Report_Geotechnical_ER_HWY_111.pdf

ADVANCED SOIL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS

P.O. BOX 1286, ISABELA, PUERTO RICO 00662

GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERING

CONCRETE AND MATERIAL TESTING LABORATORIES

ON THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

PERFORMED AT THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED

LANDSLIDE AND ROAD DAMAGE EVALUATION AND REPAIR

RECOMMENDATIONS AT STATE ROAD PR 128,

VEGAS WARD, YAUCO, PUERTO RICO

SUBMITTED TO:

GERMÁN TORRES BERRÍOS & ASSOCIATES – PROJECT DESIGNER

C/O: JOSUÉ TORRES ORTIZ, P.E.

BY:

NELSON MUÑOZ, P.E.

JULY 8, 2019

FILE NO. 1823-2A FINAL REPORT

PROJECT: ER-HWY-111

P.O. BOX 1286, ISABELA, PUERTO RICO 00662

ON THE GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

PERFORMED AT THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED

LANDSLIDE AND ROAD DAMAGE EVALUATION AND REPAIR

RECOMMENDATIONS AT STATE ROAD PR 128,

VEGAS WARD, YAUCO, PUERTO RICO

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

This report covers the results of a geotechnical exploration conducted at the site of the existing road slope failure at State Road PR 128 km 15.20, Vegas Ward, Yauco, Puerto Rico.

The investigation was made following instructions from Josué Torres Ortiz, P.E. from German Torres Berríos & Associates – Project Designer. The study was performed in general accordance with the scope of work included in our Proposal

No.19 (Revised), dated June 12, 2018.

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 construction of the proposed structure are included in the report.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the owner, their designers and others involved in the construction and preparation of the plans and specifications of the project.

File No. 1823-2A Page 3

2.0 SITE LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The site of the proposed project is located at State Road PR 128, Km 15.20, Vegas Ward, Yauco, Puerto Rico. State road segment is part of our scope of work.

Segment of the roads were damaged as a result of intense run-off, erosion, shallow slumping and earth flows triggered by a significant precipitation by María Huracan event in September 20, 2018. The roadways generally consist of 2 two-lane roads located on steep slopes with one side of the road cut into the hillside and the other side of the road constructed on embankment fill. Typical distress caused by the flooding and significant rainfall event generally consisted of erosion, slumping or movement of the roadway embankment along the downslope side of the roadways.

Some minor undermining of the roadway pavement or cracking of the pavement near the edge of the roadway occurred along each roadway. Drainage, roadway and embankment improvements are planned at the subject roadways to stabilize the roadways and repair the damage.

File No. 1823-2A Page 4

The following Figure 1 shows portion of US Geological Survey Service

Topographic Map of the Yauco Quadrangle with the site location enclosed.

Figure 1: Site Location Map

SITE

File No. 1823-2A Page 5

3.0 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION:

Field Exploration:

A joint visit was conducted with the project designer to confirm boring location. All boring locations were adjusted based on utilities interference and client’s requests. The field exploration consisted of drilling one (1) test boring along the proposed construction area. The location of the boring was as close as possible to the staked locations, subject to utilities interference and drilling convenience. Test boring was drilled to a depth of 30.0 ft. with a total footage of 30.0 lin. ft.

The borings were performed using the rotary hollow-stem auger technique in accordance with ASTM D 1452. Samples were obtained using the "Standard

Penetration Test (SPT)", as specified in ASTM D 1586. Please refer to Appendix

No. 1 (Boring Location Map), for boring location.

Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) Safety Controls:

Set up basic MOT safety controls prior to and during the performance of the field drilling and testing operations. Please refer to Appendix No. 6 (Maintenance of Traffic Sheet “MOT”).

4.0 SUBSOIL CONDITIONS:

The general subsoil conditions as disclosed from the test borings drilled at the subject site consist of a man-made fill deposit composed of brown sandy silt with rock fragments and asphalt, extending to a depth of 2.0 ft., below existing ground elevation.

File No. 1823-2A Page 6

The above described layer is resting over dark brown clay some sand, extending to a depth of 13.0 ft.

Following the layer described above the exploratory work shows grayish brown rock fragments some silty sand, extending to a depth of 18.0 ft.

Underlying the aforementioned stratum and extending to the end of the test holes, the exploratory work shows gray rock formation decomposed into rock fragments trace silty sand; underlain by gray hard rock formation.

The ground water level of the explored site was not encountered within the depths drilled during the time of our field exploratory work, thus indicating that it must be present at a greater depth. However, temporary bodies of water or perched water might be or be found entrapped within the fill deposit or between the zone of transition of fill deposit and virgin soil.

Subsurface water observations were limited to the depths explored using dry auger drilling techniques and within these depths, groundwater was not observed.

The borehole was backfilled upon completion of the water level measurements.

The absence of free water at these boring locations should not necessarily be construed that subsurface water is not present at the site or is deeper than the boring depth. The short-term field observations generally do not permit an accurate evaluation of the subsurface water levels at this location and should not be interpreted as a groundwater study. It is not unusual to encounter groundwater in the granular silty and clayey sands during and after periods of rainfall. It should be noted that the observations made during this investigation may not represent conditions at the time of construction and the presence of groundwater may affect

File No. 1823-2A Page 7 certain construction activities and long-term performance of the foundations. The quantity of transient water is variable and is highly dependent on climatic conditions before and during construction. The foundation contractor should check the subsurface water conditions just prior to foundation excavation activities.

The above information corresponds to a general description of the subsoil conditions of the area, however, for detailed description regarding the soil profile, field and laboratory test results, please refer to Appendix No. 2 (Boring Logs). For detailed description of the procedures followed for the drilling of the test borings and laboratory testing, please refer to Appendix No. 3 (Field and Laboratory Testing

Procedures).

5.0 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAPS:

The Department of the Interior through its U.S. Geological Survey offices published a Geologic Map No. I-1147 The Yauco and Punta Verraco Quadrangle.

This was surveyed by Richard D. Krushensky and Watson H. Monroe and published on 1979. The proposed project lies in a formation described as:

Ky – Yauco Formation (Upper Maestrichtian through Campanian): Dark-gray-brown to dark-bluish-gray weathered light- to medium gray-brown where weathered, irregularly interbedded calcareous siltstone and claystone, subordinate sandstone and mudstone, and minor limestone. Siltstone and claystone, the predominant facies, are commonly laminated to thin-bedded (.3-10cm), less commonly medium-to thick-bedded (10-75 cm, rarely 100+ cm). In a siltstone-sandstone sequence, the sandstone beds are generally thicker. Siltstone, mudstone, and sandstone consist

File No. 1823-2A Page 8 chiefly of angular to well-rounded generally well sorted weathered or altered volcanic lithic and mineral clasts and sparse to rare unweathered angular lithic and mineral clasts. Uncommonly they contain abundant angular volcanic clasts; these rocks are tuffaceous. In the northwest corner of the Yauco quadrangle, the Yauco Formation consists of a very fine-grained zeolitized tuff. Small scale ripple bedding and flaser bedding are common in the siltstone-claystone facies in the eastern and west central parts of the Yauco quadrangle and uncommon to rare in Yauco outcrops in the northwestern part of the quadrangle. Graded bedding in thick sandstone beds becomes increasingly common toward the northwest corner of the quadrangle, limestone in the Yauco consists chiefly of lenses of well sorted, coarse-grained biosparite uncommonly ranging to biomicrite, and generally composed of angular fragments of rudists, other pelecypods, rounded to angular fragments of calcareous algae, and abundant large foraminifers in a clear calcite matrix, or less commonly in a tuffaceous matrix. Interbeds of large foraminifers in a clear calcite matrix, or less commonly in a tuffaceous matrix. Interbeds of sandstone and rarely breccia of the

Lago Garzas Formation and Maricao Basalt are separated where possible, or are indicated where conspicuous in the field, but too thin or impersistent to map separately

File No. 1823-2A Page 9

Figure 2: U.S. Geological Survey Map

SITE

File No. 1823-2A Page 10

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS:

Recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the project are based on the subsoil study presented in this report. This office warranties that our recommendations are in the line with the generally accepted practice in the field of

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. This is our only warranty, either expressed or implied.

The use of the subsoil information and recommendations herein detailed for other structures or areas, except when done by specialist, may lead to serious design errors and should not be attempted.

The deposits encountered as disclosed by these test borings, not necessarily represent the most critical conditions of the site, and might vary from one boring to another. These recommendations are based on the subsoil conditions as encountered on the test borings rather than the worst conditions of the site.

Site Conditions: The state road site is located on a northwest facing which slopes slightly down to the west. State road is asphalt paved and box culvert crossing from east to west. Vegetation along the roadway generally consist of sparse grasses and weeds with stands of evergreen and trees beyond the limits of the slope.

The distress to the roadway and slope observed during our geologic reconnaissance is summarized below:

• Occasional minor cracks in asphalt parallel to road. No slope failure was identified. Slump/debris flow scarps in the embankment fill beginning at the edge of pavement and

File No. 1823-2A Page 11 extending downslope.

• Designer must evaluate collected surface water runoff on road and safety improvements.

6.1 Road Pavement Section Recommendations:

The proposed road area shall be design with its appropriate drainage and slopes to avoid accumulation of runoff water at the surface. A well-designed drainage system shall constitute an important part of the pavement design itself. A drainage system should be developed to control storm water run-off that may enter from outside or fall within the road curses. Concrete ditches along the roadways may prove to be efficient for collecting storm water run-off that develops on slopes.

However, the hydraulic capacity of these will govern their shape and size; therefore, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be performed by the designer before sizing the necessary drainage structures.

7.0 EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS:

Analysis of the relative density and consistency of the ground based on the

SPT N values; it is our opinion that for seismic design this site corresponds to a soil profile type SD according to the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Design Specifications. Shear wave testing of the soils can be used to provide a more thorough evaluation of the seismic classification of site. A 100-foot deep boring was not required by the structural engineer due to size and height of the proposed structure.

File No. 1823-2A Page 12

8.0 PROTECTION OF EXCAVATIONS:

All Excavations at the site should be performed in accordance with 29 CFR

Part 1926, “Occupational Safety and Health Standards – Excavations; Final

Rule,” published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration. Based on the information obtained from the soil borings drilled at the site, we classify the surficial soils as Type B soils. The contemplated excavation can be carried open by sloping the sides cuts a slope ratio 1:1 (H:V). Nevertheless, the excavation progress should be observed and evaluated to detect on time any local concealed underground condition to undertake any corrective measures if so found necessary to improve the cut slope stability. Stockpiles of excavated material should be setback from the edge of the excavation by distance at least equal to the excavation depth.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TEMPORARY

EXCAVATIONS AT THE SITE. This includes the design of any required temporary slopes, dewatering, and shoring and bracing, as necessary.

Positive surface gradients should be provided to divert surface runoff water away from excavations for foundations and constructions areas. Ponding of water should be avoided to reduce damage of properly graded areas.

9.0 EXCAVATION PROCEDURES:

On the basis of the drilling effort rendered in advancing the test holes and the

“N” values recorded whenever sampling was attempted, all excavations should be performed by heavy excavators, ripper and bulldozer to down grade the area to the

File No. 1823-2A Page 13 required footing foundation base elevation.

The geotechnical engineer for the project must be fully aware of the following utmost facts during the whole excavation process: first, though no ground water level has been recorded at any of the test borings along the site higher grounds nor any seepage or spring were noticed during our field inspections along said area, sometimes the like could show-up during the excavation process and/or at the long run. If this condition arises, further evaluation of the site development shall be considered at once to revise or modify the recommendations given. Some migrating bodies of infiltrated water may be encountered on excavations after prolonged rain events.

The contractor will be solely and completely responsible for his construction method, his method of excavation and support system, the working conditions at the job site, and the project safety measures. This requirement applies continuously, and it is not limited to normal working hours.

This report is submitted for the planning and design of the project and it provides some construction considerations that shall be reviewed by the contractor.

However, the contractor shall not use this report as the only information to base his bid for the project. This office shall not be held responsible if the contractor uses this information without limitations. The contractor bidding for this project should conduct a careful review of the geotechnical data and documents given in this report.

However, we will not be responsible for his interpretation and conclusions made from these data. The contractor shall visit the project area prior to bidding to become acquainted with the actual conditions of the site.

File No. 1823-2A Page 14

10.0 SLOPE CONSTRUCTION (WHEN APPLICABLE):

All cut or fill slopes shall be constructed for a geometry not steeper than 1.5:1

(H:V) regardless of its height and shall be also protected against gully and laminar erosion by providing proper drainage facilities. Fill slope shall be design with a positive drainage to avoid water running over sloping ground. Immediately upon construction of the slopes (either on fill or cut), these shall be protected from the effects of erosion prior to the establishment of vegetation by applying a turf reinforcement mat or erosion control blanket, and plant adequate seeding and planting as vetiver grass. Initial maintenance of the fill and cut slopes and their protection shall be continued until stabilization has been assured. It is possible that shallow slope failures or channels caused by erosion may develop in the slopes

(either on fill or cut). These shall be promptly fixed to prevent progressive worsening that may lead to large slope failures.

Always start filling from lower ground elevations and continue up the slope.

No down slope filling shall be allowed. As filling up the slope progresses, benches or terraces are to be cut into the receiving soil every meter difference in elevation.

Minimum width of terraces shall be 6.0 ft.

Adequate benching (6.0 feet wide at 15.0 feet maximum vertical spacing) shall be provided in all slopes. A concrete gutter (swale) shall be installed at these terraces along the toe of the resulting slopes to intercept their runoff. This gutter shall be connected to the storm drainage system of the project. There exists the possibility that moisture or temporary groundwater due to runoff percolating at upper grounds may daylight at fill and/or cut slopes or at the ground surface close to the slope toe. If this condition develops, an intercepting deep drain will be required to collect this water before reaching any nearby structure.

File No. 1823-2A Page 15

The Contractor shall be responsible for providing with enough and capable equipment for achieving these activities in a timely and effective manner. The geotechnical site technician shall not and will not be in charge of surveying work.

Therefore, project owner surveyor shall impart instructions to contractor and project inspector so that our recommendations can be implemented where necessary.

Any relatively flat surface behind a slope shall be graded in such way as to collect the runoff and conduct in to the storm drainage system of the project. No runoff from these areas shall be discharge onto any slope, or water shall be allowed to pond on these surfaces or on any fill area.

Wherever horizontal space requirement for high earth fill embankments and natural cut slopes cannot be met (as per above slope ratio requirements), special engineered structures shall be provided in order to maximize its stability.

11.0 FILLING OPERATIONS AND COMPACTION:

The fill layers required to reach final grading shall be placed and compacted following the recommendations below:

1) Remove any construction debris existing on the area prior to start any filling operation.

2) Place the fill material in layers not exceeding eight (8) inches and each layer shall be imparted with a degree of compaction of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as obtained from the Modified

Compaction Curve Test made according to ASTM D 1557.

File No. 1823-2A Page 16

3) The fill material shall consist of a non-expansive and inorganic soil material similar to a classification A-2-4 or better material approved by the consultant engineer.

4) The placement and compaction of the fill layers shall be made under the direct supervision of a soils laboratory.

12.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

At the time of this report our project general analysis, evaluations and earthwork construction recommendations, have been formulated using preliminary drawings. We strongly recommend that the recommendations covered on this soil report be revised after grading, type of structure, loading condition, flexibility and final floor elevations have been established, so that revised final recommendations can be submitted for design and construction.

All recommendations herein given are based on the spot checks which constitute the test borings made within the investigated area of the parcel and were considered as representative subsoil conditions which are/or might be present along the project.

However, the fact does not exclude the disclosures of a different one that those found, once the construction phase alerts.

Any abnormal condition encountered between borings during the over excavation and construction phase, shall be notified to the soils engineer for further evaluation and to make the pertinent recommendations.

File No. 1823-2A Page 17

Advanced Soil Engineering (ASE) 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.

We recommend that ASE 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.

13.0 LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT:

13.1 Limitations:

The recommendations and conclusions within this report are based on current information regarding the road slope failure at State Road PR 128 km

15.20, Vegas Ward, Yauco. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are invalid if:

• Structure loads change from those stated or the structures are relocated.

• The Additional Services section of this report is not allowed

• This report is used for adjacent or other property.

• Changes of grade or groundwater occur between the issuance of this report and construction other than those anticipated in this report.

• Any other change that materially alters the project from that proposed at the

File No. 1823-2A Page 18 time this report was prepared.

Findings and recommendations in this report are based on selected points of field exploration, geologic literature, laboratory testing, and our understanding of the proposed project. Our analysis of data and recommendations presented herein are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those found at specific exploratory locations. Variations in soil conditions can exist between and beyond the exploration points or groundwater elevations may change. If detected, these conditions may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions.

This report contains information that may be useful in the preparation of contract specifications. However, the report is not worded is such a manner that we recommend its use as a construction specification document without proper modification. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk.

This report was prepared according to the generally accepted geotechnical engineering standards of practice that existed in Puerto Rico at the time the report was prepared. No express or implied warranties are made in connection with our services.

This report should be considered invalid for periods after two years from the report date without a review of the validity of the findings and recommendations by our firm, because of potential changes in the Geotechnical

Engineering Standards of Practice.

File No. 1823-2A Page 19

These services were performed consistent with our agreement with our client. We are not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of our services. The client has responsibility to see that all parties to the project including, designer, contractor, and subcontractor are made aware of this entire report. We do not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, or the use of segregated portions of this report. This report is solely for the use of our client unless noted otherwise. Any reliance on this report by a third party is at the party's sole risk. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk.

13.2 Additional Services:

We recommend that a qualified geotechnical consultant be retained to provide the tests and observations services during construction. The geotechnical engineering firm providing such tests and observations shall become the geotechnical engineer of record and assume responsibility for the project.

The professional opinions presented in this report are based on the assumption that:

• Consultation during development of design and construction documents to check that the geotechnical professional opinions are appropriate for the proposed project and that the geotechnical professional opinions are properly interpreted and incorporated into the documents.

• Advanced Soil Engineering will have the opportunity to review and comment on the plans and specifications for the project prior to the issuance of such for bidding.

File No. 1823-2A Page 20

• Observation, inspection, and testing by the geotechnical consultant of record during site clearing, grading, excavation, placement of fills, building pad and subgrade preparation, and backfilling of utility trenches.

• Observation of foundation excavations and reinforcing steel before concrete placement.

• Other consultation as necessary during design and construction.

We emphasize our review of the project plans and specifications to check for compatibility with our professional opinions and conclusions. Additional information concerning the scope and cost of these services can be obtained from our office.

The above recommendations are given based on the interpretation of an arbitrary selected, limited number of soil samples rather than on a precise knowledge of actual conditions. Should subsoil between borings vary and different conditions that those described be encountered, the owner or contractor is urge to contact the writer for a field inspection, as the recommendations have to be varied to accommodate undisclosed conditions.

Respectfully submitted, NELSON MUÑOZ, P.E.

File No. 1823-2A

July 8, 2019

APPENDIX NO. 1

BORING LOCATION MAP

BORING LOCATION MAP

FILE NO.1823-2A

07/08/19

BORING LOCATION

2B-1

APPENDIX NO. 2

BORING LOGS

APPENDIX NO. 3

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

APPENDIX NO. 3

FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES

FIELD TESTING

DRILLING

Auger Borings (ASTM D 1452). These are performed by turning a hollow-stem auger into the ground a short distance. As the auger advances into the ground, the cutting rise to the surface on the auger spirals, although the depth from which the material comes cannot be accurately determined. By using hollow-stem augers, samples can be recovered from the bottom of the auger, thus eliminating the need for driving casings.

Wash Borings. The wash boring process consist of driving a section of 2.5 inches casing into the ground by a drop-hammer operation, as in pile driving. After each length of casing has been driven the earth material inside the casing is cleaned out by a chopping and washing similar to jetting. This is accomplished by flowing water under pressure through rods or pipes which are operated inside the casing.

A chisel shaped chopping bit is attached to the end of the rods, and the whole string alternatively is raised and chopped so that the resultant chopping and jetting action loosens the soil. The return flow of water bring the cuttings to the surface.

Appendix No. 3 Page 2

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split Barrel Sampling (ASTM D 1452). The samples are secured from the bottom of the cleaned hole by a 1.375 inches ID x

24 inches long split spoon samples. With the sampler in, resting on the bottom of the hole, it is driven with the drop of a 140 pounds hammer from a 30 inches height. The number of blows for every 6 inches of sampler penetration is recorded, and the number of blows between 6 and 18 inches of penetration is reported as the N-value. The N-value gives an indication of the consistency of cohesive soils and relative density of granular soils.

Undisturbed Sampling. Undisturbed samples are obtained with thin wall Shelby tube samplers, 3 inches OD by 30 inches long. The sampler is forced into the soil by static force or downward pressure and is pulled out also statically. These samplers are sealed in the field with wax and shipped to the laboratory. Samples are then extruded at the time of testing by pushing in the same direction that the samples penetrated the sampler. Special care is taken in handling these samples to minimize disturbance.

Appendix No. 3 Page 3

COHESIVE SOILS

N-Values Unconfined Compressive

Blows / ft. Consistency Strength (tsf)

Less than 2 Very Soft Less than 0.25

2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - 0.50

4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00

8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00

15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00

Over 30 Hard Over 4.00

GRANULAR SOILS

N-Values

Blows / ft. Relative Density

0 - 5 Very Loose

5 - 10 Loose

10 - 30 Medium

30 - 50 Dense

Over 50 Very Dense

Appendix No. 3 Page 4

LABORATORY TESTING

Natural Moisture (Water) Content (ASTM D 2216). The natural moisture (water) content is determined by finding the quantity of water present in the natural condition and expressing it as a percentage of the dry weight of the solid soil particles of the sample. The water present in the sample is determined by subtracting the weight of the wet soil from the weight of the specimen after been oven dried in an oven at 110 ºC for a minimum period of 16 hours.

Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318). These limits and related indices are commonly used in geotechnical engineering for soil identification and classification purposes. However, these are also empirically correlated to various parameters which are used for preliminary analyses. The procedure used to determine liquid and plastic limits are described in the referenced ASTM Standard.

Unconfined Compression Test (ASTM D 2166). The cohesive soil specimens obtained from split spoon samples can not be considered as undisturbed samples, nevertheless, the approximate unconfined compressive strength can be easily determined. Unconfined compressive strength tests were performed by subjecting suitable soil samples to axial loads until failure. The compressive strength is defined as the ratio of maximum axial load required to failure to the corrected area and is expressed in units of tons per square feet.

Appendix No. 3 Page 5

Description and Identification of Soils (ASTM D 2488). The description of soils include the color, type (gravel, sand, silt, clay, organic), consistency (if soil is fine-grained), size and roundness (if soil is coarse-grained) and some other special characteristics which can assist in the identification and classification of the soil.

The latter are those recommended for field classification (dilatancy, dry strength, shine and toughness). To approximate the consistency of fine-grained soils (soft, medium, stiff, hard) a simple test is performed with the thumb. The description of coarse-grained soils (sands and gravels) include size (fine, medium, coarse) and roundness (angular, sub-angular, sub-round, round). The relative amount of coarse fractions in fine-grained soils is estimated by placing a representative sample of some 50 grams in a graduated cylinder filled with water. The mix is shaken and allowed to settle. Particles of a size larger than fine sand are visible to the naked eye, while silts and clays are not. In this manner, estimates of the relative amount of the coarse fractions are made and reported as:

Trace 1 - 10%

Some 10 - 20%

Gravelly, sandy 20 - 35%

And 35 - 50%

APPENDIX NO. 4

GEOLOGIC LEGEND

Top soil Fill

Sand Clay

Silt

Rock

P.O. BOX 1286, ISABELA, PUERTO RICO 00662

ADVANCED SOIL ENGINEERING

GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SYMBOLS

Organic matter

GEOLOGIC LEGEND

APPENDIX NO. 4

Silty clay/

Clayey silt

Clayey sand/ sandy clay

Sandy silt/

Silty sand

APPENDIX NO. 5

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

CONCRETE AND MATERIAL TESTING LABORATORIES

P.O. BOX 1286 TEL : (787) 830 - 0366

ISABELA, P.R. 00662-1286 FAX : (787) 830 - 8962

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA

Date :

Client :

Project :

SAMPLE DATA

Location of sample :

Sample description :

USCS Class : CL Liquid Limit : 44.0

AASHTO Class : A-7-6 Plasticity Index : 23.2

NOTES

Remaks : Tested by : Eduardo Rodriguez

Checked by : Nelson Muñoz, P.E.

Fig. No. : 1

MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DATA

Initial After wash

Dry sample and tare = 220.67 32.30

Tare = 0.00 0.00

Dry sample weight = 220.67 32.30

Minus # 200 from wash = 85.36 %

Sieve tare method :

Weight Percent Combined

Sieve No. Soil retained Retained % Retained Percent finer

63.5 2 1/2" 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

50.8 2" 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

38.1 1 1/2" 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

25.4 1" 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

19.05 3/4" 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

12.7 1/2" 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

9.53 3/8" 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

4.75 No. 4 0.06 0.03 0.03 99.97

2 No. 10 4.15 1.88 1.91 98.09

0.425 No. 40 10.99 4.98 6.89 93.11

0.075 No. 200 17.10 7.75 14.64 85.36

FRACTIONAL COMPONENTS

% + 75 mm 0.00 % Gravel = 0.03 % Sand = 14.61 % Finer = 85.36

January 4, 2019

Germán Torres Berríos and Associates

Landslide and Road Damage Evaluation and Repair Recommendations at PR 128, Lares/Yaco, P.R.

Boring No.2B-1 (2'-13')

Dark brown clay some sand

CONCRETE AND MATERIAL TESTING LABORATORIES

P.O. BOX 1286 TEL: (787) 830 - 0366

ISABELA, P.R. 00662 FAX: (787) 830 - 8962

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT

% + 75 mm % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

0.00 0.03 14.61 85.36

LL PI D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu

44.0 23.2

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS AASHTO

Dark brown clay some sand CL A-7-6

Client : Germán Torres Berríos and Associates

Project : Landslide and Road Damage Evaluation and Repair Recommendations at PR 128, Lares/Yaco, P.R.

Location : Boring No.2B-1 (2'-13')

Remarks : Tested by : Eduardo Rodriguez Figure No. : 1

Checked by : Nelson Muñoz, P.E. Date : January 4, 2019

80.00

100.00

0.010.1110100

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

N0.200No. 40No.10No.43/8"1/2"3/4"1"1 1/2"2"2 1/2"

APPENDIX NO. 6

MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SHEET (MOT)