Appendix_D_-_2019_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

Kumar & Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

SITE CONDITIONS

FIELD EXPLORATION

LABORATORY TESTING

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

FLOOR SLABS

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES

SURFACE DRAINAGE

EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

RETAINING STRUCTURES

SITE GRADING

PAVEMENT DESIGN

DESIGN AND SUPPORT SERVICES

LIMITATIONS

FIG. 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS

FIG. 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS

FIG. 2 - LEGEND AND NOTES

FIGS. 3 THROUGH 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS

FIG. 6 – HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RESULTS

TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

1. The borings generally encountered silty-clayey to clayey sands and gravel with varying amounts of cobbles extending to the maximum depths explored of 5 to 30 feet below the existing grade.

2. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of drilling.

3. Considering the nature of the proposed construction and the data obtained from the field and laboratory studies, we recommend the proposed building be founded on spread footings bearing on or native granular soils or properly compacted non-expansive fill. Footings placed on properly compacted non-expansive fill or the native soils should be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Other design and construction considerations are presented in this report.

4. The native soils encountered in our investigation are suitable for slab-on-grade construction.

5. Pavement section alternatives based on the on-site material properties, anticipated traffic volumes and local industry standard of practice are presented below:

Traffic

Pavement Section Thickness (in.)

Full Depth

Asphalt Composite

Asphalt over Base Course

Portland Cement Concrete

Light Duty 4.5 4 over 5 6 Heavy Duty 5 4 over 5 6

Additional pavement design and construction criteria are presented in the body of this report.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY

This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study for the proposed ranger station to be located at 51 Woodsy Lane in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. The project site is shown on Fig.

1. We were provided with a preliminary report from Ninyo and Moore to review. The study was conducted in general accordance with the scope of work in our Proposal No. P8-18-255, dated

November 28, 2018 to provide recommendations for building foundations, floor slabs and pavements.

This report has been prepared to summarize the data obtained during this study and to present our conclusions and recommendations based on the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions encountered. Design parameters and a discussion of geotechnical engineering considerations related to the proposed construction are included in the report.

-2-

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

It is our understanding the proposed development will consist of a new 8,760 square foot ranger station building, with associated new pavements for parking and drive areas. The building is expected to be single-story with no basement level extending below grade. The building is anticipated to consist of a steel frame, wood frame or masonry construction, with a slab-on-grade floor. Foundation loads are anticipated to be relatively light, typical of the proposed construction.

Additional buildings are anticipated to be constructed on this site that are not part of the scope of this study.

Asphalt or concrete pavements will be constructed, and will include parking areas and access driveways. With the exception of possible over-excavations for building foundations, site grading is anticipated to relatively minor, with construction occurring at the approximate existing grades. If locations, loadings or conditions are significantly different from those described above or depicted in this report, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained herein.

SITE CONDITIONS

The project site is located at the existing Forest Service facility. The site is bordered by undeveloped land to the north, south and east and New Mexico 4 to the west. The Jemez River flows south between the existing ranger station and New Mexico 4. At the time of our evaluation the river had approximately 1 to 2 feet of flowing water and was approximately 50 feet wide. Within the study area, the site sloped down to the west towards the Jemez River which was approximately 8 to 10 feet below the site elevation. Within the vicinity of the project the terrain is generally mountainous.

The site was in a valley. The site was vegetated with natural grasses, weeds, deciduous and evergreen trees. An acequia (drainage ditch) runs just east of the river along the western side of the site and was dry at the time of our field evaluation. The existing buildings appeared to be in good condition based on a cursory evaluation. No significant settlement was observed on the existing buildings. The existing pavement sections were in a fair to poor condition with significant distress throughout the pavement areas.

FIELD EXPLORATION

Information on the subsurface conditions was obtained by drilling 5 exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The borings were drilled on January 10, 2019. Graphic logs of the borings and the corresponding legend and notes are presented on Fig. 2. The locations of the borings were measured approximately by taping from the existing site features.

-3-

The borings were drilled with 4 ¼ -inch inner diameter continuous flight hollow stem augers, and were logged by a representative of Kumar & Associates, Inc. Samples of the soils were taken with a 2-inch

I.D. California sampler. The sampler was driven into the various strata with blows from a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches this is similar to ASTM D1586. Penetration resistance values, when properly evaluated, provide an indication of the relative density or consistency of the soils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the boring logs.

Groundwater was not encountered at the time of drilling. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings after drilling. The groundwater levels will likely fluctuate depending on seasonal factor and rainfall.

LABORATORY TESTING

Samples obtained from the exploratory borings were visually classified in the laboratory by the project engineer and samples were selected for laboratory testing. Laboratory testing included index property tests such as in-situ moisture content and unit weight, grain size analysis, and Atterberg limits.

Additional testing performed included concentration of water soluble sulfates. The testing was conducted in general accordance with recognized test procedures, primarily those of the American

Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM). Results of the laboratory testing program are shown on Figs.

2 through 6, and are summarized in Table I. Due to the sampling methods only the minis 1 ½ inch fraction of the soils was captured and particles with a greater size are present within the native soils.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The following subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature to highlight the major stratification features in the borings drilled for this study. The boring logs should be reviewed for more detailed information.

The borings generally encountered, clayey gravel with sand (GC), silty clayey sand with gravel (SC-

SM) and clayey sand with gravel (SC) with varying amounts of cobbles throughout the soil profile extending to the maximum depths explored ranging from approximately 5 feet to 30 feet below the existing grade. Sampler penetration blow counts indicate the soils are loose to dense.

Groundwater was not encountered at the time of drilling. Fluctuations in the ground water level may occur over time.

-4-

FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend that the building be founded on spread footings placed on undisturbed natural soils and/or properly compacted structural fill. While not observed within our borings, the topography and existing grading of the site indicate the possible presence of man-placed fill materials. We recommend that any existing fill be removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted when encountered beneath the proposed building area. The “Site Grading” section of this report discusses reuse of onsite materials and compaction requirements.

The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. The construction details should be considered when preparing project documents.

1. Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils or properly compacted structural fill should be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf.

2. Based on our experience with similar projects, we estimate total settlement for footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be approximately 1 inch or less, and that differential settlement will be on the order of ¾ inch or less.

3. Spread footings placed on granular soils should have a minimum footing width of 16 inches for continuous footings, and 24 inches for isolated pads.

4. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at a depth per the local building department requirements is recommended.

5. The lateral resistance of a foundation or retaining wall footing placed on undisturbed native granular soils or properly compacted structural fill material will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the foundation on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings may be calculated based on an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure against the sides of the footings may be calculated using an allowable equivalent fluid unit weight of 220 pcf. These values are working values. Compacted fill against the sides of the footings to resist lateral loads should be a nonexpansive material compacted to the criteria presented in the “Site Grading” section of the report.

-5-

6. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span an unsupported length of at least 10 feet.

7. Earthwork recommendations for spread footing foundations are presented in the “Site

Grading” section of this report.

8. Existing fill, loose soils or otherwise deleterious material encountered within the foundation excavation should be removed and the footings extended to adequate natural bearing material. Alternatively, any loose soils, existing fill or otherwise deleterious materials may be removed and replaced with structural fill compacted according to the “Site Grading” section of this report. Structural fill should extend down from the edges of the footings at a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical projection.

9. Care should be taken when excavating the foundations to avoid disturbing the supporting materials. Excavation methods that reduce soil disturbance, such as hand excavation or careful soil removal with a backhoe positioned outside of the excavation may be required.

10. A representative of the project geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement.

FLOOR SLABS

The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, and any existing fill are suitable to support lightly to moderately loaded slab-on-grade construction. Any existing fill should be overexcavated, moisture conditioned and replaced beneath and within a 1:1 H:V projection of the floor slab. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Joint spacing is dependant on slab thickness, concrete aggregate size, and slump, and should be consistent with recognized guidelines such as those of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI).

The joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. The requirement for slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use.

If moisture-sensitive floor coverings will be used, mitigation of moisture penetration into the slabs such as by use of a vapor barrier, may be required. If an impervious vapor barrier membrane is used, special precautions will be required to reduce differential curing problems which could cause

-6-the slabs to warp. A minimum 2-inch sand layer between the concrete and the vapor barrier is sometimes used for this purpose.

All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be placed and compacted according to the criteria presented in "Site Grading." The suitability of the on-site soils for use as underslab fill is also discussed in "Site Grading."

SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA

The generalized subsurface profile was assumed to consist of cohesive and granular overburden soils, underlain by relatively deep sedimentary bedrock. The weighted average of the estimated shear wave velocities for this subsurface profile to a depth of 100 feet indicates an IBC design Site

Class D. Based on the subsurface profile and site seismicity, liquefaction is not a design consideration. Using the USGS National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program online database, the following probabilistic ground motion values are reported for the project site.

Intensity Measure Type Intensity Measure Level 2 percent in 50 Years

0.2 Sec. MCER Ground

Motion Ss 0.384 g

1.0 Sec. MCER Ground

Motion S1 0.118 g

WATER SOLUBLE SULFATES

The concentrations of water soluble sulfates measured in samples obtained from the exploratory borings ranged from less than 0.01% to approximately 0.01%. These concentrations of water soluble sulfates represent a Class 0 severity of exposure to sulfate attack on concrete exposed to these materials. The degree of attack is based on a range of Class 0, Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 severity exposure as presented in ACI 201. Based on the laboratory data and our experience, we believe special sulfate resistant cement will not be required for concrete exposed to the on-site soils.

SURFACE DRAINAGE

Proper surface drainage is very important for acceptable performance of the building during construction and after the construction has been completed. Drainage recommendations provided by local, state and national entities should be followed based on the intended use of the building.

The following recommendations should be used as guidelines and changes should be made only after consultation with the geotechnical engineer.

-7-

1. Excessive wetting or drying of the foundation and slab subgrade should be avoided during construction.

2. Exterior backfill should be moisture conditioned and compacted according to the “Site

Grading” Section of this report.

3. Care should be taken when compacting around the foundation walls and underground structures to avoid damage to the structure. Hand compaction procedures, if necessary, should be used to prevent lateral pressures from exceeding the design values.

4. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet,in unpaved areas. Site drainage beyond the 10-foot zone should be designed to promote runoff and reduce infiltration. If the backfill settles additional compacted material should be added to maintain the recommended slope. A minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet is recommended in the paved areas. These slopes may be changed as required for handicap access points in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

5. Ponding of water should not be allowed in backfill material or in a zone within 10 feet of the foundation walls whichever is greater.

6. Backfill material should meet the requirements stated in the “Site Grading” Section of the report.

7. Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill.

8. Excessive landscape irrigation should be avoided within 10 feet of the foundation walls.

EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS

It is anticipated that conventional excavating equipment will be able to excavate the overburden soil.

All excavations should be in accordance with OSHA, state and local requirements. The contractor should follow appropriate safety precautions. In accordance with OSHA guidelines, the native overburden soils will likely classify as a Type C material. If materials different from those indicated in this report are encountered, the OSHA soil type may vary and need to be adjusted. The contractor’s competent person should make decisions regarding cut slopes. Per OSHA criteria, unless excavations are shored, temporary excavations in Type C materials should have slopes no

-8-steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V). Shoring will be required where excavated slopes cannot be accommodated. Groundwater was not encountered during the subsurface investigation is not anticipated during construction. If groundwater is encountered, flatter slopes will be required. It is assumed site dewatering would occur in advance of the excavation, and be maintained the entire duration that the excavation is open. Surface drainage should be diverted away from all temporary cut slopes in order to reduce the potential for slope erosion and instability. OSHA regulations require that excavations greater than 20 feet in depth and excavations that extend below the ground water level be designed by a professional engineer. The contractor’s on-site “competent person” should make decisions regarding necessary slope and shoring.

RETAINING STRUCTURES

Earth retaining structures should be designed for the lateral earth pressure generated by the backfill, which is a function of the degree of rigidity of the retaining structure and the type of backfill material used.

Retaining structures such as box culverts, foundation walls, small reinforced concrete tank walls or other retaining walls that are not expected to deflect or to undergo only a moderate amount of deflection should be designed for an at-rest earth pressure structure based on the following equivalent fluid pressures:

Granular Backfill with < 5% Passing No. 200 Sieve ..............................................55 pcf

On-site, moisture-conditioned granular soil backfill ............................................... 65 pcf

Cantilevered retaining structures that can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the full active earth pressure condition should be designed for the following equivalent fluid pressures:

Granular Backfill with < 5% Passing No. 200 Sieve ..............................................35 pcf

On-site, moisture-conditioned granular soil backfill ...............................................45 pcf

The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a retaining structure. An underdrain system or weep holes should be installed to prevent a buildup in water behind retaining structures.

All retaining structures should also be designed for appropriate surcharge pressures such as adjacent buildings, traffic, staging, construction materials and equipment.

-9-

Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted according to the site grading section of this report. Care should be taken not to over-compact the backfill since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the walls.

SITE GRADING

We recommend the following criteria be used when preparing the site grading plans.

Fill Material Specifications: The following material specifications are presented for fills on the project site.

1. Fill beneath and beside Foundations and Floor Slabs: The on-site soils if properly moisture conditioned will be suitable for reuse as non-expansive structural fill. The on-site soils minus any plus 2-inch size material will be suitable for reuse as a non-expansive structural fill.

Import fill if required should consist of a minus 2-inch soil having a maximum 35% passing the No. 200 sieve and a maximum plasticity index of 10.

2. Pavement Areas: Fill should consist of the onsite soils or similar imported nonexpansive soil which meets the minimum R-value used for the pavement design calculation (minimum R value of 30). We recommend the upper 1 foot of subgrade be scarified moisture conditioned and compacted to the criteria presented herein.

3. Pipe Bedding Material: Pipe bedding material should be a free draining, coarse-grained sand and/or fine gravel having a maximum size of 1 inch. We do not anticipate that the near surface on-site natural soils will be suitable for bedding.

4. Utility Trench Backfill: Materials excavated from the utility trenches may be used for trench backfill above the pipe zone fill provided they do not contain unsuitable material or particles larger than 4 inches.

5. Material Suitability: All fill material should be free of vegetation, brush, sod and other deleterious substances. Fill should not contain concentrations of organic matter or other deleterious substances. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the suitability of all proposed fill materials prior to placement.

6. Subgrade Preparation: The ground surface shall be stripped of vegetation/organics any existing fill or otherwise deleterious materials prior to fill placement. The resulting ground

-10-surface should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches; moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted in a manner specified below for the subsequent layers of fill. Loose or unstable soils shall be removed, where present, in order to provide a stable platform prior to placement of fill.

Compaction Requirements: A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe fill placement operations on a full-time basis. We recommend the following minimum compaction criteria be used on the project.

Area

Percentage of Modified

Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(ASTM D 1557)

Foundation Subgrade 95%

Floor Slab Subgrade 90%

Foundation Wall Backfill 90%

Pavement Subgrade/Exterior Flatwork/Utility Trenches 90%

Landscape and Other Misc. Overlot Fill Areas 90%

Compaction of granular soils should be achieved at a moisture content within 2% of the optimum moisture content.

PAVEMENT DESIGN

Subgrade Materials: The upper subgrade soils encountered during our study classified as A-2-4 with group index of 0 in accordance with the American Association of State Highway Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) classification. Based on the soil classifications and the performed R-value test, an R-value of 30 was assumed for design of flexible pavements and a corrected subgrade modulus of 140 pci was assumed for rigid pavements.

Design Traffic: Traffic loading information for the planned pavement areas was not available to us at the time of our study. We have assumed traffic will primarily consist of automobiles, with occasional truck traffic, to consist of trash trucks, and single unit delivery trucks. Based on our experience with similar-facilities, for our pavement thickness design calculations, we assumed an equivalent 18-kip daily load application (EDLA) of 5 for areas restricted to automobile traffic (such as parking stalls), and 10 for areas of combined auto and truck traffic (such as drive lanes). If it is determined that actual traffic is significantly different from that estimated, we should be contacted to reevaluate the pavement thickness design.

-11-

Pavement Sections: The recommended sections were determined using the 1993 AASHTO pavement design procedures. Based on the subgrade conditions encountered and the traffic information assumed and pavement repair and rehab operations, we recommend the following minimum pavement sections:

Traffic

Pavement Section Thickness (in.)

Full Depth

Asphalt Composite

Asphalt over Base Course

Portland Cement

Concrete Light Duty (areas restricted to autos) 4.5 4 over 5 6

Heavy Duty (driveways and truck areas) 5 4 over 5 6

We recommend trash pickup, loading areas, and other areas where truck turning movements are concentrated be paved with the portland cement concrete section rather than one of the asphalt alternatives. The use of a flexible pavement in these areas could result in pavement fatigue cracking and/or rutting/shoving of the pavement due to the concentrated wheel loads.

Pavement Materials: The asphalt pavement should consist of a bituminous material which meets the requirements of Section 400 of the NMDOT Standard Specifications. The mix should meet

Grading S or SX (top lift) requirements and a SuperPave gyratory design revolution (NDES) of 75 should be used in the design process. Based on the assumed traffic loading, we recommend that a

PG 58-28 or PG 64-22 asphalt binder is used in the mix. Aggregate base course should meet the requirements of a NMDOT Type 1 base course.

Concrete pavement should meet the requirements of Section 509 of the NMDOT Standard

Specifications, and should be based on a mix design established by a qualified engineer. The concrete should contain transverse joints not greater than 12 to 15 feet on centers and longitudinal joints no greater than 14 feet. A qualified engineer should establish appropriate joint spacing based on the specific location, layout, and usage. The joints should be hand formed, sawed or formed by premolded filler. The joints should be at least 1/4 of the slab thickness. Expansion joints should be provided at the end of each construction sequence and between the concrete slab and adjacent structures. Expansion joints where required, should be filled with a ½ inch-thick asphalt impregnated fiber. Concrete should be cured by protecting against loss of moisture, rapid temperature changes and mechanical injury for at least three days after placement. The concrete sections presented above are assumed to be unreinforced. Providing dowels at construction joints would help reduce the risk of differential movements between panel sections. Providing a grid mat of deformed rebar or welded wire mesh within the concrete pavement section would assist in

-12-mitigating corner breaks and differential panel movements. We recommend that a structural engineer evaluate the placement and spacing of rebar if needed.

Subgrade Preparation: Prior to placing compacted fill or pavement materials, the exposed subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted according to the specifications in the “Site Grading” Section of this report.

Proof Roll: Before paving, the subgrade should be proof rolled with a heavily loaded, pneumatic-tired vehicle. The vehicle should have a gross vehicle weight of at least 50,000 pounds with a loaded single axle weight of 18,000 pounds and a tire pressure of 100 psi. Areas which deform excessively under heavy wheel loads are not stable and should be removed and replaced with suitable material to achieve a stable subgrade prior to paving or placement of base course.

Subgrade Stabilization: Although not anticipated based on the natural moisture contents of the soils encountered, given the soils types, it may be possible that some unstable subgrade areas may be encountered during construction. We anticipate stabilization may be achieved by methods such as

1) scarification/mixing of the subgrade to accelerate partial drying of materials; 2) excavation and replacement of unstable soils with drier materials; or 3) stabilization using geogrid reinforcement in combination with 1 to 2 feet of aggregate base course. Specific stabilization requirements should be evaluated at the time of construction.

Drainage: The collection and diversion of surface drainage away from paved areas is extremely important to the satisfactory performance of the pavement. Drainage design should provide for the removal of water from paved areas and prevent the wetting of the subgrade soils.

Maintenance: Periodic maintenance of paved areas is critical to achieve the design life of the pavement. Crack sealing should be performed annually as new cracks appear. Chip seals, fog seals, or slurry seals applied at approximate intervals of 3 to 5 years are usually necessary for asphalt parking lots. As conditions warrant, it may be necessary to perform patching and overlay at approximate 10-year intervals.

DESIGN AND SUPPORT SERVICES

Kumar & Associates, Inc. should be retained to review the project plans and specifications for conformance with the recommendations provided in our report. We are also available to assist the design team in preparing specifications for geotechnical aspects of the project, and performing additional studies if necessary to accommodate possible changes in the proposed construction.

-13-

We recommend that Kumar & Associates, Inc. be retained to provide observation and testing services to document that the intent of this report and the requirements of the plans and specifications are being followed during construction, and to identify possible variations in subsurface conditions from those encountered in this study so that we can re-evaluate our recommendations, if needed.

LIMITATIONS

This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for exclusive use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon data obtained from the exploratory borings at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, and the proposed construction. This report may not reflect subsurface variations that occur between the borings, and the nature and extent of variations across the site may not become evident until site grading and excavations are performed. If during construction, fill, soil, rock or water conditions appear to be different from those described herein, Kumar & Associates, Inc. should be advised at once so that a re-evaluation of the recommendations presented in this report can be made. Kumar & Associates, Inc. is not responsible for liability associated with interpretation of subsurface data by others.

The scope of services for this project does not include any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken.

Kumar and Associates

Kumar & Associates

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE SCALE-FEET

AutoCAD SHX Text Fig.

AutoCAD SHX Text 18-8-378

AutoCAD SHX Text

LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS

AutoCAD SHX Text

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING 5

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING 4

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING 3

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING 1

AutoCAD SHX Text

BORING 2

TEST SPECIMEN 1 2 3 4

Rvalue @

300 psi

MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 10.6 9.8 9.0

DENSITY (pcf) 126.4 128.6 124.6

EXPANSION PRESSURE (psi) 0.000 0.120 0.270

EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) 183 441 647

R-VALUE 40 60 68 49

SOIL TYPE: Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

LOCATION: Jemez/B-5 @ 3.5"-5'

DATE SAMPLED: 1/16/2019 DATE RECEIVED: 1/16/2019 DATE TESTED: 1/21/2019

GRAVEL: 48 SAND: 27 SILT AND CLAY: 25

LIQUID LIMIT: 23 PLASTICITY INDEX: 9

R-VALUE

KUMAR & ASSOCIATES18-8-378

These test results apply to the samples which were tested. The testing report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Kumar &

Associates, Inc. R-value performed in accordance with

ASTM D2844. Atterberg limits performed in accordance with ASTM D4318. Sieve analyses performed in accordave with ASTM D422, D1140

Fig. 6HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RESULTS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

R -V a lu e

EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)

BORING DEPTH GRAVEL

SAND

LIQUID

LIMIT

PLASTICITY

INDEX

1 2' 1/18/19 5.6 108.0 46 33 21 Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

1 4' 1/18/19 4.6 115.3 33 23 7 A-2-4 (0) Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC-SM)

1 14' 1/18/19 5.0 105.0 40 42 18 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC-SM)

2 2' 1/18/19 4.8 131.2 34 42 24 Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

2 9' 1/18/19 4.6 117.4 13 Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

3 2' 1/18/19 5.8 129.7 26 21 8 <0.01 A-2-4 (0) Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

3 4' 1/18/19 6.8 110.5 23 40 37 Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

3 9' 1/18/19 3.7 127.9 25 Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)

4 2' 1/18/19 3.5 123.8 0.010 Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

5 2' 1/18/19 2.0 122.7 Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

5 3.5"-5' 1/21/19 48 27 25 23 9 49 A-2-4 (0) Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC)

TABLE I

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

SAMPLE LOCATION

NATURAL

MOISTURE

CONTENT

Project Name : Jemez Springs Ranger Station

DATE

TESTED

WATER

SOLUBLE

SULFATES

GRADATION

SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE

(Unified Soil Classification)

Kumar and Associates, Inc.

Project No.: 18-8-378

Date Sampled: 1/10/2019 Date Received: 1/15/2019

AASHTO

CLASSIFICATION

(Group Index)

PERCENT

PASSING NO.

200 SIEVE

ATTERBERG LIMITS

R-Value

NATURAL

DRY

DENSITY

(pcf)