W911SA20B2007 Attachment 9 - Geotechnical Report Fort McCoy BR051 Structure.pdf

MINNESOTA IOWA WISCONSIN

Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation:

Proposed Bridge or Culvert Replacement 18th Lane Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

Prepared for:

Mr. Jeremy Tomesh, PE SEH, Inc.

February 11, 2019

13649.18.WIL

Certification:

I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Wisconsin.

Devin M. Ehler, PE Geotechnical Engineer Registration Number 44630 Date: February 11, 2019

M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N

Chosen Valley Testing, Inc.

Geotechnical Engineering and Testing • 1019 Second Ave. SW • Onalaska, WI 54650 • Telephone (608) 782-5505• Fax (608) 785-2818

Mr. Jeremy Tomesh, PE February 11, 2019 Sr. Professional Engineer, Project Manager

SEH

312 South 3rd Street, La Crosse, WI 54601 jtomesh@sehinc.com

Re: Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation

18th Lane

CVT Project Number: 13649.18.WIL

Dear Mr. Tomesh, As authorized, we have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed bridge or culvert replacement along 18th Lane in Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. The attached report provides details of our findings, analysis, and recommendations. CVT appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. If you have any questions about our report, please feel free to contact us at (608) 782-5505 or (507) 281-0968.

Sincerely, Chosen Valley Testing, Inc.

Devin M. Ehler, PE Geotechnical Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Introduction ______________________________________________________________ 2

A.1. Purpose _____________________________________________________________________ 2

A.2. Scope _______________________________________________________________________ 2

A.3. Boring Location and Elevation __________________________________________________ 2

A.4. Geologic Background _________________________________________________________ 2

B. Subsurface Data ___________________________________________________________ 3

B.1. Stratification _________________________________________________________________ 3

B.2. Penetration Test Results _______________________________________________________ 4

B.3. Groundwater Data ____________________________________________________________ 4

C. Project Design Data ________________________________________________________ 4

D. Bridge Piling Analysis ______________________________________________________ 5

E. Bridge Piling Recommendations ______________________________________________ 5

E.1. Pile Depths and Capacities _____________________________________________________ 5

E.2. Pile Installation _______________________________________________________________ 6

E.3. Drivability Analysis and Recommendations _______________________________________ 6

E.4. Abutment Filling _____________________________________________________________ 6

F. Culvert Recommendations ___________________________________________________ 7

F.1. Grading Recommendations _____________________________________________________ 7 F.1.a. Excavation ________________________________________________________________________ 7 F.1.b. Oversizing ________________________________________________________________________ 7 F.1.c. Filling and Compaction ______________________________________________________________ 7

F.2. Foundation Design ____________________________________________________________ 7 F.2.a. Bearing Capacity ___________________________________________________________________ 7 F.2.b. Settlement ________________________________________________________________________ 7

G. Pavement Recommendations _________________________________________________ 8

G.1. Dominant Area Soils __________________________________________________________ 8

G.2. Pavement Recommendations ___________________________________________________ 8

H. Level of Care _____________________________________________________________ 9

Appendix ___________________________________________________________________ 10

Boring Location Sketch

Log of Boring # 1-2

Legend to Soil Description

Fort McCoy 18th Lane Bridge/Culvert Replacement February 11, 2019 Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 2

Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Bridge or Culvert Replacement

18th Lane

CVT Project Number: 13649.18.WIL

Date: February 11, 2019

A. Introduction

The intent of this report is to present our results to the client in the same logical sequence that led us to arrive at the opinions and recommendations expressed. Since our services must often be completed before the design, assumptions are sometimes needed to prepare a proper evaluation and to analyze the data. A complete and thorough review of this entire document, including the assumptions and the appendices, should be undertaken immediately upon receipt.

A.1. Purpose

This geotechnical evaluation was prepared to assist the design of the proposed bridge or culvert replacement along 18th Lane in Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Our services were authorized by Mr. Randy Sanford, PE with SEH, on behalf of the Owner.

A.2. Scope

To obtain data for analysis, we were authorized to perform two penetration test borings. The borings were drilled to depths of about 34 ½ feet. Our engineering scope consisted of providing geotechnical recommendations for support of a proposed bridge or culvert.

A.3. Boring Location and Elevation

The boring locations were indicated to Chosen Valley Testing by staking on site, provided by SEH. The approximate locations of the borings as-drilled are indicated on the Boring Location Sketch in the Appendix.

Ground surface elevations at the borings were estimated using a laser level. The centerline of the road at the center of the existing bridge was used as a benchmark and was assigned elevation 100.0 feet.

A.4. Geologic Background

A geotechnical report is based on subsurface data collected for the specific structure or problem. Available geologic data from the region can help interpretation of the data and is briefly summarized in this section.

Geologic maps indicate that the uppermost soils in the area are primarily alluvial (water-deposited) sands and gravels. Bedrock is commonly within 50 feet of the surface and typically consists of Cambrian Age Sandstone.

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 3

B. Subsurface Data

Methods: The borings were performed using penetration test procedures (Method of Test D1586 of the American Society for Testing and Materials). This procedure allows for the extraction of intact soil specimen from deep in the ground. With this method, a hollow-stem auger is drilled to the desired sampling depth. A 2-inch OD sampling tube is then screwed onto the end of a sampling rod, inserted through the hole in the auger's tip, and then driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped repeatedly from a height of 30 inches above the sampling rod. The sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil, unless the material is too hard.

The samples are generally taken at 2½, 5, and 10-foot intervals. The core of soil obtained is classified and logged by the driller and a representative portion is then sealed and delivered to the soils engineer for review.

B.1. Stratification

At the surface, the borings encountered about 2 inches of asphalt over 16 inches of aggregate base. The pavements were followed by silty fill materials to depth of about 6 ½ feet.

Beneath the fill materials, natural sandy silt and silty sand were met to approximately 9 to 11 ½ feet, over silty clay to about 11 ½ to 14 feet. More sandy silt followed to around 18 to 23 feet, where gravel and sand were encountered to roughly 28 to 30 ½ feet. Next, weathered sandstone was met to termination depths around 34 ½ feet below the surface.

The boring data has been summarized in the following cross-section. For more detailed information, please refer to the individual Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix.

B-1 B-2

A p p ro xi m at e

E le va ti o n o n

D at u m

F ee t)

Boring Number

Pavements

Fill

Sandy Silt

Silty Sand

Silty Clay

Gravel

Sand

Wx. Sandstone

Below Boring

South North

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 4

B.2. Penetration Test Results

The number of blows needed for the hammer to advance the penetration test sampler is an indicator of soil characteristics. The number of blows to advance the sampler 1 foot is called the penetration resistance or “N”-value. The results tend to be more meaningful for natural mineral soils, than for fill soils. In fill soils, compaction tests are more meaningful.

Penetration resistance values (N-values) of 3 to 8 BPF (Blows per Foot) were recorded in the fill materials, indicating they were soft to medium.

The natural silts and clays returned values ranging from 2 to 9 BPF, indicating they were soft to rather stiff. Resistance values of 6 BPF to 50 hammer blows for 5 inches of sampler advancement were recorded in the sands and gravels, indicating they were loose to very dense. The weathered sandstone returned 50 hammer blows for 1 to 5 inches of sampler advancement, indicating it was very dense.

A key to the descriptors used to qualify the relative density of soil (such as soft, stiff, loose, and dense) can be found on the Legend to Soil Description in the Appendix.

B.3. Groundwater Data

During the drilling operation, the drillers may note the presence of moisture on the sampling instrument, in the cuttings, or within the borehole. These observations are recorded on the boring logs. The water level may vary with weather, time of year and other factors and the presence or absence of water during the drilling is subject to interpretation and is not always conclusive.

Water was not observed in either of the borings during our exploration, but some of the clay and silt samplers were very wet. We would expect moisture to be capable of perching above the less permeable clays, silts, and weathered sandstone. Water was also not observed in the waterway crossing under the road the day of our exploration. Groundwater levels at the site are expected to fluctuate seasonally with local weather patterns and similar to levels in nearby streams and rivers.

C. Project Design Data

Each structure has a different loading configuration and intensity, different grades, and different structural and performance tolerances. Therefore, the geotechnical exploration will be construed differently from one structure to another. If the initial structure should change design, we should be engaged to review these conditions with respect to the prevailing soil conditions. Without the opportunity to review any such changes, the recommendations may no longer be valid or appropriate.

The project consists of replacing the existing structure with a new bridge or culvert. A new bridge would be assumed to be a single-span structure supported on abutments located along a similar alignment to that of the existing structure and near existing grades. Piling is assumed to be designed for maximum driving resistances of about 180 tons per pile for 10x42 H-piles.

A new culvert would be assumed to be a twin box culvert with two, 10-foot tall by 12-foot wide openings and 1-foot thick concrete floors/walls. The bottom of the culvert is expected to bear about 14 feet below existing grades or near elevation 86 feet on the boring datum.

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 5

D. Bridge Piling Analysis

Desired pile capacities are expected to be achieved in the weathered sandstone encountered at depth. Pile support calculations were made based on the boring data and 10x42 H-piles. H-piles are expected to be preferred for support of the proposed structure since they can likely be driven into the weathered sandstone for additional lateral support by socketing into the bedrock. Driven piles should be equipped with tip protection as they are expected to be driven into the weathered sandstone. Based on the boring data and assumed minimal grade changes, potential downdrag loads are expected to be negligible.

E. Bridge Piling Recommendations

E.1. Pile Depths and Capacities

A static pile capacity analysis was performed using the computer program DRIVEN and the boring data.

An analysis was performed on 10x42 H-piles. The pile tip area used in the analysis was 0.679 ft.2 and the pile circumference was 3.296 ft. Foundations at the abutments are assumed to be about 10 feet below existing grades.

The results of our analysis are provided in the following tables. These values should be multiplied by the appropriate pile surface areas. The skin friction and end bearing capacities shown are the nominal (ultimate) values and should be reduced by a resistance factor (Φstat) of 0.45 for static analysis and a resistance factor (Φdyn) of 0.5 for analysis in the field during pile driving using the modified Gates dynamic formula, as recommended by WisDOT.

Boring Soil Type Elevation

Friction Angle

Cohesion Unit

Weight Skin

Friction End

Bearing

(feet) (degrees) (psf) (pcf) (psf) (psf)

B-1 Fill 98-93 -- 250 120 N/A N/A

Sandy Silt, ML 93-91.5 -- 250 120 N/A N/A

Silty Sand, SM 91.5-88 30.5 -- 120 185 12,000

Silty Clay, CL-ML 88-85.5 -- 500 120 425 4,500

Sandy Silt, ML 85.5-76.5 29 -- 120 275 13,000

P-G Sand w/ Silt, SP-SM 76.5-71.5 34 -- 120 600 60,000

Wx. Sandstone Below 71.5 43 -- 130 1,300 500,000

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 6

Boring Soil Type Elevation Friction Angle

Cohesion Unit

Weight Skin

Friction End

Bearing

(feet) (degrees) (psf) (pcf) (psf) (psf)

B-2 Fill 98.5-93.5 -- 250 120 N/A N/A

Silty Sand, SM 93.5-91 30 -- 120 N/A N/A

Silty Clay, CL-ML 91-88.5 -- 500 120 400 4,500

Sandy Silt, ML 88.5-82 29.5 -- 120 200 13,000

P-G Gravel, GP 82-72 35 -- 120 600 75,000

P-G Sand w/ Silt, SP-SM 72-69.5 35.5 -- 120 775 85,000

Wx. Sandstone Below 69.5 43 -- 130 1,300 500,000

E.2. Pile Installation

The borings encountered very dense soils and weathered sandstone at depth. Therefore, protective tips are recommended in an effort to prevent damage to the piles during driving. Pile capacities should be evaluated in the field using a dynamic pile analyzer, ENR pile driving criteria, or other approved procedures.

E.3. Drivability Analysis and Recommendations

A drivability analysis was performed using GRLWEAP Version 2010-6 software on 10x42 H-pile. Our analysis was based on the boring data and the software’s default manufacturer’s information for the hammer parameters and cushion information. The piles noted above should be drivable to the boring depths without overstressing the pile section using Delmag D-12, Delmag D-15, or Delmag D-30 Hammers. Other hammers may be suitable for pile driving at this site but were limited to these hammer types for our analysis. We recommend a pile drivability analysis be performed prior to final pile and driving hammer selection to determine the pile-hammer compatibility.

E.4. Abutment Filling

We recommend using clean granular material having less than 10% particles passing a number 200 sieve, as fill around the abutment. The subgrade away from the bridge may consist of materials other than clean sands. To limit the potential for differential frost heave, we suggest providing a transition between these materials and the abutment backfill. In that event, the depth of the clean sand fill layer should be tapered from 5 feet at the abutment to 0 feet at a distance of 50 feet or more from the abutment (10:1 ratio).

The backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of its maximum dry density as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method of Test D 698 (standard Proctor).

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 7

F. Culvert Recommendations

F.1. Grading Recommendations

F.1.a. Excavation: Based on the boring data and the assumed bottom of culvert elevation, sandy silt and silty clay are expected to be present at bearing depth. Due to the rather soft and compressible nature of the silts and clays on site, we recommend removing these materials from within 2 feet of the bottom of the culvert and replacing with engineered granular fill.

Any existing fill or organic materials that are found below the culvert bearing depth should be removed, along with any debris or otherwise deleterious materials that may be discovered during construction.

Excavations are expected to extend through the unsuitable fill materials found in the borings.

F.1.b. Oversizing: Excavations below the culverts should be oversized at least 1-foot horizontally beyond the edge of foundations for each foot of fill needed below footing grade. This oversizing can be reduced by up to 50% if rather precise staking is present during grading.

F.1.c. Filling and Compaction: For ease of construction, we suggest using clean 1½-inch minus gravel as fill below the culverts. Aggregate base/dense graded base could also be considered for use as fill upon evaluation, but will require higher compactive effort and thinner lifts to attain proper compaction. The gravel or aggregate materials should be wrapped with a filter fabric – to prevent the migration of soils and scouring.

The above material recommendations are subject to specific material requirements from the manufacturer or the DNR. The below-culvert fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s standard Proctor density. Compaction testing of gravel and aggregate materials may not be feasible, in which case the materials should be tamped into place using “Ordinary” compaction until no yield is observed.

F.2. Foundation Design

F.2.a. Bearing Capacity: With assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be sized to exert pressures of up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This allowable bearing capacity includes a safety factor of at least 3 against shear failure.

F.2.b. Settlement: Based on the recommended bearing capacity and assumed design information, total settlements are estimated to be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential settlement across the culvert is estimated to be on the order of ½ inch or less.

F.2.c. Backfilling and Lateral Earth Pressures: Subject to specific earth pressure requirements by the manufacturer or regulatory agencies, we recommend using clean free draining sand having less than 10% particles passing a number 200 sieve as backfill behind culvert walls. This material is expected to be imported to the site.

Backfill should be brought uniformly along the side of the culvert and compacted to at least 95% of the

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 8 soil’s maximum standard Proctor density or as otherwise specified. Clean sands have a rather high permeability. We suggest covering the surface of such materials with fabric and rip-rap or a thick layer of low permeable topsoil to limiting potential for erosion through the loss of material during times of high water due to seepage and “piping”.

The following table provides design parameters for the recommended clean sand backfill. These values do not include a safety factor.

The actual loads exerted on the structure will depend on the movement or flexure of the structure. For sand fill, horizontal movement or flexure of about 0.2% of the height of soil retained may be sufficient to mobilize frictional forces from the at-rest state to the active state.

G. Pavement Recommendations

G.1. Dominant Area Soils

The NRCS soil survey of the area indicated that the Bilson sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes and Council fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes are the dominant upper soil types on site. These materials will likely be more frost-susceptible than clean sand fill, which is recommended behind the abutments.

G.2. Pavement Recommendations

The following table presents recommended support values for the various subgrade materials encountered, indicated, or recommended:

Soil Type AASHTO Classification Frost Index Design Group

Index K-Value Soil Support Factor

Est. California Bearing Ratio

Sandy Silt A-4 F-3 12 150 4.2 3 to 10

Sandy Loam A-2-4/A-4 F-3 9 200 4.5 3 to 10

Sand A-3 F-2 6 250 5.0 10 to 25

Poorly Graded Sand (SP) 95% standard Proctor density

Internal Friction Angle (degrees) 34

Cohesion (psf) 0

Coefficient of Friction between Concrete and Soil 0.50

Moist Unit Weight (pcf) 120

Backslope Behind Top of Wall (degrees) 0 (Flat)

At-Rest Coefficient (Ko) 0.44

Active Coefficient (Ka) 0.28

Passive Coefficient (Kp) 3.54

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 9

H. Level of Care

The services provided for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area, under similar budget and time constraints. This is our professional responsibility. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

Project#: 13649.18.WIL Page - 10

Appendix

Log of Boring # 1-2

Legend to Soil Description

N

18th Lane Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

13649.18.WIL

C

Chosen Valley Testing, Inc.

V T Legend

Boring Location

Benchmark

CV

T S

TA

ND

AR

D

9.1

8.W

IL

(FO

RT

M

CC

OY

BR

ID

GE

O R

CU

LV

ER

T R

EP

LA

CE

ME

NT

).G

PJ

L

OG

A

GN

NN

.G

DT

/10

/19

MC = 22.3%

PP = 1.5 tsf

PP = 1.0 tsf, MC = 18.5%

Benchmark: Centerline of road at center of existing bridge, assigned elevation

100.0 feet.

* 50 = 2'' (set)

* 50 = 1'' (set)

SP

SM

SP

SM

28.0

MC = 22.5%

34.6

ML

23.0

14.0

11.5

8.0 6.5

1.5 1.0 0.2

CL

ML

PP = 1.0 tsf

ML

SM

BPF

SCALE: 1" = 5'

MC = 19.7%, OC = 2.6%

99.4 99.6

PROJECT: 13649.18.WIL

Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluations Proposed Bridge or Culvert Replacement 18th Lane Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

See attached sketch

13649.18.WIL

B-1BORING:

0.0

B-1 page 1 of 1

Description of Materials

(ASTM D 2487/2488)

DATE: 11/28/2018

L O G O F B O R I N G

Depth Tests and NotesUSCS Symbol WL

LOCATION:

Elev.

85.6

SILTY SAND fine grained, gray, moist, loose.

(Alluvium)

SANDY SILT black, wet, rather soft.

(B-Horizon)

Trace wood around 2.5 feet.

SANDY SILT brown, wet, rather soft to medium.

(Fill)

10'' AGGREGATE BASE

91.6

SILTY CLAY brown, wet, rather stiff.

(Alluvium)

6'' SHALEY AGGREGATE BASE

76.6

CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING

71.6

65.0

88.1

98.6

2'' ASPHALT

SANDY SILT trace gravel and seams of sand, brown, very wet, soft to rather stiff.

(Alluvium)

98.1

93.1

End of boring.

Boring sealed upon completion.

WEATHERED SANDSTONE fine grained, light orangish brown to white, moist, very dense.

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT trace gravel, fine grained, light orangish brown, moist, medium dense.

(Residuum)

ML

PP = 0.5 tsf

PP = 1.0 tsf, MC = 18.0%

CV

T S

TA

ND

AR

D

9.1

8.W

IL

(FO

RT

M

CC

OY

BR

ID

GE

O R

CU

LV

ER

T R

EP

LA

CE

ME

NT

).G

PJ

L

OG

A

GN

NN

.G

DT

/10

/19

PP = 1.0 tsf

PP = 0.75 tsf

SP

SM

SP

SM

GP

ML

CL

ML

9.0

34.7

30.5

28.0

MC = 15.5%

11.5

6.5

1.5 0.2

* 50 = 2'' (set)

* 10 / 18 / 50 = 5''

* 60 / 15 / 15

* 50 = 5'' (set)

PP = 1.25 tsf, MC = 22.2%

18.0

SM

Benchmark: Centerline of road at center of existing bridge, assigned elevation

100.0 feet.

BPF

CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING

L O G O F B O R I N G

100.1

LOCATION:

13649.18.WIL

B-2BORING:

0.0

B-2 page 1 of 1

PROJECT:

Description of Materials

(ASTM D 2487/2488)

DATE: 11/28/2018

13649.18.WIL

Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluations Proposed Bridge or Culvert Replacement 18th Lane Fort McCoy, Wisconsin

See attached sketch

Depth Tests and NotesUSCS Symbol WL

SCALE: 1" = 5'

Elev.

SILTY SAND fine grained, brown, moist, loose.

(Alluvium)

Garbage encountered in sample around 5 feet.

SANDY SILT brown, wet, rather soft.

(Fill)

16'' AGGREGATE BASE

2'' ASPHALT

65.4

93.6

SILTY CLAY trace sand, brown, wet, rather soft.

(Alluvium)

91.1

98.6

88.6

82.1

72.1

69.6

SANDY SILT gray, wet, medium.

(Alluvium)

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND fine to medium grained, brown, moist, very dense to medium.

(Alluvium / Colluvium)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT trace gravel, light orangish brown, moist, medium dense.

(Residuum) WEATHERED SANDSTONE trace gravel, fine grained, light orangish brown, moist, very dense.

End of boring.

Boring sealed upon completion.

99.9

SAMPLE TYPES

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (TSF)

SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND

GRAVELS WITH FINES

>12% FINES

BLOWS/FOOT* CONSISTENCY

2.0 - 4.0

OVER 4.0

Job No. 13649.18.WIL

TERM

Trace With

Modifier

0.50 - 1.0

1.0 - 2.0

0 - 0.25

0.25 - 0.50

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

CL

ML

OL

CH

MH

OH

PT

CLEAN GRAVELS

<5% FINES

PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR

WATER LEVEL (WITH TIME OF)

MEASUREMENT

0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50

OVER 50

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

CH

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X

SIZE

< 12 in.

3 in. - 12 in.

#4 sieve to 3 in.

#200 sieve to #4 sieve Passing #200 sieve

TERM

Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand

Silt or Clay

SAND & GRAVEL

GROUP

SYMBOL

MC

OC

CN

DD

PP

RV

SA

P200

>50% OF COARSE

FRACTION PASSES

ON NO 4. SIEVE

RELATIVE DENSITY

(RECORDED AS BLOWS / 0.5 FT)

CL

SILT & CLAY

NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D.

(1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE

(ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST).

BLOWS/FOOT*

WELL-GRADED GRAVEL

POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL

SILTY GRAVEL

CLAYEY GRAVEL

WELL-GRADED SAND

POORLY-GRADED SAND

SILTY SAND

CLAYEY SAND

LEAN CLAY

SILT

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

FAT CLAY

ELASTIC SILT

ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

LEGEND TO SOIL

DESCRIPTIONS

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE

PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE

LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75

PI PLOTS >"A" LINE

PI PLOTS <"A" LINE

LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487/2488)

CLEAN SANDS

<5% FINES

SANDS AND FINES

>12% FINES

INORGANIC

MOISTURE CONTENT

ORGANIC CONTENT

CONSOLIDATION

DRY DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R-VALUE

SIEVE ANALYSIS

% PASSING #200 SIEVE

LIQUID LIMIT

PLASTISITY INDEX

SWELL TEST

Unconsolidated Undrained triaxial

LL

PI

SW

UU

PERCENT

< 5

5 - 12 > 12

Relative Proportions of Fines

0 - 1 2 - 3 4 - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 30

OVER 30

Hollow Stem

Standard Penetration Test

ML

MH

TEST SYMBOLS

PERCENT

< 15 15 - 29 > 30

ORGANIC

Relative Proportions of Sand and Gravel

Chosen Valley Testing, Inc.

VERY SOFT

SOFT

RATHER SOFT

MEDIUM

RATHER STIFF

STIFF

VERY STIFF

HARD

GRAVELS

TERM

Trace With

Modifier

Grain Size Terminology

Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3

Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3

FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL

FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH

Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3

Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3

PEAT

INORGANIC

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

MATERIAL

TYPES CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES

ORGANIC

SANDS

CV

T

9.1 8.W

IL

(FO

RT

M

CC

OY

BR

ID

GE

O R

CU

LV

ER

T R

EP

LA

CE

ME

NT

).G

PJ

1/1

0/1

CL-ML

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT>50

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT<50

>50% OF COARSE

FRACTION RETAINED

ON NO 4. SIEVE

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

CO

AR

SE

-G

RA

IN

ED

S

O

IL

S >5

0% R

ET

AI

NE

D

O N

NO

. 2

S

IE

VE

FI

NE

-G

RA

IN

ED

S O

IL

S

>5 0%

P

AS

SE

S

NO

. 2

S

IE

VE

PLASTICITY CHART

" A" L I N E

VERY LOOSE

LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE

DENSE

VERY DENSE