Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Prepared for:
Miramar Hope Bay Limited
Suite 300, 889 Harbourside Drive North Vancouver, BC V7P 3S1 Canada
Prepared by:
October 2005
Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada Miramar Hope Bay Limited
Suite 300, 889 Harbourside Drive North Vancouver, BC V7P 3S1
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Suite 800, 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3X2
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................ 1
3 Investigations............................................................................................................... 8
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8 Barge Access ...................................................................................................................... 8 Bathymetry .......................................................................................................................... 8 Shoreline Erosion Processes .............................................................................................. 9 Geotechnical Foundation Conditions .................................................................................. 9
3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 EBA (1997) Roberts Bay Port Site Geotechnical Investigation...............................................9 Jetty Foundation Drilling (SRK Phase I Investigation) ..........................................................10 In-Situ Vane Shear Testing (SRK Phase II Investigation).....................................................11
6 References.................................................................................................................. 23
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 2
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Jetty Design Criteria..................................................................................... 18
List of Figures
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18: Figure 19: Figure 20: Figure 21: Figure 22: Figure 23: Site Map Sealift Off-Loading Alternative Locations Roberts Bay Bathymetry (per Frontier Geosciences Inc.) Preferred Jetty Location Plan In-Situ Vane Shear Testing and Drill Hole Locations Inferred Jetty Centerline Profile Option 1: Continuous Rock Fill Jetty Plan Option 1: Continuous Rock Fill Jetty Section Option 2: Rock Fill Jetty with Arch Culverts Plan Option 2: Rock Fill Jetty with Arch Culverts Section Option 3: Rock Fill Buttressed Jetty with Prefabricated Decks Plan Option 3: Rock Fill Buttressed Jetty with Prefabricated Decks Section Option 4: Conventional Piled Jetty with Prefabricated Decks Plan Option 4: Conventional Piled Jetty with Prefabricated Decks Section Option 5: Cellular Sheet Pile Jetty Plan Option 5: Cellular Sheet Pile Jetty Section Option 7: Bay Dredging & Rock Fill Jetty Plan Option 7: Bay Dredging & Rock Fill Jetty Section Typical Plan of Continuous Rock Fill Jetty Typical Section of Continuous Rock Fill Jetty (Section A-A) Typical Section of Continuous Rock Fill Jetty (Section B-B) Typical Plan for Possible Optimized Jetty Typical Section for Possible Optimised Jetty
List of Appendixes
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G MHBL Technical Memorandum Roberts Bay Bathymetry Report (Frontier Geosciences Inc. 2003) Summary of Roberts Bay Geotechnical Properties Phase I Foundation Investigation (SRK 2004) Phase II Foundation Investigation (SRK 2005) Technical Memorandum Outlining Preliminary Jetty Design Calculations Typical Geogrid Specifications
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 1
1
1.1
Introduction
Background
Miramar Hope Bay limited (MHBL) is the planning on developing a small gold mine on the Arctic coastline in the Hope Bay Belt, Nunavut, Canada. This project, the Doris North Project is situated approximately 4 km inland from Roberts Bay, is remote and all equipment and supplies can only be economically transported to site via annual sealift during a short open water season in the late summer. Details of the project are documented in SRK (2005a), and stipulate the need for a sealift off-loading facility (jetty) in Roberts Bay (Figure 1). This report outlines preliminary engineering that has been completed in support of the jetty.
1.2
Scope of Work
The jetty design presented in the Preliminary Surface Infrastructure Design Report for the Doris North Project, SRK (2005a) was selected based on baseline data and engineering investigations since 1997. The bulk of the engineering work has been completed by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK) on behalf of MHBL from 2002 onwards. Significant portions of this later work have never been formally documented. MHBL subsequently contracted SRK to document all background data feeding into the design of a jetty in a single report. The report would culminate in the selection of a jetty alternative, complete with preliminary design details. The report therefore contains the following information;
Review of alternative sealift options; Summary discussion of all relevant baseline and geotechnical data; Review of alternative jetty designs; Complete preliminary design for the preferred jetty alternative.
This report is furthermore intended to provide the information necessary to satisfy additional information requests and technical concerns raised during the conformity review process and Technical Meetings held for the Project in Yellowknife in August 2005.
1.3
Report Organization
Section 2 of this report presents a discussion of the alternative sealift options that MHBL had considered for the Doris North Project. These alternatives consist of shallow draft barges mobilised from Hay River, Northwest Territories (NT), versus deep draft cargo ships mobilized from Montreal, Quebec.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 2
MHBL has initiated a series of technical studies to collect baseline and engineering data pertaining to the design of a jetty at Roberts Bay. This data is summarized in Section 3 of this report, and in most cases, detailed supporting documentation referred to in this section has been included as Appendices. Seven different alternative jetty designs have been proposed for the Doris North Project. Section 4 of this report describes these alternatives, and explains why a continuous rock fill jetty has been selected as the preferred alternative. Section 5 concludes with details of the preliminary design of a continuous rock fill jetty for the Doris North Project. These details include design criteria, construction procedures and reclamation plans.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 3
2
2.1
2.2
Sealift Types
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 4
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 5
2.3
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 6
marine lowland. This will create a portion of the site where support structures for the dock could be founded. Two options for barge berthing were considered; (a) a steel sheetpile cellular structure and (b) a floating transition ramp using either a pontoon or small barge moored at the shore side. The sheetpile cellular structure would require driving piles into bedrock (approximately 16 m below mean sea level) and replacing all internal clay sediment with rock fill. The floating transition ramp would require the construction of a fill structure to form an abutment in the shallow water. This fill structure would consist of engineered fill placed in layers to the desired final grade. This site has the distinct advantage of deep water, and since it is on the west shore of Roberts Bay, adjacent to a steep cliff, it is well sheltered from the prevailing winds. It was however excluded as a preferred alternative for the Doris North Project, primarily due to its distance from the camp/mill site (approximately 9 km). The use of this site would required an additional 5 km of permanent allweather road, and a major stream crossing, or alternatively summer storage with winter transport via a winter road.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 7
2.3.4 Southern Roberts Bay Shoreline Site (Jetty Site #1 - Preferred Location)
The Bay bathymetry (see Section 3.2) indicated a section of deeper water leading up to the shallow shelf along the southern shoreline of Roberts Bay (Figures 2 and 3). This location suggested that constructing a 100 m long jetty would allow for the safe offloading of barges. Shoreline geotechnical investigations (SRK 2005a) have confirmed the presence of ice-rich marine silt and clay permafrost between patches of exposed bedrock. In order to allow the use of this site, an all-weather road will have to lead from the jetty towards a lay-down area approximately 100 m inland from the shoreline (a self-imposed restriction set by MHBL). Offshore geotechnical investigations (see Section 3.4) confirmed that the jetty will have to be constructed on deep soft marine sediments overlying bedrock, in shallow water. Based on the evaluation of all the other alternative jetty locations, this site was selected as the preferred sealift offloading site for the Doris North Project. Although it is recognised that an approximately 100 m long jetty would have to be constructed on challenging foundation conditions, the proximity of the site to the camp/mill is advantageous and offers potential for cost saving. There are also no potential significant environmental effects associated with constructing the jetty at this location (see Section 3.4).
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 8
3
3.1
Investigations
Introduction
MHBL initiated a number of technical studies to obtain baseline data that can be used to design a jetty for the Doris North Project. These studies included confirming the feasibility of barges accessing the site, providing adequate bathymetry, evaluating potential shoreline processes, wind and wave heights etc., as well as confirming the jetty foundation conditions.
3.2
Barge Access
MHBL consulted with directly with NTCL on the feasibility of using the preferred jetty location as an offloading facility. A representative from NTCL personally inspected the site, reviewed orthophotos, conducted an aerial reconnaissance of the site via helicopter, carried out a cursory bathymetric reconnaissance via small boat, and finally manoeuvred a tug into the area under consideration. The findings of this consultation were documented in a Technical Memorandum (included as Appendix A) by MHBL, and confirmed that the site would be suitable as an offloading facility as seen from the perspective of the shipping company.
3.3
Bathymetry
Frontier Geosciences Inc. carried out an over water bathymetric survey at the southern extremity of Roberts Bay in September 2003 (Frontier Geosciences 2003, also included as Appendix B). The survey was completed with a marine depth sounder as recorded from a small boat. The depth sounder data was correlated with a GPS to accurately locate each data point. The bathymetry (Figure 3) indicated the presence of an elongate, north-south trending channel defined generally by the 5 m water depth contour in the south, and water depths in excess of 30 m in the north. The channel was found to be relatively wide; however, at the southernmost point it narrows to approximately 150 m. A localized deeper water depression was also observed in the middle of the survey area and west of the main island in the northeast segment of the area. The area is bounded to the north, by a region of relatively shallow depths. In the area of the jetty, water depths are shallow, in the order of 1 m, with a relatively steep drop off to 5 m depth at around 75 to 100 m offshore. Limited boat draft and boulder hazards in this shallow shelf precluded more detailed coverage of this area. Subsequent to this bathymetric survey, SRK conducted a series of geotechnical investigations in the jetty location (Section 3.5). Measurements of water depth at the proposed jetty terminus by SRK engineers suggest that the water is shallower by approximately 1 m, than proposed by the
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 9
bathymetric survey by Frontier Geosciences. Should the measurements by SRK be accurate, it may offer optimization opportunities for the jetty construction, and therefore MHBL proposes to carry out an additional detailed bathymetric survey of the jetty location prior to proceeding with detailed design of the jetty (see also Section 5.4).
3.4
3.5
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 10
designs for a deep water dock along the western shore of Roberts Bay (see Figure 2 and Section 2.3.2 above). The program consisted of six onshore geotechnical drill holes, four offshore geotechnical drill holes, eight offshore probe holes and 11 bathymetric check points. The onshore drill holes were completed in order to obtain geotechnical and permafrost data for preliminary design of foundation conditions for terminal facilities. Three 15 m thermistor strings were installed in three separate boreholes to provide ground temperature data. The four offshore geotechnical drill holes provided lithology and soil samples of the ground conditions in an area where a sheet pile structure was considered to provide barge berth. The eight offshore probe holes provided data on the depth to seabed, depth to bedrock and lithology of the marine sediments for potential ship anchoring and mooring locations. The bathymetric check points provided depth to seabed along three lines extending east from the shoreline. The onshore soils were found to be consistent with that observed during other later drilling programs (SRK 2005a). The soils are of marine origin and generally consist of a thin layer of organic peat overlying up to 5 m of silty clay of low plasticity with occasional sand laminae. A thin layer of sand and gravel underlies the silty clay and this rests on intact competent volcanic rock identified as basalt and rhyolite. Soil ice content was low to moderate. Soil pore water was saline, and although measured salinities indicated values greater than the salinity of seawater, the report concludes that the results may have been compromised by the brine used in the drilling fluid. The offshore drill holes close to shore indicated a soil lithology consisting of silty clay of variable thickness (2 to 8 m) overlying competent bedrock of the same origin as onshore. In one hole a sand layer was found to underlie the silty clay. Laboratory measurements confirmed that the sediments have an undrained shear strength between 2 and 22 kPa, is very soft and compressible, with low plasticity. Further offshore where water depths exceeded 50 m the lithology remains similar; however, the silty clay thickness increases to between 6 and 14 m. Although these investigations are located a significant distance from the proposed jetty location (Figure 2), the general similarity of soil lithology that has been observed throughout the site (SRK 2005a, b) suggest that this data will be a useful indicator to support site specific jetty foundation data. Appendix C contains a summary of the pertinent geotechnical data on submarine sediments as extracted from these drill holes.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 11
Four drill holes were completed along the proposed centerline of the jetty (Figure 5), spaced approximately 25 m apart, extending out from the shoreline, to a maximum distance of approximately 100 m. The investigation confirmed that the water depth at the jetty location varies between 0 to 5 m (Figure 6). Sea ice approximately 2 m thick develops in the winter and freezes to the bottom of the seabed for at least the first 55 m of the proposed approximately 100 m long jetty. The drilling results confirm sub-ocean permafrost to at least this location. For the first 55 to 75 m from the shoreline, the jetty foundation consists of a 3 to 5 m thick layer of frozen marine silt and clay over 6 to 9 m of sand and gravel. The remainder of the jetty has deeper water and is underlain by unfrozen marine silt and clay, 8 to 12 m thick. The underlying basalt bedrock is intact and competent. Appendix C contains a summary of this data.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 12
4
4.1
4.2
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 13
4.3
4.4
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 14
4.5
4.6
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 15
4.7
4.8
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 16
The jetty itself would comprise a continuous rock fill structure founded on permafrost, similar to the jetty described for Option 1. A preliminary cost estimate suggest that this design will cost approximately $1.9 million, excluding (1) transportation of equipment from Hay River, NT to Roberts Bay, (2) cost of rock fill, and (3) cost of fuel. Although no baseline data is available to confirm what the potential adverse environmental effects of dredging would be, it is conceivable that these effects may be significant, and that fact combined with the projected capital cost, resulted in the rejection of this alternative.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 17
5
5.1
Preferred Design
Selection of Preferred Design
As discussed in Section 4 of this report, all of the proposed alternative jetty designs were judged to be inappropriate for the Doris North Project, with the exception of the continuous rock fill jetty (Option 1). The most significant technical issue associated with the continuous rock fill jetty is the low strength characteristics of the marine sediments, that will result in differential settlement of the jetty, and that may require the inclusion of geosynthetics to help support the structure. Notwithstanding the inclusion of the geosynthetics, and taking into account annual maintenance, the continuous rock fill jetty was deemed to be feasible, and preliminary cost estimates suggests that it would be economically justified for the Project. The presence of an approximately 100 m long continuous rock fill jetty in Roberts Bay will have a potential adverse environmental effect; however, shoreline process studies have confirmed that these effects will not be significant (Golder 2005). Therefore, the continuous rock fill jetty was selected as the preferred jetty design, and the following sections of this report documents the details of the proposed preliminary design.
5.2
Design Criteria
Design criteria for the jetty are summarized in Table 1. It should be noted that the jetty will only be used for a period of two to three weeks during the late summer (August) every year that it is in operation. Furthermore, for the Doris North Project, the jetty is only expected to be used for a period of four years. This includes two years of mining and two years of active decommissioning. Subsequent to active decommissioning the jetty will no longer be required, since further annual resupply volumes are expected to be small and will be done via sealift to the existing barge landing site (see Section 2.3.1). MHBL therefore proposes to design the jetty with a minimal design life, and accept the risks and consequences that this design criteria has. The risks include damage to the jetty due to large waves, storm surges and sea ice. Furthermore, annual settlement and frost heave could result in damage to jetty. MHBL will however implement the necessary maintenance actions to ensure safe operation of the jetty when the time requires (see Section 5.6). The physical consequences of damage to the jetty include addition of construction rock and an increased jetty footprint. MHBL acknowledges these facts and have made allowance for these consequences (see Section 5.3). Operational consequences for these damages include delays to the offloading of the barges, with associated increased operational costs for the mine.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 18
Design Criteria
Approximately 4 years (two years of mine life + two years of active mine closure; traditional barge landing and winter road, or winter airstrip will be used for the post closure phase) Barge NT 1500 Series: 1,886 tonne dead weight; 76.2 m LOA; 17.1 m Beam; 0.97 m minimum freeboard; 3.05 m Draft Barge NT 2000 Series (Future): 3,870 tonne dead weight; 90 m LOA; 18.9 m Beam; 1.10 m minimum freeboard; 2.90 m Draft Integrated Tool Carrier (TC-28) = 11,412 kg Wheel Loader Komatsu WA500-3; operating weight = 31,000 kg (Supplied by NTCL for off-loading only (Provisions for unloading mill modules for the mine at the jetty have not been included; these modules will be offloaded at the existing barge landing site) Tide levels in Melville Sound (north of the site), as listed below, are taken from Canadian Hydro-graphic Service Chart 7780. EHWL and ELWL are based on tides at Cambridge Bay. Tides are referenced to local Chart datum. Extreme High Water Level (EHWL) = 0.5 m Higher High Water Level, Large Tide (HHWL) = 0.2 m Higher High Water Level, Mean Tide = 0.2 m
Vessels
Vehicles
Tides
Mean Water Level (MWL) = 0.0 m Lower Low Water Level, mean Tide = -0.1 m Lower Low Water Level, Large Tide (LLWL) = -0.1 m Extreme Low Water Level (ELWL) = -0.3 m This tide data is consistent with site specific data reported in Golder (2005) and Frontier Geosciences (2003).
Minimum Water Depth: Established to provide a minimum of 0.5 m keel offset for the Series 1500 barge below LLWL. Deck Height: Established to provide 1.0 m of freeboard above the HHWL. 6m Barges are supplied with a 25 ft long ramp to span between the barge and the jetty structure. The maximum recommended grade of the ramp is 6%. Considering the freeboard range of the barges (fully loaded to empty), a permanent ramp at the jetty may be required. This will not affect the overall jetty footprint and well be fully evaluated at the final design stage. NTCL requires only 6 m of work space to offload the barges; however, they prefer a berthing face of at least 20 m wide. Barge unloading can be from barges orientated laterally or longitudinally to the jetty. Largest waves from North, with maximum wave height = 0.9 m Maximum sustained storm surge = 1.0 m. Existing Seabed: Unfrozen and frozen Silt and Clay; Saturated unit weight = 18 kN/m3; Peak Shear Strength = 15 kPa Existing Seabed: Frozen Sand and Gravel; Saturated unit weight = 18 kN/m Engineered Fill: Rock fill; Unit weight = 19.62 kN/m3 Bulk Fill, Sub Grade: Run-of-quarry rock (< 1,000 mm size fraction) Transition Zone, Select Grade; Crushed and screened quarry rock (< 200 mm size fraction) Surfacing Grade; Crushed and screened quarry rock (< 38 mm size fraction)
3
Barge Ramp
Geotechnical Parameters
Engineered Fill
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 19
MHBL will be the only official user of the jetty. MHBL does however acknowledge that local communities may make use of the jetty whilst it is in operation. MHBL would not restrict access to the jetty unless, MHBL is of the opinion that the jetty is not safe to use. In such instances MHBL reserves the right to restrict access to the jetty.
5.3
Design Detail
Design details for the jetty are provided in Figures 19 through 21. Appendix F contains details of the preliminary engineering design of the jetty. The total footprint of the jetty is estimated at approximately 1,800 m2 (this is the base footprint, i.e. the surface area covered by the pad). The total amount of rock fill is estimated at approximately 5,600 m3 (11,600 tonnes). For planning purposes, and arbitrary allowance of 50% increase of this footprint and rock fill volume has been made (i.e. increase in footprint of 900 m2 and volume of 2,800 m3). This allowance caters for unforeseen settlement and slumping. Discounting the required overlap, the surface area coverage of the primary geogrid layer (based on a single layer) is estimated at approximately 3,300 m2. This footprint exceeds the jetty footprint to ensure that all rock fill will be on the primary geogrid layer. Typical specifications of the geogrid are included as Appendix G.
5.4
Optimization Opportunities
Based on a fully laden NT Series 1500 barge draft of 3.05 m, and measuring from the LLWL, with a keel offset of 0.5 m, the minimum water depth at the jetty terminus needs to be approximately 3.6 m. The proposed preliminary jetty design shows a minimum water depth at the jetty terminus of just over 5 m, which effectively allows for a keel offset of just under 1.3 m (based on the bathymetry measured by Frontier Geosciences, see Section 3.3). As discussed in Section 3.3, there is some uncertainty associated with the bathymetry data, and therefore the preliminary jetty design has been based on conservative assumptions. Prior to conducting the detailed jetty design, MHBL will carry out a detailed bathymetric survey of the jetty area. If in fact, there is sufficient water depth at the jetty terminus, as is suggested by the current bathymetric data, the jetty terminus will be moved closer inshore to coincide with a minimum water depth of 3.7 m. This will result in the total jetty length reducing to 60 m, with a subsequent reduction in footprint of 1,200 m2 and 50% less rock fill would be required (Figures 22 and 23). Under this scenario, the bulk of the jetty will be on more stable frozen marine sediments, and subsequently the construction and maintenance issues will be significantly improved. As discussed in Appendix F, the size of the jetty terminus directly impacts the pressure that the jetty exerts on its foundation. Prior to conducting the detailed jetty design, MHBL will conduct further foundation testing at the jetty terminus, to confirm the optimal size of the jetty terminus, since it may be beneficial to reduce its size. Such a reduction would however result in a smaller jetty footprint and a smaller amount of construction rock being used.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 20
Finally, a decision on the need to preload the jetty will be made after completion of further geotechnical testing at the jetty terminus. Since all the potential optimizations that will be considered at the detailed design stage will lead to a smaller jetty, with a reduced footprint and will require less construction rock, the preferred design tabled at this time is conservative and appropriate.
5.5
Construction
Construction of the continuous rock fill jetty will be carried out during the summer open water season in Roberts Bay. Construction will be suspended for a two week period in late July to not interfere with large numbers of capelin that move through the area during migration to their spawning grounds. Construction will consist of end-dumping the engineered fill (quarry rock) from the shoreline towards the terminus of the jetty approximately 100 m offshore. After a few dump loads have been placed, a loader or dozer will be used to flatten the advancing front such that equipment can continue to end dump. In deeper water (more than 2 m depth) the initial rock fill be manually placed using an extended boom excavator. This will reduce the impact surcharge on the soft marine sediments and allow for more controlled placement of the fill. Prior to placing any rock fill, a series of geosynthetics (at least two layers of geogrid) will be placed on the seabed. These geogrids will extend at least 5 m beyond the outermost edge of the final jetty footprint and will be at least 5 m ahead of the current fill being placed. The geogrid overlap will not be less than 2 m. The placement of the geogrid will be done by Arctic divers. After completion of the bulk fill to the terminus of the jetty, the transition zone and jetty surfacing grade material will be placed once again moving from the shore advancing out towards the jetty terminus. At the outset of the construction season the entire perimeter of the jetty construction zone will be encircled by a silt curtain, to effectively mitigate against the release of suspended solids as material is dumped onto the soft marine sediments. As discussed previously, further geotechnical investigation in the jetty terminus area will confirm whether preloading of the jetty fill in areas that exceed 3 m in fill would be advantageous. If this is recommended, the first lift will be constructed during the winter, though the sea ice. The jetty will be constructed from clean rock located in Quarry #1 (Figure 1). This rock has been geochemically tested to confirm that there would be no adverse environmental effects associated with its use (AMEC 2003). The quarry rock will not be washed prior to placement. Since there will be some blast residue on this rock when it is placed in Roberts Bay, SRK modelled the water quality in the Bay to confirm that there would be no adverse environmental effects as a result of this practice. The results of this calculation are documented as an Appendix to SRK (2005c).
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 21
5.6
Maintenance
It is expected that the jetty will continue to undergo differential settlement over its lifetime, although the rate of settlement will likely exponentially decrease as time progresses, consistent with consolidation theory. Considering the fact that the jetty will only be in use for two to three weeks in any year, this differential settlement can be managed with a program of annual maintenance. Annual maintenance will consist of adding rock fill to the jetty surface, such that the traffic grade would be passable for barge off-loading equipment. Furthermore, the design freeboard of 1 m above the HHWL would be maintained. For planning purposes it has been assumed that the jetty surface would require an additional 50 cm of rock fill every year during its life. This means 350 m3 of additional construction rock will be required every year for four years. During initial construction, a stockpile of additional crushed rock, specifically for jetty maintenance will be left in Quarry #1 (Figure 1). Every year this fill, as required, will be added to the jetty traffic surface by end-dumping and grading. If substantial fill is anticipated in deeper water, and there would be potential for large boulders to run down the side slopes and disturb sediments on the seabed, silt curtains will be deployed prior to undertaking any maintenance work. This will be to effectively mitigate against any possible increased turbidity in the Bay. The barge operator, NTCL, requires that MHBL carry out a bathymetric survey of the channel leading up to the jetty every year prior to barge arrival. MHBL will extend this bathymetric survey to include the jetty footprint, such that accurate records of the jetty can be kept. This data will furthermore provide data with respect to the potential effect of the jetty on shoreline processes.
5.7
Decommissioning
The jetty will remain in operation for two years of active decommissioning after mining ceases. At that time all mooring hardware will be dismantled and removed from the jetty. The jetty will then be partially removed. Partial removal will entail lowering the jetty surface to 30 cm below LLWL. This will be achieved by pushing the excess material to either side of the jetty, without actually picking up and removing the material. This will result in an increase in the base footprint of the jetty. Complete removal is not possible without removal of a substantial volume of natural marine sediments. This is due to the fact that the jetty will continue to settle into the marine sediments over its lifetime. This preliminary jetty design is specifically for the two year Doris North Project. Should further exploration prove a larger project in the Hope Bay Belt, MHBL may decide to change the design of the jetty to accommodate a larger scale and longer duration project. Such a change will naturally result in a revised environmental review process; however, it should be noted that the jetty design as proposed in this report, may become the foundation of a larger scale jetty at this location.
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 22
This report, Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada, has been prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
MR/spk
October 2005
SRK Consulting Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada
Page 23
References
AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd. 2003. ARD and Metal Leaching Characterization Studies in 2003, Doris North Project, November. EBA Engineering Consultants. 1997. Boston Gold Project Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Port. Report Submitted to BHP World Minerals, October. Golder Associates Ltd., 2004. Supplementary Information on: Potential Impacts on Shorelines due to Construction of Jetty at Roberts Bay Miramar Doris North Project. Golder Associates Ltd. Report No. 04-1373-002. Golder Associates Ltd., 2005. Potential impacts on shoreline due to construction of a jetty at Roberts Bay Miramar Doris North Project. Golder Associates Ltd. Report No. 04-1373-009-4100: 29 p. + 6 app. Frontier Geosciences Inc., 2003. Report on Marine Bathymetry Survey, Proposed Roberts Bay Docking Facilities, Cambridge Bay Area, Nunavut. Report submitted to SRK Consulting, September 2003. Koerner, R.M., 2005. Designing with Geosynthetics, Fifth Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, N.J., 796 p. SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2005a. Preliminary Surface Infrastructure Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, October, 2005. SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2005b. Preliminary Tailings Dam Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, October 2005. SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., 2005c. Water Quality Model, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, October 2005.
MR/spk
October 2005
Figures
PROJECT:
DATE:
APPROVED:
FIGURE:
EMR
Appendix A
MHBL Technical Memorandum
MEMORANDUM
Executive Summary Investigation was done into the suitability of the area proposed in the Scoping Study for a barge landing area with the assistance of Steven McKnight, master of the MV Edgar Kotokak, the tug delivering supplies to Roberts Bay. The presently proposed barge landing area would be suitable for use, provided that a causeway roughly 100m long were constructed with a landing area on the end of it. The MV Edgar Kotokak did a sea trial approach to this landing area to ensure that there would be sufficient manoevering room. As the causeway would be in water depths averaging 1m or less, construction costs of this should be manageable. Additional recommended work should include: Actual measurements of tidal variation in Roberts Bay More detailed bathymetry in the southern area of Roberts Bay (several days in a small boat equipped with a depth sounder and GPS). Investigation into the permitting issues related to construction of a causeway from the shore
Details Investigation was done into the suitability of the area proposed in the Scoping Study for a barge landing area. Concerns included the shallow nature of the water close to shore and the room to manoever the barges and tug in somewhat restricted waters. The proposed site would be the optimal one to use if possible, as it would require minimal construction of all-weather road.
The currently used barge offloading site is a very good location as there is deep water just off the shore, and it is in an area where Roberts Bay is quite open. In order to use this location during the mine operation (provided an all weather road is to be constructed) 2 km of all weather road and a bridge crossing of a stream would have to be constructed. The costs of this additional construction make it unattractive. Water Level Variations Roberts Bay has very low tidal variation, likely less than 0.5m, and it has been reported that a strong NW wind can increase water depths by 0.5m and a strong SE wind can decrease it a similar amount. Vessels Currently Used The tugs and barges employed by NTCL are shallow draft vessals, with the tugs drawing roughly 2m of water. A fully loaded series 1500 barge, carrying 1,500 tonnes of deck cargo and 1 million litres of fuel will draw 2m of water as well. A series 1500 barge is 250 ft. long and 55 feet wide. The MV Edgar Kotokak arrived at Roberts Bay on Sept. 15th, under the command of Steven McKnight. It was pulling a series 1500 barge, with significant deck cargo, but no fuel in its holds. It was pushed nose into the beach at the currently used barge landing site. The nose of the barge grounded in 1m of water and forklifts began to offload cargo. NTCL Assistance Mr. Gordon Norberg, of NTCL had previously informed us that the master of the tug which delivered supplies to Roberts Bay this year would be able to inform us of the suitability of a proposed landing site for their use. I discussed the potential offloading site, and a few alternatives, with Mr. McKnight, and we reviewed ortho photos of the area, topo maps, and the government navigation chart for Roberts Bay. We flew the area in a helicopter, looking at possible sites, then scouted it in an aluminum runabout. Mr. McKnight used a sounding pole from the runabout to check depths near shore in several locations. As a final check, the MV Edgar Kotokak disengaged from the barge, and was piloted in to the southern end of Roberts Bay to determine if there was sufficient manoevering room in that somewhat restricted area. Information Resulting from Investigation One thing that was apparent from all of this data, is that near the shore of the southern area of Roberts Bay the water is very shallow and the bottom slopes gently for a distance out to where there is a drop-off. On the accompanying air photo there is a very noticeable change in color in the water where this drop-off occurs. From the soundings taken, it appears that the water depth at the edge of this drop-off is 1.0 and 1.5m. It is unlikely that any barge could get much closer to shore than the edge of the drop-off. An examination of the southern area of Roberts Bay was done to see if there was a location more suitable than that proposed here, or where the required causeway could be shortened. It was concluded that the best location is that currently proposed.
Design Considerations for Causeway Any causeway constructed would need to be wide enough for equipment to travel safely over in unloading the barge. Bollards to attach the barge to, or pre-set anchor points on shore would need to be present. It would be best if the unloading area at the end of the causeway were designed to allow for a barge to pull alongside. This would require a length of approximately 50 to 75 ft. (15 to 23m).
Roberts Bay
Proposed Ba rge Landing Causeway Location
Not S uitable
Appendix B
Roberts Bay Bathymetry Report (Frontier Geosciences 2003)
STEFFEN, ROBERTSON & KIRSTEN (CANADA) INC. REPORT ON MARINE BATHYMETRY SURVEY PROPOSED ROBERTS BAY DOCKING FACILITIES CAMBRIDGE BAY AREA, NUNAVUT
(i)
CONTENTS page 1 3 3 4 5 5 5 6
1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE MARINE BATHYMETRY SURVEY 2.1 Equipment 2.2 Survey Procedure 3. GEOPHYSICAL RESULTS 3.1 General 3.2 Discussion 4. SUMMARY
ILLUSTRATIONS location Figure 1 Figure 2 Survey Location Plan Bathymetry Contour Plan Page 2 Appendix
1.
INTRODUCTION
In the period September 8 to September 13, 2003, Frontier Geosciences Inc. carried out an overwater bathymetric survey for Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten (Canada) Inc., at Roberts Bay, Nunavut. A Survey Location Plan of the area is shown at an approximate scale of 1:5,000,000 in Figure 1. The investigation was carried out to determine water depths in an area proposed for docking facilities. The survey area is located at the southern extremity of Roberts Bay. The marine bathymetry survey covered an area approximately 2.4 km north-south by approximately 1 km east-west.
65N
SITE LOCATION
ARCT IC CIRCL E
60N
115W
110W
105W
100
50
200
SRK CONSULTING
ROBERTS BAY, NUNAVUT
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
2. 2.1
The overwater bathymetric survey was completed with a Marinetek, PCS-200 sounder. The system was calibrated with respect to water temperature and water salinity and used a broadband output with a 200 kHz centre frequency. Power for the field computer and Marinetek Sounder was provided by a portable, 120 volt, AC generator set. The work was carried out with a local, six metre, Lund aluminum survey boat powered by an outboard motor. Tidal fluctuations during the survey were monitored by a tide pole placed at low water, in the southeast corner of the survey area. The tide pole location was surveyed in from a control point (SAS 35) established by the surveyor. This control point located at 7,563,703.47N, 432,943.85E, is at an elevation of 14.18 m. The base of the tide pole was determined to be at an elevation of -0.1 m. In the course of the survey, the tide pole was checked two to three times a day with water level fluctuations noted to vary from -0.1 m to 0.3 m. These increases in water level were subtracted from the data, thus correcting the data to the -0.1 m elevation at the base of the tide pole. The GPS system utilised in the survey was a high resolution, DGPS (Differential Global Positioning System) Max. Differential GPS uses two receivers to cancel out atmospheric errors and Selective Availability (SA). The additional receiver is placed at a known location and makes the same measurements as the roving receiver. The base receiver compares its readings from its known position to that of satellites and creates a difference between the two. This difference is made available to the roving receiver as differential correction information. This correctional information allows the roving receiver to calculate its true location. Information for receiver locations and corrections was provided by the Omnistar system.
2.2
Survey Procedure
The bathymetric transducer was placed in the water at a depth of 0.15 metres on the starboard side, 1 metre forward of the transom. The transducer location was carefully determined to facilitate the best operating environment for the transmission and reception of sound pulses. In operation, the source transducer pulsed twice every second with a sounding frequency of 200 KHz. The pulses emitted from the transducer were reflected by the sea bottom, then digitally recorded and visually reviewed in real time on the high resolution display of the notebook computer. The digital record of the reflected signal was stored in the notebook hard drive and played back to interpret the water depth. The bathymetric data was correlated with the GPS data to accurately plot each pulse position to be contoured for final data presentation. The bathymetry plan used the positioning datum of NAD83 in UTM grid coordinates.
3. 3.1
The results of the overwater bathymetric survey are shown in colour contour format at a scale of 1:7,500 in Figure 2. The bathymetry data was reduced to local datum, which was the base of a tide pole located at low water in the southeast corner of the survey area. 3.2 Discussion
The bathymetry data indicates the presence of an elongate, north-south trending channel defined generally by the 5 m contour in the south and water depths in excess of 30 m, to the north. The channel is quite broad to the north but narrows to a width of about 150 m in the south. A localised, deeper water depression is also evident in the middle of the survey area and west of the island in the northeast segment of the area. This area is bounded to the north however, by a region of relatively shallow water depths. In the area of the proposed dock structure, water depths are shallow and are of the order of 1 metre. Limited boat draft and numerous boulder hazards limited more detailed coverage of this area. Water depths of 2 metres are extant about 150 m northwest of the shoreline, at the proposed dock location.
4.
SUMMARY
An overwater bathymetry survey was carried out over a segment of Roberts Bay in Nunavut. The survey area is the site of a proposed docking structure and approaches for ocean-going vessels. The information in this report is based upon acoustic measurements and field procedures and our interpretation of the data. The results are interpretive in nature and are considered to be a reasonably accurate presentation of the ocean bottom configuration within the limits of the overwater bathymetry method.
7565600N
7565500N
7565400N
7565300N
7565200N
7565100N
ISLAND
7565000N
7564900N
7564800N
7564700N
7564600N
7564500N
7564400N
7564300N
7564200N
7564100N
7564000N
7563900N
7563800N
7563700N
7563600N
7563500N
7563400N
7563300N
7563200N
431500E
0.0
1.9
3.8
5.7
7.7
9.6
12.6
17.1
23.0
SRK CONSULTING
ROBERTS BAY, NUNAVUT
DEPTH (m)
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY
0 100 200 300 400
INSTRUMENT: MARINETEK PCS-200 DATUM: NAD83 UTM ZONE 13 NOTE: SHORELINE APPROXIMATE
METRES
FIG. 2
Appendix C
Summary of Roberts Bay Geotechnical Properties
Summary of Lab & In-Situ Data Available for Roberts Bay Marine Sediments (SRK 2004 drill program & EBA 1997 drill program)
Passing Undrained Shear 2micron Strength (%) Bulk UU READ Density % from Passing in Tube Triaxial Vane Gravel #200 (%) (kPa) PSD Activity (Mg/m3) (kPa) 94.5 49 0.37 94.8 43 0.40 93.7 27 0.59 96.4 39 0.41 76.7 20 0.35 0 84 35 0.53 0 95.7 43 0.53 1.8 14 5.5 0 93.4 45 0.49 1.1 95.9 49 0.24 1.82 8.5 5 1.2 75.4 32 0.44 0 91.4 37 0.49 0 0 0 97.1 64.8 54.5 7.7 17.1 15 41 11 22 0 9 0.57 3.00 0.32 np
Sample ID SRK45 15-16.4 m SRK46 4.7 - 6.2 m SRK47 2.1 - 3.6 m SRK49 14.1 - 17.1 m SRK49 5.1 - 8.1 m EBA BH-12 2.44 - 2.59 m EBA BH-15 3.96 - 4.57 m EBA BH-18 4.27 - 4.57 m EBA BH-19 0 - 0.61 m EBA BH-28 3.81 - 4.42 m EBA BH-29 2.59 - 2.74 m EBA BH-15 3.05 - 3.2 m EBA BH-26 3.05 - 3.66 m EBA BH-11 0.91-1.07 m SRK46 12.3 - 13.8 m EBA BH-24 6.10 - 6.86 m EBA BH-28 9.91 - 10.52 m
Water Liquid Lab Soil Content Limit Classification (%) (%) CL 34.8 42 CL 56.8 39 CL 37.2 34 CL 58.6 38 CL 32.6 22 CL 47.3 40.5 CL 67.5 41 CL 43 42 CL 34.4 26 CL 40.8 30 CL 63.3 43 CH CH CL-ML SP SP SP 74.8 70 26 20 26.4 28.4 31.5 31.6 94.6 45.9 52.5 56 21 np
Plastic Limit Plasticity (%) Index (%) % Clay % Silt 24 18 22 17 18 16 22 16 15 7 22 18.5 44.2 39.8 18 23 52.5 43.2 20 22 54.8 38.6 14 12 61.5 34.4 16 14 46.4 29 25 18 46.8 44.6 29 23 14 np 23.5 33 7 np 11.1 15 6 56.1 17.5 28 41 47.3 26.5
% Sand
1.78
82.9 84.9
0 0.1
EBA BH-18 0 - 0.61 m EBA BH-24 2.74 - 3.35 m EBA BH-26 3.96 - 4.57 m EBA BH-30 4.57 - 5.18 m NOTES: np = non plastic Yellow cells indicate there is no data available
27.5
12 2 5 7.6
Appendix D
Phase I Foundation Investigation (SRK 2004)
Phase I Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location, Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada
Prepared for
Prepared by
April 2004
Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location, Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Suite 800, 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3X2
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of Drill Program ................................................................................................... 1
2 Methodology................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Drilling ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................. 2
3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Drilling Hole Locations ........................................................................................................ 3 3.2 General Drilling Conditions ................................................................................................. 3 3.3 Foundation conditions ......................................................................................................... 4
3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 SRK 47 ....................................................................................................................................4 SRK 46 ....................................................................................................................................4 SRK 45 ....................................................................................................................................5 SRK 49 ....................................................................................................................................5
4 Discussion.................................................................................................................... 6 5 References.................................................................................................................... 8
List of Tables
Table 1: Initial Laboratory Testing Program for Samples from Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004 ........................................................................................................................ 2 Table 2: As-built Drillhole Coordinates, Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004 ................ 3 Table 3: Results of Initial Laboratory Testing Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004 ....... 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Proposed Jetty Layout Figure 2: Drill Hole Locations Figure 3: Inferred Jetty Centerline Profile
List of Attachments
Attachment A: Drill Logs Attachment B: Laboratory Test Results
MR/spk
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 1
1
1.1
Introduction
Background
An eleven day visit to Miramars Doris North Project was made by Dylan MacGregor (GIT) of SRK Consulting during the period of April 10-20, 2004. The primary purpose of this work was to conduct a geotechnical drilling program at the south end of Roberts Bay. The drilling program targeted foundation conditions in the footprint of the proposed jetty (Figure 1) described in the preliminary surface infrastructure design report (SRK 2003). Specific goals of the drilling program consisted of the following:
determine water depth along the proposed jetty alignment; determine overburden thickness along the proposed jetty alignment; collect soil samples for laboratory testing of soil properties; determine underlying bedrock characteristics.
The following memo describes the findings of the April 2004 geotechnical drilling program and summarizes the collated results. Drill logs, a plan layout of borehole collars, and a section along the alignment of the proposed jetty, including the new geotechnical information, are included.
1.2
MR/spk
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 2
2
2.1
Methodology
Drilling
Drilling was conducted by Major Drilling, using a Boyles Brothers 37 diamond drill operating 24 hours/day with two - 12 hour shifts. All holes were drilled at an angle of -90. Core was NQ3 size (45.1 mm diameter) and was drilled in runs of 1.5 m for boreholes SRK 46 and SRK 47 using the triple tube coring technique. For boreholes SRK 45 and SRK 49, core was NQ size (47.6 mm diameter) and drilled in runs of 3 m using the standard diamond drilling technique. Holes were targeted to fully penetrate the overburden sediments and to sample the upper 5 m of bedrock. Samples of recovered overburden were collected for foundation indicator testing; samples were shipped to EBA Engineerings soil testing lab in Yellowknife. Rock core was logged by Miramar geologists according to standard exploration procedures, which include geotechnical characterisation. As-built drillhole collars were surveyed by Miramars surveyor.
2.2
Laboratory Testing
A limited selection of samples, including at least one sample from each drillhole, were initially selected for foundation indicator testing by EBA Engineering. Particle size distribution tests were conducted, as well as moisture content and Atterberg Limits determinations where appropriate, all according to standard soils testing procedures. Table 1 outlines the initial testing program.
Table 1: Initial Laboratory Testing Program for Samples from Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004
SampleID SRK45 15 - 16.4 m SRK46 4.7 - 6.2 m SRK46 12.3 - 13.8 m SRK47 2.1 - 3.6 m SRK49 5.1 - 8.1 m SRK49 14.1 - 17.1 m Field Soil Classification CL CL SP CL CL CL 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Particle size distribution Sieve Hydrometer 9 9 Water Content Determination 9 9 Atterberg Limits 9 9
MR/spk
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 3
3
3.1
Results
Drilling Hole Locations
The as-built collar locations differed slightly from planned locations; drill collars were surveyed following drilling to record the as-built drillhole locations. Table 2 provides the surveyed coordinates for the four Roberts Bay geotechnical drillholes.
Table 2: As-built Drillhole Coordinates, Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004
HoleID
SRK45 SRK46 SRK47 SRK49
Northing1
7563322.36 7563299.16 7563272.79 7563337.64
Easting1
432531.51 432543.76 432552.12 432525.12
Elevation2
-0.02 0.02 -0.07 -0.34
Inclination
-90 -90 -90 -90
1. UTM Projection NAD 83 Zone 13. 2. Negative values represent collar elevation below survey grid datum.
Drilling results are summarized in a series of borehole logs. The complete logs are included here as Attachment A, and a profile through the drillholes (Figure 3) displays the interpreted stratigraphy along the proposed jetty centreline. The following briefly discusses drilling conditions and materials encountered in each drillhole.
3.2
MR/spk
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 4
During final breakdown and removal of the rod string from SRK 46, it was necessary to remove the core barrel and bit with the head open because the core barrel would not fit through the chuck jaws. A small clamp with a 0.3 m arm perpendicular to the clamp axis was fixed to the core barrel to prevent it from falling back into the drill hole. The rod string was broken at the top of the core barrel immediately below the head, and the rods were pulled up through the head. The core barrel and clamp were lowered down such that the clamp arm was supported by part of the frame of the drill shack. While the drillers were removing the rod from the head, the clamp holding the core barrel was jarred loose, and the clamp and core barrel spun off of the frame and fell down the drill hole. Attempts to fish the core barrel/ clamp unit out of the drill hole were unsuccessful. As the drill bit remained fixed to the core barrel during this process, the second and last available NQ3 drill bit was lost as a result of this mishap. SRK 45 was drilled on April 17, 2004, using a NQ drill bit and standard exploration wireline coring techniques. All sediment in SRK 45 was drilled without an inspector present, and recovered material was boxed for later inspection. Recovery was generally poor. As a result of the poor recoveries achieved at SRK 45, compounded by the apparent change in geological materials along the long section of the proposed jetty, it was decided to drill optional hole SRK 49. The information from this additional drill hole would better define foundation conditions expected at the critical loading terminus of the jetty, where a large proportion of total rock fill is expected to be placed. SRK 49 was drilled on April 18, 2004, using a NQ drill bit and standard exploration wireline coring techniques. All sediment in SRK 49 was cored without rotating drill rods. Rods were advanced by downward head pressure alone. An inspector was present for the duration of drilling of SRK 49.
3.3
Foundation conditions
3.3.1 SRK 47
The borehole log for SRK47 is included in Attachment A. Sea ice was found to be 0.6 m thick and frozen to the seabed. Overburden extended from 0.6 m to 9.8 m, and consisted of an upper 3.1 m thick frozen unit of silt and clay underlain by 6.1 m of sand and gravel. Recovery of sample in the sand and gravel unit was generally poor. Bedrock was intersected at 9.8 m depth and cored to a depth of 14 m. The rock consisted of a fine grained grey-green basalt with an RQD of 80% and greater.
3.3.2 SRK 46
The sea ice at SRK 46 was found to be 2.3 m thick; the borehole log for SRK46 is included in Attachment A. It appears that the sea ice was frozen to the bed sediments, although one of the drillers reported that there had been a small depth of liquid water above the sediment. The upper
April 2004
MR/spk
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 5
sediments consisted of 4.9 m of frozen ice-rich silt and clay. These were underlain by 9 m of sand and gravel. Poor sample recovery was experienced across the sand and gravel unit. Bedrock was intersected 17.2 m below the collar elevation and consisted of medium to coarse grained gabbro, having RQD values ranging from 57 to 84%.
3.3.3 SRK 45
Sea ice at SRK 45 was approximately 2 m thick, and covered approximately 3 m of unfrozen seawater; the borehole log for SRK45 is included in Attachment A. The surface sediments appeared to be 4 m of uniform fine grey sand. In general, recovery was poor for this unit, there was no intact core recovered, and the material was visually dissimilar to other sands encountered in adjacent holes to the south during the Winter 2004 geotechnical drilling program and previous geotechnical drilling programs in the broader area. For these reasons, the material sampled over the 5 to 11 m interval is considered to be anomalous and not to be representative of the foundation conditions in the area of the proposed causeway. Due to the fact that an SRK inspector was not present during the drilling of this hole, together with the poor recovery, the value of data from this hole is somewhat questionable. From 11 to 13 m below the collar elevation, recovery improved to 50% and the material made a transition from sand to fine grained soil. From 13 to 14.4 m, the material was a uniform, grey silt and clay with high water content. This fine grained material overlay basalt bedrock. SRK 45 was terminated after drilling 4.6 m of basalt; RQD ranged from 52 to 56%.
3.3.4 SRK 49
The borehole log for SRK49 is included in Attachment A. Sea ice at SRK 49 was 1.7 m thick, and sea water beneath the ice extended to 5.1 m below the collar. Water depth at SRK49 was measured using a weighted sounding line dropped through the drill rods following penetration of sea ice, and is considered to be very accurate. Sediment encountered at 5.1 m was a dark grey fine grained material that extended to the bedrock contact at 17.35 m. Water content appeared to increase with depth, and organic content appeared to decrease with depth. The colour of the material changed from a dark grey at surface to a medium grey at depth, and was considered to reflect the organic content of the soil. Felsic volcaniclastic bedrock was cored from 17.35 m to 21.6 m. Bedrock RQD was moderately poor and ranged from 34 to 37%.
3.4
MR/spk
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 6
Table 3: Results of Initial Laboratory Testing Roberts Bay Geotechnical Drilling, Winter 2004
SampleID SRK45 15 - 16.4 m SRK46 4.7 - 6.2 m SRK46 12.3 - 13.8 m SRK47 2.1 - 3.6 m SRK49 5.1 - 8.1 m SRK49 14.1 - 17.1 m Lab Soil Classification Water Content (%) Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%)
CL CL SP CL CL CL
42 39 na 34 22 38
24 22 na 18 15 22
18 17 na 16 7 16
Discussion
Figure 3 shows a longitudinal profile along the proposed jetty which shows the stratigraphy inferred from the recent drilling results. Water depth was generally found to be slightly greater than expected based on the bathymetry data (Frontier Geosciences 2003), with ice + water depths of 5 m in the vicinity of the proposed jetty terminus. In the near-shore sediments sampled in holes SRK46 and SRK47, an upper layer of fine-grained material overlies a sand and gravel unit. This coarse-grained unit lies directly on bedrock, and appears to pinch out to the north between SRK46 and SRK45, as shown in Figure 3. In SRK45, the upper sediments consist of uniform fine grey sand. No intact core of this material was obtained, and recovery was generally poor. The fine grey sand recovered from SRK45 is distinctly different from the coarse granitic sand encountered in SRK47 and SRK46, as well as elsewhere across the project site. This fine sandy material is interpreted to be distinct from the coarse sand and gravel unit directly on bedrock to the south. The fine-grained sediment in SRK45 rests directly on bedrock and appears similar to the fine-grained material to both north and south. This unit is inferred to be continuous along the proposed jetty profile as shown in Figure 3. Drilling data indicates a local bedrock high in the vicinity of SRK45. The northernmost drillhole, SRK49, encountered 5 m of water over approximately 12 m of fine grained silt and clay, as shown in Figure 3. The fine-grained unit extends from the sediment-water interface to the bedrock contact, and varies uniformly from a dark grey organic rich material at surface to a medium grey material with no visible organics at depth. The material is very soft, with high water content, throughout the interval. Special consideration must be given to foundation design for any infrastructure to be built on this material.
MR/spk
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 7
This report, Phase I Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location, Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada, has been prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
MR/spk
April 2004
SRK Consulting Phase 1 Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 8
References
Frontier Geosciences Inc., 2003. Report on Marine Bathymetry Survey, Proposed Roberts Bay Docking Facilities, Cambridge Bay Area, Nunavut. Report submitted to SRK Consulting, September 2003. SRK Consulting, 2003. Surface Infrastructure Preliminary Design, Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Ltd., October, 2003.
MR/spk
April 2004
Figures
Attachment A
Drill Logs
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: -0.02 m NORTHING: 7563322.36 EASTING: 432531.51 LOGGED BY: Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 45 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 18, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 18, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diamond Drill Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
2.0
Sea water
5.0
SP
7
25%
8.0
SP as above.
SP
10
25%
Sheet 1 of 2
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: -0.02 m NORTHING: 7563322.36 EASTING: 432531.51 LOGGED BY: Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 45 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 18, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 18, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diamond Drill Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
11
11.0
12
SM
50%
13
13.0
Grey, fine grained, slight organic smell, soft, high water content, some plasticity. CL
6 100%
14 14.4
15
BASALT, pale green, fine grained to massive. Brecciated from 15.11m to EOH. Fractures filled with hematite and calcite.
56% 7 90%
16
17
52%
97%
18
19
19.0 EOH
20
Sheet 2 of 2
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: 0.02 m NORTHING: 7563299.16 EASTING: 432543.76 LOGGED BY: Frank Ratte, Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 46 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 17, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 17, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Triple Tube Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
Sea ice
2 2.3 2.55 3
ICE + ML
2
100%
ML
3.8 4
100%
SRK46 0.55-1.66
100%
5 5.2
CL
100%
SRK46 3.2-4.7
6.7 7
CL
8 8.2
100%
SRK46 4.7-6.2
SP
5%
9.7 10
LOSS
Sheet 1 of 3
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: 0.02 m NORTHING: 7563299.16 EASTING: 432543.76 LOGGED BY: Frank Ratte, Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 46 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 17, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 17, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Triple Tube Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
Loss
11 11.2
0%
12
Loss
0%
12.7 13
SP
14 14.3 14.55 15
80%
SRK46 10.7-12.3
Granitic gravel Granitic sand, coarsening upwards from fine to coarse, trace fines. Single granitic gravel particle. LOSS
GP SP SP Loss
15.15 15.2
SRK46 12.3-13.8
15.8 16
Gravel, subangular to subrounded, particles average 3 cm diameter with maximum of 9 cm diameter, with lesser coarse sand.
GP
11
100%
SRK46 13.8-14.8
16.8 17 17.2
Gravel as above. GABBRO, dark green and grey, medium to coarse grained, non-magnetic, fractures filled with chlorite and hematite, abundant calcite veining.
GP
12 84%
100%
100%
18 18.3
GABBRO, as above.
19
84%
13
95%
19.8 20
GABBRO, as above.
Sheet 2 of 3
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: 0.02 m NORTHING: 7563299.16 EASTING: 432543.76 LOGGED BY: Frank Ratte, Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 46 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 17, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 17, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Triple Tube Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
21 57% 14 95%
22
22.8 23 EOH
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Sheet 3 of 3
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: -0.07 m NORTHING: 7563272.79 EASTING: 432552.12 LOGGED BY: Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 47 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 16, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 17, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Triple Tube Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
Sea ice
1 0.6 1
Vr, ice rich (25%). Grey, fine grained, trace black organics, organic smell, moderate plasticity, CL. CL
2 90% SRK47 0.6-2.1m
2.1
Vr, minor Nbn, possibly rare 1-2 cm unfrozen layers. Grey fine grained material as above, CL. CL
3 80% SRK47 2.1-3.6m
3.6 3.7 4
CL as above. Nbn. Medium granitic sand, 1-6 cm granitic gravel particle, very poor recovery.
CL
100%
SRK47 3.6-3.7m
SP
5
5%
SRK47 3.7-5.1m
5.1
LOSS
Loss
0%
6.6 7
GP
8
5%
8.1
SP
10%
SRK47 8.1-9.6m
9.6 9.8 10
GP
50%
Sheet 1 of 2
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: -0.07 m NORTHING: 7563272.79 EASTING: 432552.12 LOGGED BY: Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 47 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 16, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 17, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Triple Tube Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
BASALT, pale green, fine grained to massive. Rubble from 12.13 to 12.16 m. Fractures filled with chlorite and hematite. Veinlets make up 1% of rockmass and consist of calcite and hematite. No major veins.
11 11.1
87%
10
100%
12
80% 13
11
100%
14
14.0 EOH
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sheet 2 of 2
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: -0.34 m NORTHING: 7563337.64 EASTING: 432525.12 LOGGED BY: Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 49 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 18, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 18, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diamond Drill Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
Sea ice
1.7 2
Sea water
3 2
5.1
Dark grey, fine grained material, organic smell, wet, unfrozen CL.
CL
7
17%
SRK49 5.1-8.1 m
8.1
Material as above.
CL
10
33%
SRK49 8.1-11.1m
Sheet 1 of 3
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: -0.34 m NORTHING: 7563337.64 EASTING: 432525.12 LOGGED BY: Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 49 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 18, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 18, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diamond Drill Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
11
11.1
Material similar to above. Wet, soft, lighter grey than overlying material.
12
CL
13
75%
14
14.1
Material as above.
15
CL
16
30%
17
17.1 17.35
CL
100%
18
34% 19
76%
20
Sheet 2 of 3
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
PROJECT: HOPE BAY DORIS NORTH - WINTER 2004 PROJECT NO: 1CM014.02 LOCATION: Roberts Bay SURFACE (COLLAR) ELEVATION: -0.34 m NORTHING: 7563337.64 EASTING: 432525.12 LOGGED BY: Dylan MacGregor
RQD ROCK QUALITY(%) 100 x core lengths 100 mm and longer length of run GRADE 1 2 3 4 5
HOLE NO: SRK 49 HOLE DIAMETER: 76 mm (NQ) DATE AND TIME STARTED: April 18, 2004 DATE AND TIME FINISHED: April 18, 2004 DRILL CONTRACTOR: Major Drilling DRILLING METHOD: Diamond Drill Core
WEATHERING unweathered slightly medium highly completely ROCK MASS HARDNESS v. hard hard medium soft v.soft FABRIC v. fine fine medium coarse v. coarse ROUGHNESS smooth sl. rough medium rough v. rough DISCONTINUITY SEPARATION closed v. narrow narrow wide v. wide DIP vertical steep medium shallow horizontal
Dip (degrees)
0.2
0.6
20.1
21
21.6 EOH 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Sheet 3 of 3
Sample
Fabric
Material Description
Installations
Contact (m)
Roughness
Weathering
Separation
Soil Class
Depth (m)
Lithology
Fracture Spacing
Hardness
Recovery
RQD
Run
Attachment B
Laboratory Test Results
Depth (m) 2.1 -3.6 4.7 -6.2 12.3 -13.8 15.0 -16.4 5.1 -8.1 14.1 -17.1
Description Clayey SILT, trace sand, CL SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL SAND, trace silt CLAY and SILT, trace sand, CL Sandy, clayey SILT, trace sand,CL SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL
Data presented hereon are for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards., unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
BH No: By:
Depth (m) 2.1 - 3.6 4.7 - 6.2 12.3 - 13.8 15.0 - 16.4 5.1 - 8.1 14.1 - 17.1
LL, % 34 39 42 22 38
PL, % 18 22 24 15 22
PI, % 16 17 NP 18 7 16
Data presented hereon are for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized industry standards., unless otherwise noted. No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interpretation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services Project Number: 1780108 Client: SRK Consulting Attention: Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager Date Tested: May 4 - May 6, 2004 Borehole Number: SRK 45 Depth: 15.0 - 16.4 m
40 25 20 16 12.5 10 5 2.5 1.25 0.63 0.315 0.16 0.08 100 100 100 99 99 94.5
Sample Number: n/a Lab Number: Soil Description: 3560-4 CLAY and SILT, trace sand, CL
CLAY
SILT FINE
GRAVEL COARSE
SIEVE SIZES
100 90 80 70 PERCENT SMALLER 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50
200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8 4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA
P.Eng.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized Industry standards, unless otherwise noted, No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interoperation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services Project Number: 1780108 Client: SRK Consulting
40 25 20 16 12.5 10 5 2.5 1.25 0.63 0.315 0.16 0.08 100 100 100 100 100 99 94.8
Attention: Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager Date Tested: May 4 - May 6,2004 Borehole Number: SRK 46 Depth: 4.7 - 6.2 m
Sample Number: n/a Lab Number: Soil Description: 3560-2 SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL
CLAY
SILT FINE
GRAVEL COARSE
SIEVE SIZES
100 90 80 70 PERCENT SMALLER 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50
200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8 4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA
P.Eng.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized Industry standards, unless otherwise noted, No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interoperation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services Project Number: 1780108 Client: SRK Consulting Attention: Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager Date Tested: May 4, 2004 Borehole Number: SRK 46 Depth: 12.3 - 13.8 m
Sample Number: Lab Number: Soil Description: 3560-3 SAND, trace silt
CLAY
SILT FINE
GRAVEL COARSE
SIEVE SIZES
100 90 80 70 PERCENT SMALLER 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50
200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8 4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA
P.Eng.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized Industry standards, unless otherwise noted, No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interoperation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services Project Number: 1780108 Client: SRK Consulting
40 25 20 16 12.5 10 5 2.5 1.25 0.63 0.315 0.16 0.08 100 100 100 100 99 99 93.7
Attention: Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager Date Tested: May 4 - May 6,2004 Borehole Number: SRK 47 Depth: 2.1 - 3.6 m
Sample Number: n/a Lab Number: Soil Description: 3560-1 Clayey SILT, trace sand, CL
CLAY
SILT FINE
GRAVEL COARSE
SIEVE SIZES
100 90 80 70 PERCENT SMALLER 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50
200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8 4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA
P.Eng.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized Industry standards, unless otherwise noted, No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interoperation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services Project Number: 1780108 Client: SRK Consulting Attention: Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager Date Tested: May 4 - May 6, 2004 Borehole Number: SRK 49 Depth: 5.1 - 8.1 m
40 25 20 16 12.5 10 5 2.5 1.25 0.63 0.315 0.16 0.08 100 100 100 99 99 97 76.7
Sample Number: n/a Lab Number: Soil Description: 3560-5 Sandy, clayey SILT, CL
CLAY
SILT FINE
GRAVEL COARSE
SIEVE SIZES
100 90 80 70 PERCENT SMALLER 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50
200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8 4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA
P.Eng.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized Industry standards, unless otherwise noted, No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interoperation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Project: SRK 2004 Testing Services Project Number: 1780108 Client: SRK Consulting
40 25 20 16 12.5 10 5 2.5 1.25 0.63 0.315 0.16 0.08 100 100 100 100 99 96.4
Attention: Mr. Dylan MacGregor, Project Manager Date Tested: May 4 - May 6, 2004 Borehole Number: SRK 49 Depth: 14.1 - 17.1 m
Sample Number: n/a Lab Number: Soil Description: 3560-6 SILT and CLAY, trace sand, CL
CLAY
SILT FINE
GRAVEL COARSE
SIEVE SIZES
100 90 80 70 PERCENT SMALLER 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 .0005 .001 .002 .005 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50
200 100 60 40 30 20 16 10 8 4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1 11/2 2 3
Reviewed By:
Data presented hereon is for the sole use of the stipulated client. EBA is not responsible, nor can be held liable, for use made of this report by any other party, with or without the knowledge of EBA
P.Eng.
The testing services reported herein have been performed by an EBA technician to recognized Industry standards, unless otherwise noted, No other warranty is made. These data do not include or represent any interpretation or opinion of specification compliance or material suitability. Should engineering interoperation be required, EBA will provide it upon written request.
Appendix E
Phase II Foundation Investigation (SRK 2005)
Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada
Prepared for
Prepared by
May 2005
Phase II Foundation Investigation: Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Suite 800, 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3X2
May 2005
SRK Consulting Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 2 Field Program............................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Boring locations................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Undrained Shear Strengths ........................................................................... 3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Hope Bay Doris North Project Site Map Proposed Jetty In-Situ Testing Locations Undrained Shear Strength Profile Boring #1 Undrained Shear Strength Profile Boring #2 Undrained Shear Strength Profile Boring #3 Undrained Shear Strength Profile Boring #4 Undrained Shear Strength Profile Boring #5 Undrained Shear Strength Profile Boring #6 Undrained Shear Strength Profiles
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Detailed Calculations
DBM/spk
May 2005
SRK Consulting Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 1
Introduction
As part of the ongoing process of obtaining site information upon which surface infrastructure designs can be based for the Doris North Project, MHBL contracted SRK to undertake a second phase foundation investigation at the site of the proposed jetty at Roberts Bay (Figure 1) during April 2005. The primary objective of this field program was to collect in-situ measurements of undrained shear strength for the fine-grained soils identified in the jetty footprint during 2004 drilling (SRK 2004). This report presents the results of the in-situ testing of the fine-grained sediment within the proposed jetty footprint. Included is a description of the field investigation and a summary of the in-situ testing results.
Field Program
The in-situ testing was carried out April 13 to 15 and April 17, 2005, by SRK staff Dylan MacGregor and Peter Mikes, with assistance by Anastasia Ledwon of MHBL. Six borings were completed, with strength testing completed at five to six discrete depths at each boring location.
2.1
Methods
Testing of undrained strength of the jetty foundation soils was accomplished using a Nilcon vane shear apparatus that was rented from Roctest Telemac of Montreal. This apparatus consisted of a boring rig capable of driving a vane into the soil by means of a string of 1.0 m rods, and a torque recording head that rotated the rods and recorded the torque required for rotation. The shear vane was fixed to the end of the rod string, and test depth was gauged from the number and the position of the rods. To access the marine sediments located within the jetty footprint, 0.15m diameter holes were augered through the sea ice. A tent was initially set up over the holes to provide a degree of shelter, as the testing apparatus does not function properly under cold or windy conditions. A survival shelter on skids was used at the final four locations due to the poor performance of the tent under windy conditions. At each boring location, the length of auger required to penetrate the sea ice was recorded. The vane and rod assembly was then inserted into the auger hole, and lowered until the vane contacted the sediment. The total depth of water (liquid and frozen) was recorded, and the vane was advanced to the depth of the initial test. Once the vane was positioned at the desired depth, torque was applied to the rods via a torquerecording head mounted on top of the boring rig. The rods were rotated at a constant rate of
DBM/spk
May 2005
SRK Consulting Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 2
approximately 6 per minute, and the developed torque was recorded on pressure-sensitive paper disks by means of a metal recording arm that rotated with the rods. At each depth, an initial test was conducted where the torque developed prior to failure of the soil was recorded (the peak torque), as well as the torque required to turn the rods following failure (the residual torque). The soil at the test depth was then remoulded by manually turning the rods 20 times with a pipe wrench, and the torque required to turn the vane in this remoulded soil (the remoulded torque) was recorded. As part of this second test, a slip coupling mounted immediately above the vane allowed a limited rotation of the rods only, without rotation of the vane. This portion of the test recorded the torque required to turn only the rods (the rod rotation torque), and allowed the removal of rod resistance as part of data processing. A more detailed description of the method is found in Roctest (2002).
2.2
Boring locations
In-situ testing was carried out at six locations, as shown in Figure 2. These locations are situated within the footprint of the jettys northern terminus. Foundation testing focussed on this area because this portion of the footprint will receive the largest thickness of rock fill during construction, and as such is the most sensitive to excessive loading. Drilling in 2004 indicated that the shallow sediment was of a common soil type between the tested area and the shoreline to the south (SRK 2004). At each boring location, vane shear tests were taken at 5 or 6 depths, nominally every meter from the sediment surface to a depth of 5m. The near-surface sediment has the greatest risk of failure due to loading during the construction phase, and consequently testing focussed on this portion of the deposit.
DBM/spk
May 2005
SRK Consulting Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 3
Results
The calculated undrained peak, residual and remoulded shear strengths are summarized in Table 1 below and strength profiles for each boring are shown in Figures 3 though 8 with a compilation of all profiles for comparison shown in Figure 9. Table 1: Summary of Undrained Shear Strengths
Hole ID Boring Coordinates1 E N Test Depth (m) 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.25 1.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.25 1 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 Maximum Value Minimum Value Average Value 1. UTM projection NAD83 Zone 13 Peak Strength (kPa) 16.69 13.31 14.37 20.91 25.88 27.25 16.48 15.90 18.49 17.38 20.49 19.91 17.11 21.97 22.08 24.08 15.32 16.11 26.72 28.10 24.14 19.86 16.21 26.67 26.88 25.09 16.43 16.48 25.35 22.92 14.42 28.10 13.31 20.42 Residual Strength (kPa) 7.24 6.18 7.45 8.61 11.62 10.35 8.98 5.65 12.68 8.40 11.62 8.19 7.55 8.56 9.35 9.72 4.65 6.23 8.77 10.19 9.24 9.51 6.34 11.14 9.35 11.04 8.61 5.92 9.72 8.13 4.65 12.68 4.65 8.57 Remoulded Strength (kPa) 2.85 0.63 2.80 4.07 3.96 4.17 3.91 3.06 4.23 3.38 2.90 4.44 3.80 3.27 3.22 2.43 4.01 3.17 4.07 3.38 1.85 3.96 2.59 4.33 3.75 2.64 2.38 3.75 4.28 2.27 1.00 4.44 0.63 3.24 Sensitivity (Peak/Remoulded) 5.85 21.13 5.13 5.14 6.53 6.53 4.22 5.19 4.38 5.14 7.05 4.49 4.50 6.71 6.85 9.91 3.82 5.08 6.57 8.31 13.06 5.01 6.27 6.16 7.17 9.50 6.91 4.39 5.93 10.09 14.37 21.13 3.82 7.14
432,514
7,563,338
432,539
7,563,351
432,525
7,563,343
432,543
7,563,339
432,528
7,563,333
432,516
7,563,329
DBM/spk
May 2005
SRK Consulting Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 4
The strength profiles are generally consistent for each boring with the top 2 to 3 meters of marine sediment being distinctively weaker than the lower portion of the profiles. The peak strength values show results typical of a soft to very soft soil, ranging from 13.31 to 28.10 kPa with an average value of 20.42 kPa. The residual strengths average to be 42% of the peak strength and are generally consistent as a percentage of the peak strength with depth. The soil sensitivity, the ratio of the peak undisturbed undrained shear strength to the remoulded undrained shear strength has an average value of 7.14 and was found to generally increase with depth. The sensitivity of the soils ranged from a medium sensitive soil close to the surface, to an extra sensitive soil on the bottom end of the profile.
DBM/spk
May 2005
SRK Consulting Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 5
This report, Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location, Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada, has been prepared by SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
DBM/spk
May 2005
SRK Consulting Phase II Foundation Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Jetty Location
Page 6
References
Roctest. 2002. Instruction Manual: Vane Borer Model M-1000. Roctest Limited, Montreal, QC. SRK Consulting, 2004. Phase I Foundation Investigation, Proposed Roberts bay Jetty Location, Doris North Project, Nunavut, Canada. Report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, April 2004.
DBM/spk
May 2005
Figures
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
1.0
2.0
Depth (m)
4.0
5.0
6.0
DORIS NORTH PROJECT Phase II Jetty Foundation Investigation
PROJECT
DATE
APPROVED
FIGURE
1CM014.004
May 2005
EMR
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
1.0
2.0 Peak Strength (kPa) Residual Strength (kPa) Remoulded Strength (kPa) 3.0
Depth (m)
4.0
5.0
6.0
DORIS NORTH PROJECT Phase II Jetty Foundation Investigation
PROJECT
DATE
APPROVED
FIGURE
1CM014.004
MAY 2005
E.M.R.
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
1.0
2.0 Peak Strength (kPa) Residual Strength (kPa) Remoulded Strength (kPa) 3.0
Depth (m)
4.0
5.0
6.0
DORIS NORTH PROJECT Phase II Jetty Foundation Investigation
PROJECT
DATE
APPROVED
FIGURE
1CM014.004
May 2005
EMR
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
1.0
2.0 Peak Strength (kPa) Residual Strength (kPa) Remoulded Strength (kPa) 3.0
Depth (m)
4.0
5.0
6.0
DORIS NORTH PROJECT Phase II Jetty Foundation Investigation
PROJECT
DATE
APPROVED
FIGURE
1CM014.004
May 2005
EMR
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
1.0
2.0 Peak Strength (kPa) Residual Strength (kPa) Remoulded Strength (kPa) 3.0
Depth (m)
4.0
5.0
6.0
DORIS NORTH PROJECT Phase II Jetty Foundation Investigation
PROJECT
DATE
APPROVED
FIGURE
1CM014.004
May 2005
EMR
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
1.0
2.0 Peak Strength (kPa) Depth (m) Residual Strength (kPa) 3.0 Remoulded Strength (kPa)
4.0
5.0
6.0
DORIS NORTH PROJECT Phase II Jetty Foundation Investigation
PROJECT
DATE
APPROVED
FIGURE
1CM014.004
May 2005
EMR
Undrained Shear Strength (kPa) 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Boring 1 - Peak
1.0
Boring 1 - Residual Boring 1 - Remolded Boring 2 - Peak Boring 2 - Residual Boring 2 - Remolded
2.0
Boring 3 - Peak Boring 3 - Residual Boring 3 - Remolded Boring 4 - Peak Boring 4 - Residual
Depth (m)
3.0
Boring 4 - Remolded Boring 5 - Peak Boring 5 - Residual Boring 5 - Remolded Boring 6 - Peak
4.0
5.0
6.0
DORIS NORTH PROJECT Phase II Jetty Foundation Investigation
PROJECT
DATE
APPROVED
FIGURE
1CM014.004
MAY 2005
EMR
Appendices
Appendix 1
Detailed Calculations
M a K Mf Ms Mv Su C
Symbols Torque (Kg m) Distance from zero torque reference line (cm) Calibration constant = 1.0563 kg.m/cm Torque required to rotate rods Torque required to rotate rods + vane at yielding Torque required to rotate vane at yielding (Mf - Ms) Shear strength (kg/cm2) Vane form constant (8x17.2cm) = 0.05 m-1cm-2
Residual
1.0563 0.05
Equations: Mv = K*(as-af) Su = Mv * C * 100 Residual Strength as (cm) Mv (kgm) Su (kPa) 1.39 1.30 1.59 1.87 2.30 2.47 1.80 1.21 2.70 1.91 2.50 1.62 1.62 2.01 2.18 2.26 1.68 1.38 2.10 2.22 2.17 2.05 1.30 2.27 2.18 2.29 1.76 1.42 2.24 2.12 1.68 1.45 1.24 1.49 1.72 2.32 2.07 1.80 1.13 2.54 1.68 2.32 1.64 1.51 1.71 1.87 1.94 0.93 1.25 1.75 2.04 1.85 1.90 1.27 2.23 1.87 2.21 1.72 1.18 1.94 1.63 0.93 7.24 6.18 7.45 8.61 11.62 10.35 8.98 5.65 12.68 8.40 11.62 8.19 7.55 8.56 9.35 9.72 4.65 6.23 8.77 10.19 9.24 9.51 6.34 11.14 9.35 11.04 8.61 5.92 9.72 8.13 4.65 Remolded as (cm) Mv (kgm) 0.54 0.12 0.62 0.99 1.13 1.30 0.79 0.70 1.00 0.89 0.93 0.89 0.91 0.92 1.02 0.88 0.81 0.81 1.05 1.11 0.90 0.8 0.71 1.05 0.98 1 0.5 0.92 1.02 0.81 0.69 0.57 0.13 0.56 0.81 0.79 0.83 0.78 0.61 0.85 0.68 0.58 0.89 0.76 0.65 0.64 0.49 0.80 0.63 0.81 0.68 0.37 0.79 0.52 0.87 0.75 0.53 0.48 0.75 0.86 0.45 0.20
Boring # 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 4A 4B 4C 4D 4E 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 6A 6B 6C 6D 6E
Depth (m) 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.25 1.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.25 1 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
Undisturbed Peak Strength af (cm) as (cm) Mv (kgm) Su (kPa) 0.02 0.13 0.18 0.24 0.1 0.51 0.1 0.14 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.07 0.19 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.8 0.2 0.44 0.29 0.42 0.25 0.1 0.16 0.41 0.2 0.13 0.3 0.40 0.58 0.8 3.18 2.65 2.9 4.2 5 5.67 3.22 3.15 3.80 3.61 4.18 3.84 3.43 4.55 4.59 4.98 3.7 3.25 5.5 5.61 4.99 4.01 3.17 5.21 5.5 4.95 3.24 3.42 5.20 4.92 3.53 3.34 2.66 2.87 4.18 5.18 5.45 3.30 3.18 3.70 3.48 4.10 3.98 3.42 4.39 4.42 4.82 3.06 3.22 5.34 5.62 4.83 3.97 3.24 5.33 5.38 5.02 3.29 3.30 5.07 4.58 2.88 16.69 13.31 14.37 20.91 25.88 27.25 16.48 15.90 18.49 17.38 20.49 19.91 17.11 21.97 22.08 24.08 15.32 16.11 26.72 28.10 24.14 19.86 16.21 26.67 26.88 25.09 16.43 16.48 25.35 22.92 14.42
af (cm) 0 0 0.09 0.22 0.38 0.51 0.05 0.12 0.20 0.25 0.38 0.05 0.19 0.3 0.41 0.42 0.05 0.21 0.28 0.47 0.55 0.05 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.5 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.38 0.5
Su (kPa) 2.85 0.63 2.80 4.07 3.96 4.17 3.91 3.06 4.23 3.38 2.90 4.44 3.80 3.27 3.22 2.43 4.01 3.17 4.07 3.38 1.85 3.96 2.59 4.33 3.75 2.64 2.38 3.75 4.28 2.27 1.00
Comments No extra wieght on frame No extra wieght on frame Extra wieght: 325 lbs Extra wieght: 180 lbs Extra wieght: 325 lbs; difficult to push down relative to previous advance Easy to drive vane down Easy to drive vane down Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs) Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs) Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs) Very easy to advance - pushed down by hand. Easy to push down - pushed by hand. (2 people) Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs) Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs) Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (325lbs) Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs) Easy to push. Moderately difficult to drive Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs) Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs) Easy to drive into sediment Easy to drive into sediment Moderately difficult to drive Moderately difficult to drive Moderately difficult to drive Easy to advance Moderately difficult to drive Moderately difficult to drive Moderately difficult to drive Difficult to advance - 2 people on frame (415lbs)
Appendix F
Technical Memorandum Outlining Preliminary Jetty Design Calculations
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. Suite 800 1066 West Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3X2 Canada vancouver@srk.com www.srk.com
Technical Memorandum
To: cc: Subject: Brian Labadie - MHBL Project File Preliminary Jetty Design Calculations Date: From: Project #: September 14, 2005 Maritz Rykaart, Ben Wickland 1CM014.006
Introduction
This technical memorandum documents design calculations and assumptions for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed continuous rock fill jetty in Roberts Bay, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. This jetty will be part of the development infrastructure for the proposed Doris North Project, a small gold mine being developed by Miramar Hope Bay Limited. Complete details and drawings of the proposed jetty are documented in the following report; SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. 2005. Preliminary Jetty Design, Doris North Project, Hope Bay, Nunavut, Canada. Technical report submitted to Miramar Hope Bay Limited, Project No. 1CM014.006, October 2005. This design is preliminary in nature, and is intended to be used to confirm general feasibility of the concept proposed, and allow for cost estimation to 15% accuracy.
2
2.1
Preliminary Design
Design Approach The continuous rock fill jetty will be constructed on soft marine sediments. It is therefore necessary to confirm that the load applied by the jetty will be less than the allowable (ultimate) bearing capacity of the marine sediments. For the purpose of this design it is reasonable to assume that the base of the rock fill jetty is a shallow foundation (Holtz and Kovacs 1981).
2.2
Data Sources Geotechnical data for the jetty foundation material has been documented in the Preliminary Jetty Design Report mentioned in Section 1 of this technical memorandum. This data includes drill holes, in-situ vane shear testing and laboratory foundation indicator testing. The data is deemed adequate to conduct a preliminary design for the jetty.
2.3 2.3.1
Applied Loads Dead Loads The limiting case for the proposed jetty geometry is described by a cross section through the jetty head. This jetty head consists of a 25 m wide roadway crown over a 6.5 m deep fill with side slopes of 1.2:1. Under this scenario, the base of the foundation is 40.8 m wide, and the water level is 1.5 m below the roadway.
BW/EMR
SRK Consulting
Page 2 of 5
For a 1 m deep section through the jetty head fill, the volumes, unit weights, and total dead load for the geometry described above are included in Table 1. Table 1. Jetty head section volumes, unit weights, and loads. Section Volume m3 Unit Wt. (kN/m3) Unsaturated upper fill Saturated lower fill Total fill 40.2 173.0 213.2 19.62 9.81 (submerged)
Thus, for a total area of 40.2 m2, the applied load of 2,486 kN, due to the weight of the fill, results in an applied stress, qa, of 61.8 kPa over the area of the footing. 2.3.2 Live Loads Live loads on the jetty include the traffic of loaders, as well as the action of ice, wind, and snow. The action of ice, wind and snow are not considered here. The total load applied by a Komastsu WA500-3 Wheeled Loader (the largest equipment to be used) with a fully laden shipping container is approximately 48,100 kg. Over a 1 m deep section of the jetty head, the applied load is equivalent to an additional increase in applied stress, qa, of 1.2 kPa. 2.3.3 Total Load The total load exerted by the jetty on the marine foundation is thus the sum of the live and the dead load, i.e. 61.8 + 1.2 = 63 kPa. Bearing Capacity Nilcon vane shear test results for the upper 5 m of marine sediment at the jetty head location are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Nilcon vane shear test results for proposed jetty head location. Peak (kPa) Residual (kPa) Remoulded (kPa) Maximum Minimum Average 28.1 13.3 20.4 12.7 4.7 8.6 4.4 0.6 3.2
2.4
The bearing capacity of the sediment was calculated on the basis of peak undrained shear strength of 15 kPa. The average plasticity index of CL samples taken from the proposed jetty location, and from the 1997 investigation in the area (EBA 1997) was 17.5%, and no vane shear correction was applied to field values. For undrained loading at the surface of the marine sediment, the ultimate bearing capacity equation reduces to: qu = NcCu where, qu is ultimate bearing capacity, Nc is a bearing capacity coefficient, and Cu is the undrained shear strength. The value of Nc for a soft sediment varies to a maximum of 5.14. Accordingly, the ultimate bearing capacity, qu, of the sediment is 77.1 kPa.
BW/EMR TechMemoJettyDesign_emr.doc, 10:52 AM, Oct. 3, 05
SRK Consulting
Page 3 of 5
2.5
Bearing Capacity Factor of Safety The factor of safety is calculated as follows: F.S. = qu/qa = 77.1 kPa / 63 kPa = 1.22
2.6 2.6.1
Consolidation Settlement Total Settlement The proposed jetty will undergo settlement due to the consolidation of the underlying marine sediment. Samples were not tested for compressibility, but total settlements and time to consolidation are estimated here based on sample void content as determined from saturated water content, the depth of the sediment layer, and assumed values of compression index and coefficient of consolidation. Values of parameters used for the calculation of total settlement are included in Table 3. Table 3. Design values for consolidation calculations. Component Thickness of marine sediment layer Saturated unit weight of marine sediment Initial effective stress at midpoint of the layer Initial void ratio Compression Index Applied stress Coefficient of consolidation
Value 13 m 18 kN/m3 53.2 kPa 1.27 0.25 to 0.5 (assumed) 62 kPa 10 m2/year (assumed)
Assuming an increase in effective stress equal to the dead load of 61.8 kPa, the midpoint of the profile will undergo a change in effective stress from 53.2 kPa to 115.2 kPa. The total expected settlement is estimated to be approximately 0.5 m to 1.0 m. 2.6.2 Time Rate of Consolidation Estimates of time of consolidation indicate up to 0.15 m settlement after one year, and up to 0.3 m after 5 years. The actual rates of settlement may vary considerably from estimates. Rates of consolidation are estimated from coefficient of consolidation. The coefficient of consolidation of 10 m2/year listed in Table 3 was approximated from the average liquid limit of near 40% and Figure 9.10, page 404, Holtz and Kovacs (1981). Time to consolidation is highly dependent on the hydraulic conductivity of the sediment, which was not measured. The drilling program observed some sandier sediments, which will have higher hydraulic conductivity than clay rich portions. The presence of sandy layers may increase the rate of consolidation.
Design Options
Alternative geometries and the effect of including geosynthetic re-enforcement of the base of the jetty fill were examined for effect on applied load qa and factor of safety, F.S.
BW/EMR
SRK Consulting
Page 4 of 5
3.1
Jetty Head Geometry Options for decreasing the pressure at the base of the jetty head fill include flattening the side slopes, and reducing the width of the fill. The variation in applied stress is illustrated in Table 4. The most conservative design includes a design profile with a 6 m roadway with 4:1 side slopes. Predicted loads are converted to factors of safety, F.S.s, in Table 5. Table 4. Variation in applied stress, qa, due to changes in jetty head geometry. Side Slope (H:V) 1.2:1 2:1 3:1 4:1 Top Width (m) 25 61.2 55.6 51.1 48.2 15 55.6 50.0 46.1 43.6 10 51.1 46.1 42.7 40.8 6 46.1 42.0 39.6 38.2
Table 5. Factor of Safety for alternate jetty head geometries (excluding live loads). Side Slope (H:V) 1.2:1 2:1 3:1 4:1 3.2 Top Width (m) 25 1.26 1.39 1.51 1.60 15 1.39 1.54 1.67 1.77 10 1.51 1.67 1.80 1.89 6 1.67 1.84 1.95 2.02
Geosynthetic Re-Enforcement The use of geosynthetic (geotextile and geogrid) re-enforcement at the base of the fill was investigated for effect on bearing capacity (Koerner 2005). Two suppliers were also contacted for information regarding the use of geosynthetics. Principle advantages to using a geosynthetic reenforcement at the base of the jetty fill include: Prevent rock fill from sinking upon initial placement during construction Reduction of differential settlements Even distribution of stress over marine sediment allowing use of Nc = 5.14 Prevent movement of fines into overlying coarse layers
The soft marine sediments at the proposed jetty location may fail during construction if the ultimate bearing capacity is exceeded. With time, the sediments will consolidate, and the allowable load will increase. However, localized loading may cause a failure, and a geosynthetic re-enforced pad will help reduce the potential for failure. A possible re-enforcement configuration over the base of the jetty fill includes a multiple layer structure of three to four layers of bi-axial geogrid, separated by 0.6 m of rock fill passing 30 cm. The jetty embankment fill may be constructed directly on top of the re-enforced layers.
BW/EMR TechMemoJettyDesign_emr.doc, 10:52 AM, Oct. 3, 05
SRK Consulting
Page 5 of 5
Case studies where geosynthetics has been used for this type of application are listed on the web site of one of the suppliers (www.tenax.net/geosynthetics/case_history). SRK is not aware of any case study of geosynthetic re-enforced pad constructed in an arctic environment. However, geosynthetics are commonly used in conventional applications in the arctic (liners, ponds, etc.), and therefore there is no reason to believe that this application would not be feasible. This statement is supported by the suppliers that was contacted, that are prepared to guarantee their product for this application in the arctic.
References
EBA Engineering Consultants. 1997. Boston Gold Project Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Roberts Bay Port. Report Submitted to BHP World Minerals, October. Holtz, R.D., and Kovacs, W.D. 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice-Hall Inc. New Jersey, pp.733. Koerner, R.M. 2005. Designing with Geosynthetics, Fifth Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, N.J., 796 pages.
BW/EMR
Appendix G
Typical Geogrid Specifications
TENAX LBO SAMP are polypropylene geogrids especially designed for soil stabilization and reinforcement applications. The LBO SAMP geogrids are manufactured from a unique process of extrusion and biaxial orientation to enhance their tensile properties. TENAX LBO SAMP features consistently high tensile strength and modulus, excellent resistance to construction damages and environmental exposure. Furthermore, the geometry of the TENAX LBO SAMP allows strong mechanical interlock with the soil being reinforced.
Typical applications
Base reinforcement; reduction of required structural fill; load distribution; reduction of mud pumping; subgrade stabilization; embankment stabilization; slope reinforcement; erosion control mattresses. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS STRUCTURE MESH TYPE STANDARD COLOR POLYMER TYPE CARBON BLACK CONTENT PACKAGING DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS APERTURE SIZE MD APERTURE SIZE TD MASS PER UNIT AREA ROLL WIDTH ROLL LENGTH ROLL DIAMETER ROLL VOLUME GROSS ROLL WEIGHT TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS STRENGTH AT 2% STRAIN STRENGTH AT 5% STRAIN PEAK TENSILE STRENGTH YIELD POINT ELONGATION TEST METHOD UNIT DATA BI-ORIENTED GEOGRIDS RECTANGULAR APERTURES BLACK POLYPROPYLENE 2.0% ROLLS IN POLYETHYLENE BAGS WITH I.D. LABEL UNIT mm mm g/m m m m m kg UNIT kN/m kN/m kN/m % LBO 220 SAMP 41 31 250 4.0 100 0.41 0.69 107.0 LBO 220 SAMP MD ISO 10319 ISO 10319 ISO 10319 ISO 10319 7.0 14.0 20.0 11.0 TD 7.0 14.0 20.0 10.0 LBO 330 SAMP 40 27 370 4.0 75 0.45 0.81 118.0 LBO 330 SAMP MD 10.5 21.0 30.0 11.0 TD 10.5 21.0 30.0 10.0 LBO 440 SAMP 34 27 640 4.0 50 0.52 1.10 135.0 LBO 440 SAMP MD 14.0 28.0 40.0 11.0 TD 15.0 30.0 40.0 11.0 b,c,d b,c,d a,c,d b,c,d NOTES b,d b,d b b b b b b NOTES NOTES
ISO 9864
TEST METHOD
NOTES: a) 95% lower confidence limit values, ISO 2602 b) Typical values c) Tests performed using extensometers d) MD: machine direction (longitudinal to the roll) TD: transverse direction (across roll width)
GEOGRID TYPE: A = TENAX LBO 220 SAMP B = TENAX LBO 330 SAMP C = TENAX LBO 440 SAMP
35 30
B
A
25 20 15 10 5
B
A
STRAIN, [%]
10
15
MD
STRAIN, [%]
10
15
TD
The TENAX Laboratory has been created in 1980 and has been continuously improved with the purpose of assuring unequalled technical development of the products and accurate Quality Control, The TENAX Laboratory can perform mechanical, hydraulic and durability tests, according to the most important international standards like ISO, CEN, ASTM, DIN, BSI, UNI.
TENAX SpA Geosynthetics Division Via dell'Industria, 3 I-23897 Vigan (LC) ITALY Tel. (+39) 039.9219307 Fax (+39) 039.9219200 e-mail: geo.div@tenax.net Web Site: www.tenax.net
TENAX International B.V. Geosynthetics Division Via Ferruccio Pelli, 14 CH-6900 Lugano SWITZERLAND Tel. (+41) 091.9242485 Fax (+41) 091.9242489 e-mail: geo@tenax.ch Web Site: www.tenax.net