GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED DTHR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY

LOT 1, BLOCK 10, PLAN 892 0192
RED DEER, ALBERTA
 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED DTHR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY
LOT 1, BLOCK 10, PLAN 892 0192
RED DEER, ALBERTA

Submitted To:

EXTENDICARE CANADA INC.

CALGARY, ALBERTA
c/o AL-TERRA ENGINEERING LTD.
RED DEER, ALBERTA

Submitted by:

PARKLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING LTD.

RED DEER, ALBERTA
PROJECT NUMBER: RD1967
OCTOBER 2006
 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page i of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4.0 SOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4.1 TOPSOIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4.2 FILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.3 LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.4 TILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.5 WATER SOLUBLE SULPHATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5.0 GROUNDWATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6.1 SLOPE PROFILES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6.2 SITE OBSERVATIONS AND PRELIMINARY AIR PHOTO INFORMATION . . . 6
6.3 SLOPE SOIL PROFILE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.4 STABILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.5 STABILITY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

7.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7.1 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7.2 SLOPE RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2.1 Top of Slope Development Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2.2 General Slope Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3 SITE PREPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4 FOOTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.5 PILE FOUNDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.5.1 Bored Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.5.2 Driven Steel Piles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.5.2 Pile Caps And Grade Beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page ii of 25

7.6 FLOOR SLABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

7.7 EXCAVATIONS AND BACKFILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.8 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.9 SUB-DRAINAGE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.10 SIDEWALKS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.11 SERVICE TRENCH INSTALLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.11.1 Service Trench Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.11.2 Pipe Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.11.3 Trench Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.12 CONCRETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.13 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.14 LANES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

8.0 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A Figure 1 - Key Plan

Figure 2 - Site Plan
Figure 3 - 2002 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4 - Ravine Contour Plan
Figure 5 - Slope Profiles A & B
Figure 6 - Slope Profiles C, D & E
Figure 7 - Slope Analysis Sections A & E
Figure 8 - Slope Set-Back Examples
Borehole Logs (20)
Soil Test Results
Aggregate Specifications
Explanation Sheets

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 1 of 25

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Extendicare Canada Inc. is proposing to construct an extended care facility in Red Deer,
Alberta. Parkland Geotechnical Consulting Ltd. (ParklandGEO) was commissioned to undertake a
geotechnical investigation of the site. The scope of the work was provided in Parkland’s proposal
letter dated November 14, 2005 (File PRO936). Authorization to proceed with the investigation was
given Mr. Martin Broks of Al-Terra Engineering Ltd., acting on behalf of Extendicare Canada Inc.

This report summarizes results of field and laboratory testing programs and presents geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed development. Geotechnical recommendations are provided with
respect to design, development lay out and installation of underground services, general foundation
conditions, roadway subgrades and flexible pavement design for proposed roads. The slope
assessment in this report is intended to provide the developer with a reasonable expectation with
respect to slope stability and potential for slope movement; and to communicate the technical risks
so that the developer and the City of Red Deer can make informed development decisions relating
to the slope.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility development is located on the east of Michener
Avenue and south of 55th Street in Red Deer, Alberta. The legal address of the property is Lot 1,
Block 10, Plan 892 0192. The site location is shown on the Key Plan, Figure 1 in Appendix A. The
Michener Complex consists of about 94 acres. The proposed site is the 43 acres of undeveloped
land east and south of the Michener Complex. Access to the property was via Michener Avenue.
The proposed development consists of a 280 bed continuing care building, a 50 bed assisted living
facility and 36 villa style townhouses for seniors. A Site Plan illustrating the proposed development
out is provided in Figure 2.

The subject property is relatively level to gently rolling with a ravine along the northeast side of the
site which deepens to the north. The ravine is a seasonal drainage channel for the surrounding
upland area, including the Michener Complex, eventually draining into the Red Deer River valley
within the Gaetz Lakes Sanctuary area. The subject property is surrounded by residential
development to the south and east. The nearest major water body are the Gaetz Lakes which are
located about 1000 m north of the property. The Red Deer River is located over 2 km to the
west/northwest of the property. An aerial photograph from 2002 is provided on Figure 3 in
Appendix A to show the key features of the area.

The upland area around the ravine has an elevation of about 883 m. The ravine is between 3 and
12 m deep with a base elevation of about 872 at the north end of the ravine near 55 Street. Surface
drainage at the site was directed locally towards the nearest ravine areas, so no standing water
was observed on the subject site. The base of the ravine is subject to seasonal water flows which
appear to cause minor erosion and down-cutting, although the base of the ravine appears to be
relatively stable. The ravine slopes range from relatively flat at 5H:1V to almost 1.5H:1V in the
steepest areas as shown on the Ravine Contour Plan, Figure 4. Several typical cross-sections
through the ravine are shown on Figures 5 and 6. The ravine slopes do not exhibit any signs of deep

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 2 of 25

slope movement and no springs were visible. The exposed ravine slopes are showing some signs
of erosion in steeper sections, but there are only very localized signs of surficial slope movement.
The slope face cover is characterized by some soil exposures interspersed between prairie
grasses, low brush with stands of moderately thick tree growth.

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROGRAMS

Between May 17 and 23, 2006, ten deep boreholes (1 to 10) and eight shallow boreholes (11 to 18)
were drilled at the site. Boreholes 1 to 7 were drilled within the proposed building footprint and
housing areas to the depths of between 7 and 12 m below grade. Boreholes 8 to 10 were drilled
to depths of between 15 and 16 m below grade near the crest of the ravine slope. The shallow
probe holes were drilled in the proposed parking areas to a depth of 3.0 m below grade. On July 14,
2006, two additional deep boreholes (19 and 20) were drilled to the depths of 12.0 and 12.5 m near
the crest of the slope at the north end of the ravine. The locations of these boreholes are shown
on the Site Plan, Figure 2 in Appendix A. The soil encountered was logged according to the
Modified Unified Soil Classification System. Soil samples were taken at 1.0 m intervals in order to
determine the soil/moisture profile. Standard Penetration Tests were taken at selected depth
intervals in all boreholes. All soil samples were returned to ParklandGEO’s Red Deer soil
laboratory for selected testing to determine the soil properties.

Standpipes were installed in all deep boreholes at the completion of drilling, and the groundwater
levels were recorded at the completion of drilling. Stabilized groundwater levels were measured in
the boreholes on May 17, June 3, 12, 23, and July 21 and 28, 2006. The local ground surface
elevations at the borehole locations were surveyed relative to a geodetic datum by Al-Terra
Engineering Ltd.

4.0 SOIL CONDITIONS

The general soil profile encountered at the site was topsoil or fill with thick lacustrine deposits of
interbedded silt, sand and clay overlying clay till. The detailed soil conditions encountered at the
borehole locations are described on the borehole logs in Appendix A. The soil test results and
definitions of the terminology and symbols used on the borehole logs are provided on the
explanation sheets also in Appendix A. The following is a brief description of the soil types
encountered.

4.1 TOPSOIL

The surficial topsoil up to 500 mm thick was encountered at all borehole locations. Based on
observations and experience, topsoil thickness is expected to vary and may exist in greater
thickness than those found at the boreholes. The topsoil was moderately organic, black and moist,
and it is considered to be weak and highly compressible when subjected to loads.

A layer of buried topsoil with a thickness of 1.0 m was noted below the sand fill in Borehole 17.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 3 of 25

4.2 SURFACE SOILS

Possible layers of fill up to 2 m deep were present below the topsoil around the perimeter of the
ravine and near the drainage channel Borehole 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19 and 20 to a depth of 2.0 m
below grade. The fill in Borehole 3 and 16 was clayey silt with non to low plastic and of a stiff
consistency. The fill in other boreholes was silty clay with a trace amount of sand and contained
rootlets in Borehole 20. This fill was low to medium plastic and of a stiff consistency.

A thin layer of surficial fine grained sand was found below the topsoil in Borehole 1, 8, 13, 15 and
17. The density of this wind blown sand soil ranged from loose to medium dense. These surficial
sand deposits are considered to be stable and well suited for use as general fill although the fine-
grained characteristics may pose some handling problems when very wet. Based on local
experience soaked CBR value of the sand was expected to be about 10.

4.3 LACUSTRINE DEPOSITS

Deposits of interbedded silt, sand and clay were encountered below the topsoil or fill in all boreholes.
Lacustrine deposits are typical for east Red Deer and are typically encountered to depths of over 6
to 10 m deep in this area. These lacustrine soils are normally to slightly over consolidated. The
upper lacustrine deposits are typical silty clay, but the soils get progressively sandier with depth.
These firm to stiff silty clay soils ranged from low to medium plastic with moisture contents ranging
from 20 to slightly over 35 percent. Based on these test results the majority of moisture contents for
the lacustrine silty clay are above the Optimum Moisture Content (OMC). From local experience,
the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD - ASTM D698) on these lacustrine deposits
of silty clay were estimated to be in an range of about 1730 kg/m3 with an OMC of about 16 to 18
percent. Based on local experience soaked CBR values are expected to range between 2.5 and 5
for the silty clay. In general, these silty soil deposits were considered to be wet, soft, sensitive to
disturbance, and frost susceptible.

4.4 TILL

Glacial clay (till) deposits were found below the lacustrine soils in all of the deep boreholes at the
depths of ranging from 5.3 to 9.0 m below grade. The local till was a mixture of sand, silt and clay
with inclusions of pebbles, cobbles, coal fragments and numerous silt and sand stringers. Wet sand
lenses were found within the till at variable depths in Borehole 19 and 20. Although not encountered
during this investigation, the local till commonly has inclusions of boulders. The till was generally very
stiff to hard and medium plastic. Moisture contents in the till were typically between 10 to 20 percent
with a typical value of 18 percent.

4.5 WATER SOLUBLE SULPHATES

Soil samples at a depth of 2.0 m in Borehole 1 to 10 were tested for water soluble sulphate
concentration tests. The concentrations of sulphates are expressed as a percent of the dry mass
of soil. The concentrations of water soluble sulphate were between 0.04 and 0.05 which indicates
a negligible potential for sulphate attack on buried concrete in direct contact with soil.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 4 of 25

5.0 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater seepage and sloughing was observed during drilling in some deep boreholes.
Stabilized groundwater levels were measured on May 17, June 3, 12, 23 and July 21 and 28, 2006.
The observed groundwater levels ranged from about 3.7 to 8.5 m below the grade, dropping in
elevation towards the Gaetz Lake and the Red Deer River valley in the north/northwest direction. The
following table summarizes the observed groundwater conditions.

TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER LEVELS (m)
GROUND GROUNDWATER LEVELS (m)
BH # ELEVATIO
N (m) COMPL. May 17/06 Jun 3/06 Jun 12/06 Jun 23/06 Jul 21/06 Jul 28/06

1 884.322 Wet 7 - - - - -

2 883.049 Wet - 4.3 3.7 3.7 - -

3 884.089 Wet - 6.3 6.3 6.3 - -

4 884.11 Dry - 7.1 7.1 7.2 - -

5 884.155 Wet 8.2 7 6.9 6.9 - -

6 884.317 Dry - 8.1 8.1 8.1 - -

7 822.803 Dry - - - - - -

8 822.394 Wet 7.3 6.8 6.7 6.7 - -

9 883.909 Wet - 7.7 7.7 7.6 - -

10 884.237 Wet - 8.5 8.5 8.4 - -

19 882.326 Wet - - - - 7.8 7.8

20 882.2 12.2 - - - - 8.4 8.3

These groundwater levels are considered to be near the seasonal low and are expected to fluctuate
higher on a seasonal basis. The local groundwater table is considered to be dependent on surface
water infiltration for recharge. Local precipitation and runoff will infiltrate down to the static water
table through fissures and sand/silt lenses within the till. Localized areas may experience temporarily
perched conditions in fissures or sand lenses after periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation and
snow-melt. Perched water conditions will dissipate over time as the groundwater infiltrates down
through the low permeable clay soils.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 5 of 25

6.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT

A slope stability analysis was conducted to assess potential sensitivity of the local ravine slopes to
potential development in the upland area. Slope stability is described in terms of a factor of safety
(FS) against slope failure which is the ratio of total forces promoting failure divided by the sum of
forces resisting failure. In general, a FS of less than 1 indicates that failure is expected and a FS
of more than 1 indicates that the slope is stable. A steepened slope will slump back over time to
establish a stable profile for the existing soil and groundwater conditions. The FS of a slope will
increase slightly as vegetation is established on the face to protect the subgrade soil from
weathering. Given the possibility of soil variation, groundwater fluctuation, erosion and other factors,
slopes with FS ranging between 1.0 and 1.3 are considered to be marginally stable and a “long term”
stable slope is considered to have a FS of over 1.3.

For top-of-bank development a FS of at least 1.3 is desired for the critical failure surface which failure
surface with the lowest calculated FS intersecting the proposed structure or private development.
Structures generally represent a higher risk and potential for loss of investment, therefore a FS of
at least 1.5 is recommended for the slope or the proposed structure is “set back” a distance from the
crest to provide this factor of safety. The crest is defined as the line where there is a distinct break
in the grade at the top of the slope as determined by the intersection of the slope angle with the
extension of upland surface grade. The set-back provides a buffer zone which might be subject to
slope movement, but will provide warning to the Owner before the structure is impacted.

For land development above non-stable slopes (FS < 1.3), the recommended practice is to provide
set back limits. The upland point above the crest at which the FS > 1.5 would apply to the location
of permanent structures on private property (i.e. Building Restriction Line). The upland point above
the crest at which the FS > 1.3 would apply to private property lines in proposed developments near
slopes (i.e. a Development Restriction Line). This two set-back line practice recognizes that top of
bank movements could result in loss of useable property, but allows less risk sensitive development
such as yard landscaping and temporary structures (decks, gazebos, etc.) between the Building and
Development Restriction Lines, subject to conditions (eg. height of new fill for terraced walls). Under
this system it must be accepted these yard features will be subject to a higher risk of movement than
the house.

6.1 SLOPE PROFILES

The ravine base grades up from the north to the south where is only about 2.5 to 3 m deep. The
slope profile for the site was based on the survey contour data provided by Al-Terra. There are a
couple of typical slope profiles along the ravine. Five typical cross-sections for through the ravine
have been illustrated on Figures 5 and 6. These profiles are designated as Slopes A to E as per
the profile locations shown on Figure 4.

The most common slopes are relatively flat with a slope angle of about 3.5H to 4H:1V. A couple of
over steepened slopes are present in Slopes A and E. These slopes have angles of about 2H:1V.
In review of the profiles the steepened slopes shown on Sections B and C are considered to be
critical sections due to a combination of slope angle and height of slope. The closest approach of

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 6 of 25

proposed development was at the south end of the ravine where the slope angle was relatively flat,
but may have been modified by historical grading around the ravine.

6.2 SITE OBSERVATIONS AND PRELIMINARY AIR PHOTO INFORMATION

Based on site reconnaissance, the review of survey information and historical air photographs from
1950, 1962, 1986, 1997, and 2001, there was no evidence of significant erosion or slope movement
on the slope face. This review indicated minimal change in the slope face over time since 1962.
During the site visits there was no signs of springs or seeps in the slope. Note, although
groundwater seepage was not observed in the slope face below the site, the possibility of springs
or seeps cannot be totally discounted under all conditions.

6.3 SLOPE SOIL PROFILE

Boreholes 7 to 10, 19 and 20 were drilled near the crest of the slope. There were no boreholes drilled
on the slope face or at the toe of the ravine due to access issues. The deepest boreholes were
Boreholes 8 and 9 which were drilled into till at depths of 16 m. Historical water wells for this area
indicate a typical upland profile has bedrock at a depth of about 25 m overlain by thick till deposits.
An idealized soil profile was used for stability analysis. The soil profile below the crest area was
considered to have a thick lacustrine clay layer underlain by till at a depth of 8 m which corresponds
to an elevation 876 m at the west slope. The clay was split into an upper and lower layer to allow
the surface of the clay to be modelled with different parameters than the deeper lacustrine soils. The
groundwater rises to the south to about 4 m below grade away from the slope area. The water level
in the design cross-section was varied between 5 and 10 m below grade below the crest location and
water level near the toe in the ravine. Examples of two representative cross section profiles for
Slopes A and E used for analysis are provided on Figure 8 in Appendix A.

6.4 STABILITY ANALYSIS

A stability analysis was carried out using the G-Slope computer program to evaluate the factor of
safety for the representative slope profiles. Based on local experience, the following soil parameters
were estimated for the surficial clay, lower clay and clay till.

TABLE 7
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion, c’ Phi’
(kN/m3) kPa (Degrees)
Clay Fill / Upper Clay 20 0-1 22 - 25
Lower Clay 20 2 22 - 28
Clay Till 21 2-5 28 - 32

For long term stability, effective soil parameters and a predicted likely long term pore
pressure/groundwater condition were used in the analysis. Pore pressure/groundwater condition

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 7 of 25

conditions were modelled by varying the groundwater table and by using the pore pressure ratio (Ru)
where Ru = 0 represents a fully drained slope whereas Ru = 0.5 represents fully saturated slope
conditions.

The analysis involved working with the existing slope profile as interpolated from the provided survey
data and observed soil/groundwater conditions to a model consistent with the site observations. In
general, the first stage of analysis was to model the slope stability under a saturated case which is
considered to be similar to the original formation conditions represented by a pore pressure ratio
(Ru) of 0.5. Then the current slope conditions were simulated with a relatively low groundwater level
and partially saturated pore pressure conditions in the clay represented by a Ru < 0.2. For long term
stability it was assumed that stability of the slope face would be adversely affected by unusual high
groundwater events typical to possible weather and development impacts such as; heavy snow
melt/precipitation, landscape watering and possible service leaks or pipe breaks. To model this the
slope face or upper till was assumed to be saturated as simulated by a Ru of 0.4 to 0.5.

6.5 STABILITY ASSESSMENT

The findings of the slope stability analysis were in general agreement with local experience. Local
experience in the Red Deer area, suggests that clay slopes typically regress over the long term to
about 3.5H to 4H:1V in the lacustrine silts and clays; and to about 2H:1V in the till. Flatter side-
slopes such as those observed around profiles for Slopes B, C and D (see Figures 5 and 6) would
be considered indicative of erosional flattening not slope failure. Most of the slopes at this site were
considered to be natural and free from crest area fills and other development disturbance. The toe
of the slope is not actively eroded by local run-off, although some run-off water flows in the ravine
near the toe on a seasonal basis. The slopes angles for the local natural slopes on the west and
northwest sides of the site are generally flatter than 3.5H:1V which suggests that the local slopes
are mature and stable with areas of even flatter grades where erosion has occurred in conjunction
with the original formation of the ravine slopes by sliding in conjunction with erosional down-cutting.

The general assessment at this site is that the slopes around this development are marginally stable
with a long term FS > 1.3 . The potential for a major slope movement is low under present normal
conditions with reasonable variation. The most notable exception would be of the steepened
(2.5H:1V) upper slope area in the vicinity of Slope A on Figure 5. The upper slope at this location
is estimated to be about FS = 1.1.

The expectation for future slope stability for slopes areas flatter than 4H:1V would be considered to
be low (ie. FS > 1.3) under reasonably wet conditions. Localized slope areas steeper than 3.5H:1V,
were considered to be susceptible to potential shallow surficial slumping under very adverse wet
conditions. Localized steeper slope areas in the vicinity with measured slope angles between 2H
and 3.5H:1V have the potential for a shallow slope movement under the wet conditions.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 8 of 25

7.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

The subsurface conditions at this site are considered to be suitable for the proposed residential
development. Geotechnical considerations in areas with layers of silty clay and clay till are expected
to be similar to typical conditions found in east Red Deer. It is understood that site grading will be
undertaken to level and raise areas to smooth out grades at the site. The main geotechnical issues
regarding site development are:

• the potential for filling below proposed housing areas where fills in some of the present
topographical low areas which may need to be raised more than 1.0 m. Placement of fill
below footing elevation will need to be carefully addressed and monitored to minimize the
potential for foundation problems due to settlement.

• that the silty and sandy surficial soil is relatively sensitive to disturbance which can result in
potential problems during construction depending on actual weather and ground conditions.
An observational approach based on the actual conditions at the time of construction is
considered the best way to optimize costs by identifying problem areas before construction
activity leads to subgrade failure.

• that some of the trench excavation will be into very stiff till soils. To minimize potential trench
settlement, these soils must be backfilled in thin lifts. Backfilling till soils in thicker lifts is not
appropriate and may lead to significant differential settlement due to non-uniform density and
potential bridging within the backfill. These till soils have good soil moisture and textural
characteristics, and so they are well suited to backfill in thin lifts.

• the siltier surficial soils will be highly frost susceptible if they are given access to free water
or groundwater within the zone of seasonal frost (estimated to an average depth of 2.5 m).
In general, the depth to the local water table for much of the site is relatively deep and
probably out of the potential depth of frost.

• the upper slope in the area of Slope A (see Figure 5) is considered to be marginally stable
and will require possible adjustment of either the crest grades or property lines to
accommodate reasonable levels of risk for development. In general, most of the slopes
around the site are flatter than 4H:1V and have an overall FS > 1.3 which is considered
suitable for development with a few common sense restrictions.

The general foundation conditions at this site are considered to be fair to good depending on the
magnitude of foundation loads. Conventional footings and/or footings on gravel mats will be capable
of supporting light foundation loads. The site is also well suited to a number of deep pile foundations
including cast-in-place concrete piles. It is assumed that footing foundations will be used for typical
residences and other commercial or large multi-family developments will require site specific
geotechnical investigations.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 9 of 25

7.2 SLOPE RECOMMENDATIONS

7.2.1 Top of Slope Development Recommendations

Case 1. For crest areas above slopes with an average angle flatter than 6H:1V including areas with
rounded or flattened crests, specific set-back restrictions are not required for laying out property lines
or permanent residential structure locations. For illustrative purposes, a 6H:1V slope is the
approximate side slope for a walk-out basement on a typical house structure.

Case 2. For crest areas above slopes with average angles between 4H and 6H:1V, specific set-back
restrictions are not required for laying out development property lines. Proposed permanent
residential structures should be set-back at least 3 m from the crest; or should be set-back behind
a line extended up from the toe of the slope at an angle of 4H:1V (which ever is closer).

Case 3. For crest areas above slopes steeper than 4H:1V, the development restriction for
recommended location of property lines should be set-back behind a line extended up from the
bottom of the steep break in the slope grade at an angle of 3.5H:1V ; to a maximum distance of at
least 12 m from the crest. Foundations for proposed permanent residential structures should be set-
back behind a line extended up from the steeper break in the slope grade at an angle of 4.0H:1V;
to a maximum distance of at least 3 m from the property line. For example, a shown on Figure 8,
in Appendix A:

• the proposed property line along the crest at Slope A should be set back 12 m from the crest
as governed by the maximum requirement. Proposed structures should be set-back an
additional 5 m from the property line as governed by the 4H:1V line.

• on the west side of Slope E the proposed property line should be set back roughly 4 m as
governed by the 3.5H:1V line. The foundations for the structure should be located behind
the extended 4H:1V line. In case the structure could be practically located closer to the slope
than the proposed property line due to the shallow height of slope. In a case like this the
area could be regraded to conform with the rules of one of the first two cases.

The slope face may be subject to minor surficial failures, especially in steepened areas. Slope face
stability is influenced by precipitation, surface erosion, groundwater and soil moisture conditions.
In order to reduce the possibility of surficial slumping the slope should be kept well vegetated. It is
also important that site development does not initiate any detrimental changes to the subsurface
conditions and slope geometry. For the slope face and areas above slopes with average slope
angles steeper than 6H:1V the following recommendations are provided:

1. Permanent removal of the vegetation from the slope is not recommended and growth of new
vegetation on the slope should be encouraged. Any vegetation that has to be removed
should be replaced as soon as possible. New vegetation for this site be selected from native
types with deep root systems that can grow with a minimum of watering.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 10 of 25

2. Erosion control measures should be implemented as necessary. Site grading carried out
should be designed to drain surface water due to rainfall and snow-melt away from the slope.
If required, features to carry concentrated flows over the crest should be engineered.

3. Permanent underground lawn sprinklers or ornamental ponds should not be permitted within
15 m of crest areas. If swimming pools are proposed they should be properly designed in
consultation with qualified engineers; and should be provided with leak detection and control
systems.

4. One of the most common mistakes for top of slope residential development is for house
contractors to push basement fills onto sloped areas to level out back yard grades. Excess
material from basement excavations should be removed from the top of slope lots; and under
no circumstances be wasted over the slope face. No new fill should be imported to top-of
slope lots. Backyard fills around houses should be placed on native inorganic subgrade and
should be kept to less than 0.5 m in thickness. Significant post development grading on
proposed lots along the crest area should not be undertaken without a detailed engineering
review.

7.2.2 General Slope Care

The following general recommendations are intended as a guide to minimize the impact of
development on the stability of the slope.

• Thin fills placed on sloped areas should be placed on prepared inorganic soil, not topsoil,
because the topsoil layer will provide a weak zone and possible failure slip plane.

• Excessive watering of lawns and trees near the slope should be avoided.

• Fill, grass cuttings and/or construction debris should not be disposed of over the slope crest
or on the slope face.

• Discharge from roof leaders and possible weeping tile systems should be directed away from
the slope. If possible weeping drain should discharge into the City storm sewer system for
houses on lots backing onto the slope. Water should not be allowed to pond on the ground
surface causing increased water infiltration into the slope.

• Unnecessary disturbance to the existing vegetation near the crest, on the slope, or near the
toe of the slope should be discouraged. Removal of grass, trees, shrubs and undergrowth
on the slope will have a negative impact on the slope stability.

These general recommendations are considered to be “common sense” actions to undertake or

avoid in order to minimize potential disturbance to the slope. These recommendations are not
considered to be essential to the safety of the proposed development, but it is considered prudent
to follow these recommendations to maintain a low risk to the proposed property at this site (and the
thereby to the structure). These recommendations and guidelines above are considered to be

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 11 of 25

general and may be subject to site specific modification interpretation based on the review of a
qualified geotechnical engineer.

7.3 SITE PREPARATION

It is recommended that all vegetation, topsoil and fill be stripped from areas to be developed. Topsoil
could be stockpiled for future use at the site. Ideally, fill used to bring the site up to grade should
be: select sand; well graded coarse gravel; or low to medium plastic, inorganic clay. The native silty
clay and clay till soils are considered to be suitable for this purpose. Moisture conditioning of the
native clay soils may be required prior to use as fill in order to achieve specified densities.

The engineered fill placed during site grading at this site should be compacted to at least 95 percent
of SPMDD. Uniformity of compaction is most important. The lift thicknesses should be governed
by the ability of the selected compaction equipment to uniformly achieve the recommended density.
It is recommended that a maximum lift thickness of 200 mm for granular fill and 150 mm for clay fill
be utilized. Granular fill is best compacted with large smooth drum vibratory rollers. Clay fill is best
compacted with large vibratory "padfoot" or "sheepsfoot" rollers. In areas which require higher
compaction, it is recommended that granular fill be placed at moisture contents zero to 2 percent
below OMC and that clay fill be placed at moisture contents about 0 to 2 percent above OMC. This
will help reduce compactive effort and potential risk of subgrade disturbance needed to achieve
maximum density. If coarse gravel is proposed it is recommended to use a gravel with a maximum
aggregate size of 100 mm. A suggested gradation specification is provided in Table 1:

TABLE 2
100 mm COARSE GRAVEL
Sieve Size (mm) Percent Passing By
Weight
100 100
50 85 - 100
25 30 - 70
5 25 - 60
0.08 2 - 10

Special consideration must be given to deep fill areas below possible residential building sites in
areas where proposed fills are greater than 1.0 m below final grade. The engineered fill placed below
structures should be uniformly compacted to at least 98 percent of SPMDD at a moisture content
within 2 percent of OMC for fills 1.0 to 1.5 m deep. For deeper fill, the compaction standards should
be increased to 100 percent of SPMDD. The control of moisture content is considered to be
important for the relatively dry, silty fill, because future wetting of these fill soils may cause
significant settlement. These settlements could occur long after original construction depending on
changes in the groundwater regime due to development (ie. lawn watering, servicing, etc.) and on
normal seasonal conditions. If these density levels cannot be achieved using common fill during site
grading, the footing bearing surfaces should be sub cut and underlain with select granular fills
compacted to at least 98 percent. The depth of subcut should be determined at the time of

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 12 of 25

construction and will depend on factors such as; age of fill, initial compaction, depth of fill, water
table, footing configuration and loads. To reduce settlement potential and compactive effort needed
to achieve maximum density, it is recommended that granular fill be placed at moisture contents zero
to 2 percent below OMC.

If subgrade conditions are soft, a thicker initial lift may be required to form a working base for
subsequent construction. This condition is best addressed in the field at the time of construction.
If subgrade conditions warrant the use of subgrade improvement gravel, it is possible, for lower lifts,
to use less expensive select coarse gravel with a maximum aggregate size of 150 mm.

7.4 FOOTINGS

The site soil conditions are considered suitable for conventional footings or drilled pads. The
allowable bearing pressure on the native soil is 100 kPa for strip footings and 120 kPa for spread
footings, provided an undisturbed bearing surface can be excavated. If weak soils are found an
alternate footing foundation configuration is to replace the weak soils with a mat of compacted
gravel. For footings constructed as described below to a maximum dimension of 1.2 m wide or 1.5
m square, total settlement is expected to be less than 25 mm. The following additional
recommendations are submitted for footing design and construction:

1. Footings should bear on undisturbed, native, inorganic soil or engineered gravel mats free
of loosened material. Excavation of the footing trenches should be undertaken in a manner
to minimize disturbance to the bearing soils. The use of backhoe or grade-all equipment is
strongly recommended over loader or dozer equipment.

2. For protection against frost action, exterior footings in continuously heated structures should
be provided with a minimum depth of ground cover of 1.5 m. Insulation should be placed
exterior to the footing wall. Isolated footings and exterior footings in unheated structures will
require 2.0 m of ground cover. Styrofoam insulation may be used to prevent frost penetration
where adequate depths of ground cover cannot be economically provided. If footings are
placed on a gravel mat:

• the bearing areas should be over-excavated a minimum of 300 mm below and to all
sides of footings. Dependent on foundation level and localized soft or wet areas, it
may be necessary to increase the thickness of the gravel mat. The gravel mat must
extend beyond all sides of footings a distance equal to the gravel thickness.

• gravel should consist of select, well graded coarse gravel with a maximum particle
size of 50 mm and less than 10 percent fines passing the 0.080 mm sieve.

• the gravel should be compacted to at least 100 percent of SPMDD below the base
of the footing. Over-compaction of the footing should be avoided. In the case of very
soft or wet base conditions, the use of a filter fabric may be necessary to act as a
separation barrier between the subgrade and the gravel backfill.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 13 of 25

3. The footing trenches should be protected against surface water run-off and seepage water
through the use of conventional sumps and ditches, if required.

4. Foundation soils must not be allowed to freeze at anytime during or after construction.

5. Preparation of the bearing surfaces should be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer

prior to placement of footings to verify that design criteria are met.

7.5 PILE FOUNDATIONS

As discussed above, the soil conditions are well suited to driven pile options such as driven steel
piles which have been used in the area. Bored cast-in-place friction concrete piles have also been
used in the area, but casing may be required due to sloughing. For the same reason, bored end
bearing piles are not recommended. Soil conditions are also well suited to dynamically compacted
concrete (Franki or Compacto) piles and steel screw piles, however, these pile options are not likely
to be considered for this project. Recommendations are given for driven steel piles and cast-in-place
concrete piles. ParklandGEO can provide information on other pile options, if requested.

7.5.1 Bored Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles

Straight shaft concrete friction piles may be considered at this site provided casing is made available
and is used as required. Cast-in-place concrete piles can be designed based on an allowable shaft
friction value of 18 kPa in the upper clay deposits (to a depth of 8.0 m below grade); and 30 kPa
within the lower deposits (below 8.0 m). The upper 1.5 m of the pile shaft should be assumed to
carry no load. Piles driven through “new” fills should be assumed to have a downdrag (negative skin
friction) equal to 10 kPa for the section of pile within the fill. The end bearing contribution to pile
capacity should be neglected in the design of bored friction piles. Due to potential sloughing
conditions it is recommended to minimize drill depths by using larger diameter piles. Additional
recommendations for cast-in-place piles at the proposed site are as follows:

1. To resist uplift forces created by frost action, the minimum depth of straight shaft piles for
heated structures should be 6.0 m below final grade and the minimum depth of straight shaft
piles for unheated structures should be 7.0 m below final grade. If this embedment
requirement cannot be met, the piles should be insulated to provide the necessary protection
against frost uplift.

2. Steel casing should be available on site during construction and should be used to prevent
sloughing and ground water seepage into the drill-hole.

3. Pile excavations should be filled with concrete as soon as the pile excavation is completed.

4. Steel reinforcement should extend the full length of the pile. The minimum recommended
pile diameter is 400 mm.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 14 of 25

5. All pile installations should be inspected by qualified geotechnical personnel to verify subsoil
conditions are as encountered at borehole locations and that design criteria are met or
exceeded.

7.5.2 Driven Steel Piles

Steel H piles or either open-ended pipe piles or closed end pipe piles may be considered. Closed-
end pipe piles have the advantage of allowing a light to be dropped down the centre of the pile to
check vertical alignment and to check against damage. Concrete filling of the pipe pile will, add
strength to the section, reduce the corrosion potential inside the pipe and help facilitate pile cap
connection. Corrosion of the pipe in a partially saturated medium must be considered in selecting
pipe wall thickness.

Driven steel piles can be designed based on an allowable shaft friction value of 15 kPa in the upper
clay deposits (to a depth of 8.0 m below grade); and 25 kPa within the lower deposits (below 8.0 m).
The allowable capacity of steel piles is determined by multiplying the allowable skin friction by the
exterior surface area of the pile. The upper 1.5 m of the pile shaft should be assumed to carry no
load. For piles driven through “new” fill, the length of the pile shaft within the fill should be assumed
to have a negative skin friction value (i.e. downdrag) of 10 kPa. For piles driven into till, an end
bearing contribution of 450 kPa for the gross area of the pile tip for closed ended piles and 2/3 of the
gross area for open ended piles may be added to the pile capacity. The minimum embedment length
for driven steel piles in heated areas is 7 m. In unheated buildings, the upper 2.2 m should be
assumed to carry no load and the minimum depth of pile embedment should be 8 m.

Based on experience, steel piles driven 2 to 4 m into till may encounter hard driving conditions. For
steel pipe piles driven to practical refusal into till prior to achieving design depth, but beyond the
required minimum embedment depth, the allowable load capacity may be determined by multiplying
the cross-sectional area of steel at the tip by 0.35 fy where fy is yield strength of steel. The maximum
permissible value of fy should be supplied by the manufacturer. The following installation
recommendations are provided:

1. Steel piles should be driven using maximum hammer energies of 450 to 600 J per square
centimetre of pile cross section. A minimum pipe wall thickness of 7 mm is recommended.

2. The piles should not be driven beyond practical refusal which may be taken as 12 blows per
each 25 mm interval for the last 300 mm. This practical refusal criteria is a preliminary guide.
The actual criteria to be used can only be provided once the hammer energies and pile
details are known.

3. The minimum pile spacing should be taken as three pile diameters. Where groups of piles
are to be installed, the piles should be installed starting at the centre with outer piles installed
last. The elevations of the tops of piles already installed should be monitored as adjacent
piles are driven in order to determine if heaving of the piles has occurred. Piles that have
heaved must be redriven.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 15 of 25

4. Monitoring of the pile installation by experienced geotechnical personnel is recommended

to confirm that the piles are installed in accordance with design assumptions and that the
driving criteria are satisfied. For each pile, a complete driving record of blows per 250 mm
or 300 mm of penetration should be obtained and reviewed during pile installation by the
designer.

7.5.3 Pile Caps And Grade Beams

Uplift forces acting beneath pile caps and grade beams, due to frost heave of subsoils will have to
be considered. The effects of these forces can be reduced significantly by providing a 100 mm void
beneath the pile caps and grade beams. To provide this void, the use of “Void Form” or an
equivalent product is recommended. It is very important that this void not fill with water, therefore,
all surface runoff should be directed away from the building as quickly as possible.

7.6 FLOOR SLABS

Grade supported concrete floor slabs may be proposed and an underground parking lot is expected
top have a floor slab approaching a concrete pavement. Grade supported floor slabs, supported by
native gravel soils prepared as described under the "Site Preparation" discussion, are expected to
perform adequately at this site. The following recommendations are provided for grade supported
floor slab in buildings which will be continuously heated.

1. Lightly loaded (less than 10 kPa) floor slabs in the office area should be underlain with 150
mm of well graded, free draining crushed gravel compacted uniformly to 95 percent of
SPMDD.

2. For moderate to heavily loaded (greater than 10 kPa) floor slabs the gravel layer specification
should be increased to a minimum of 250 mm of free draining crushed gravel compacted
uniformly to 98 percent of SPMDD. The gravel used should be well graded, free draining,
granular base with a maximum aggregate size of 50 mm and less than 10 percent passing
the 0.080 mm sieve.

3. Slabs should be constructed independently of all walls, columns and grade beams and
should only be tied into the grade beam with dowels at doorways. Alternatively, the slab can
be tied into the grade beam at all points provided that a construction joint or cut is placed
parallel to the grade beam and at a distance of approximately 2.0 m.

4. Slabs should be provided with sawcuts consistent with local practice and should be
reinforced with steel bars or equivalent wire mesh and dimensioned in accordance with the
structural engineer's requirements. Reinforcing bars can be carried through the joints. As
a minimum, it is recommended that floor slabs should be reinforced with 10 mm bars at 600
mm spacings in both directions. The floor slab should be designed based on a modulus of
subgrade reaction of 50,000 kN/m3 assuming a granular drainage layer at least 150 mm thick
is placed over the native sand or clay subgrade.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 16 of 25

5. Non-load bearing partitions should be designed to accommodate slight vertical movements.

Service connections should be flexible enough to allow for small differential movements. If
possible, water lines should not be placed beneath slab on grade floors. Heating ducts
beneath the floor should be insulated with at least 50 mm of rigid insulation to prevent drying
of subgrade soils.

7.7 EXCAVATIONS AND BACKFILL

Excavations may be required for footings, pile caps, grade beams and underground utility
installations. Excavations through the clay till are expected to be able to stand near vertical for short
periods of time. For excavations deeper than 1.5 m, sideslopes should be cut back to 1H:1.5V.
Flatter side slopes will be required in and above wet silty soils and sand seams. If space does not
permit the slopes to be cut back, some form of temporary shoring must be installed to protect
workers in the trench.

Groundwater seepage should be expected into deeper excavations, especially during periods of
snow-melt or wet weather. The surficial soils are considered to be relatively low permeable clay,
therefore the seepage flows are not expected to be significant unless large sand layers are
encountered. If large sand lenses are encountered in the excavation they may lead to long term
seepage problems. Sand lenses should be subcut and replaced with compacted low to medium clay
till at least 1.0 m thick, or a width thick enough to plug off any seepage from this area. Construction
procedures recommended to handle possible seepage in excavations include the use of
conventional collection ditches and sumps.

The latest edition of the Construction Safety Regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act
of Alberta should be followed. All temporary surcharge loads should be kept back from the
excavated faces a distance of at least one-half the depth of the excavation. All vehicles delivering
materials to the site should be kept back from excavated faces at least 1.0 m.

Fill materials and placement techniques used to bring the site to grade after excavation should
conform with recommendations given under the section on "Site Preparation". The silty clay and clay
till are generally considered to be suitable for use as backfill.

Backfill soils are capable of exerting significant horizontal pressures onto a basement wall. It is
recommended the backfilling be delayed until the concrete has gained enough strength to support
the horizontal loads. The top and bottom of the wall should be braced prior to backfilling. Therefore,
it is recommended to place the basement floor slab and floor joists prior to backfilling around walls.
Backfill should be brought up evenly around the building perimeter to minimize differential horizontal
pressures on the basement walls.

Rather than heavily compacting the backfill around the basements, it is recommended to nominally
compact the backfill (90 - 95 percent of SPMDD) recognizing that settlement of the backfill will occur,
particularly after the first freeze/thaw and moisture infiltration cycle. Backfill around basement walls
should be sloped to shed water away from the structure with a recommended slope of at least 5
percent. The slope of the backfill should be checked periodically to maintain the slope of the ground

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 17 of 25

surface away from the wall. If possible, the upper 500 mm of backfill should be medium plastic clay,
to reduce potential surface water infiltration. Roof leaders from houses and garages may be
discharged onto the ground surface well clear of the foundation walls to help reduce wet weather
infiltration of water into the subdrainage weeping tile system.

7.8 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

The lateral earth pressure distribution acting against the walls of basement areas may be assumed
to be triangular in shape and may be computed using the following equation:

P = Ko Q + Ko ( H

where: P = lateral earth pressure at depth H below ground level (kPa).

Ko = coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest.
Q = surcharge loads at ground surface above the wall (kPa).
( = total unit weight of backfill compacted to 95 percent of SPMDD (kN/m3).
H = depth below ground level (m).

Recommended design values for these parameters are expected to depend on the type of backfill
used. Typical design values are given below:

TABLE 3
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS
Type of Backfill Total Unit Weight Coefficient of Lateral Earth
Pressure (ko)
Native fine grained soil 20 0.6
Free draining granular material 21 0.4

The relationship above makes no allowance for additional horizontal forces due to frost or hydrostatic
pressures, based on the assumption that frost protection and a weeping drain system will be utilized.
The earth pressure relationship given above assumes nominal compaction of the exterior backfill to
a maximum of 95 percent SPMDD and walls should be braced prior to backfilling. If higher levels
of compaction are proposed, the earth pressure relationship given above should be reviewed. If no
frost protection is provided the lateral earth pressures should be increased by a factor of 2.

7.9 SUB-DRAINAGE SYSTEM

The site subgrade below and around the perimeter of the basement areas will be native clay with low
permeable clay backfill that is expected to restrict but not eliminate groundwater flows around the
underground parkade. While flows may be restricted, the potential for groundwater pressure to build
up in the typical gravel below the basement slab and against the basement walls needs to be
addressed. Based on experience, groundwater levels at this site may fluctuate up to the proposed
basement grade during periods of prolonged and heavy precipitation or snow-melt. For design
purposes the peak groundwater level should be taken as 2.0 m below existing grade, so hydraulic

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 18 of 25

pressures could be experienced by the lowermost portions of the parking structure assuming a
maximum basement depth 3 m below grade.

A weeping tile and a self-activating sump pump system should be installed around the perimeter of
the basement areas. For large below grade areas such as the proposed underground parking lot
lateral drains should be considered to assist the drainage of granular materials below the floor slabs.
This drainage system should be installed at an elevation below the floor slab or at the base of
footings. The pipe should drain toward a sump at a cross fall of at least one percent, from which it
should be pumped well away from, and down-gradient of the building. The weeping tile drain should
consist of a 150 mm diameter perforated rigid plastic pipe surrounded by a filter of free draining
gravel and enveloped in a filter fabric. The filter gravel should provide at least 150 mm of free
draining washed rock or clean crushed gravel cover over the weeping tile pipe. The drain pipes do
not need to be provided in a filter cloth if the gravel drain is wrapped. The sub drain system should
be provided with clean-outs spaced about every 60 m. It is recommended to use low to medium clay
select backfill to provide a clay cap above the weeping tile minimize infiltration flows. The back-
slopes away from buildings as recommended in Section 6.2 will also be important in reducing
infiltration into the sub-drainage system.

If below grade structures are to be set more than 2.5 m below the present grade additional protection
against the potential hydraulic pressures should be provided. The two main design options are:

1. Full water-proofing or "tanking" the basement require installation of expensive water stops,
waterproofing, slab thickening and slab anchorage to resist seepage and buoyant forces.

2. An over-flow design uses a conventional sub-drainage system under the floor slab, designed
to remove groundwater for a selected design groundwater level. In the event of exceptionally
high groundwater periods, seepage can be allowed into the parking structure through
pressure relief vents in the walls or floor to protect the structure against excessive hydraulic
pressures. The selection of the design groundwater elevation for the basement structure and
the associated elevation of the subdrainage system should be based on the degree of risk
versus economy.

For normal basement areas dewatering and water-proofing measures are recommended. For the
underground parkade application the overflow option is considered to be most practical with respect
to the expected low permeable subgrade soils. Flooding vents should be cast into the floor slab; or
in the basement walls at the selected design groundwater elevation, to protect the structure against
damage during high groundwater events. Basement walls should be provided with normal
dampproofing above the vents and waterproofing (eg. mastic coatings) below the relief holes to
minimize seepage through the concrete.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 19 of 25

7.10 SIDEWALKS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK

The subgrade soils at the site are wet and fine grained and therefore susceptible to ice lens
formation. Frost heave of exterior flatwork in front of doorways is a common local problem especially
in areas shaded by buildings. Unprotected sidewalks dowelled into foundation often tip up due to
heave rotating around the dowel connection blocking doors and promoting drainage towards the
foundation wall. Unprotected sidewalks that are not dowelled into foundation may heave adjacent
to the wall blocking doors and crushing any exterior wall facing not given enough clearance above
the sidewalk. The magnitude of heave in typical silty soils can range from 75 to 150 mm.

If possible, exterior sidewalks should be moved away from foundation walls and exterior flatwork or
sidewalks in front of doorways should be designed to minimize the impact of frost penetration on
foundation walls and doors. The use of rigid structural insulation, heat tracing or a crushable, non-
degradable void form material (so the void does not fill with water) is recommended in front of
doorways. At least 75 mm of rigid insulation (Styrofoam HI or equivalent) should be placed below
flatwork to restrict frost penetration into the subgrade soils. The insulation should taper out from the
building, providing a gradual transition to unprotected subgrade. The exterior flatwork should slope
away from the building and the sidewalk/building interface should be sealed to prevent seepage of
surface runoff into the foundation soils.

7.11 SERVICE TRENCH INSTALLATION

This development will require series of deep buried services will be installed to typical depths within
4.0 m of final ground surface. It is expected that the trenches will be excavated through sand and
stiff silty clay and will be based in clay soils. Conventional trenched excavations with sloping sides
and/or moveable shields are considered to be feasible.

7.11.1 Service Trench Excavation

The side slope of conventional unsupported trench excavations is dependent on the local soil
conditions at any given location. Where the deep excavations are proposed, conventional trenched
excavations with sloping sides and/or moveable shields are considered to be feasible. For
excavations in silty clay soils greater than 1.5 m deep above the water table side slopes of 1H:1V,
or flatter, are recommended. In very stiff or hard tills, steeper side slopes could be appropriate
subject to site specific review by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. If saturated zones are
encountered within the cut, flatter side slopes and/or dewatering may be required.

The degree of stability of excavated trench walls directly decreases with time and, therefore,
construction should be directed at minimizing the length of time service trenches are left open.
Groundwater seepage from the sides of the trenches and from the base of the excavation is not
expected, except in seasonal conditions where perched water is encountered after precipitation or
snow melt and possibly in low lying areas, if serviced. Base heave and/or boiling of the trench
bottom can occur where a significant differential hydrostatic head exists at the bottom of the
excavation and soils are not cohesive (eg. sand lenses in the till). Dewatering and other pressure
relief measures are available to minimize problems with the stability of the trench bottom.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 20 of 25

Surface grading should be undertaken so that surface water is not allowed to pond adjacent to
service trenches. Surcharge loads, including excavation spoil, should be kept back from the crest
of the excavation a minimum distance equal to the excavation depth. Monitoring and maintenance
of the slopes should be carried out on a regular basis.

Installation of underground services and utilities requires an observational approach be adopted

which should combine past local experience, contractor's experience and geotechnical input. It
would be desirable for the selected excavation contractor to be experienced in similar conditions
and/or, alternatively, to excavate test pits in advance of construction to familiarize field personnel
with subsurface conditions. Quality workmanship is essential, because disturbed wet, cohesionless
soils at depth are very expensive measures to rehabilitate.

7.11.2 Pipe Bedding

Minor deflections of the trench bedding are expected. Underground utility pipes should be of a type
which will maintain watertight joints (i.e. rubber gasket) after minor shifting has occurred. Bedding
requirements are a function of the class of pipe and trench configuration, as well as site specific
geotechnical considerations. In general, granular pipe bedding should be relatively well graded sand
or sand gravel mixture which can be readily compacted around the pipe to achieve a high frictional
strength. Bedding soils must have an appropriate gradation so that migration of natural soils into the
granular system is minimized. Uniform or gap-graded sands and gravels should not be used as
bedding materials unless adequate provision is made to surround such soils with a filter fabric or
graded granular filter compatible with the existing subsoils.

In the event of significant groundwater seepage or wet base conditions, additional measures may
be required. Typically these measures include placement of a working mat of free draining gravel
and filter cloth after lowering of the water table and removal of disturbed soils. This layer of gravel
is intended to be a safe working base and the thickness required will be based on keeping
groundwater below the working surface. The function of the geotextile in pipe bedding applications
is to act as a separation barrier between the coarse bedding materials and the native fine grained
soils, therefore it needs to be strong enough to withstand construction activity.

7.11.3 Trench Backfill

Soil used for trench backfill should be free of frozen material, organics, and any other undesirable
debris. It is expected that native soils will be used at the site for economic reasons. The native silty
clay and clay till materials are considered to be suitable for use as backfill with proper moisture
adjustment. Clay till materials are considered to be suitable for use as backfill, but the till must be
broken down into smaller pieces in order to allow proper compaction and avoid short term bridging
of backfill soils which could result in long term settlement.

To minimize fill settlement under self-weight, it is recommended to use soil with a moisture content
within 5 percent of OMC. When excavated soils are excessively wet, the material should be dried
or blended prior to use as trench backfill. Suitable replacement soils would include local or imported
sand borrow materials with an appropriate moisture content relative to OMC.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 21 of 25

Lift thicknesses for backfill should be governed by the ability of the selected compaction to achieve
specified density throughout the entire lift. Uniformity is of most importance. The nominal lift
thickness for select granular fill is 200 mm. Clay backfill should be placed in thin lifts with a nominal
compacted thickness of 150 mm. This is especially important when backfilling very stiff clay soils.
The backfill should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the SPMDD. For road
areas, the backfill should be compacted throughout the depth of the fill to a minimum 97 percent of
SPMDD.

Some settlement of the compacted backfill in trenches under self-weight is expected to occur. The
magnitude and rate of settlement would be dependent on the backfill soil type, the moisture condition
of the backfill at the time of placement, the depth of the service trench, drainage conditions and the
initial density achieved during compaction. Density monitoring of backfill placement is recommended
to encourage better attention to quality workmanship in placement.

Fill materials with variable moisture contents recompacted as trench backfill would not be expected
to provide uniform roadway subgrades for the support of pavement sections. If trench settlement
in road areas is a concern, it is suggested to consider a deep subgrade preparation of the upper 0.5
to 1.0 of the subgrade to help make the subgrade more uniform. This construction procedure is used
with success on similar deep trench backfill situations in the City of Calgary. Design considerations
required for roadway subgrade construction on recompacted and natural materials in this subdivision
are discussed in the following section of this report.

To minimize the effects of potential settlements on completed roadway surfaces, it is recommended

that staged asphalt pavement construction be adopted and that placement of final asphalt concrete
surfacing materials be delayed as long as possible, subsequent to completion of trench backfilling.

7.12 CONCRETE

Water-soluble sulphate concentrations from the test samples indicated negligible potential for
chemical attack of subsurface concrete. General Use (GU) hydraulic cement is suitable for use in
all subsurface concrete in contact with native soil at the site in accordance with CSA Standard
CAN3-A23.1-M04. This includes foundations and concrete for underground services. The
recommended minimum 28 day compressive strength is 25 MPa. All concrete exposed to a freezing
environment either during or after construction should be air entrained.

7.13 FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN

Two flexible pavement designs are proposed for this residential subdivision:

• a moderate traffic section for the local residential collector roads using a Design Traffic of 1
x 106 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s).

• a light traffic section for the local residential streets using an Design Traffic of 9 x 104 ESAL’s.

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 22 of 25

These design traffic numbers are based on a design period of 20 years. The proposed pavement
designsections for this subdivision are based on the assumption of a stable subgrade which meets
the criteria of CBR = 4; or a subgrade which has been improved to an equivalent level as described
in Section 7.6. The majority of surficial soils across this site are expected to meet this minimum
subgrade support condition and there is the potential for some additional localized soft or sensitive
areas. Based on these assumptions the following flexible pavement sections are proposed:

TABLE 4
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN
Pavement Sections Local Residential Residential Collector
Design traffic (ESAL’s) 9 x 104 1 x 106
Asphalt Concrete 75 mm 120 mm
20 mm Crushed Base Gravel 100 mm 150 mm
Subbase Gravel (minimum) 250 mm 300 mm

The performance of the proposed pavement design sections will be, in part, dependent on achieving
an adequate level of compaction in subgrade and pavement materials. The recommended levels
of compaction for the granular materials in the pavement section should be a minimum of 98 percent
of SPMDD. The asphalt concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 97 percent of Marshall
density based on a 50 blow laboratory Marshall test. Pavement materials should conform to the
following pavement specifications are recommended.

TABLE 5
ASPHALT CONCRETE

Stability (kN minimum) 5.4

Flow (mm) 2-4
Air Voids (percent) 3-5
VMA (minimum percent) 14.5
Asphalt Cement (penetration grade) 150-200 (A)

Aggregate materials for base and subbase gravel should be composed of sound, hard, durable
particles free from organics and other foreign material. It is recommended to use aggregates
conforming to the following City of Red Deer specifications.

TABLE 6
RECOMMENDED AGGREGATE SPECIFICATIONS
City Specifications
Asphalt Gravel Designation 5, Class c
Crushed Base Gravel Designation 4, Class b
Subbase Gravel Designation 3, Class b

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 23 of 25

A copy of the City of Red Deer aggregate specifications are provided in Appendix A. Based on
availability of local materials at the time of tendering or construction, alternate materials could be
considered upon review by the geotechnical engineer.

The road surface should be sloped and graded to effectively remove all surface water as rapidly as
possible. To minimize the occurrence of surface water ponding in the roadways, finished surface
grades and cross slopes in the order of two percent are recommended. Allowing water to pond on
the pavement surface will lead to infiltration of water into the subgrade which could result in
weakening of the subgrade soils.

No special pre-design considerations are given to thickening the pavement section over backfilled
trenches. The settlement of trenches is caused mainly by the long term self weight of the fill, not the
short term live loads from traffic. The road section or the thickness of granular subbase placed in
the road bed should be determined by the level of support expected from the subgrade based on
field observations. To minimize distress to pavement structures, trench backfill should be compacted
to the higher density levels as previously recommended. To minimize the effects of potential
settlements on completed roadway surfaces, it is recommended that staged asphalt pavement
construction be adopted and that placement of final asphalt concrete surfacing materials be delayed
as long as possible subsequent to completion of trench backfilling.

7.14 LANES

Expected lane traffic will include light vehicles, regular garbage collection trucks, grading equipment
and occasional truck traffic. Typically, local lane surfaces are graveled, but some asphalt pavement
may be considered. The proposed lane pavement section are based on a CBR of 4 and a design
period of 20 years.

TABLE 7
PAVEMENT DESIGN FOR LANES
Pavement Sections Paved Gravel
Design Traffic (ESAL’s) 1 x 103 5 x 102
Asphalt Concrete 50 mm - -
20 mm Crushed Base Gravel 200 mm 250 mm 100 mm
Subbase Gravel (minimum) - - 200 mm

For gravel lanes it is expected that more vertical movement and annual maintenance of grades
would be tolerated. The recommended levels of compaction for the granular materials should be a
minimum of 98 percent of SPMDD. If subbase gravel with a large maximum aggregate size is
proposed the thickness of the subbase layer should be at least twice the diameter of the largest
particle size.

It is recommended to provide adequate surface drainage with cross slope crowns of at least 2
percent on regularly maintained gravel lane surfaces. Allowing water to pond on gravel surfaces will

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 24 of 25

lead to infiltration of water into the subgrade which could result in weakening of the subgrade soils
and the associated higher maintenance costs.

8.0 LIMITATIONS

This report is based on the findings at twenty borehole locations. If different subsoil and groundwater
conditions are encountered, this office must be notified and recommendations submitted herein will
be reviewed and revised as required. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of
Extendicare Canada Inc., Al-Terra Engineering Ltd., and their approved agents for the specified
application to the proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility in Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 8920192, Red
Deer, Alberta. It has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Respectfully Submitted,
PARKLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING LTD.
A.P.E.G.G.A. Permit #07312

Minqiang Tu [Link]. [Link]. Mark Brotherton, [Link].

Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 Extendicare Canada Inc. c/o Al-Terra Engineering Ltd. Project RD1967
Proposed DTHR Extended Care Facility October 2006
Lot 1, Block 10, Plan 892 0192, Red Deer, Alberta Page 25 of 25

APPENDIX A

Figure 1 - Key Plan

Figure 2 - Site Plan
Figure 3 - 2002 Aerial Photograph
Figure 4 - Ravine Contour Plan
Figure 5 - Slope Profiles A & B
Figure 6 - Slope Profiles C, D & E
Figure 7 - Slope Analysis Profiles A & E
Figure 8 - Slope Set-Back Examples
Borehole Logs (20)
Soil Test Results
Aggregate Specifications
Explanation Sheets

Z:\RD1950-RD1999\RD1967 - MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT\RD1967 Final Geo [Link]

 AL-TERRA ENGINEERING LTD.
DTHR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY-MICHENER CENTER SOUTH
LOT 1, BLOCK 10, PLAN 892 0192, RED DEER, ALBERTA
KEY PLAN
SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CHK’D: JOB NO.: DRAWING NO.
NTS NOVEMBER 2006 LL MDB RD1967 FIGURE 1
 DTHR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY
MICHENER LAND DEVELOPMENT
LOT 1, BLOCK 10, PLAN 8920192, RED DEER, ALBERTA
2002 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CHK’D: JOB NO.: DRAWING NO.
NTS NOVEMBER 2006 LL MDB RD1967 FIGURE 3
 AL-TERRA ENGINEERING LTD.
DTHR EXTENDED CARE FACILITY-MICHENER CENTER SOUTH
LOT 1, BLOCK 10, PLAN 892 0192, RED DEER, ALBERTA
SLOPE ASSESSMENT PROFILES
SCALE: DATE: DRAWN: CHK’D: JOB NO.: DRAWING NO.
NTS NOVEMBER 2006 LL MDB RD1967 FIGURE 7