GEOTECHNICAL CONCEPTUAL

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
CENTREPORT CANADA WAY GRADE
SEPARATIONS

SOILS ENGINEERING CIVL7480

INSTRUCTOR- DR. JAMES BLATZ

PRESENTED BY:
DILPREET SINGH
GURTEJ SINGH
PROJECT OUTLINE
Introduction
Background and Existing Information
Sub-surface Conditions
Consolidation and Slope Stability Analysis
Embankment Designs and Geotechnical Considerations
Risk Assessment
Monitoring Programs
INTRODUCTION
In this project, technical requirements and specifications are
reviewed to provide design recommendations for the
geotechnical considerations.
It also includes qualitative risk assessment of the given
recommendations.
Reporting will be done only on two of the grade separations:
• PTH 101 and CCW System Interchange (site 1).
• CPR Carberry/Omands Creek Grade Separation (site 2).
Site 1 Site 2
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING INFORMATION
There are five reports published by KGS group Limited and National Testing
Laboratories Limited, these reports have the required geotechnical and
groundwater information.
 Centre Port Canada Way Hydrogeological Investigations – 24 hour Pump Test
and Test Hole Drilling at West Perimeter Highway and Saskatchewan Ave.
(KGS Group, June 2009)
 PTH 101 Geotechnical Investigation. (National Testing Laboratories Limited,
June 2009)
 Centre Port Canada Way Hydrogeological Investigations CPR Carberry
Crossing – Inkster Blvd. and Sturgeon Road. (KGS Group, August 2009)
 Centre Port Canada Way Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation Report (KGS
Group, July 2009)
 Laboratory Testing Results (National Testing Laboratories Limited)
SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS
SOIL STRATIGRAPHY
13 boreholes were drilled near proposed site for Centre Port
Way and Perimeter Highway Interchange (site 1) for the
subsurface investigation. Following three types of soil were
encountered.
Silty Clay
Silt Till
Limestone Bedrock
SOIL STRATIGRAPHY CONTINUED…..
6 boreholes were drilled near proposed location for CPR
Carberry Main Line crossing (site 2). Four types of soils
were found at this location.
Organic soil
Silty Clay
Silt Till
Limestone Bedrock
 Location Test hole No. Layer of soil Thickn Moistur Cu (Torvane test) SPT Value(N) Atterberg’s limits
ess e (KPa)
(m) Cu Cu Cu N N MIN. N PL LL PI
AVG
MAX. MIN. AVG. MAX. AVG. % %
(%)
Centre Port Way THO9-06 Silt clay 3 39 40 35 38 - - - - - -
and Perimeter Silt Till 9.2 9.75 - - - 49 4 25 - - -
Highway Organic clay 1.5 40 - - - - - - 27 95 .68
Interchange Silt clay 5.8 42 70 35 42 - - - 25 75 .50
(site 1) THO9-07 Clay Till .5 32 25 25 25 - - - - - -
Silt Till 4.3 18 - - - 45 3 20 - - -
THO9-09 Organic clay .9 42 - - - - - - - - -
Silt clay 3.6 40 45 35 40 - - - 25 75 .50
Clay Till 1.1 20 25 25 25 - - - - - -
Silt Till 4.3 10 - - - 35 14 25 - - -
THO9-12 Silt clay 3 35.5 90 50 70 - - - - - -
THO9-13 Silt clay 3 35.5 100 50 82 - - - - - -

THO9-14 Silt clay 5.2 38 100 30 55 - - - - - -

Silt Till 4.3 11 - - - 87 11 33 - - -

THO9-15 Silt clay 4.6 35 100 20 52 - - - 22 72 .5

Silt Till 3.9 9 - - - 54 11 24 - - -

THO9-16 Silt clay 5.2 40 100 10 52 - - - - - -

Silt Till 2.9 11.6 10 10 10 15 3 7 - - -

THO9-17 Silt clay 3 36 100 85 94 - - - - - -

THO9-18 Silt clay 3 39 100 30 63 - - - - - -

THO9-26 Silt clay 4.9 - 50 30 42 - - - - - -

Silt Till 10 - - - - 56 52 54
THO9-27 Silt clay 4.7 - 55 10 30 - - - - - -
Silt Till 7.6 - - - - 82 12 36 - - -
 Location Test hole No. Layer of soil Thickn Moistu Cu (Torvane test) SPT Value(N) Atterberg’s limits
ess re (KPa)
(m)
AVG Cu Cu Cu N N N PL LL PI
(%) MAX. MIN. AVG. MAX. MIN. AVG. % %

CPR Carberry Organic clay .7 40 - - - - - - - - -

Main Line THO9-20
crossing (site 2) Silt clay 4.3 37.5 60 30 45 - - - - - -
Silt Till 1 29 - - - 60 2 15 - - -
Organic clay .2 42 - - - - - - - - -
THO9-21
Silt clay 3.8 38.6 60 30 44 - - - 30 95 .65
Silt Till 1.3 13 - - - 10 6 7.3 - - -
Organic clay .3 - - - - - - - - - -
THO9-22
Silt clay 2.8 27.5 95 30 67 - - - 30 70 .4
Silt Till 3 13 - - - 23 2 9 - - -
Organic clay 0 - - - - - - - - - -
THO9-23
Silt clay 3.7 41 100 40 58 - - - - - -

Silt Till .9 20 - - - 6 6 6 - - -
Organic clay 0 - - - - - - - - - -
THO9-24
Silt clay 4.4 42.5 100 20 62 - - - 25 85 .65

Silt Till .9 20 - - - 17 11 14 - - -
THO9-25 Organic clay .4 42 - - 50 - - - - - -

Silt clay 5.2 46 100 30 55 - - - 25 85 .60

Silt Till .7 - - - - 4 2 2 - - -
 www.reimersoils.ca www.colourbox.com

Organic soil Silty Clay

igws.indiana.edu www.geolsoc.org.uk

Silt Till Limestone Bedrock

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
 For the analysis of groundwater conditions, data from pump wells
was used along with the test holes.
 Short term well testing as well as 24 hour pumping test was
performed to understand the groundwater conditions.
 Near to site 1, PW09-02 was drilled .
 PW09-03, PW09-04 were drilled on both sides of site 2.
 The diameter of the pump wells was kept 125mm and PVC
Schedule 80 casing was used in the pump wells.
Location Range of Piezometric head from top of till Hydraulic Transmissivity
surface Conductivity(m/s (USgpd/ft)
ec)

Site 1 0.7m - 1.5m 8 x10-7 m/sec. 24,000 USgpd/ft

Site 2 3.0m - 5.2m - 18,850 USgpd/ft

It is evident from the above data that at site 2 artesian condition exits.
COSOLIDATION AND SLOPE
STABILTY ANALYSIS
MODEL GEOMETRY
 At site 1, The geometry of the model is based on the data available
regarding the minimum clearance is 5.40m (Schedule 14 TR, 2009)
 At site 2, the minimum clearance because of railway track is 7.10m (
schedule 14 TR, 2009).
 That cross section is considered for the slope stability analysis
where the height of the embankment is maximum.
 Generally, this cross section is located near to the abutment in the
structure.
 Slope stability analysis was done on site 1 and site 2 using a
limit equilibrium slope stability model (Slope/W) in the
GeoStudio 2007 software.
 Prior to the analysis it was assumed the approach embankment
is made using earth and abutments are made of concrete.
 Slip surfaces were defined using the entry and exit method.
 Factor of safety was computed using the Morgenstern-Price
method of slices.
SOIL PROPERTIES
The soil properties used in the slope stability analysis are
based on the test results given by KGS Group Limited.
Various tests were performed at both the sites to determine
the properties of the soil such as Field Torvane test,
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) etc.
On the site 2, organic clay was present at the top which
was removed because of poor engineering properties.
The soil parameters used in the analysis are listed in the table below.

Type of Soil Unit weight (KN/m3) Cohesion (Cu) Angle of Friction (φ)

Embankment Fill 21 0 40

Silt Clay 18.5 20 20

Silt Till 19 15 30

Site 1

Type of Soil Unit weight (KN/m3) Cohesion (Cu) Angle of Friction (φ)

Embankment Fill 21 0 40

Silt Clay 18.5 20 20

Silt Till 19 12.5 30

Site 2
GEOMETRY

Site 1

Site 2
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
 Settlement analysis was done on site 1 and site 2 Coupled
Stress/PWP (Sigma/W) in the GeoStudio 2007 software.
 The soil parameters used in the analysis are listed in the table
below.
Location Soil type Young’s Modulus Poisson’s Ratio
(Kpa)

Site 1 Embankment Fill 40000 0.3

Silty clay 5000 0.4

Silt till 80000 0.35
Site 2 Embankment Fill 40000 0.3
Silty clay 5000 0.4
Silt till 80000 0.35
SETTLEMENT AND STRESS RESULTS
(SITE 1)
SITE 2
 FACTOR OF SAFETY

Site 1 Site 2
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ABUTMENT DESIGN FOR
BOTH THE SITES

As the height of the embankments is high, the sill abutment would
be more economical as compared to full-retaining abutment .
The sill abutment is constructed at the top of the slope after the
roadway embankment is close to final grade.
In this type of abutment, more horizontal clearance and sight
distance is available as compared to a full-retaining abutment and
semi-retaining abutment.
As the abutment is located on the embankment slope, collision
hazards become lesser for any vehicle.
In this type of abutment, passive pressure is provided by the fill on
the bridge side which results lateral stability of the abutment.
As the soil is not having enough bearing capacity, pile foundation
must be provided and be extended to the top of the bedrock.
In semi-retaining abutment, the pile extends through the
embankment material which provides some shaft resistance hence
decreasing the radius of the pile.
As the volume of cylinder is V=πr2h which varies according to the
square of the pile hence decreases the volume of the pile thus
making it more economical.
Pitching should be provided on the bridge side of the abutment for
lateral stability and prevention of erosion.
Sill Abutment
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ABUTMENT DRAINAGE

 There must be provisions to prevent the development of hydrostatic water

pressure behind the abutment.
 Moreover, appropriate arrangement must be made to prevent erosion of the
backfill and the end slope.
 For surface drainage, gutters or paved ditches should be provided to drain
surface water away from the abutment and backfill.
 As the backfill material is pervious and underlain by impervious foundation,
therefore 100 to 150 mm diameter perforated horizontal drains are required at
the bottom of the fill to carry the water to the sides of the approach fill.
 Geotextile filter around the perforated pipe is required to prevent clogging of
the drain which depends upon the gradation of the backfill.
BORROW SOURCES
The specifications of material from borrow source should
meet the requirements as mentioned in section 400.3.2.4
of Schedule 14 TR, 2009.
Borrow source should be as near as possible to the
construction site.
Some of the borrow sources which are near to the site are
Trans Gravel Supplier, Bird’s hill, Monominto etc.
EXCAVATIONS
 For open excavations, flat side slopes may be required, particularly in case
of saturated soils.
 Dewatering of the bedrock may be required due to high groundwater tables
for stable excavation and stability of side slopes.
 Prior to the excavations deeper than 1.5m, proper review and design by an
experienced geotechnical engineer is required in order to ensure satisfactory
performance of the excavation.
 Excavations must be carried out according to the regulations under the
Manitoba Workplace Safety and Health Act. Trench cages or temporary
shoring may be required.
 Excavation should be done in such a way so that least damage is caused to
adjacent embankment surfaces.
 Pumping from the interior of the excavation shall be done so that the water is
removed from the footing base.
 It must be ensured that the water pumped from any excavation must be
discharged to a minimum of 25 meters measured from the edge of a
watercourse.
 It must be ensured that the river banks, channel and embankment slopes
outside of the excavation limits or beyond the profile shown on the drawings
should not be disturbed.
 It is not allowed to dispose of excavated material within the project limits.
(Schedule 14 TR, 2009)
 RISK ASSESSMENT
Type of risk Sr. no. Potential Risk Likelihood Impact Risk
Score
Design risks 1 Overturning of abutment 3 8 24
2 Horizontal movement of 3 8 24
abutment

3 Vertical movement of abutment 2 6 12

4 Differential Settlement of 5 6 30
embankment
5 Settlement in the Bearing soil 4 5 20
6 Shear failure of soil 2 6 12

7 Embankment slope failure 2 6 12

Constructability 1 Poor ground water conditions 5 3 15
risks
2 Poor weather conditions 4 6 24
3 Poor compaction of soil 6 5 30
4 Poor quality control of material 4 6 24
5 Excavating and dewatering 5 5 25
Total risk score 252
 Ranking of various Risk

Excavating and dewatering

Poor quality control of material

Poor compaction of soil

Poor weather conditions

Poor ground water conditions

Embankment slope failure

Shear failure of soil

Settlement in the Bearing soil

Differential Settlement of embankment

Vertical movement of abutment

Horizontal movement of abutment

Overturning of abutment

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
 FIELD MONITORING PROGRAM
For controlling the potential risk of failure of structure. It is quite necessary to monitor
some important parameters of soil such as Pore water pressure, Stresses in Soil, Lateral
Deformation, Vertical Deformation. Therefore, Field Monitoring Program is very
important. And we will suggest following Field control program techniques for this project.
 Piezometers may be installed to monitor the buildup and dissipation of pore water
pressures at several elevations within the compressible layer.
 Inclinometer should be installed for measuring lateral movements in the slope.
 Earth Pressure Cells should be installed in embankment for measuring total stress
parameters.
 The Rod Extensometer should be installed for measuring vertical movements.
 Compaction of soil should be verified against code requirement of TR schedule 14 by
site engineer.