Geotechnical Consultants

7/27/2019 Geotechnical Consultants

1/34

This electronic communication and its contents may containconfidential information which is the exclusive property ofGeotechnical Consultants, Inc. The recipient(s) assumes allliability arising from any alteration, misuse or unauthorizeddistribution. If you have received this information in error,please notify the sender immediately.

614.895.140Fax: 614.895.117www.gci2000.co

720 Greencrest DrivWesterville, Ohio 43081-490

Westerville, Ohio Youngstown, Oh


2/34

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

AND PRELIMINARY

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED

FAIRFIELD COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER-MSMJ SITE

342 WEST WHEELING STREET

LANCASTER, OHIO

Prepared by:

Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.

Prepared for:

The Fairfield County Commissioners

Wachtel & McAnally Architects/Planners

GCI Project No. 11-G-16121

June 10, 2011

Main Offic720 Greencrest Driv

Westerville, Ohio 43081-490614.895.140

Fax: 614.895.117www.gci2000.co

Branch Offices

Youngstown 8433 South Ave. Bldg. 1, Suite 1 Youngstown, OH 44514 (330) 965-1400 Fax (330) 965-14


3/34


4/34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................1

SITE HISTORY AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................2

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................3

LABORATORY.........................................................................................................................................................5

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................5

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

BUILDING SUPPORT

SEISMIC FACTOR

EXCAVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER

PAVEMENTS

GENERAL SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERNG AND TESTING ...................................................................11

FINAL ......................................................................................................................................................................12

APPENDIX FOLLOWING PAGE NUMBER.......................................................................................................12

General Notes for Soil Classification

General Site Location Map (DeLorme. Street Atlas USA 2011)

USGS Topographic Map 1992 Lancaster, Ohio Quadrangle2009 Aerial Photograph Fairfield County Auditor

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map (May, 1893)

Boring Location Plan

Table 1: Summary of Encountered Subsurface Conditions

Test Boring Logs

Table 2: Laboratory Test Results

ODNR Water Well Logs (2)


5/34

1

INTRODUCTION

As requested and authorized by Mr. Kent Staker of Wachtel & McAnally Architects/Planners, Inc on

behalf of the Fairfield County Commissioners, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (GCI) has performed a

subsurface exploration for a proposed Fairfield County Justice Center building at 342 West Wheeling

Street in Lancaster, Ohio. Prior to drilling, the client provided us with a Scheme E site plan, dated

6/5/2010, that showed the proposed and existing building footprints and six requested boring locations.

Our study consisted of six standard penetration test borings performed at or near the suggested locations

within the proposed structure footprint and limited laboratory testing. A sketch showing the

approximate boring locations and copies of the boring logs are included in the appendix of this report.

Test hole locations were established from existing site landmarks and general site features. Topographic

information was not shown on the plan provided, and GCI did not survey the ground surface elevations

at the boring locations.

The intent of this study is to evaluate subsoil conditions and offer preliminary design recommendations

relative to foundations, pavements, and earthwork. This report is issued prior to the receipt of final

foundation and grading plans. We would suggest that this office review these plans to provide

additional recommendations.

This preliminary report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Fairfield County Commissioners,

Wachtel & McAnally Architects/Planners and their consultants for specific application to the proposed

Fairfield County Justice Center to be located at 342 West Wheeling Street in Lancaster, Ohio in

accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No warranty, expressed

or implied, is made.


6/34

2

SITE HISTORY AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The site is comprised of two irregular-shaped parcels totaling about 2.5 acres in size. The property is

bordered by retail buildings and Lincoln Avenue (US Route 22) to the south, the tree-lined Hocking

River in its current alignment to the west, West Wheeling Street to the north, and a gas station to the

northeast. South Memorial Drive (U.S. Route 33) forms the east side boundary. The roadway was

constructed over the abandoned Ohio Canal at some time between 1893 and 1899; it was known as

Front Street at that time. A foundry and a glass plant were once located east and southeast of the site on

the east side of Route 33. A general site location map is appended to this report.

Review of historic (1889 through 1929) Sanborn maps of the area indicates the site has seen prior

development in the form of several buildings used for a slaughter house from at least 1889 to 1919. The

1929 map shows a foundry on the parcel. The Hocking River once crossed through the site, entering the

property from the north and then curving to the west; it appears on Sanborn maps dated 1899 and

earlier and is designated as the old channel (see attached copy of the 1893 map). We do not know

when the river was straightened and realigned to the west end of the site. At some point, fill was placed

on the site possibly in connection with the channel rerouting or as a means of dealing with spoils from

the on-site or adjacent foundries and glass plant. Review of the 1992 Lancaster, Ohio USGS

topographic quadrangle (see attached copy) shows grades ranging from elevation 833 feet near the east

site boundary to below elevation 820 feet to the west by the Hocking River. It also shows a building to

the east of the existing jail that no longer is present on the site; presumably the existing concrete

pavement in this area is the old floor slab, which could account for the significant spalling we observed

as it would have consisted of non-air-entrained concrete.

According to the Fairfield County Auditor record, a supermarket was constructed in the northwest

portion of the site in 1955. In 1994, this structure was converted to the current minimum security

county jail facility. The client indicated that they believe the existing structure is supported on shallow


7/34

3

strip footings and has been subject to some minor settlement that has not impaired its functionality.

Conversation with a deputy at the site indicated that the west building wall and adjacent slab were

jacked up about 1 to 2 inches through use of grout injections about two years ago, but he repeated that

functionality was not impaired prior to that repair. There is concrete pavement at the north end of the

site, with asphalt pavement covering the rest of the parcel (see cover photograph). We visually judged

the pavements to be in fair to poor condition.

The project consists of constructing a one-story, slab-on-grade prison building with a mezzanine in the

central portion of the property. The exterior walls will be 8-inch thick reinforced concrete masonry

block with a 4-inch veneer, and the slab will be an 8-inch precast with a 2-inch topping. The structural

engineer (Mr. Ray Blinn of Eeman & Blinn, Inc.) provided the following building load information:

exterior wall loads will vary from 5.48 to 6.38 kips per lineal foot in the two-story portion and be about

3.03 kips per foot for one-story walls; column loads in the two-story portion will vary from 78 to 89

kips and range from 20 to 30 kips in the one-story area. He estimated about 80% of the loads will be

dead loads. A grading plan was not available at the writing of this report, but we anticipate minor grade

changes (i.e., 2 feet or less of cuts and fills) will be required to achieve a level building pad and regrade

pavement areas. We understand that at least some of the existing building will likely be demolished as

part of the project.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

GCI mobilized a truck-mounted drill rig (CME-45 with an automatic sampling hammer) to the site on

March 2, 2011 and drilled six standard penetration test borings at or near the requested locations to

obtain a generalized profile of existing subsurface conditions. Borings B-1 through B-6 were drilled

within the proposed building footprint to depths of either 25 or 30 feet. Specific boring information can

be obtained from the boring logs in the appendix. We summarize our boring findings below and in the

attached Summary of Encountered Subsurface Conditions table.


8/34

4

Surface Cover

The borings were drilled in existing pavement areas. Northern borings B-1 and B-2 encountered a rigid

section consisting of 3 to 4 inches of concrete over 3 inches of stone base. The remaining borings found

1 to 3.5 inches of asphalt cast directly on granular fill rather than stone base.

Existing Fill

The six borings encountered existing fill below the pavement section, extending to depths ranging from

9 feet to 17.5 feet below existing grade at the boring locations. The fill consisted primarily of dark

brown/black foundry sand (which we would classify as a non-plastic silty fine to medium sand - SM)

with varying but generally minor amounts of slag, glass, and brick. Occasional zones of slightly plastic

silty, clayey sand (SC-SM) or low plasticity clayey sand (SC) were encountered within the fill.

Standard penetration N-values recorded in the fill ranged from 0 to 13 blows per foot (bpf), commonly

from 2 to 8 bpf indicating the fill was loose to very loose in cohesionless density.

Natural Soils

We found natural cohesive soils, varying from non-organic to organic and from moderate to high

plasticity, immediately below the fill in the five of the six boring locations (east boring B-3 encountered

more granular natural soils below the deep fill cover at 17.5 feet below the surface). The cohesive soils

were alluvial deposits associated with the former Hocking River channel. In southeast boring B-4, we

encountered a non-organic, low to moderate plasticity brown lean clay (CL) that was medium stiff. The

other four borings (B-1, B-2, B-5 and B-6) drilled in the north and west portions of the site found

heavily stained lean to fat clays (CL to CH/OL to OH) with varying amounts of organics and shells that

were very soft (0 to 2 blows per foot commonly recorded).

The alluvial clays were underlain by a saturated granular formation that was encountered at depths

ranging from 12.5 feet (B-4) to 24.5 feet (B-5) below existing grade at the boring locations. These

deposits varied from slightly plastic silty, clayey sand with gravel (SC-SM) to non-plastic silty sand

with gravel/poorly graded sand with silt and gravel (SM/SP-SM). Trace shells were noted at the top of

the granular formation in B-1 and B-6. Standard penetration testing showed the sands to be loose to

medium dense. With the exception of B-3, the borings terminated within sand at depths of 25 or 30 feet.

East boring B-3 encountered a gray glacial till formation below the upper silty clayey sand with gravel

formation at a depth of 26 feet below the surface. Till is a primarily cohesive material comprised of

varying amounts of sand and gravel cemented in a lean clay matrix that generally exhibits low to moderate

plasticity. We visually classified the soil as gray sandy lean clay with gravel (CL) under the Unified

Classification System. Occasional thin layers of silty sand with gravel (SM) were noted within the

otherwise cohesive formation. The gray till was very stiff in cohesive consistency. We terminated B-3 in

the gray till at a depth of 30 feet below the surface.

Bedrock

Bedrock was not encountered in the borings performed (maximum drilled depth of 30 feet). The USDA

Soil Survey of Fairfield County maps the site as being in an area with bedrock consisting of sandstonewith interbedded shale. We estimate the depth to top of bedrock to be in excess of 100 feet, based on

review of logs for water wells in the site vicinity that are registered with ODNR (see attached copies of

two of those logs).

Groundwater and Soil Moisture Conditions

We encountered water seepage in the six borings at the time of drilling. In B-2, the groundwater was

found within the upper portion of the fill at a depth of 3 feet below the surface; the water level dropped

to 8 feet by the completion of drilling. Seepage was encountered within the lower portions of the fill

mass in borings B-1, B-3, and B-6 at depths of 7.5 to 9.5 feet below the surface; by the completion of


9/34

5

drilling, the water levels were recorded at depths of 9.5 to 10 feet below grade in these three boreholes.

In B-5, groundwater was observed at a depth of 12.5 feet below the surface in the upper portion of the

natural dark gray organic clay layer; the water level remained constant at the encountered depth in that

borehole at completion. B-4 found seepage within the underlying natural sand formation at a depth of

17.5 feet, with the level rising about a foot in the borehole by the end of drilling.

We generally characterize the retrieved fill samples as moist, with some very moist to wet zones where

seepage was encountered within the fill. The natural stained clays and underlying sand deposits were

typically described as wet.

Note that groundwater levels and moisture conditions can vary with changes in season and precipitation. It

is likely that the underlying sand formation is hydraulically connected to the adjacent Hocking River.

LABORATORY TESTING

We determined the natural moisture content of the first split spoon sample of natural soils obtained in

each boring (from depths of 13.5 to 15 in five of the borings, from 18.5-20 in B-3). East/southeast

borings B-3 and B-4 samples were found to have natural moisture contents of 13.5% and 7.7%,

respectively, at the time of drilling. The other four samples consisted of stained clays that had much

higher moisture contents, ranging from 31.9% in B-2 to 57.5% in B-1. We subjected the two samples

with the highest moisture content, B-1 and B-5, to loss-on-ignition testing. Results indicated respective

organic contents of 9.2% and 4.3%. From a geotechnical view point, we consider organic contents of

above 4% to 5% to be significant.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

The borings encountered deep deposits of loose fill over the entire building pad. Soft, organic Hocking

River channel deposits underlie the north and west portions of the proposed footprint, but may not be

present in the southeast part. These subsoil conditions will have a significant impact on foundation and

floor slab options, and pavement design to a lesser extent due to both total and differential settlement

concerns. We discuss these issues and other concerns below.


10/34

6

The existing structure in the northwest corner of the site was built in 1955. It reportedly was constructed

using conventional shallow spread footings and slab-on-grade and has undergone some settlement but of

low enough magnitude (1 to 2 inches) to not impair its functionality. The proposed new justice center

building will be located southeast of the existing building and over the old Hocking River channel. Our

borings showed the existing fill in this area to consist primarily of a silty fine to medium sand in loose to

very loose condition that will settle under applied new fill and building loads. Additionally, four of our

borings encountered very soft natural alluvial clays with varying amounts of organics and shells. These old

channel deposits combined with the loose fills pose a significant differential settlement potential for the

proposed construction. Additionally, the proposed structural loads of the new jail will be about double

those of the existing facility (and therefore will induce a larger magnitude of settlement), and the new

building will have reinforced concrete masonry walls, which typically are not flexible enough to accept

large movements without cracking. Based on our borings and despite the reported good

performance of the adjacent existing structure, we feel the site fills and soft clays are not suitable for

support of shallow foundations or conventional slab-on-grade for the proposed construction.

To mitigate settlement concerns, we recommend that the structure be supported on deep foundations that

extend through the existing fill and soft, natural alluvial clay deposits to bear in the underlying non-

organic, medium dense to dense sand and gravel or stiff glacial till soils. Based on the soil profile and

anticipating that groundwater may typically be encountered at depths of 8 to 10 feet below the surface, we

suggest using auger-cast piles for the deep foundations. Auger-cast piles are efficient in deep sand and

gravel deposits as they gain capacity primarily due to skin friction, and groundwater does not interfere with

their installation. Slab support would remain a concern, unless the slab is also supported on these

elements. If this option is selected, we recommend that additional final phase borings be performed to

finalize design recommendations. Final phase borings should extend to deeper depths on the order of 60

feet to 70 feet to gather sufficient information to analyze auger-cast piles.


11/34

7

Another possible option would be to modify/strengthen the site soils using stone columns such as

Geopiers. Geopiers are closely spaced rammed stone columns which, when properly designed and

installed, will improve soil bearing conditions enough to allow the use of conventional spread footings and

slab-on-grade. In our opinion, soil bearing capacities on the order of 4.000 psf to 5,000 psf would be

feasible for the site when properly fortified with stone columns. We recommend that these elements

extend through the fill and soft natural clays to bear in the sand formation. Geopiers are a proprietary

system which would be designed by Geopier, Inc.

Caissons (drilled piers) could be considered for the deep foundation element, but they would require casing

to prevent cave-in of the loose granular fill soils and careful groundwater control. Groundwater will be

encountered near the fill/natural soil interface, which will necessitate the use of casing within the natural as

well as the fill site soils. We also anticipated the need to use a tremie during concrete placement. Caissons

are a less preferred option due to the concern of their being subject to excessive post-construction

downdrag forces and the potential for bearing soils to heave during construction.

Settlement in pavement areas remains a concern regardless of which foundation system is selected,

although a flexible pavement system would be much more forgiving when compared to building

elements. This is evidenced by the performance of the existing pavement. The need for periodic

maintenance as movements occur should be anticipated. We do recommend that existing asphalt be

stripped in proposed pavement areas, and the exposed subgrade carefully proofrolled to delineate

soft/loose soils requiring stabilization prior to placement of new fill or pavement sections. Unless

properly milled, stripped asphalt will not be suitable for re-use as fill. If milled, asphalt fill should not

be placed within the proposed building pads.

We understand that the existing building may be partially or totally demolished as part of the project.

Additionally, the existing concrete pavement east of the present jail may in fact be an old building slab


12/34


13/34

9

SEISMIC FACTOR

The borings at the site revealed a generalized profile consisting of loose fill overlying very soft to

medium stiff natural clay deposits overlying medium dense sand and gravel. In accordance with the

Ohio Building Code, we would estimate the site as a Site Class E soft soil profile.

EXCAVATIONS AND GROUNDWATER

Bedrock was not encountered in the borings (up to 30-foot drilled depths) and is not anticipated to

impact slab-on-grade, foundation, and utility excavations within the drilled boring depths. The site fill

and natural soils can be excavated using conventional hydraulic equipment. The site fills are loose to

very loose, and will need to be braced or appropriately sloped to maintain sidewall stability. All

excavations must be in accordance with federal, state, and local guidelines (i.e., OSHA

requirements).

Groundwater was initially encountered in the six borings at depths ranging from 3 to 17.5 feet below the

surface and was measured at depths of 8 to 16.5 feet at the completion of drilling operations. As such,

we anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during installation of the recommended deep

foundation elements, probably near the fill/natural soil interface. Significant flows are likely as we

believe the underlying sand and gravel formation is hydraulically connected to the adjacent Hocking

River. If water is encountered in shallow utility excavations within the existing fills, we recommend the

trench be dewatered to allow for backfilling in dry conditions; portable sump pumps and working mats of

crushed stone may be able to handle these more minor groundwater flows.

PAVEMENTS

The site contains loose fill deposits, as well as soft/organic natural soils in some areas of the property;

these soils will settle and may cause premature pavement breakup/drainage problems to some degree.

As such, we do not recommend installation of rigid sections as the concrete may crack excessively


14/34

10

should movements occur. Provided the site is properly prepared, it is our opinion that a flexible

pavement system can be used for site development, with the expectation of periodic maintenance being

required. We recommend that existing asphalt be stripped from proposed pavement areas. Subgrades

should be carefully proofrolled to identify soft/loose soils. These areas should be stabilized prior to

additional fil placement or new pavement construction. Particular attention should be paid to areas

where the existing pavement experienced distress. Installation of a biaxial geogrid directly below the

base course aggregate would mitigate the effects of differential settlements by helping the pavement

section to float intact over the fill deposits, and their use should be considered in design.

Design of a site-specific pavement design is beyond the scope of this preliminary study; this would

require laboratory testing and we would need design traffic information. For this type of project, GCI

would normally recommend a typical minimum pavement section of 3 inches of asphalt over 8 inches of

aggregate base in light-duty automobile parking areas. Heavy-duty areas subject to occasional truck

traffic would consist of a minimum of 4 inches of asphalt over 10 inches of base aggregate.

Providing adequate sub-base drainage is important to future pavement performance. Finger drains

connecting to weep-holes in all inlets, proper grading of pavement sub-grades and surfaces to shed run-

off, and under-drains in any pavement swales are suggested sub-base drainage methods and should be

used by the site civil engineer.

GENERAL SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK

As a general approach to site preparation, we recommend the following:1. Where the existing structure is to be demolished, completely remove below-grade structural

elements, including foundations, slabs, and walls. Similarly, within the proposed building pad

limits plus 10 feet beyond the walls, remove the existing concrete pavement and any old below-

grade structural elements from the former building. Properly backfill the resulting excavation.

Concrete rubble may be incorporated in structural fills if first broken into pieces no larger than 4

inches in maximum dimension and thoroughly mixed with site soils to avoid creation of voids.


15/34

11

If properly crushed to meet gradation requirements, the concrete may be used as new pavement

base material or underslab gravel.

2. Existing utilities that cross the proposed building footprint should be rerouted, the old line(s)removed, and the excavation properly backfilled. The ends of abandoned pipes outside the

building footprint should be properly capped.

3. Remove existing asphalt. Asphalt may not be re-used as structural fill unless properly milled.We do not recommend asphalt be incorporated in any building pad fills.

4. Strip surface vegetation and topsoil, if present within proposed building or pavement areas.Topsoil may not be re-used as structural fill.

5. Thoroughly proofroll the stripped subgrades in pavement areas prior to filling or finish gradingto identify unstable areas. Particular attention should be paid to areas where the existing

pavements experienced distress. Stabilize as needed. Unstable subgrades below structural slabs

do not need to be stabilized. GCI should be contacted to observe proofrolling procedures.

6. Place and compact new fill in loose lifts (8 inches thick or less) to at least 98% optimumStandard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698). Lift thickness should be reduced to 6 inches in

confined areas where compactive effort is reduced. Cohesive site soils will be best compacted

with a sheepsfoot roller, while cohesionless soils will be best compacted with a vibratory,

smooth drum roller. The moisture content of the fill soils should be controlled to within 3% of

optimum moisture content. Depending on the time of year of earthwork, moisture adjustment of

the fill may be required to achieve compaction. Off site borrow should be reviewed by GCI

prior to use.

7. Excavate through the prepared building pad for foundations. Additional borings are neededto design the recommended extended foundation system.

8. Slab and pavement subgrades should be compacted to a flat, smooth, stable surface with a flatdrum compactor prior to placement of aggregate base. Subgrade preparation during wet

weather may require the use of an engineered fabric or geogrid.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND TESTING

GCI provides full service construction materials engineering and testing services. For project continuity

throughout construction, we recommend that GCI be retained to observe, test, and document:

earthwork procedures (stripping, fill placement, compaction, utility trench backfill, etc.) foundation and slab preparation (proof-rolling, excavations, undercuts, etc.), concrete placement (footings, structural concrete, slabs) and compressive strength testing, and structural steel (welds, bolts, etc.).

The purpose of this work is to assess that the intent of our recommendations is being followed and to make

timely changes to our recommendations (as needed) in the event site conditions vary from those


16/34

12

encountered in our borings. Please contact our field department to initiate these services.

FINAL

This report is preliminary and not sufficient for final design of the recommended extended foundation

system. Additional deeper borings will need to be performed.

We recommend that GCI be provided the opportunity for general review of the final foundation and

grading plans and project specifications in order to verify that recommendations contained in this report

have been properly interpreted and implemented. In the event that any changes in the nature of the

development are planned, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be

considered valid unless changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in

writing. The recommendations contained in this report are the opinion of Geotechnical Consultants,

Inc. based on the subsurface conditions found in the borings and available development information.

The site has seen prior development and was located within the floodplain of the Hocking River prior to

its realignment and the subsequent placement of substantial amounts of fill across the property. As such,

the nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until construction. If

variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report.

This report is prepared for design purposes only and is not considered sufficient to prepare an accurate

bid document.

GCI appreciates the opportunity to work with you on this project and we hope to continue service for

the project through construction. If you have any questions or the need for additional services, please

call.


17/34

APPENDIX


18/34

GENERAL NOTES FOR SOIL SAMPLING AND CLASSIFICATIONS

BORINGS, SAMPLING AND GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS:"#$%%$&' (&) *(+,%$&' -.#. /0&)1/2.) $& (//0#)(&/. -$23 ,#0/.)1#.* '.&.#(%%4 #./0'&$5.) (&) (//.,2.) (* *2(&)(#) +.230)* 06.7,%0#(2$0& 06 *18*1#6(/. /0&)$2$0&*9 :3. 80#$&'* -.#. )#$%%.) 1*$&' ( 2#1/;9? 20 ?9@ 6..29 :3. *2#(2$6$/(2$0& %$&.* 0& 23. %0'*#.,#.*.&2 23. (,,#07$+(2. 801&)(#4 8.2-..& *0$% 24,.* (2 23(2 *,./$6$/ %0/(2$0& (&) 23. 2#(&*$2$0& +(4 8. '#()1(%9

A(2.# %.=.%* -.#. +.(*1#.) (2 )#$%% %0/(2$0&* 1&).# /0&)$2$0&* *2(2.) 0& 23. %0'*9 :3$* )(2( 3(* 8..& #.=$.-.) (&) $&2.#,#.2(2$0&*+(). $& 23. 2.72 06 23. #.,0#29 B%1/21(2$0&* $& 23. %.=.% 06 23. '#01&)-(2.# +(4 0//1# )1. 20 023.# 6(/20#* 23(& 230*. ,#.*.&2 (2 23.2$+. 23. +.(*1#.+.&2* -.#. +().9

:3. C2(&)(#) D.&.2#(2$0& :.*2 EFC:GH $&/3.*12$%$5$&' ( >M@ ,01&) 3(++.# 6#.. 6(%%$&' N@ $&/3.*9 :3. &1+8.# 06 8%0-* #.O1$#.) 20 )#$=. 23. *(+,%.# .(/3 I $&/3.* 06,.&.2#(2$0& (#. #./0#).)9 :3. *1++(2$0& 06 23. 8%0-* #.O1$#.) 20 )#$=. 23. *(+,%.# 60# 23. 6$&(% >K $&/3.* 06 ,.&.2#(2$0& $* 2.#+.)23. C2(&)(#) D.&.2#(2$0& P.*$*2(&/. EQJ9 C0$% ).&*$24R/0&*$*2.&/4 $& 2.#+* 06 23. Q


19/34

GENERAL NOTES FOR SOIL SAMPLING AND CLASSIFICATIONS

PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITION CONSTITUENT MODIFIERS

f01%).#*S g>KZ_088%.*S NZ 20 >KZ :#(/. T.** 23(& ?Xc#(=.%S _0(#*.S NRMZ 20 NZ B.- ?@X

B$&.S Q09 M ENR>IZJ 20 NRMZ T$22%. >?@ EK9@++J 20 Q09 M EM9`?++J C0+. N@@ EK9@++J G0*2%4 ?@@@XB$&. Q09 K@@ E@9@`M++J 20 Q09 M@ E@9MK?++J

C$%2 h _%(4 i@9@`M++j /%(**$6$/(2$0& 8(*.) 0& 0=.#(%% ,%(*2$/$24j $& '.&.#(%/%(4 ,(#2$/%.* i@9@@?++9

ASTM/UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

_LFPCaMM`>


20/34


21/34


22/34


23/34


24/34


25/34


26/34


27/34


28/34


29/34


30/34


31/34


32/34


33/34


34/34

Documents

Geotechnical Consultants