%

TH20 - 03 TH20 - 04 TH20 - 04 TH20 - 04 TH20 - 05

TH20 - 03 TH20 - 03 TH20 - 03 TH20 - 03

10' 11' 21' 28' 37'

37' 39' 43' 4'

36.4% 63.6% 35.9% 15.0% 23.2%

22.2% 23.8% 19.4% 23.7%

TH20 - 02 TH20 - 02 TH20 - 02 TH20 - 02 TH20 - 03

TH20 - 01 TH20 - 02 TH20 - 02 TH20 - 02

42' 44' 2' 7' 26'

DEPTH:

HOLE #: TH20 - 01

6'

15.6%

TH20 - 01

29'

35.2%

TH20 - 01

37'

65.1%

TH20 - 01

14'

27.9%

TH20 - 01

26'

25.6%

DEPTH:

M/C:

HOLE #:

DEPTH:

M/C:

43'

M/C:

HOLE #:

DEPTH:

M/C:

HOLE #:

TH20 - 03

60.4%

HOLE #:

DEPTH:

M/C:

HOLE #:

DEPTH:

TH20 - 01

34.4%

32'

M/C:

CLIENT: STOBER GROUP

MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT


18183JOB #:

RECEIVED:

TESTED:

16-Oct-20

16-Oct-20LOCATION:

PROJECT:

COMMENTS: DISTRIBUTION:

Lab Technician Lab Manager

Per: Reviewed By: Jakub Szary, B.Sc., AScTCindy Marinovic, B.Sc.

Connor Griffin, GeoPacific


(ASTM D2216)

Vancouver Lab


Vancouver, BC

V6P 6P2

CLIENT: STOBER GROUP JOB #: 18183

PROJECT: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED: 16-Oct-20

LOCATION: 3340 LAKESHORE ROAD, KELOWNA TESTED: 16-Oct-20

HOLE #: TH20 - 07 TH20 - 07 TH20 - 07 TH20 - 07 TH20 - 07

DEPTH: 2' 8' 18' 28' 35'

M/C: 32.1% 16.0% 33.6% 35.8% 65.8%

HOLE #: TH20 - 07 TH20 - 08 TH20 - 08 TH20 - 08 TH20 - 08

DEPTH: 39' 1' 7' 23' 37'

M/C: 17.7% 23.7% 26.4% 36.8% 70.8%

HOLE #: TH20 - 09 TH20 - 09 TH20 - 10 TH20 - 10 TH20 - 10

DEPTH: 8' 18' 3' 6' 9'

M/C: 22.6% 28.4% 47.9% 202.7% 26.0%

HOLE #: TH20 - 10 TH20 - 11 TH20 - 11 TH20 - 11 TH20 - 11

DEPTH: 16' 4' 7' 14' 21'

M/C: 30.2% 12.7% 91.0% 28.5% 41.8%

HOLE #: TH20 - 11 TH20 - 11 TH20 - 11 TH20 - 12 TH20 - 12

DEPTH: 31' 38' 43' 3' 13'

M/C: 39.7% 66.0% 23.7% 25.0% 23.0%

HOLE #: TH20 - 12 TH20 - 12 TH20 - 12 TH20 - 13 TH20 - 13

DEPTH: 27' 36' 38' 2' 13'

M/C: 36.0% 68.8% 19.2% 22.0% 24.7%

COMMENTS: DISTRIBUTION: Connor Griffin, GeoPacific

Per: Cindy Marinovic, B.Sc. Reviewed By: Jakub Szary, B.Sc., AScT



(ASTM D2216)

Vancouver Lab


Vancouver, BC

V6P 6P2



HOLE #: TH20 - 13

HOLE #:

HOLE #:

JOB #: 18183

PROJECT: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED: 16-Oct-20

LOCATION: 3340 LAKESHORE ROAD, KELOWNA TESTED: 16-Oct-20

DEPTH: 19'

M/C: 34.5%

DEPTH:

M/C:

DEPTH:

M/C:

HOLE #:

DEPTH:

M/C:

HOLE #:

DEPTH:

M/C:

HOLE #:

DEPTH:

Per: Cindy Marinovic, B.Sc. Reviewed By: Jakub Szary, B.Sc., AScT


M/C:


SIEVE ANALYSIS

(ASTM C117/C136)

Vancouver Lab


Vancouver, B.C.

V6P 6P2

3.7

13.1

5.6

57.3

35.3

89.2

85.6

77.5

69.1

100.0

91.8

No. 200

No. 100

No. 30

No. 50

3/8''

No. 4

No. 8

No. 16

0.075

6''

5''

4''

3.5''

3''

2.5''

2''

1.5''

1''

3/4''

1/2''

0.300

0.150

1.18

0.600

12.5

9.5

4.75

2.36

63

50

37.5

25

19

SOURCE:

SAND, GRAVELLY, TRACE SILT - BROWN

TH20-01 @ 6'

150

125

100

90

75

SIEVE SIZES

Imperial (mm)

%

PASSING

GRADATION

LIMITS

SAMPLE INFORMATION

MATERIAL TYPE:



Per: Reviewed By: Jakub Szary, B.Sc., AScTCindy Marinovic, B.Sc.


SPECIFICATION: NOT SPECIFIED REQUESTED BY: CG

SAMPLE ID:

METHOD:

1

WASHED

LOCATION:

PROJECT:




18183JOB #:

RECEIVED:

TESTED:

16-Oct-20

23-Oct-20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.010.1110100

% P

ass

ing

Sieve Size (mm)

ATTERBERG TEST

(ASTM D4318)

Vancouver Lab


Vancouver, B.C V6P 6P2

PROJECT #

DATE SAMPLED: 8-Oct-20

DATE TESTED: 26-Oct-20

Comments:

Per: Cindy Marinovic, B.Sc. Reviewed by: Jakub Szary, B.Sc., AScT


39.1%

18183STOBER GROUP



3

LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION

Trial Number 1 2

OVEN-DRIED, PARTICLES REMOVED VIA SIEVING

CLIENT:

PROJECT NAME:

PROJECT LOCATION:

TH20-03

37'

TEST HOLE #:

TEST HOLE DEPTH:

36 23

MH

RESULTS SUMMARY

AS IS MOISTURE LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SOIL CLASSIFICATION

69.7% 52 39 13

PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION

39.3% 38.9%

SAMPLE PREPARATION:

17

Trial Number 1 2 AVERAGE

Number of Blows

% Moisture Content 51.4% 52.4% 53.3%

% Moisture Content

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pla

stic

ity

In

de

x

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Chart

CL

CH

MH

MLML-CL

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1 10

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t

Number of Blows

Flow Curve

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report ...

Documents

Transcript of Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report ...