Appendix B.pdf

Meigs Park Miracle League Additions Niceville, Okaloosa County, Florida LMJ File #: 24-175 June 5, 2024

Prepared for

Mr. Ricky Branton, PE ricky.branton@mottmac.com

Prepared by

Larry M. Jacobs & Associates, Inc.

328 East Gadsden Street, Pensacola, Florida 32501 Florida Certificate of Authorization #2184

Keith V. Jacobs, PE

Digitally signed by Keith V Jacobs Date: 2024.06.05 14:27:44 -05'00'

Principal Engineer FL Reg. #66577

This document has been electronically signed and sealed by Keith V. Jacobs (license # 66577) on June 5, 2024. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed, and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies.

https://2024.06.05

Summary

Subsurface Conditions The borings encountered slightly silty sand in the upper 7.5-13 feet where layers of silty sand, slightly silty sand, and sand were encountered to the bottom of the 16-foot borings.

The borings were mostly loose in the upper roughly 13 feet and medium dense to the bottom of the deeper borings at 16 feet.

A very loose zone was encountered in F-7 from 2-4 feet.

Most of the borings drilled in existing asphalt were medium dense in the upper 2-4 feet, except P-1 and P-4, which were loose in the top 2 feet (one blow from medium dense).

The borings drilled in asphalt encountered 2½-3 inches of asphalt that consisted of a layer of sand-asphalt with shell aggregate overlain by 1-1½ inches of asphaltic concrete, and the base was generally 5-7 inches of silty sand with trace clay.

Boring P-4 encountered a 2-inch layer of asphalt (sand asphalt with some aggregate) under 3¼ inches of orange silty sand base.

Groundwater was not encountered in the 16-foot borings at the time of drilling.

Groundwater levels will vary with changes in local rainfall and site drainage characteristics and may be different at other times.

General Comments and Recommendations The borings encountered conditions that are suitable for supporting the proposed buildings on conventional footings.

Proper compaction of the loose soils beneath footings will be critical to keeping settlement at normal levels.

The borings encountered mostly slightly silty sand that should be relatively easy to compact but will require ample moisture to achieve compaction.

Based on our experience, the upper slightly silty and silty sand in the borings should be near normal pavement subgrade requirements (LBR 40), and stabilization of the subgrade is not expected to be needed.

The cores indicated sufficient pavement section for the intended use (light-duty parking), and there was sufficient thickness available for milling and overlaying if the budget allows.

For this project, a minimal amount of milling may provide better results in order to not mill into the older sand-asphalt-shell layer, which may be in worse condition and more fragile.

Existing cracks in the asphalt would inevitably reflect in any overlay over time.

The pond borings encountered conditions that are suitable for stormwater disposal using a conventional dry retention pond.

Note: The above summary is an overview of the report and should not be used by itself for planning, design, and/or construction. See the relevant sections for further details.

Meigs Park Miracle League Addition LMJ Project 24-175 June 5, 2024

Project Information

Project Information

The site is Meigs Park located between Park Ave, E Park Ave, and Deer Avenue in Niceville, Florida. We understand that the project consists of the construction of a 100x50-foot pavilion-storage building, a 36x50-foot restroom, a Miracle League style play area, baseball field, and volleyball-basketball court, a stormwater pond, and on-street parking along the three sides of the park. Asphalt on-street parking is currently present along Park Ave and E Park Ave. The existing basketball court is being considered for conversion into a Miracle League style court.

We understand the Miracle League style play surface consists of an asphalt surface topped with ADA surface treatment. Two locations are being considered for the bathrooms on the southwest and southeast ends of the site. At the time of this report, structural loading and project grading information was not available.

Subsurface Exploration

Our exploration included six SPT borings drilled to 16 feet for the structures and pond and thirteen SPT borings drilled to 6 feet for the parking/play areas. Two Shelby tube samples were collected from a boring drilled adjacent to pond boring S-2 for laboratory testing. The SPT borings were drilled in general accordance with ASTM D1586 using a truck mounted drill rig and were advanced between sampling using solid stem flight auger. The subsurface conditions encountered in the borings can be found on the boring logs here.

The above information is the basis of our recommendations. If the information in this section changes or is incorrect, our office should be notified, and changes to our report may be needed.

EarthworkEarthwork

Site Preparation

The building, pavement, and pond areas should be cleared and stripped of all trees, vegetation, major roots, topsoil, and any other deleterious materials.

Stripped vegetation, topsoil, and organic materials should be hauled offsite, or suitable topsoil could be stockpiled for use in landscaped areas after final grading.

After stripping, the top of subgrade in the building and any new pavement areas should be compacted to the requirements in the following tables for a minimum depth of 12 inches.

Footing preparation recommendations are provided in the foundation section.

Fill Material

Fill material should be the soil types listed in the following table.

Excavated native soils, such as for pond or footing construction, can be used as fill. All fill should be free of organics or other deleterious materials.

Samples of any imported fill material, if needed, should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for testing and evaluation prior to shipment to the site.

Fill Recommendations

Material Type

Lift Thickness (in) Equipment Type

Large Equipment

Hand Operated

Equipment Large Hand Operated

Sand or Slightly Silty Sand 10-12 6 Vibratory Roller Plate Tamper

Silty/Clayey Sand 6-8 4 Rubber Tire or Vibratory Roller Jumping Jack

Compaction

The borings encountered mostly slightly silty sand that should be relatively easy to compact but will require ample moisture to achieve compaction.

Soils should be moisture conditioned to within 2% of their optimum moisture content prior to compaction, and dry soils should be wetted before compaction.

Fill should be compacted to the requirements in the following table. Compaction under structures and pavements should extend 5 feet beyond edges where practical.

We note that large vibratory rollers can damage/disturb nearby structures, and we do not recommend using large vibratory rollers near (within 50 feet) the existing structures.

Earthwork

Compaction Recommendations

Site Element Minimum

Compaction

(ASTM D1557)

Minimum Compaction Testing Frequency Per Lift

Under Structures 95% 1 per 2,500 ft2 (3 Minimum) Fill Beneath Pavement 95% 1 per 5,000 ft2 (3 Minimum)

Top 12 inches of Pavement Subgrade 98% 1 per 5,000 ft2 (3 Minimum) Utility Trench Backfill 95% 1 per 150 linear feet

Bottom of Footings (12 inches minimum) 95% 1 per 75 LF and half of columns

Backfill for utility excavations or any excavations in the building and pavement areas should be compacted per the above tables.

Soils immediately beneath all structures, slabs-on-grade, and footings should be compacted to the requirements in the above table for a minimum depth of 12 inches.

The bottom of all utility excavations should be evaluated by LMJ staff prior to the placement of utilities.

Loose soils not suitable for pipe bedding would need to be compacted until suitably firm.

Foundation

Foundation Recommendations

The borings encountered conditions that are suitable for supporting the proposed buildings on conventional footings.

Proper compaction of the loose soils beneath footings will be critical to keeping settlement at normal levels.

The soils immediately beneath all footings should be compacted for a minimum depth of 12 inches to a minimum of 95% of the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D1557) density.

Footings that are prepared in accordance with this report can be designed based on the parameters in the following table. Note the allowable bearing pressure for this project is lower because of the loose conditions in the borings.

Footing Design Parameters

Footing Width (in)

Minimum Embedment Depth (in)

Net Allowable Bearing

Pressure (psf)

Estimated Settlement (in)

Total Differential

24 20 1500 1 or less ½ or less

The settlements in the above table are from the sandy soils immediately beneath footings and should occur during construction and soon after first loading.

Footing Testing and Observations

All footing excavations should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer or their representative prior to steel or concrete placement.

Compaction of soils immediately beneath footings should be verified using in-place nuclear density testing.

We recommend running in-place nuclear density tests on the bottom of footings at a minimum frequency of one test per 75 linear foot of wall footing and half of any column footings.

Pavement RecommendationsPavement Recommendations

General Comments The existing asphalt was 2½-3 inches thick (including the basketball court) and included a layer of sand-asphalt with shell aggregate overlain by 1-1½ inches of asphaltic concrete.

A pavement evaluation was beyond our scope, but Google Earth® imagery (2014) appears to indicate that the along-street parking is generally in fair condition with transverse cracks and a worn surface (except a pothole and depressed area on the east half of E Park Ave).

The cores indicated sufficient pavement section for the intended use (light-duty parking), and there was sufficient thickness available for milling and overlaying if the budget allows.

For this project, a minimal amount of milling may provide better results in order to not mill into the older sand-asphalt-shell layer, which may be in worse condition and more fragile.

Existing cracks in the asphalt would inevitably reflect in an overlay over time. Existing cracks in the basketball court could also reflect through the new surface coating over time.

Overlay Recommendations The following practices have been shown to help reduce, but not eliminate reflective cracking:

Clean cracks with high-pressure compressed air blasting to remove loose pavement, debris, vegetation, and dirt to a depth of at least twice the crack width.

Inspect cracks before sealing to ensure that they are clean, dry, and free of dirt, debris, or other contamination.

Seal existing cracks before overlaying. Cracks should be carefully and completely cleaned before sealing because most sealant failures occur due to poor adhesion.

Use only hot applied sealant and place immediately after crack cleaning and drying.

Crack sealing should take place when temperatures are warmer and large swings in temperature or rainfall are not anticipated.

For the friction course, using a polymer modified binder (SBS) has been shown to improve binder properties and may reduce reflective cracking.

Seal reflective cracks when they appear in the new overlay using routine maintenance.

Routine maintenance should also include control of vegetation along pavement edges and in existing cracks.

We recommend placing a tack coat on the milled surface prior to overlaying, and the milled surface should be carefully cleaned and swept/brushed prior to tack application.

Subgrade Recommendations Based on our experience, the upper slightly silty sand encountered in the borings should be near normal pavement subgrade requirements (LBR 40), and stabilization of the subgrade is not expected to be needed for new pavement areas.

Any imported fill (if needed) in the top 12 inches of subgrade in new pavement areas should have a minimum LBR of 40.

Pavement Recommendations Pavement Recommendations

Base Recommendations We recommend a graded aggregate base (GAB) or limerock base for this project for any new pavement areas. Base materials should meet FDOT requirements.

A sample of the proposed base material should be submitted to our lab for testing and approval prior to shipment to the site.

Pavement Subgrade and Base Parameters

Layer Minimum Compaction

Proctor Type ASTM

Minimum

LBR

Value Subgrade1 98%

Modified D1557

Base 100% 100 1Top 12 inches of subgrade

Asphalt Recommendations Asphalt should be FDOT structural course Superpave Asphaltic Concrete meeting the requirements of Section 334 (SP-12.5 is preferred).

Limit the amount of Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) to no more than 25% of the mixture since mixtures over 25% RAP have a higher potential for quality issues.

The asphalt should be compacted to a target of 92% of the laboratory maximum specific gravity (Gmm or Rice Specific Gravity) as determined by FM 1-T 209.

A typical, local light-duty pavement section is shown in the following table.

Typical Light-Duty Pavement Section

Loading Minimum Thickness (in)

Base Asphalt Light-Duty 6 2

Testing Recommendations Run density tests on compacted subgrade at a minimum frequency of one test per 5,000 square feet of pavement area with a minimum of three tests on the subgrade. Test the base for compaction at the same frequency.

After paving, we recommend coring the asphalt to determine thickness and compaction.

The bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of the cores should be determined using FM 1-T 166.

If the existing asphalt is overlain, the overlay should be saw cut from the older layers to evaluate compaction of the overlay.

Pond

Pond Recommendations The pond borings encountered conditions that are suitable for stormwater disposal using a shallow retention pond.

The silty sand with trace clay encountered at 9 and 13 feet below grade in the pond borings is much lower in permeability than the overlying slightly silty sand, and we recommend considering this layer the bottom of the aquifer for pond analysis.

The normal seasonal high groundwater level is expected to be below the bottom of the 16-foot borings.

Our recommended parameters for stormwater pond analysis and design are summarized in the following table

Pond Design Parameters Summary

Saturated Vertical Hydraulic

Conductivity (Kvs) (ft/day)

Saturated Horizontal Hydraulic

Conductivity (Khs) (ft/day)

Depth of Bottom of Aquifer1

(ft)

Fillable Porosity

ESHWT*

Depth (ft)

22.2 44.4 11 0.26 16+ *ESHWT = Estimated Seasonal High Water Table 1Average depth below grade at the time of drilling

The fillable porosity was estimated based on the average unit weights of the Shelby tube samples.

The above parameters do not include a factor of safety, and appropriate safety factors should be used for the design of the stormwater pond.

B or in g

Lo ca tio ns

M ei gs P ar k

M ira cl e

Le ag ue A dd iti on

L

J Pr oj ec t 2 4-

J un e 5, in gs

B-

B-

B-

B-

-0

8-

-0

N

5 10

G N

E

3 3 4 5 15 A

N

E

3 3 5 9 13

N

E

3 4 4 6 15

N

E

4 6 4 8 15 A

1 2

4 2

1 2 4 2 + (2

(8

2 4 3

1 2 2 w =5

.8

-2

=8 .6 w =4

.4

=9 .5

.0

=6

=1 2.

2 3

(4

1 2

3 4

O R

A N

G E

/T A

N S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D A

N D

S O

M E

B R

O W

N /T

A N

S

LI

G H

TL

Y

S

IL

TY

S

A N

D , S

O M

E R

O O

TS

(T

O P

S O

IL

S P

/S M

S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

M

S P

/S M

TA

N

, T A

N /O

R A

N G

E S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

P /S

M

W H

IT

E

/L

IG

H T

B R

O W

N F

IN

E

S A

N D

(S P

M ei gs P ar k

M ira cl e

Le ag ue A dd

J Pr oj ec t 2 4-

J un e 5, P-

P-

P-

2"

2"

G N

E

4 5

-0

9-

G N

E

7 5

-0

E

-0

P-

G N

E w

.1

=1 4.

w

.1

=7

5 3

-0

P-

G N

E

(6

4 3

-0

G N

E

-0

P-

5 6*

2 3

ED

IU

M S

AN

D

, T R

AC

E

C

LA

Y (5

2 3 M

ED

IU

M S

AN

D

, T R

AC

E

C

LA

Y (7

2 3

TR

AC

E

C

LA

Y W

IT

H

L

AY

ER

O

F

LI

G H

T O

R

AN

G E

SL

IG

H

TL

Y

SI

LT

Y

SA

N

D (7

2 3

TR

AC

E

C

LA

Y (3

1 4" w

.3

AS

PH

AL

T

(2

SA

N

D -A

SP

H

AL

T, SO

E

AG

G

R

EG

AT

E

2 1 (6

TR

AC

E

SI

LT

Y

SA

N

D P

O C

KE

TS

"-2

PH

AL

TI

C C

O N

C R

ET

E

(1 1 4" w

=2

.3

.7

AL

T

- S H

EL

L

(1 1 4"

AS

PH

AL

TI

C C

O N

C R

ET

E

(1 1 2"

AS

PH

AL

T M

IX

(2

4"

.5

-2 F

T

SA

M

PL

E:

/4 /5

*H

AM

M

ER

B

LO

W

S:

AL

T

- S H

EL

L

(1

8"

AS

PH

AL

T

M

IX

(2

8"

AS

PH

AL

T

- S H

EL

L

(1

AS

PH

AL

TI

C C

O N

C R

ET

E

(1

AS

PH

AL

T

M

IX

(2 1 2"

AS

PH

AL

T

- S H

EL

L

(C R

AC

KE

D )(1

1 4"

AS

PH

AL

TI

C C

O N

C R

ET

E

(1 1 2"

AS

PH

AL

T M

IX

(2

4"

1 2

3 4

*H

AM

M

ER

B

LO

W S:

-5

.5 F

T

SA

M

PL

E:

/2 /4

O

TE

: P

O

SS

IB

LE

U

TI

LI

TY

A T

5.

FE

ET

ST

O

PP

ED

S

AM

PL

IN

R

A N

G E

/T A

N S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D A

N D

S O

M E

B R

O W

N /T

A N

S

LI

G H

TL

Y

S

IL

TY

S

A N

D , S

O M

E R

O O

TS

(T

O P

S O

IL

S P

/S M

S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

M

S P

/S M

TA

N

, T A

N /O

R A

N G

E S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

P /S

M

W H

IT

E

/L

IG

H T

B R

O W

N F

IN

E

S A

N D

(S P

M ei gs P ar k

M ira cl e

Le ag ue A dd

J Pr oj ec t 2 4-

J un e 5, F-

-0

AL

T M

IX

(3

AS

PH

AL

TI

C C

O N

C R

ET

E

(1

F-

F-

F-

-0

AL

T M

IX

(3

1 2"

AS

PH

AL

TI

C C

O N

C R

ET

E

(1 1 2"

6 4 3

1 2

(2

E G

N E

AS

PH

AL

T

- S H

EL

L

(2

(2

N

7 4 4

1 2 3 (4

W

IT

H R

O O

TS

-4

F-

F-

-0

8 4 *

2 3 1 (2

TR

AC

E

C

LA

Y

AN

D R

O O

TS

(5

G

N E

G N

E

6 2 3

1 2 3 (4

(2

0 5

F-

G N

E

3 3

-0

ED

IU

M T

O F

IN

E

SA

N

D

TR

AC

E C

LA

Y

(5

2 3

2 3 (3 w

.9

AL

T

- S H

EL

L

(2

*B

LO

W C

O U

N

TS

N O

T R

EC

O

R D

ED

1 2

3 4

O R

A N

G E

/T A

N S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D A

N D

S O

M E

B R

O W

N /T

A N

S

LI

G H

TL

Y

S

IL

TY

S

A N

D , S

O M

E R

O O

TS

(T

O P

S O

IL

S P

/S M

S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

M

S P

/S M

TA

N

, T A

N /O

R A

N G

E S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

P /S

M

W H

IT

E

/L

IG

H T

B R

O W

N F

IN

E

S A

N D

(S P

M ei gs P ar k

M ira cl e

Le ag ue A dd

J Pr oj ec t 2 4-

J un e 5, S-

S-

N

E

3 3 4 5

-0

N

E

5 6 8 5

-0

(6

4 3

W

IT

H S

M

AL

L

SE

AM

S

O F

BR

O

W

SL

IG

H

TL

Y

SI

LT

Y

SA

D

(2

4 3 (1 w

=1 2.

w =1

0.

-2

=1 7.

TR

AC

E

PO

C

KE

TS

O

F

8-w

.6

8.

K v=

6.

K v=

.2

.9

TR

AC

E

C

LA

Y

1 2

B R

O W

N /T

A N

S

LI

G H

TL

Y

S

IL

TY

S

A N

D , S

O M

E R

O O

TS

(T

O P

S O

IL

S P

/S M

TA

N

, T A

N /O

R A

N G

E S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

P /S

M

3 4

N O

TE

SH

EL

BY

T

U

BE

S

AM

PL

E

TA

KE

N F

R

3-

FT

A

N D

-7

F T

O R

A N

G E

/T A

N S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D A

N D

S O

S

LI

G

H

TL

Y S

IL

TY

F

IN

E S

A N

D (S

M

S P

/S M

W H

IT

E

/L

IG

H T

B R

O W

N F

IN

E

S A

N D

(S P

M ei gs P ar k

M ira cl e

Le ag ue A dd

J Pr oj ec t 2 4-

J un e 5, L Lab

Lab Test Results

Laboratory testing for this project included wash #200 sieve and natural moisture content tests run on the split spoon samples to assist in soil classification and to evaluate and document basic properties. Laboratory testing also included two falling head permeability tests run on the Shelby tube samples. The results of the lab tests are shown on the boring logs adjacent to the samples tested. The falling head permeability test results are summarized in the following table, and the grainsize results on the permeability samples are plotted below.

Falling Head Permeability Test Results

Boring Sample Depth

(ft) Soil Description

Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Saturated Vertical Hydraulic

Conductivity (Kvs) (ft/day)

% Fines

S-2 4-5 Tan Slightly Silty Sand 108.4 21.5 8.5

S-2 6-7 Tan/Orange Slightly Silty Sand 106.6 22.8 6.7

3" 2" 1.

5"

1" 3/ 4"

1/

2"

3/ 8"

1/

4"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#8

#1

#2

100%

90%

80%

70%

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

Pe rc en t F in er

B y

W ei gh t

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Grainsize in Millimeters

GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Appendix

Basis of Recommendations

Recommendations rendered herein are based on assumed and/or design information available at the time of this report, the subsurface conditions encountered in the test borings, generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices, and our experience with similar soil and groundwater conditions. Should final project information or existing conditions differ from the information used in this report, or should any soil conditions not discussed in this report be encountered during construction, our office should be notified and retained so that this report can be modified as needed. LMJ should be provided the final plans and specifications for review to determine if any changes to our report are needed based on the final design and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted.

This report and any correspondence are intended for the exclusive use of our client for the specific application to the project discussed. LMJ is not responsible for the interpretations, conclusions, or recommendations made by others based on the information in this report.

Regardless of the care exercised in performing a Geotechnical Exploration, the possibility always exists that soil and/or groundwater conditions will differ from those encountered at the specific boring locations. In addition, construction operations may alter the soil conditions. Therefore, it is recommended that a representative from LMJ be involved during the construction phases discussed in this report.

Test Methods aStandard Penetration Test

The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) consists of driving a 2-inch diameter split spoon sampler into the ground using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler one foot (after seating it 6 inches) is referred to as the blow count or “N” value and represents the relative density of subsurface soils. “N” values can be found on the boring logs. The SPT borings were drilled in general accordance with ASTM D1586 using a track mounted drill rig and were advanced between sampling using hollow stem auger. Each sample was removed from the sampler, classified in the field by the driller, and packaged for visual classification by our engineering staff and laboratory testing. The borings were sampled using an autohammer. FDOT converts autohammer to safety hammer using a factor of 1.24.

Other Test Methods

Wash #200 Sieve (ASTM D1140), Moisture Content (ASTM D2216), and Falling Head Permeability (ASTM D5856).

IMAT

Appendix

GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED

AT TIME OF DRILLING

LEGEND

SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAY

PEAT

SAFETY HAMMER

GRANULAR SOILS

COHESIVE SOILS

SLIGHTLY

SILTY SAND

SILT

CLAYEY

SAND

GRAVEL

NOTES

1) SPT BORINGS PERFORMED

IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE

WITH ASTM D1586

2) SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

ARE AT BORING LOCATIONS

AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS

BETWEEN BORINGS MAY

VARY

3) ALL CLASSIFICATIONS ARE

BASED ON VISUAL

EXAMINATION UNLESS

ACCOMPANIED BY

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

4) BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SOIL

LAYERS SHOULD BE

CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE

AS THE ACTUAL TRANSITION

MAY BE GRADUAL

5) DEPTH OF BORING IS BELOW

EXISTING GRADE AT TIME OF

DRILLING

6) ELEVATIONS, IF SHOWN,

WERE ESTIMATED FROM

PROVIDED TOPOGRAPHIC

SURVEY

7) COLORS USED FOR BORING

HATCHING MAY NOT

REPRESENT THE ACTUAL

SOIL COLORS

AUTOMATIC HAMMER

GRANULAR SOILS

SPT

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

0-2 VERY LOOSE

3-8 LOOSE

9-24 MEDIUM DENSE

25-40 DENSE

> 40 VERY DENSE

COHESIVE SOILS

SPT

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

<1 VERY SOFT

1-3 SOFT

4-6 MEDIUM STIFF

7-12 STIFF

13-24 VERY STIFF

> 24 HARD

STANDARD PENETRATION

RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT

STANDARD PENETRATION

RESISTANCE USING AUTOHAMMER

ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER

LEVEL

ENCOUNTERED PERCHED WATER

LEVEL

NUMBER OF BLOWS REQUIRED (50)

TO ADVANCE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER

A SPECIFIC DISTANCE (2) INCHES

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE ADVANCED

UNDER WEIGHT OF ROD AND

HAMMER

HAND AUGER

SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER

w

NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

FINES PASSING #200 SIEVE (%)

ORGANIC CONTENT (%)

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTIC LIMIT

LIQUIDITY INDEX

APPROXIMATE COHESION VALUE

(PSF) BASED ON POCKET

PENETROMETER READINGS

Kv

SATURATED VERTICAL HYDRAULIC

d

CONDUCTIVITY (FT/DAY)CONDUCTIVITY

DRY UNIT WEIGHT (PCF)DRY UNIT WEIG

ESTIMATED MOIST UNIT WEIGHT

(PCF)

ESTIMATED BUOYANT UNIT WEIGHT

(PCF)

EST ED ANGLE OF INTERNAL

TIMATE

FRICTION (DEGREES)

SPT

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

0-3 VERY LOOSE

4-10 LOOSE

11-30 MEDIUM DENSE

31-50 DENSE

> 50 VERY DENSE

SPT

BLOWS/FOOT (N) RELATIVE DENSITY

0-1 VERY SOFT

2-4 SOFT

5-8 MEDIUM STIFF

9-15 STIFF

16-30 VERY STIFF

> 30 HARD