Geotech Report_for information only.pdf
PDF 3 MB Posted
- Attached to
- UTTR CMCC at Hill AFB, UT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W91238-19-R-0026
About this file
This document provides details regarding a forthcoming federal contract opportunity for construction services. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intends to issue a Request for Proposal to award a firm-fixed-price construction contract for an 852-day period of performance. The project involves building a new Consolidated Mission Control Center facility at Hill Air Force Base in Utah to replace outdated equipment and infrastructure. The estimated value of construction is between $25-100 million. The solicitation is anticipated to be posted on SAM.gov by September 10, 2020 with proposals due tentatively on October 12, 2020. Interested vendors must self-identify on SAM.gov as the government is not maintaining a separate planholders list. The new facility will support air traffic control and post-mission evaluation for the Utah Test and Training Range through a design that groups functional spaces and optimizes building layout. Standard construction methods and Hill AFB design guidelines must be followed.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
MN
11 .3 ° E
1 /20/18
KM0 .5 0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5
MI0 .5 0 0 .5 1
GSHo
APPENDIX
CH2M Hill, Inc.
Job No. 2700-001-18 Geotechnical Study - Proposed UTTR Consolidate Mission Control Center December 4, 2018
Gradation Tests
Location Percent Passing Sieve
3" 2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Soil Classification
L-A 100 100 94 90 77 69 63 50 19 10.6 SP-SM
L-B 100 100 97 93 88 84 82 67 20 9.8 SM
L-C 100 100 90 85 73 61 53 39 21 13.8 SM
L-D 100 100 96 93 89 86 84 69 20 10.1 SP-SM
L-1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 91 21 10.1 SM
L-2 100 100 100 100 100 99 99 92 29 10.8 SM
L-3 100 100 100 100 98 98 97 88 18 8.0 SM
L-4 100 100 100 100 99 99 99 90 17 6.1 SM
L-5 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 89 27 12.3 SM
L-6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 87 26 12.5 SM
Moisture and Partial Gradation Tests
Boring No.
Depth (feet)
Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve
Moisture Content Percent
Soil Classification
B-1 2.5 --- 4.4 SP
B-1 5.0 2.8 4.9 SP
B-1 7.5 --- 5.1 SP
B-1 10.0 21.8 11.9 SM
B-1 12.5 21.0 9.5 SM
B-1 15.0 10.7 7.1 SP/SM
B-1 20.0 --- 16.4 SP/SM
B-1 25.0 77.0 22.0 CL
B-1 30.0 --- 11.5 SP
B-1 35.0 --- 4.6 SP
B-1 40.0 63.9 15.7 SP*
B-1 45.0 --- 4.2 SP
B-1 50.0 --- 14.9 SP
B-2 2.5 --- 13.2 SP
B-2 5.0 3.1 3.3 SP
B-2 7.5 --- 4.3 SP
B-2 10.0 --- 8.1 SP
B-4 5.0 --- 4.7 SP (FILL)
B-4 7.5 --- 3.2 ML
B-4 10.0 4.0 2.3 SP
B-5 10.0 --- 5.6 SP/SM
B-5 12.5 5.6 3.2 SP/SM
B-5 15.0 12.6 5.7 SM
B-5 20.0 --- 6.3 SM
B-5 25.0 57.7 19.1 CL
B-5 30.0 --- 6.1 SP/SM
B-5 35.0 5.7 3.3 SP/SM
B-5 40.0 --- 6.4 SP/SM
B-5 45.0 --- 14.4 SP/SM
B-5 50.0 --- 7.2 SP/SM
B-5 55.0 14.1 5.3 SM
B-5 60.0 --- 11.0 SM
B-6 5.0 5.1 2.1 SP/SM
B-6 7.5 --- 3.2 SP/SM
B-6 10.0 --- 3.6 SP/SM
B-7 7.5 --- 4.9 SP
B-7 10.0 3.8 4.8 SP
B-7 12.5 --- 6.1 SP
B-7 15.0 --- 4.9 SP
B-7 20.0 8.1 5.4 SP/SM
B-7 25.0 --- 3.6 SP/SM
B-7 30.0 28.3 9.4 SM
B-7 35.0 --- 6.5 SM
B-7 40.0 47.9 18.2 SM*
B-7 45.0 --- 15.7 SM
B-7 50.0 15.6 6.2 SM
B-8 7.5 7.7 4.0 SP/SM
B-8 10.0 5.1 3.7 SP/SM
B-8 12.5 11.9 5.1 SP/SM
B-8 15.0 15.5 6.5 SM
B-8 20.0 14.6 5.4 SM
B-8 25.0 40.7 15.5 SM
B-8 30.0 15.8 9.0 SM
B-8 35.0 5.2 4.4 SP/SM
B-8 40.0 31.5 13.5 SM
B-8 45.0 --- 17.3 CL
B-8 50.0 --- 23.1 CL
*Sample contains layers of sandy clay soils.
Geotechnical Study - Proposed UTTR Consolidate Mission Control Center December 4, 2018
Project: Job No.: 2700-001-18 Date: 11/16/18 Boring/TP: B8 Sample No.: 12 Depth: 45 Engineer: ADS Tester: BT Soil Descr.:
Can No. DOG 7 Can No. TIN Taps 36 24 Can+wet soil 15.98 Can+wet soil 17.62 16.40 Can+dry soil 14.42 Can+dry soil 15.20 14.06 Can 6.88 Can 6.98 6.85 Moisture (%) 20.69 Moisture (%) 29.44 32.45
3.583519 3.17805383 2.83 0 25
100 25 Moisture (%)
#1 -14.08206034 LL 34
#2 79.05503682 PL 21
PI 13
USCS CL
W ei gh t (
g) 17.72 14.62 6.90
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
40.16
UTTR
Sandy Clay
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT
A2
W ei gh t ( g) y = -14.08ln(x) + 79.055 R² = 0.9161
10 100
M oi st ur e
Taps
LIQUID LIMIT RESULTS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pl as tic ity
In de x
Liquid Limit
PLASTICITY CHART
ML or OL
CL
CH
CL-ML
MH or OH
Geotechnical Study - Proposed UTTR Consolidate Mission Control Center December 4, 2018
Project: Job No.: 2700-001-18 Date: 11/16/18 Boring/TP: B8 Sample No.: 13 Depth: 50 Engineer: ADS Tester: BT Soil Descr.:
Can No. LOO LBD Can No. CUP Taps 34 26 Can+wet soil 16.66 Can+wet soil 20.81 21.05 Can+dry soil 15.11 Can+dry soil 18.50 18.51 Can 6.92 Can 11.04 11.06 Moisture (%) 18.93 Moisture (%) 30.97 34.09
3.526361 3.258096538 2.71 0 25
100 25 Moisture (%)
#1 -2.797113726 LL 33
#2 41.78485731 PL 19
PI 14
USCS CL
33.74
UTTR
Sandy Clay
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT
LGG
W ei gh t ( g)
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
W ei gh t (
g) 21.89 19.15 11.03 y = -2.797ln(x) + 41.785 R² = 0.4633
10 100
M oi st ur e
Taps
LIQUID LIMIT RESULTS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pl as tic ity
In de x
Liquid Limit
PLASTICITY CHART
ML or OL
CL
CH
CL-ML
MH or OH
November 4, 2018
Compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Tests
Location Soil
Classification
Optimum Moisture Content
(percent)
Maximum Dry Density
(pcf)
L-A SP-SM 10.0 118.4
L-B SM 5.9 135.6
L-C SM 5.8 139.3
L-D SP-SM 9.8 120.1
L-1 SM 12.1 110.1
L-2 SM 12.0 109.6
L-3 SM 12.3 108.3
L-4 SM 12.7 105.8
L-5 SM 11.9 111.7
L-6 SM 11.6 111.5
Location L-2
Classification
SM
Before Soaking Dry Density 108.5 pcf
Moisture Content 12.0 percent
After Soaking
Dry Density 105.4 pcf
Moisture Content (Upper 1" of Sample)
13.2 percent
Surcharge 10 lbs
Swell 0.00 percent
CBR
Surcharge 10 lbs
At 0.1" penetration 30.4 percent
At 0.2" penetration 47.6 percent
Location L-A
Classification
SP-SM
Before Soaking Dry Density 118.1 pcf
Moisture Content 9.8 percent
After Soaking
Dry Density 117.8 pcf
Moisture Content (Upper 1" of Sample)
10.2 percent
Surcharge 10 lbs
Swell -0.09 percent
CBR
Surcharge 10 lbs
At 0.1" penetration 13.0 percent
At 0.2" penetration 33.7 percent
Location L-B
Classification
SM
Before Soaking Dry Density 133.7 pcf
Moisture Content 5.6 percent
After Soaking
Dry Density 132.4 pcf
Moisture Content (Upper 1" of Sample)
6.0 percent
Surcharge 10 lbs
Swell 0.02 percent
CBR
Surcharge 10 lbs
At 0.1" penetration 15.7 percent
At 0.2" penetration 21.3 percent
Location L-C
Classification
SM
Before Soaking Dry Density 136.3 pcf
Moisture Content 5.8 percent
After Soaking
Dry Density 133.1 pcf
Moisture Content (Upper 1" of Sample)
6.6 percent
Surcharge 10 lbs
Swell 0.11 percent
CBR
Surcharge 10 lbs
At 0.1" penetration 15.7 percent
At 0.2" penetration 21.3 percent
Location L-D
Classification
SP-SM
Before Soaking Dry Density 119.4 pcf
Moisture Content 9.7 percent
After Soaking
Dry Density 119.7 pcf
Moisture Content (Upper 1" of Sample)
9.0 percent
Surcharge 10 lbs
Swell -0.20 percent
CBR
Surcharge 10 lbs
At 0.1" penetration 15.3 percent
At 0.2" penetration 35.8 percent
Project: Family No.:
Project No.: Date:
Client: Developed By:
Descritption: Curve Nos.:
Classification: Specification Section:
Curve No. Key
M18-11-63 111.7
Maximum Density lb/ft³ Optimum Moisture Content %
11.9
M18-11-62 105.8 12.7
M18-11-59 110.0 12.1
M18-11-61 108.3 12.3
Un it
W ei gh t l bs /f t³
Moisture Content %
Family of Curves
Laboratory No.:
Sample Date:
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Liquid Limit
Plasticitiy Chart
Project: Laboratory No.:
Project No.: Sample Date:
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
97 Tare Wt
94 Dry Weight
90 % Moisture
69 Wt Passing #4
63 Wet Wt + Tare
60 Dry Wt + Tare
55 Tare Wt
50 -#200 Wt
40 Wt on Pan
19 Total -#200
10.6 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
Particle Diameter (mm)
##¾"
California
AST
ASTM D69
Project Data Sample Project: Laboratory
Project No.: Sample Loca Client: Oversize Particle Date: Descrip
Sampled By: So
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Moisture-Density Relation - Compaction Curve (Rock Replaced)
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
100 Tare Wt
97 Dry Weight
93 % Moisture
84 Wt Passing #4
82 Wet Wt + Tare
80 Dry Wt + Tare
75 Tare Wt
67 -#200 Wt
52 Wt on Pan
20 Total -#200
9.8 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
ASTM D69
Project Data Sample Project: Laboratory
Project No.: Sample Loca Client: Oversize Particle Date: Descrip
Sampled By: So
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
Liquid Limit (LL)
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
98 Tare Wt
90 Dry Weight
85 % Moisture
61 Wt Passing #4
53 Wet Wt + Tare
49 Dry Wt + Tare
44 Tare Wt
39 -#200 Wt
34 Wt on Pan
21 Total -#200
13.8 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
ASTM D69
Project Data Sample Project: Laboratory
Project No.: Sample Loca Client: Oversize Particle Date: Descrip
Sampled By: So
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
97 Tare Wt
96 Dry Weight
93 % Moisture
86 Wt Passing #4
84 Wet Wt + Tare
83 Dry Wt + Tare
78 Tare Wt
69 -#200 Wt
54 Wt on Pan
20 Total -#200
10.1 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
ASTM D69
Project Data Sample Project: Laboratory
Project No.: Sample Loca Client: Oversize Particle Date: Descrip
Sampled By: So
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Mold Volume ft³: Method: Mold Weight g:
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Moisture-Density Relation - Compaction Curve
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
100 Tare Wt
100 Dry Weight
100 % Moisture
100 Wt Passing #4
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
98 Tare Wt
91 -#200 Wt
62 Wt on Pan
21 Total -#200
10.1 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
Liquid Limit (LL)
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
100 Tare Wt
100 Dry Weight
100 % Moisture
99 Wt Passing #4
99 Wet Wt + Tare
99 Dry Wt + Tare
98 Tare Wt
92 -#200 Wt
71 Wt on Pan
29 Total -#200
10.8 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
ASTM D69
Project Data Sample Project: Laboratory
Project No.: Sample Loca Client: Oversize Particle Date: Descrip
Sampled By: So
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Mold Volume ft³: Method: Mold Weight g:
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
Liquid Limit (LL)
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
100 Tare Wt
100 Dry Weight
100 % Moisture
98 Wt Passing #4
97 Wet Wt + Tare
97 Dry Wt + Tare
94 Tare Wt
88 -#200 Wt
62 Wt on Pan
18 Total -#200
8.0 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
100 Tare Wt
100 Dry Weight
100 % Moisture
99 Wt Passing #4
99 Wet Wt + Tare
99 Dry Wt + Tare
97 Tare Wt
90 -#200 Wt
66 Wt on Pan
17 Total -#200
6.1 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
ASTM D69
Project Data Sample Project: Laboratory
Project No.: Sample Loca Client: Oversize Particle Date: Descrip
Sampled By: So
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Mold Volume ft³: Method: Mold Weight g:
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
Liquid Limit (LL)
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
100 Tare Wt
100 Dry Weight
100 % Moisture
100 Wt Passing #4
99 Wet Wt + Tare
99 Dry Wt + Tare
97 Tare Wt
89 -#200 Wt
64 Wt on Pan
27 Total -#200
12.3 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:Description:
Project:
Project No.:
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Mold Volume ft³: Method: Mold Weight g:
Un it
W ei gh t l bs
Sample Location:
Sampled By:
Specification Section:
Liquid Limit: Non Plastic Plastic Limit: Non Plastic
Plasticity Index: Non Plastic
Classification:
Group Symbol:
Liquid Limit (LL)
Plastic Limit (PL) Natural Moisture (wn)
Project:
Project No.:
Client:
Source:
Description:
M oi st ur e
Number of Blows
Flow Curve
Client: Sample Location:
Source: Sampled By:
Description: Specification Section:
Sieve Number Diameter (mm) Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
Percent Passing
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
100 Water WT
100 Tare Wt
100 Dry Weight
100 % Moisture
100 Wt Passing #4
100 Wet Wt + Tare
100 Dry Wt + Tare
97 Tare Wt
87 -#200 Wt
66 Wt on Pan
26 Total -#200
12.5 Total -#200 % Screen Loss
Sieve Diameter (mm)
4 4.75 10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075 4 4.75
10 2 40 0.425
200 0.075
Coefficients % Boulders & Cobble Cu:
% Gravel: Cc:
% Sand:
% Silt / Clay: Classification:
Group Symbol:
Group Name:
Grain Size Distribution
In Situ Moisture Content
-#200 Wash
Pe rc en t
Pa ss in g
Geotechnical Study - Proposed UTTR Consolidate Mission Control Center December 4, 2018
Source: Depth:
Type of Test:
Test No. (Symbol) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) Sample Type Initial Height, in. 1.10 1.10 1.10 Diameter, in. 2.45 2.45 2.45 Dry Density Before, pcf 91.4 91.7 90.0 Dry Density After, pcf 95.4 96.9 91.5 Moisture % Before 22.6 23.3 24.3 Moisture % After 25.1 24.5 22.8 Saturation % Before 68.1 70.6 70.9 Saturation % After 82.7 83.8 68.9 Normal Load, ksf 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 Shear Stress, ksf 1.02 1.63 1.85 1.0 Strain Rate
Cohesion, psf Friction Angle, Liquid Limit, % Plasticity Index, % Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Passing No. 200 sieve
Testing Laboratory: GSH
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.: 2700-001-18
UTTR
Classification SP/SM
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated - Drained
Remolded
0.005 in/min Sample Properties
B5 7.5 ft
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
SH
E
A R
S T
R E
SS
(k sf
NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
SH
E
A R
S T
R E
SS
(k sf
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (inches)
Apparent Cohesion = 395 psf
Internal Friction Angle, ø = 32°
Geotechnical Study - Proposed UTTR Consolidate Mission Control Center December 4, 2018
0.0 0.0
Test No. (Symbol) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) t90 (from sq-root time) 1.34 1.35 1.33 tf = 50 t90 / 4.28 15.7 15.8 15.5 max. dr = 0.5 / tf 0.0319 0.0317 0.0322
PROJECT: UTTR selected dr (in./min) 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050
PROJECT NO.: 2700-001-18
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
V E
R T
IC
A
L D
IS
PL
A C
E M
E N
T (i nc he s)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (inches)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
1.161.161.150
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
D
IA
L R
E A
D
IN
G
SQUARE ROOT OF TIME (minutes 0.5)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
SRT
Method
Geotechnical Study - Proposed UTTR Consolidate Mission Control Center December 4, 2018
Source: Depth:
Type of Test:
Test No. (Symbol) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) Sample Type Initial Height, in. 1.10 1.10 1.10 Diameter, in. 2.45 2.45 2.45 Dry Density Before, pcf 91.4 91.7 90.0 Dry Density After, pcf 95.8 95.3 93.6 Moisture % Before 22.6 23.3 24.3 Moisture % After 25.1 24.5 22.8 Saturation % Before 68.1 70.6 70.9 Saturation % After 83.5 80.8 72.2 Normal Load, ksf 1.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 Shear Stress, ksf 1.10 1.91 1.91 1.1 Strain Rate
Cohesion, psf Friction Angle, Liquid Limit, % Plasticity Index, % Percent Gravel Percent Sand Percent Passing No. 200 sieve
Testing Laboratory: GSH
PROJECT:
PROJECT NO.: 2700-001-18
UTTR
Classification SP/SM
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated - Drained
Remolded
0.005 in/min Sample Properties
B8 5.0 ft
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
SH
E
A R
S T
R E
SS
(k sf
NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
SH
E
A R
S T
R E
SS
(k sf
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (inches)
Apparent Cohesion = 290 psf
Internal Friction Angle, ø = 39°
Geotechnical Study - Proposed UTTR Consolidate Mission Control Center December 4, 2018
0.0 0.0
Test No. (Symbol) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) t90 (from sq-root time) 1.34 1.34 1.34 tf = 50 t90 / 4.28 15.7 15.7 15.7 max. dr = 0.5 / tf 0.0319 0.0319 0.0319
PROJECT: UTTR selected dr (in./min) 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050
PROJECT NO.: 2700-001-18
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
V E
R T
IC
A
L D
IS
PL
A C
E M
E N
T (i nc he s)
HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT (inches)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
1.161.161.160
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
D
IA
L R
E A
D
IN
G
SQUARE ROOT OF TIME (minutes 0.5)
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
SRT
Method
GSH Geotechnical, Inc.
473 West 4800 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84123 Tel: 801.685.9190 Fax: 801.685.2990 www.gshgeo.com
July 18, 2019 Job No. 2700-001-18
Ms. Rita Donnell CH2M Hill, Inc.
9191 South Jamaica Street Englewood, Colorado 80112
Ms. Donnell:
Re: Letter – Addendum III Geotechnical Study Proposed UTTR Consolidated Mission Control Center Hill Air Force Base Utah
INTRODUCTION
This letter is to serve as an addendum to the geotechnical study dated March 6, 20191. GSH Geotechnical, Inc. (GSH) was requested to provide recommendations for the preparation of the non-engineered fill soils and natural soils for the above-referenced project.
GSH encountered non-engineered fill at the site ranging in thickness from 4.5 to 11.5 feet in Borings B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6, and B-7. Borings B-1, B-2, and B-8 did not encounter non-engineered fill. The fill encountered consisted primarily of sand with varying silt content with occasional concrete debris. Blow counts within the fill material ranged from 6 to 17. Based on an updated site plan provided within an email from Mr. Mohidur Rahman dated May 23, 2018, Boring B-2 falls within the footprint of the structure with Boring B-5 being the next closest boring to the structure (approximately 50 feet to the southeast). Boring B-5 encountered 7 feet of nonengineered fill.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the variability of the non-engineered fill soils with respect to consistency, lateral extent, and depth, GSH cannot guarantee the settlement characteristics of the non-engineered fill that remain underneath the building. To reduce the risk of settlements associated with the non-engineered fills, GSH recommends that the upper 5 feet of fills be removed underneath the
1 “Report, Geotechnical Study – Update, Proposed UTTR Consolidated Mission Control Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah.” GSH Job No. 2700-001-18.
Letter – Addendum III July 18, 2019 footprint of the structure. The exposed soils shall be scarified to a depth of 9 inches and compacted to the requirements as specified in Section 5.2.4, Fill Placement and Compaction, of the geotechnical report. Subsequently, the previously removed material can then be moisture conditioned, placed, and compacted to the requirements previously mentioned.
If, during the removal of the non-engineered fill underneath the structure, native soils are encountered (in the upper 5 feet), the upper 1 foot of native soils shall be removed and the exposed native soils shall be scarified to a depth of 9 inches and compacted to the requirements as specified in Section 5.2.4, Fill Placement and Compaction, of the geotechnical report. The previously removed material can then be moisture conditioned, placed, and compacted to the requirements previously mentioned.
In footings areas where non-engineered fills extend below 5 feet, all non-engineered fills must be removed to native soils. The exposed native soils shall be scarified to a depth of 9 inches and compacted to the requirements as specified in Section 5.2.4, Fill Placement and Compaction, of the geotechnical report. Subsequently, footings or structural site grading fills may be placed on the recompacted native soils.
The non-engineered fill may remain in place below pavements at the site if it is properly prepared. Proper preparation of the in-situ fill must consist of temporarily removing the upper 1 foot of material, followed by scarifying, moisture conditioning, and recompacting the underlying foot to the requirements of structural fill. The previously removed material can then be moisture conditioned, placed, and compacted as structural fill as specified in Section 5.2.4, Fill Placement and Compaction, of the geotechnical report.
GSH recommends thoroughly blending the soils and obtaining a Proctor test in order to effectively moisture condition and compact the soils. A representative from GSH must be requested by the earthwork contractor to visit the site and identify the fill areas that require this preparation.
All soil observations and verifications completed by GSH will be conducted by a qualified professional with significant experience in identifying natural soils and in situ fill soils. Findings will be recorded and presented within subsequent letters, along with corresponding recommendations (if required).
Letter – Addendum III July 18, 2019
CLOSURE
If you have any questions or would like to discuss these items further, please feel free to contact us at (801) 685-9190.
Respectfully submitted, GSH Geotechnical, Inc.
Alan D. Spilker, P.E.
State of Utah No. 334228 President/Senior Geotechnical Engineer
ADS:ad
Addressee (email) cc: Mr. Mohidur Rahman (email) CH2M Hill, Inc.
Mr. Brian Horstmann (email)
Bryan Dyson (email)
Howard Lusk (email)
The contractor's engineer shall
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .