Report_Geotechnical_ER-HWY-66.pdf

Geotechnical Investigation Report For ER-HWY-66 At PR-119, Km 41.15

San Sebastián, Puerto Rico

Job No. 1785-66R1

November 27, 2020

Prepared for:

Eng. José A. Carro Miranda CMA Architects & Engineering. LLC

Prepared by:

MGV GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, PSC

PO Box 2636

Vega Baja, PR 00694-2636

Geotechnical Engineers

Geologists

Testing Laboratory

Environmental Drilling

Validated Laboratory

Geotechnical Investigation Report For

San Sebastián, Puerto Rico

Job No. 1785-66R1

November 27, 2020

Prepared by:

11/01/18

Marcus García Vincenty, M.E.C.E.,P.E., Lic. #15928 Date Geotechnical Engineer

This report consists of 28 Pages

ER-HWY-66R1

PR-119, Km 41.15 San Sebastián, Puerto Rico November 27, 2018

Table of Content iii

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location

2.2 Project Description

2.3 Geologic Setting

3. FIELD EXPLORATION

4. LABORATORY TESTING

5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 Groundwater conditions

6. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Slope Backfilling

6.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing Operations

6.1.2 Cut Procedures

6.1.3 Fill Requirements

6.1.4 Filling on Existing Hillside Slopes

6.1.5 Runoff Waters

6.1.6 Erosion Control

6.2 Gabion Retaining Wall Alternative

7. GENERAL CONDITIONS

7.1 Post-Investigation Services

7.2 Uncertainties and Limitations

8. REFERENCES

8.1 Standards, Codes, and Procedures Cited

Figures

1. Site Location map.

2. Cross section.

3. Topographic plan.

4. Geologic map.

5. Boring location plan.

6. Stripping and benching of existing ground for fill placement.

7. Backfill slope and wall concept.

Tables

1. Recommended Benching Criteria

Appendix A - Borings Logs

Appendix B - Classification Tests

Appendix C - Site Pictures

Geotechnical Investigation Report For

San Sebastián, Puerto Rico

Job No. 1785-66

1. INTRODUCTION

A new project has been proposed in the Municipality of San Sebastián, Puerto Rico. This report summarizes current geotechnical data concerning the proposed project, based on the information submitted to this office by Eng. José A. Carro Miranda from CMA Architects & Engineer, LLC, project designers. The investigation presents a discussion on the subsoil conditions found, field and laboratory test results and our geotechnical recommendations for the intended project.

The scope of work of this exploration follows instructions from Eng. Carro Miranda, as per our approved proposal.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location

The site under study is at State Road PR-119, Km 41.15. This is located in the Guacio Ward in the Municipality of San Sebastián, Puerto Rico. An approximate location for the site was obtained by means of reference orientation. A portion of the Topographic Map of the San Sebastián

Quadrangle prepared by the United States Geologic Survey is included as Figure 1 showing the approximate location.

Figure 1 – Site location map.

2.2 Project Description

The site under study has slid, been eroded and destabilized by the extraordinary rain events during

María Hurricane. Figure 2 shows a cross section, prepared by us from a provided topographic plan. Topographic plan and location of cross section is shown in Figure 3. Slope inclination in cross section is about 2H:1V.

The proposed project consists in stabilizing the affected slope. Recommendations will be provided for three different alternatives. These are:

Slope backfilling.

Construction of a gabion retaining wall

Or a combination of a fill slope and gabion retaining wall

The designer and owner are alerted that if any of the considerations herewith mentioned are not in accordance with project true conditions we shall be alerted in order to verify submitted recommendations. In addition, we also shall be alerted in case the designer notes conditions and/or aspects of the project that were overlooked in this report.

Figure 2 – Cross section

Figure 3 – Topographic plan.

2.3 Geologic Setting

The site has been mapped as part of the Geologic Map of the San Sebastián Quadrangle as published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). According to this Map, the site overlies on the Río Culebrinas (Trt). This formation was described in the Map as:

“Predominantly brown to gray, thin-bedded, fine to medium-gray crystal tuff, lapilli tuff, volcanic sandstone (in part with calcareous cement), and minor amounts of tuffaceous shale and crystal-lithic tuff; subordinate amounts of brown to grayish, massive tuff-breccia and some massive crystal or lapilli tuff.”

Figure 4 shows a portion of the mentioned Geologic Map with the described and nearby formations and their respective limits delineated on it.

Figure 4 – Geologic map,

3. FIELD EXPLORATION

One geotechnical test borehole was drilled, as requested, as part of this investigation on October

18, 2018. Boring was drilled to a maximum depth of about 15 feet below existing ground. Details on the subsurface conditions are further discussed in Section 5 of this report. The test hole was performed by means of power auger drilling methods and using a CME55 trailer mounted drilling rig. The hammer used for the Standard Penetration Testing was a 140-lb. automatic hammer. The

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) as described in ASTM D 1586 was used to determine the “NSPT” value and disturbed soil sampling for visual-manual descriptions in accordance with ASTM D

2488. A standard configuration consisting of a 1.375” ID split spoon sampler is used as testing probe and for sample recuperation in this sampling method. The sampler attached at the end of a solid string of drill rods is advanced for an 18-in. or 24-in. interval, depending on the sampler length, using a 140-lb hammer dropped through a 30-in. free fall. The sampler used during this investigation was 24-in length. The blows required to advance the hole for each 6-in. are recorded in a field-boring log. The standard penetration resistance, or “NSPT” value, is the sum of the blows required for the second and third 6-in. drives. The hole is then cleaned to the top of the next interval to be sampled and the procedure is repeated.

The samples and field logs, were collected, secured and transported to our laboratory for routine testing. Samples are secured and transported according to the practice described in ASTM D 4220.

Routine testing includes natural moisture content, and unconfined compressive strength on cohesive samples.

Figure 5 shows the boring location on the provided topographic plan. Additional details about the drilling and sampling operations are presented in Appendix A.

4. LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing of soil samples from the borings was performed in our AASHTO accredited and Corps of Engineers certified laboratory. This testing consisted of description of samples, natural water content, mechanical sieve analysis and Atterberg Limits.

Samples were visually and manually described by following procedures described in ASTM D

2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).

The water content tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.

In order to obtain the engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils it was imperative to conduct classification tests as per ASTM D3282 and D2487. As per criteria of the assigned

Geotechnical Engineer, one sample was selected for determination of index properties.

Mechanical grain size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D 422 Standard Test

Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. Atterberg Limits were determined on selected samples according to ASTM D 4318. Refer to Appendix B for detailed results.

Figure 5 – Approximate boring location.

B-1

5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Except for the sub-base pavement material, insitu soils with homogeneous characteristics were detected up to the maximum explored depth of about 15 feet.

Insitu samples were described as silt with low plasticity. Yellowish red was the observed color in samples. The Standard Penetration Test showed “N” values ranging from 6 to 17 blows per foot

(bpf). In regards to the water content levels for these materials, the recorded values ranged between

30 to 49 percent. Its variance will be in function of the existing groundwater conditions and the amount of fines for a particular location. The lower results are associated with the more granular samples while the higher values are associated with fine materials (clay/silt) or organics. Another strength measuring analysis was performed on cohesive samples by using a pocket penetrometer or a spring tester, this is the Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS). This procedure describes the behavior of the recollected soil samples when submitted to direct loads. The application of this test depends on the dimensions and the cohesive nature of the soil samples. Therefore, no samples could be tested due to their lack of cohesion. Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index from on classified sample were 55 and 23, respectively.

This is the typical profile of residual soils. Residuals are the product of the underlying weathered rock. “N” values typically increase, plasticity decrease and granular content increase with depth in this type of profile.

The above given soil characteristics correspond to a general description of the subsoil conditions prevailing at the project site. On account of the generalized form the subsoil profile has been presented above, we encourage the reader to refer to the boring logs for detailed information on the soil characteristics at the borings locations.

5.1 Groundwater conditions

The groundwater table (GWT) was not encountered during drilling operations at the maximum explored depth. However, these levels shall not be considered invariant and accurate. Monitoring wells are necessary in order to provide accurate groundwater levels with time. These were beyond the scope of work of this study. In addition, it should be noted that the groundwater table is always being affected by natural factors such as the distance from water sources, the permeability of the subsoil, the topography of the area, and the amount of precipitation. Moreover, it should be taken into account that whenever changes in the topography of a site are made, changes in the groundwater characteristics of the region frequently occur. Such conditions are difficult to detect within the normal scope of time of the exploration.

6. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The unstable slope is the result of erosion by runoff according to observed conditions and results from subsoil exploration. Recommendations for three different alternatives are provided:

Slope backfilling.

Construction of a gabion retaining wall

Or a combination of a fill slope and gabion retaining wall

The third alternative may be adopted by constructing a retaining wall with a backfill slope not steeper than 2H:1V.

6.1 Slope Backfilling

6.1.1 Clearing and Grubbing Operations

The first step to be followed corresponds to the clearing and grubbing operations. There are portions of the site covered by vegetation, therefore, the clearing operations shall be performed thoroughly and consciously. The site might have sedimented portions, or deleterious materials, to be removed, since the migration of sediments due to runoff, mudflows, among other conditions, may have deposited them within the site. This condition was observed at this particular site from the slope toe to some upslope portion. Therefore, material removal shall be expected. Only after completion of the clearing works further works shall be allowed.

Once the deleterious materials are removed to the satisfaction of the observing soils engineer (in a full time basis) and the necessary cut operations performed, the exposed surface shall be proof rolled using a 8 ton smooth non-vibratory wheel roller. Any soft spot disclosed during the proof rolling operations shall be removed and replaced with select engineered fills, as recommended below. The roller shall be applied over any given area at least 20 times, or 10 round trips, at a velocity not exceeding 1.5 miles per hour.

6.1.2 Cut Procedures

The site grading shall be so that runoff is disposed of out of the excavation and embankment areas.

Temporary cut slopes shall not be steeper than 1H:1V. The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards.

The rippability of the terrain suggests that track-type/heavy earth movement equipment like tractors, loaders, excavators, and assisted scrappers could initially perform the stripping and cut related task.

6.1.3 Fill Requirements

Fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2H:1V. Fill material shall resemble the characteristic of an A-

2-4, or better type of soil (based on the AASHTO Soil Classification System). The select A-2-4 fill should be placed in single layers not exceeding 8 inches loose thick. Every layer shall be compacted so that the dry unit weight of the material is higher than 90 percent of its maximum dry unit weight as obtained in the laboratory under a Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM

D1557). It should be the responsibility of the Resident Engineer to instruct the Soils Engineer retained by the owner on a consultative basis to determine the optimum moisture and corresponding dry density of the fill to be used in this project.

Over the A-2-4 material the contractor should employ a smooth steel wheel roller to obtain the required percentage of compaction. He shall not place any additional fill until the preceding compacted layer has been found to fulfill the aforementioned compaction criteria.

Regarding the compaction operations, each successive pass should overlap the preceding adjacent pass by ten (10) percent. Roller passes made on material in unsuitable condition will not be considered in judging compliance with our recommendations. In case the Contractor fails to obtain the required compaction energy, he must get the appropriate type of equipment to comply with these compaction criteria.

6.1.4 Filling on Existing Hillside Slopes

Where fills are made on hillsides, the slopes of the original ground upon which the fill is to be placed, shall be plowed or scarified deeply, or where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5 horizontal to 1 vertical, the bank shall be steeped or benched in accordance to the following criteria:

Table 1 - Recommended Benching Criteria

Slope Ratio of Existing

Ground Surface

Maximum Vertical Spacing of

Benches (mts) Minimum Width of Benches (mts)

5H : 1V

0.5 2

4H : 1V

1 2

3H : 1V

1 3

2H: 1V

2 3

1H : 1V

2 3

Refer to Figure 6 for a graphical illustration of these recommendations. These requirements might be slightly varied by the inspecting Soils Engineer, depending on actual field conditions.

Figure 6 – Stripping and benching of existing ground for fill placement.

6.1.5 Runoff Waters

Run-off waters shall not be permitted to drain off the face of the exposed fill and cut slopes. To prevent the run-off from spilling over the face of the slopes, longitudinal concrete drainage swales shall be provided at the slope benches. The drainage swales will be provided with proper gradients so as to properly dispose the surface run-off through the swales and into properly designed outlets.

It is strongly recommended that grading of lots is designed and constructed in order to direct run-off away from slopes.

Where no benches are required for the slopes, the construction of the concrete swale immediately adjacent to the top of the cut and one at the cut toe shall be performed.

Regarding the exposed slope faces several additional measures shall be evaluated in order to further minimize erosion. This is discussed in detail next.

6.1.6 Erosion Control

Rain, surface water, and even the same dwellers walking over the embankment and cut slopes promote particle migration from the soil mass. Erosion, in an advanced stage, can lead to stability problems such as local slope and foundation failures. There are some feasible and cost-effective protection devices that can be considered in order to minimize the erosive action produced by these conditions.

Along these lines, the face of all the slopes shall be protected providing, for example, erosion control blankets, three-dimensional Geocells, or promoting the growth of highly erosion-resistant vegetation, such as robust rooted grasses.

The blankets consist of an open-mesh-type fabric in conjunction with straw, mulch, wood pieces, or coconut fiber. These blankets are very useful in controlling soil erosion because they reduce the runoff velocity while enhancing seed germination and vegetative growth above the soils being protected.

Regardless which protection is finally selected for this project, is at most to apply it as soon as the cut and fill slopes are finished. However, at areas where high and/or constant flow conditions will prevail, stronger remedial actions will need to be considered. Accordingly, provisions for aprons and cutoffs (embedded end sections) should constitute normal design provisions for preventing undermining in this area.

6.2 Gabion Retaining Wall Alternative

The wall may be located along the slope in any location provided the following recommendations are strictly followed. Wall height may be reduced by providing a backfill slope, not steeper than

2H:1V. For instance, Figure 7 shows two possible alternatives; the wall located at edge of highway shoulder and located somewhere downslope with sloped backfilled. Final geometrical arrangement shall be determined by designer based on actual topography conditions, constructability, budget consideration, among others. The drawing is only conceptual for illustration purposes only and not to scale. Wall dimensions will vary according to actual design or selected alternative.

A gabion type of wall is recommended to be built because its ease of construction and economically viability compared to other walls such as concrete ones. Nevertheless, reinforced earth walls with any facing may be analyzed by designer as an alternative by adopting same geotechnical parameters for design as discussed next. An ultimate bearing capacity of 10,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be assigned for a minimum foundation depth of 5 feet below existing elevation and minimum base width of 12 ft. Depth of foundation shall be increased accordingly, if clearing and grubbing requires the removal of accumulated sediments. The bottom of the excavation of the foundation shall be dry, clean, without any loose material and / or construction waste and supported on a tested competent material. It is of extreme importance to retain our services, or any other Geotechnical Engineer licensed in P.R., to observe excavation exposed surface prior to gabion installation. The purpose is to confirm the considered subsoil conditions for the recommended allowable bearing capacity. Recommendations have been provided by extrapolating the subsoil conditions disclosed on borehole since drilling at desired location was physically impossible at that moment. The soil conditions at excavation bottom may not be equal to those disclosed by borehole and additional measures may be required. Measures may include, but no limited to, open test pits, deeper foundation depth, additional exploration, a combination of these, among others.

Figure 7 – Backfill slope and wall concept.

The following geotechnical parameters are recommended for use in the design of these systems:

Angle of Internal Friction of Backfill Material, φ = 32-degrees

Cohesion of Backfill Material, c = 0 psf

Unit Weight of Backfill Material = 130 pcf

Friction Coefficient of Foundation Material, = 0.35 degrees

2H:1V or Flatter

5 ft min.

5 ft min.

Passive pressures shall be neglected for design purposes. Additionally, the designer shall consider surcharges to account for any neighboring live and/or dead load, such as traffic loads, that will be applied to the proposed walls. Note that we have included parameters for foundation and granular backfill. These are presented to assist the Structural Engineer in determining the possible load combinations that may apply for this project.

Since the stability of a particular wall is generally reduced by an increase in active thrust and/or a decrease in passive thrust, the seimic scenario represents a more critical condition than the static loads scenario prior to an earthquake. The Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method shall be used to compute the equations for determination of lateral pressures on the basis of a pseudostatic analysis of seismic earth pressures on retaining walls. The M-O method is a direct extension of the static

Coulomnb theory to pseudostatic conditions. In a M-O analysis, pseudostatic accelerations are applied to a Coulomb active (or passive) wedge. The pseudostatic soil thrust is then obtained from force equilibrium of the wedge. For the seismic design of walls, the seismic thrust (ΔPAE) acting on the walls will have to be added to the earth and hydrostatic pressures acting on the walls under static conditions. The total active thrust, PAE, can be divided into a static component, PA, and a dynamic component ΔPAE:

PAE = PA + ΔPAE

A coefficient of horizontal acceleration of about 0.18g is strongly recommended to be utilized in the above equations.

Also, we recommend that a highly permeable filter fabric be used to reduce the “in situ” soil loss due to internal water movement. It shall be placed in the point of contact between the slope material resulting from the cut works, and the added backfill, as applicable, as well as in contact between wall and backfill.

A clay buffer of about two feet shall be placed at surface, over the backfill material, and properly compacted to more than 85 percent of maximum dry density as per Modified Proctor Test. We recommend that a highly permeable filter fabric be placed also between clay buffer and backfill.

7. GENERAL CONDITIONS

7.1 Post-Investigation Services

During final design and during construction it may be necessary to modify recommendations made in this report to account for new information or the occurrence of situations that were not considered in preparing these recommendations. For that reason, geotechnical design cannot be considered complete until construction is complete, and the Geotechnical Engineer providing future services must necessarily review all geological and geotechnical data, conclusions, and recommendations and either confirm the conclusions and recommendations or recommend changes to them. Future geotechnical services are an important and necessary continuation of this investigation.

Foundation and grading plans as well as specifications related to construction should be reviewed by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer to verify that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report has been properly interpreted and incorporated into the contract documents.

A qualified Geotechnical Engineer should perform Geotechnical observation and testing during excavation, foundation construction, and related earthwork operations. The purposes of the geotechnical observation and testing are to correlate the findings of this and future investigations with actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction, and to provide revised or supplemental recommendations, if necessary. The geotechnical observation and testing will also confirm that foundations are founded in the recommended soils, and that suitable fill and backfill soils are placed upon competent materials and properly compacted to meet the project specifications.

7.2 Uncertainties and Limitations

Only a very small portion of the subsurface conditions at the site had been observed and/or tested.

The possibility of subsurface conditions differing from those assumed and developed in this investigation cannot be discounted. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon our understanding of the subsoil conditions depicted by the borings drilled and the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the field exploration.

Professional judgments presented in this report are based on an evaluation of the technical information gathered and our general experience in the field of Geotechnical Engineering. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect, only that the engineering work and judgment rendered meet the standard of care of the geotechnical profession at this time.

8. REFERENCES

Driscoll, David D., 1979. Retaining Wall Design Guide, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Kramer, Steven L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Macnab, Alan, P.E., 2002. Earth Retention Systems Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York

Peck, Ralph B., Hanson, Walter E. and Thornburn, Thomas H., 1974. Foundation Engineering, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Tobisch, O.T. and Turner, M.D., 1971 Geologic Map of the San Sebastián Quadrangle: U.S. Geol.

Survey Map I-661

Townsend, Frank C., Ph.D., 1997. CEG 6515-Earth Pressure and Slope Stability Course, Universtiy of Florida, Florida

USACE, 1992 Engineer Manual EM 1110-1-1905 “Bearing Capacity of Soils”: Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

USGS, 1958 San Sebastián, Puerto Rico 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic). U.S. Geological

Survey.

8.1 Standards, Codes, and Procedures Cited

ASTM D 1557 "Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3)"

ASTM D 1586 "Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils."

ASTM D 2216 "Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass."

ASTM D 2488 "Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual

Procedure)."

ASTM D 3282 "Standard Practice for Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures for

Highway Construction Purposes."

ASTM D 4220 "Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples."

International Building Code (2009). International code Council – Fifth Printing

APPENDIX A

BORINGS LOGS

0.0

-0.6

-1.2

-1.8

-2.4

-4.0

-4.6

Fill: silty coarse to fine sand, little coarse to fine subangular gravel, brown, yellowish red, yellowish brown.

High plasticity silt, trace fine sand, yellowish red.

As above.

As above.

As above.

As above.

END OF BORING

7.5

30.4

45.0

45.1

45.5

48.5

32 55 23

BORING NO. B-1

SHEET 1 OF MGV Geotechnical Group, PSC JOB NO. 1785-66

PROJECT ER HWY-66 PR119 KM 41.15 DATE STARTED 10/18/18

LOCATION San Sebastian COMPLETED 10/18/18

SAMPLER: DRILL MACHINE CME-55

TYPE SPT SIZE 1.375" I.D. DRILLER L. Santiago

HAMMER: WT 140# DROP 30" GROUND ELEV.

DESCRIPTION: L Addarich APPROVED: M. Garcia NORTH COORD. 18.29413 FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. EAST COORD. -66.99695

U.S.C.S. - UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DESIGNATION. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ARBITRARY COORDINATES USED.

NF, WATER TABLE NOT FOUND. *qu - UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH; REPORTED VALUES

WN,WP,WL AND IP - NATURAL WATER CONTENT, PLASTIC LIMIT, OBTAINED FROM:

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX (IP A. POCKET PENETROMETER

WL - WP) RESPECTIVELY. B. SPRING TEST

D E P T H ft

E L E V

(m

S A

M P L E N

O

B lo w s p e r i n in c r.

S P T N

V A

L U

E

(B L O

W S

/F T

S A

M P L E R

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

S Y

M B O

L

R

E C

O V

E R Y

Wn

MOISTURE CONTENT

Wp Wl Ip qu*

STRENGTH

(TSF)

PROPERTIES VS. DEPTH

102030405060708090 N value

Wn

PL

LL

APPENDIX B

CLASSIFICATION TESTS

T h e s e r e s u lt s a re f o r th e e x c lu s iv e u s e o f th e c lie n t fo r w h o m t h e y w e re o b ta in e d

T h e y a p p ly o n ly t o s a m p le s t e s te d a n d a re n o t in d ic a ti v e o f a p p a re n tl y i d e n ti c a l s a m p le

Tested By: C. CARDONA Checked By: MARCUS GARCIA VINCENTY, PE

MGV-GES LAB, INC.

Dorado, Puerto Rico

10/24/18

HWY 66

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60= D50= D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

elastic silt .375 .25 #4 #10 #20 #40

#100 #200

100.0 97.3 96.5 94.8 93.8 92.4 89.8 87.7

32 55 23

0.1622

MH A-7-5(24)

F.M.=0.40

ER Hwy PR 119, San Sebastián

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Hwy 66 PR 119 41.15- Boring 1 Sample Number: 4 Depth: 6'-8' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine % Fines

0.0 0.0 3.5 1.7 2.4 4.7 87.7 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report

APPENDIX C

SITE PICTURES