Appendix A 100 Geotech Rpt SB 8-2-09.pdf

3-1

100% Submittal

█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557

WHOLE BARRACKS COMPLEX

SCHOFIELD BARRACKS

HONOLULU, OAHU, HAWAII

Prepared for:

Sam O. Hirota, Inc.

864 S. Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Engineering and Construction Division Building 230, Room 205 Fort Shafter, HI 96858

August 2007

Prepared by:

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC 615 Piikoi Street, Suite 1605 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814-3141

Project No. 06034

3-2

August 2, 2007

Mr. Richard Kawasaki, LPLS Sam O. Hirota, Inc.

864 S. Beretania Street Honolulu, HI 96813

Subject: 100% Submittal Geotechnical Report FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557 Whole Barracks Complex Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Dear Mr. Kawasaki:

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC is pleased to submit this 100% Geotechnical Report for the proposed FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557 Whole Barracks Complex project in Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii, for your review and use. Our geotechnical engineering services were performed in general accordance with our revised fee proposal dated January 30, 2007.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to Sam O. Hirota, Inc. and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District. If you have any questions regarding this letter and the attached draft Geotechnical Report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours truly, Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

James Kwong, Ph.D., P.E.

Principal

Reyn Hashiro, P.E. Eva Ng Geotechnical Engineer Engineering Geologist

Yogi Kwong Engineers,LLC

100% SUBMITTAL 3-3

(06034) 100% Geotechnical Report Schofield Barracks COE RFP (08-01-07)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 3-5

1.1 Project Description ..........................................................................................................3-5

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work ............................................................................................3-6

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................ 3-8

2.1 Field Exploration .............................................................................................................3-8

2.2 Laboratory Testing...........................................................................................................3-8

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.1 Surface Conditions ..........................................................................................................3-9

3.2 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................3-9

3.3 Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................................................3-10

3.3.1 West Project Site (Existing Bldg. 2480 Site) ........................................................................ 3-10

3.3.2 East Project Site (Existing Bldg. 2460 Site)......................................................................... 3-10

4.0 DISCUSSION AND GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 3-12

4.1 Barracks and Facility Building Foundations .................................................................3-12

4.2 Site Grading & Drainage Requirements ........................................................................3-13

4.3 Building Slabs................................................................................................................3-14

4.4 Concrete Sidewalks .......................................................................................................3-15

4.5 POV & MEP Parking Pavements ..................................................................................3-15

5.0 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................... 3-18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Location Map

Figure 2 Regional Geology Map

Figure 3 Aerial Photograph of Project Location

Figure 4 Boring Location Map

Figure 5 COE Proposed Building / Parking Layout (Dated 09-06-07)

Figure 6 Geotechnical Recommendations – Concrete Sidewalk for

Pedestrian Traffic Only

Figure 7 Geotechnical Recommendations – Concrete Sidewalk Access to Mechanical Room

Figure 8 Geotechnical Recommendations – Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Thickness for POV

Figure 9 Geotechnical Recommendations – Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Thickness for MEP

100% SUBMITTAL 3-4

(06034) 100% Geotechnical Report Schofield Barracks COE RFP (08-01-07)

APPENDICES

Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Testing Appendix C Photographs of Selected Soil Samples

100% SUBMITTAL 3-5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical report presents our findings for the proposed FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557 Whole Barracks Complex project in Schofield Barracks, on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. The approximate project location and its general vicinity are shown on the Project Location Map, Figure 1, and in aerial photograph, Figure 3.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

It is our understanding that two (2) five-story barracks buildings, a two-story battalion headquarter facility (HQ), a one-story standard company operations facility (UNICOF), three

(3) privately owned vehicle (POV) parking lots, and a military equipment parking (MEP) lot will be constructed under the subject project in Schofield Barracks. Our geotechnical study was performed based on a preliminary layout of the proposed buildings, facilities, and parking lots as shown on a proposed site plan provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on September 9, 2006 (Figure 5).

We understand that the proposed barracks buildings and facilities will be constructed on a design build basis. However, the associated site work including grading of the project site, building of new sidewalks and concrete driveways around the buildings and facilities, and paving of the new parking lots will be performed on a conventional design–bid–build basis.

Based on the COE site plan, the proposed barracks buildings will both be located within the existing Building 2480 project site, and will have a footprint approximately three hundred twenty (320) feet in length and eighty five (85) feet in width. At this time there are no anticipated loading information currently available from the COE.

The proposed headquarter facility will be located in the southern section of the west project site, and will have a smaller footprint approximately one hundred fifteen (115) feet in length and one hundred (100) feet in width. The proposed standard company operations facility will be located in the existing Building 2460 or east project site. It will also be a small building with a footprint approximately one hundred forty (140) feet in length and eighty five

(85) feet in width. The building loads for these one to two-story structures are not available to YKE at this time. We anticipated these buildings will be lightly loaded based on the planned usage of the proposed facilities.

Two (2) of the three (3) proposed POV parking lots will be constructed within the west project site. The proposed northern POV parking lot will consist of fifty (50) POV parking spaces. The proposed southern POV parking lot will consist of eighty three (83) parking

100% SUBMITTAL 3-6

spaces along with a new pump house, new central plant and a new trash enclosure. The third proposed POV parking lot is located within the southern area of the east project site, and it will consist of one hundred seventy seven (177) POV parking spaces. The proposed MEP parking lot is located within the mid-section of the east project site and it will be approximately one hundred thirty (130) feet in length and one hundred (100) feet in width.

We also understand that the proposed Whole Barracks Complex will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 will include construction of the southern barracks building, the HQ facility and the southern, eighty three (83) stall POV parking lot. These facilities will be constructed within the southern section of the west project site (Figure 5).

Phase 2 will include construction of the northern barracks building, the UNICOF, and the remaining three (3) parking lots (two POV and one MEP parking lots). This phase will be constructed within the northern section of the west project site and the southern section of the east project site, respectively.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK

The purpose of this exploration was to explore the subsurface conditions at the project site and collect a generalized subsoil data set for developing geotechnical recommendations pertaining to the design and construction of the subject project.

The following scope of services was performed in general accordance with our revised fee proposal dated January 30, 2007 to Sam O. Hirota, Inc.:

• Drilled a total of eighteen (18) borings, including two (2) borings approximately 60 feet deep and one (1) boring approximately 25 feet deep at each of the two (2) proposed barracks building locations; two (2) borings each approximately 25 feet deep at both locations of the proposed HQ and UNICOF facility; and eight (8) borings each approximately 10 feet deep in the four (4) proposed parking lot areas.

• Performed soil sampling and classification during the field exploration, and conducted sample preservation for subsequent laboratory testing.

• Performed geotechnical laboratory tests, including moisture content and density determination tests, specific gravity tests, Atterberg limits tests, direct shear tests, swell potential tests, unconfined compression tests, Standard Proctor compaction tests, laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests, and consolidation tests.

• Analyzed the field exploration and laboratory test data for the development of geotechnical engineering evaluation findings and recommendations.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-7

• Prepared this geotechnical report that summarizes the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing, and presents our geotechnical engineering evaluation findings and recommendations.

• Conducted an in-house quality assurance review of the geotechnical recommendations and evaluation findings by a principal engineer of our firm.

The scope of our services presented herein was limited to a geotechnical exploration and did not include any civil, structural, hydrological, environmental and hazardous waste assessments/evaluations, permit application, and/or topographic survey of the project site.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-8

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION

The field exploration for this project was performed during the period from May 9, 2007 to May 22, 2007. The field exploration included drilling and sampling a total of eighteen (18) borings to the approximate depths of 11.5 to 61.5 feet below the existing ground surface.

The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Figure 4. A detailed description of the procedures used to perform the field exploration, along with the logs of these borings, is presented in Appendix A.

2.2 LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing was performed to verify our visual field classifications and to determine pertinent geotechnical engineering properties of selected soil samples retrieved in the exploratory borings. The geotechnical laboratory testing was performed by Construction Engineering Labs, Inc. in Pearl City, Advanced Terra Testing, Inc. in Lakewood, Colorado, and at YKE’s laboratory in Honolulu. A description of the laboratory test procedures is presented in Appendix B.

The tests performed include moisture content and density determination tests, Atterberg limits tests, specific gravity tests, swell potential tests, unconfined compression tests, Standard Proctor compaction & CBR tests, direct shear tests, and consolidation tests.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-9

3.0 SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS

The project site is located in the southeast part of Schofield Barracks near Lyman Gate. It is located at the intersection of Lyman Road and Flagler Road. Flagler Road bisects the project site into two smaller sections, the west (Bldg. 2480) and east (Bldg. 2460) sites, respectively.

Based on our visual observations of the existing grades, the project site appears to be at the lowest point within the surrounding area and is generally flat with the southeastern quadrant gently sloping downward from the west at approximately 850 feet MSL towards the southeast at approximately 846 feet MSL.

The Bldg. 2480 and Bldg. 2460 sites are currently being used as maintenance yards for Army vehicles, trucks and heavy equipment. Both sites are sparsely occupied by several maintenance facilities, wash racks, and storage containers. The Bldg. 2480 site is mostly covered by old asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement approximately three (3) inches in thickness. The Bldg. 2460 site is mostly covered by newer AC pavement also approximately three (3) inches in thickness. The remaining areas on both sites are open grass lawn.

Overhead utility poles and lines were observed within both sites. Based on available records, underground utilities (i.e. water lines, sewer lines, drainage, data communication, etc) are also present within both sites. An unlined drainage ditch runs parallel to Lyman Road directly south of the project site, and another unlined drainage ditch runs to the north of the Bldg. 2480 site.

3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY

The Regional Geology Map of the project area and its vicinity is presented on Figure 2. The Island of Oahu was formed by the coalescing of two separate volcanic islands formed by the Waianae Volcano in northwest Oahu and the Koolau Volcano in southeast Oahu. The Waianae Volcano first ceased eruptions over 3.6 million years ago. The Koolau Volcano basalts filled the sea between the two islands and lapped over the older Waianae Volcano basalts until ceasing eruptions over 2.6 million years ago. Basalt lava flows in the high ground weathered, forming soil deposits to depths of more than two hundred feet. Tropical rains eroded the highlands, removing the silt and clay soils derived from the older, weathered basalt, and carried them down towards the lower reaches of the volcanoes, where they were deposited in an alluvial environment.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-10

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our interpretation of the borings drilled for this project, and YKE’s general experience in this area. No groundwater was encountered in any of the borings during the field exploration, however, local perched subsurface seepage zones and groundwater can be anticipated during or after rainy periods and/or high flood stages in nearby streams. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report.

The anticipated subsurface conditions at the proposed barracks, facilities, and parking lots are based on the available boring information and are summarized in the following subsections of the report.

3.3.1 West Project Site (Existing Bldg. 2480 Site)

Based on the available boring information, the existing surface in the west project site is mostly covered by approximately 3-inch old AC pavements on top of an existing gravel base course approximately fifteen (15) inches in thickness. Below the old pavement structures is a fill layer of generally stiff to hard, brown to reddish brown or dark brown silts with traces of gravel to the approximate depth of five (5) feet.

Underlying the generally stiff to hard fill crust is an older alluvial deposit of very stiff to hard, reddish brown to brown silts to a depth of approximately thirty (30) feet below the existing ground surface. The older alluvium then grades to a brown to light brown elastic silt with different color mottles and traces of black or saprolitic basalt gravel at various depths.

These older alluvial deposits contain basalt cobbles and boulders encountered in the exploratory borings at various depths.

Based on our laboratory testing and our past project experience of the subsurface soils in the general area, it appears that the silts and elastic silt will exhibit generally a low expansion potential upon wetting.

3.3.2 East Project Site (Existing Bldg. 2460 Site)

The subsoil conditions at the east project site are generally the same as at the west project site except that the east site is covered with new AC pavement approximately three (3) inches in thickness.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-11

Below the near surface fill crust with stiff to hard silt down to approximately 5 feet depth, the east project site is generally underlain by an older alluvial deposit of very stiff to hard, reddish brown to brown silts to a depth of approximately (30) feet below the ground surface.

The older alluvium then grades to a brown to light brown elastic silt with different color mottles and trace, black or saprolitic basalt gravel at various depths. These older alluvial deposits contain basalt cobbles and boulders encountered in the exploratory borings at various depths.

Based on our laboratory testing and our past project experience of the subsoils in the general area, it appears that the silts and elastic silts will exhibit generally low expansion potential upon wetting.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-12

4.0 DISCUSSION AND GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the field exploration results, we believe that the project site is generally suitable for the proposed construction.

Since the proposed barracks buildings and facilities will be constructed on a design-build basis, their individual foundation and slab systems will be selected and designed by the successful bidder and its Geotechnical and Structural engineers. YKE’s geotechnical discussion and recommendations as presented herein are solely to provide a conceptual basis for bidding and are not intended to be used for detailed design by the design-build contractor, as complete design criteria are not available at this time.

Based on the available subsoil information, we believe that the building foundations can be supported by individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings bearing on the near surface old fill layer with the use of a moderate allowable bearing value for design. Should the required sizes of the individual or wall footings be too large due to high building loads, a mat foundation could be used under the entire building footprint to support each one of the two (2) proposed barracks buildings to more evenly distribute the building loads and minimize the potential foundation settlements.

4.1 BARRACKS AND FACILITY BUILDING FOUNDATIONS

Based on the subsoil conditions encountered at the project site, we believe that the proposed barracks buildings and facility structures can be supported by individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings bearing on the old fill materials of stiff to hard silts encountered at shallow depths. However, a moderate allowable bearing value should be used to design the footing foundations bearing on the near surface old fill materials, as older fill materials often have widely varying degrees of compaction that could not be detected by a limited number of exploratory borings, yet could contribute to significant foundation settlements.

Alternately, a large mat foundation under the entire building footprint could be used to distribute more evenly the anticipated high column and wall loads for each of the two (2) proposed barracks buildings. This will reduce the bearing pressures from the 5-story buildings on the fill materials to within a moderate allowable bearing value as suggested below.

To provide lateral resistance, the mat or footing foundations should be embedded a minimum of two (2) feet below the adjacent finished grades. In addition, the excavated foundation

100% SUBMITTAL 3-13

subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches below the subgrade surface, moisture condition to 2% wet of the optimum moisture content, re-compacted to 95% maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557 Test Method, and kept moist prior to placement of the building slabs.

Provided the above recommendations are followed, we believe that a moderate allowable bearing value of up to 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) could be used to design the mat or shallow spread footing foundation support to the proposed buildings and facilities. The allowable bearing value can be increased by up to one-third (1/3) for the foundation design under short term or transient loading conditions such as seismic and wind loads.

If a higher allowable foundation bearing value is required for design, the mat or footing foundations could be embedded deeper to bear directly on the very stiff to hard older alluvial deposits that were encountered at approximately five (5) feet below the existing ground surface.

Based on the allowable bearing value of 2,500 psf, we estimate that the anticipated mat or footing foundation settlements could be less than one (1) inch total and one-half (1/2) of an inch differential depending upon the actual design loading and the sizes of the foundations to be determined by the design-build contractor.

Resistance to lateral loads acting on the proposed buildings and facilities may be obtained by passive earth pressure developed against the mat and/or footing foundations and frictional resistance developed between the foundations and the recompacted subgrade. We believe that an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth could be used to determine the passive earth pressure and a frictional coefficient of 0.3 could be used to compute the frictional resistance based on the subsoil conditions encountered in our borings.

4.2 SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS

A 90% design analysis site grading plan was provided by the COE on July 19, 2007. Based on the COE 90% DA site grading plan for the proposed Whole Barracks Complex, typical cuts on the order of one (1) to three (3) feet are anticipated within the generally flat west project site POV parking areas. Larger cuts of four (4) to five (5) feet due to surface drainage grading are anticipated within the east project site MEP and POV parking areas.

Building finished floor elevations are provided within the 90% DA site grading plan, but at this time the type of foundation system is not known since it will be selected by the design build contractor. However, no major cuts and fills are anticipated for the building foundations.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-14

In general, all areas within the project limits should be thoroughly cleared and grubbed of vegetation, rubbish, debris, and any other deleterious materials prior to the commencement of earthwork for the project. Any unsuitable materials and boulders encountered at and below the subgrade surface should be removed and replaced with a suitable backfill material, such as an imported non-expansive granular select borrow material, compacted to no less than 95% of its maximum dry density per the latest procedure of ASTM D-1557 Test Method.

With a generally low expansive potential, the near surface old fill materials of stiff to hard silts with traces of gravel could be re-used as a source of fill or backfill materials outside of the building areas. Deeper excavation into the underlying older alluvial deposits of very stiff to hard silts is not anticipated; however, the materials could also be used as a source of fill or backfill materials if available.

If necessary, imported non-expansive granular select borrow materials should consist of well-graded granular materials, free of organic matter, debris, other substances, and particles greater than three (3) inches in maximum dimension. The imported select fill material shall be non-expansive and have less than 15% fines passing the No. 200 sieve. It should have a CBR value of at least 25, a liquid limit of 25 percent or less, and a plasticity index of 10 or less. The fill and backfill should be placed in maximum 10-inch thick loose lifts, and recompacted to a minimum of 95% maximum dry density per the latest procedure of ASTM D-1557 Test Method.

Positive drainage measures should be provided where applicable, to divert or discharge storm runoffs on the ground surface to suitable outlets without saturating the underlying cohesive, silty soils near the building foundations, which may cause the loss of foundation support.

The contractor should be required to perform proper quality control density testing during fill and subgrade compaction in accordance with the project specification requirements. The testing should be performed in the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record.

4.3 BUILDING SLABS

Since the proposed buildings and facilities will be constructed by design-build, it is not known at this time what kind of building slab system(s) would be used for the proposed barracks, HQ and COF facilities.

In general, we believe that the stiff to hard silt subgrade is competent for supporting the building slabs on grade since its expansion potential is not considered significant. However, we also believe that it will be prudent for the design-build contractor to scarify the subgrade

100% SUBMITTAL 3-15

soil to a depth of 8 inches below the subgrade surface, moisture condition to 2% wet of the optimum moisture content, re-compact it to 95% maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557 Test Method, and keep it moist prior to placement of the building slabs. Also any unsuitable materials and boulders encountered at the slab subgrade should be removed and replaced with a suitable backfill material, such as an imported non-expansive granular select borrow material, compacted to no less than 95% of its maximum dry density per the latest procedure of ASTM D-1557 Test Method. Imported non-expansive granular select borrow material recommendations are provided in Section 4.2 Site Grading & Drainage.

4.4 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS

It is our understanding that the project is under the jurisdiction of Military Construction Transformation and should be designed using the least costly alternative. Based on these design criteria and the COE design manual, TM 5-822-5, we recommend that the following minimum thickness design be used for the new concrete sidewalk to be subject to pedestrian traffic only (see Figure 6):

Concrete Sidewalk for Pedestrian Traffic Only

4 inch Concrete Slab 4 inch Base Course (95% Compaction) Minimum 8 inch Total Thickness

Heavier loadings are anticipated from utility pickup truck traffic on the proposed sidewalk access to a mechanical room in each of the proposed barracks buildings. Therefore, a thicker reinforced concrete slab is required for the sidewalk access as follows based on TM 5-822-5 (see Figure 7):

Concrete Sidewalk Access to Mechanical Room

5 inch Reinforced Concrete Slab (Minimum) 6 inch Base Course (95% Compaction) 11 inch Total Thickness

4.5 POV & MEP PARKING PAVEMENTS

Based on the 90% DA site grading plan provided by the COE, the west project site will typically have cuts of approximately one (1) to three (3) feet and the east project site will typically have cuts of approximately four (4) to five (5) feet. To be prudent, it is recommended that the pavement subgrade is moisture conditioned to 2% wet of the optimum

100% SUBMITTAL 3-16

moisture content, re-compacted to 95% maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557 Test Method, and kept moist prior to placement of the new parking pavements.

Based on TM 5-822-5, Pavement Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas (June 1992) and the available project information, listed below are the design assumptions made for the proposed POV, that would also be subject to infrequent trash truck traffic and occasional emergency vehicle traffic such as heavy fire trucks (see Figure 8):

100% SUBMITTAL 3-17

Traffic Category = III (15 % two axle trucks, 1 % three, four, and five axle trucks) (TM 5-822-5, pg. 3-1)

Road Class = E (TM 5-822-2, Table 1-1) Design Index = 3 (TM 5-822-5, Table 3-1) Subgrade CBR = 5 Sub-Base CBR = 30 (TM 5-822-5, pg. 5-1) Base Course CBR = 50 (TM 5-822-5, pg. 6-2)

Based on these design assumptions, a minimum total thickness of 14.5 inches is calculated as follows:

2.5 inch Asphalt Concrete 4 inch Base Course (95% Compaction) 8 inch Sub-base Course (95% Compaction)

14.5 inch Total Thickness

Based on TM 5-822-5 and the available project information, listed below are the design assumptions made for the proposed MEP (see Figure 9):

Traffic Category = V (TM 5-822-5, pg. 3-2) Road Class = E (TM 5-822-2, Table 1-1) Design Index = 7 (TM 5-822-5, Table 3-1) Subgrade CBR = 5 Sub-Base CBR = 30 (TM 5-822-5, pg. 5-1) Base Course CBR = 50 (TM 5-822-5, pg. 6-2)

Based on these design assumptions, a minimum total thickness of 22 inches is calculated for the proposed MEP pavement as follows:

4 inch Asphalt Concrete 4 inch Base Course (95% Compaction) 14 inch Sub-base Course (95% Compaction) 22 inch Total Thickness

100% SUBMITTAL 3-18

5.0 LIMITATIONS

The geotechnical recommendations and conclusions presented in this report are based on the assumption that the scope of the construction project, as described, does not change appreciably and that significant variations in soil properties from those encountered by our field exploration do not occur. The borings are widely spaced; therefore, some variation in soil properties between the borings is likely. If any conditions notably different from those described herein are encountered during construction, we should be immediately notified.

The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report were developed assuming the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record will be retained to observe actual field conditions encountered during construction to verify the applicability of the recommendation presented in this report, and to recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures, if conditions differ from those described here in.

This report was prepared for use by Sam O. Hirota, Inc. and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. The geotechnical opinions and recommendations given in this report are based on our analysis of the data collected for this project. Additional conclusions and/or recommendations made from the data by others are solely their own responsibility.

Our analysis is based on the data obtained from the borings at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Map. If project plans or requirements change, the conclusions and recommendations provided herein by YKE may need to be revised. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may become evident during construction and will likely differ from those discussed in this report. No warranty is included, either expressed or implied, that the actual conditions encountered will conform exactly to the conditions described herein. Qualified geotechnical engineers should be retained by the prospective bidders to further explore the subsurface conditions based on their individual design concepts and subsequently to also observe construction of the proposed design-build sections of the project.

Our services were provided in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other professional consultants under similar circumstances. No other representation is intended or implied.

FIGURE 1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

WHOLE BARRACKS COMPLEX

FY08 PN061873/PN059557

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project No. 06034

REFERENCE:

U.S. Department of Defense U.S.G.S. Topographic Map, 1998 Schofield Barracks Quadrangle Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

0 1000 2000 FEET

APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 INCH = 1000 FEET

Location Map

Hawaiian Islands

PROJECT LOCATION

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

Reyn Text Box 3-19

FIGURE 2

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP

PROPOSED WHOLE BARRACKS COMPLEX

FY08 PN061873/PN059557

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project No. 06034

0 1000 2000 FEET

APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 INCH = 1000 FEET

Base from the U.S. Geological Survey Map Surveyed in 1927-30 in Cooperation with the Territory of Hawaii and the War Department

Location Map

Hawaiian Islands

Pa

Pa

Tkb

LEGEND:

Pa

Tkb KOOLAU VOLCANIC SERIES

CONSOLIDATED

NONCALCAREOUS DEPOSITS

PROJECT LOCATION

N

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

Reyn

3-20

Reyn

3-21

FIGURE 4

BORING LOCATION MAP

WHOLE BARRACKS COMPLEX

FY08 PN061873/PN059557

Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project No. 06034

NOTES:

0 80 160 FEET

APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 INCH = 80 FEET

Boring Locations

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC kekoa

3-22 kekoa

3-23

FIGURE 6

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS - CONCRETE SIDEWALK

FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC ONLY

FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557 Whole Barracks Complex

Schofield Barracks, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii Project No. 06034

DRAFT

FOR REVIEW ONLY

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

Reyn

3-24

FIGURE 7

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS - CONCRETE SIDEWALK

ACCESS TO MECHANICAL ROOM

FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557 Whole Barracks Complex

Schofield Barracks, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii Project No. 06034

DRAFT

FOR REVIEW ONLY

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

Reyn

3-25

FIGURE 8

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS -

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS for POV PAVEMENTS FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557 Whole Barracks Complex

Schofield Barracks, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii Project No. 06034

DRAFT

FOR REVIEW ONLY

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

Reyn

3-26

FIGURE 9

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS -

ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESS for MEP PAVEMENTS FY08 PN 061873 / PN 059557 Whole Barracks Complex

Schofield, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii Project No. 06034

DRAFT

FOR REVIEW ONLY

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

Reyn

3-27

100% SUBMITTAL 3-28

APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

A.1 Exploratory Borings A.2 Soil Sampling

APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING

B.1 Moisture Content and Dry Density Tests B.2 Atterberg Limits (Plasticity Index) Tests B.3 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test B.4 Unconfined Compression Test B.5 California Bearing Ratio Test B.6 Standard Proctor Compaction Test B.7 Swell Potential Test B.8 Direct Shear Test

APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS OF SELECTED SOIL AND CORE SAMPLES

LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES

Figure A-1 Unified Soil Classification System Figure A-2 Log of Boring Keys Figures A-3 through A-20 Logs of Borings Figure B-1 through B-2 Plasticity Chart Figure B-3 through B- 7 One-Dimensional Consolidation Test Figure B-8 through B-9 Unconfined Compression Test Figure B-10 through B-16 California Bearing Ratio Test Figure B-17 through B-24 Standard Proctor Compaction Test Figure B-25 through B-29 Direct Shear Test Figures C-1 through C-4 Photographs of Selected Soil and Core Samples

100% SUBMITTAL 3-29

APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

A.1 EXPLORATORY BORINGS

The field exploration consisted of the drilling and sampling of a total of eighteen (18) borings, B-1 through B-18, on May 10 through 22, 2007. The location of the project site is indicated on Figure 1. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 4.

The borings were drilled by Hawaii Test Borings using a Mobile Drill B-53 drill rig with 4-inch solid-stem, continuous flight augers. The drilling method used is noted on the Logs of Borings, which are presented on Figures A-3 through A-20.

After drilling, the borings were backfilled with the drill cuttings and imported gravel as necessary, and sealed with cement grout in the top 5 feet.

A.2 SOIL SAMPLING

Both relatively undisturbed and disturbed soil samples were obtained using a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler and a Dames & Moore type “U” sampler. The SPT or Dames & Moore sampler was driven into the ground by successive blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler was driven for a total distance of 18 inches, and blow counts for each 6 inches of penetration were recorded. Where the SPT sampler was used, this procedure followed the ASTM D3441 standard for determining the standard penetration resistance of soil. Blow counts for the last 12 inches of penetration are noted on the Logs of Borings.

Soil samples recovered from the field were initially classified according to the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2488 standards and the Unified Soil Classification System, shown on Figure A-1. These classifications were later refined according to ASTM D2487 based on the results of laboratory tests performed on selected samples. Samples recovered during the field exploration program were transported to our office in Honolulu for further examination and laboratory testing.

3-30

3-31

3-32

3-33

3-34

3-35

3-36

3-37

3-38

3-39

3-40

3-41

3-42

3-43

3-44

3-45

3-46

3-47

3-48

3-49

3-50

3-51

3-52

3-53

3-54

3-55

3-56

3-57

100% SUBMITTAL 3-58

To verify field classifications, selected soil samples obtained during the field exploration were laboratory tested for moisture contents, Atterberg limits (plasticity index), swell potential, unconfined compressive strength, standard proctor compaction, California Bearing Ratio, consolidation test and direct shear tests. The tests and results are described in the following paragraphs.

B.1 MOISTURE CONTENT AND DRY DENSITY

Selected soil samples were tested to measure their moisture contents and dry densities. The tests were performed in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D2216. The moisture contents and dry densities are presented on the Log of Borings at the appropriate sample depths.

B.2 ATTERBERG LIMITS (PLASTICITY INDEX)

To assist in classifying the soils, Plasticity Index tests were performed on selected samples.

The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D4318. The results are presented in Figure B-1 and B-2, and also in the Logs of Borings at the appropriate sample depths.

B.3 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST

The compressibility of a relatively undisturbed soil samples were determined by the performance of one-dimensional consolidation test in accordance with ASTM D2435. The results are presented in Figure B-3 through B-7.

B.4 UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

The unconfined compressive strength of selected silt samples were determined by the performance of unconfined compressive strength tests in accordance with ASTM D2938.

The results are presented in Figure B-8 and B-9.

B.5 CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO (CBR)

Laboratory CBR Tests were performed on near surface bulk samples obtained within the parking areas. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1883-99 test procedures. The test results are presented in Figure B-10 through B-16.

B.6 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST

Standard Proctor Compaction Tests were performed on near surface bulk samples obtained within the parking areas. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D668-00a test procedures. The test results are presented in Figure B-17 through B-24.

100% SUBMITTAL 3-59

B.7 SWELL POTENTIAL TEST

Swell potential tests were performed on selected samples that were saturated by water. The amount of swell was measured until the time rate of swell slowed. The test results are presented in the table below.

Swell

Location Depth

(ft) Type

Water Content

Dry Density

(pcf)

Water Content

Dry Density

(pcf) Load (psf)

Recorded Expansion

Potential (%) B-2 2.5 Undisturbed 70.9 47.07 83.5 47.26 50 0.00 B-3 2.5 Undisturbed 27.7 91.59 31.7 91.52 50 0.08 B-3 5 Undisturbed 26.1 82.15 38.2 81.99 50 0.20 B-5 5 Undisturbed 21.1 86.67 37.1 86.3 0 0.60 B-9 2 Undisturbed 32.3 88.14 36.4 88.05 20 0.19

B-11 2 Undisturbed 31.2 79.76 35.8 79.68 20 0.02 B-15 2 Undisturbed 13.1 76.85 43.6 76.59 20 0.34 B-15 5 Undisturbed 33.8 77.46 41.1 77.26 50 0.25 B-16 5 Undisturbed 31.9 90.66 34.3 90.29 20 0.43

B.8 DIRECT SHEAR TEST

This test was performed to determine the consolidated drained shear strength of a soil material in direct shear. The test was performed by deforming a specimen at a controlled strain rate on or near a single shear plane determined by the configuration of the apparatus.

Three specimens are tested for each sampled depth, each under a different normal load, to determine the effects upon shear resistance and displacement, and strength properties such as Mohr strength envelopes. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D3080. The test results are presented in Figure B-25 through B-29.

CL CH

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

, P

I

Boring Depth (ft)

LL

PL

PI

% Classification

Bulk Sample 2.0 46 36 10 Silt (ML)

3 2 - 5 37 30 7 Silt (ML)

16 3.5 61 40 22 Elastic silt (MH)

2 7.0 46 38 8 Silt (ML)

16 7.0 52 36 17 Elastic silt (MH)

14 15.0 76 47 29 Elastic silt (MH)

16 15.0 50 42 7 Silt (ML)

16 20.0 59 44 15 Elastic silt (MH)

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 PLASTICITY CHART Project: Whole Barracks Complex Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-1

CL-ML ML MH

0 20 40 60 80 100

LIQUID LIMIT, LL

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC 8/1/2007 (06034) Plasticity 0 ft - 20ft

Reyn

3-60

CL CH

PL

AS

TI

C

IT

Y

IN

D

EX

, P

I

Boring Depth (ft)

LL

PL

PI

% Classification

16 25.0 49 42 7 Silt (ML)

12 35.0 54 38 15 Elastic silt (MH)

14 40.0 85 42 43 Elastic silt (MH)

16 45.0 81 42 39 Elastic silt (MH)

12 50.0 81 44 37 Elastic silt (MH)

16 55.0 92 49 43 Elastic silt (MH)

14 60.0 93 46 47 Elastic silt (MH)

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 PLASTICITY CHART Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-2

CL-ML ML MH

0 20 40 60 80 100

LIQUID LIMIT, LL

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC 8/1/2007 (06034) Plasticity 25ft - 60 ft

Reyn

3-61

B-10 10 ft Silt (ML) 9000 0.005 0.193 84.2 38.1 -- --

CONSOLIDATION TEST

Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-3 gd

(pcf) Boring

Depth

(ft) Description po

(psf) CcCs w

LL

PI

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557

Project: Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

STRESS, PSF

V O

ID

R

A T

IO

e

Yogi Kwong Engineers,LLC 8/1/2007 (06034) Consolidation B10 10 ft

Reyn

3-62

B-11 2.0 Dark Brown to Brown Silt (ML) 2655 0.017 0.339 79.7 35.8 -- --

Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-4 w

LL

PI

Cs

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557

Project: Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii gd

(pcf) Boring

Depth

(ft) Description po

(psf) Cc

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

STRESS, PSF

V O

ID

R

A T

IO

e

Yogi Kwong Engineers,LLC8/1/2007 (06034) Consolidation B11 2 ft

Reyn

3-63

B-11 50 ft Light to Reddish Brown Elastic Silt (MH) 6291 0.031 0.296 73.5 49.2 -- --

Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-5 w

LL

PI

Cs

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557

Project: Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii gd

(pcf) Boring

Depth

(ft) Description po

(psf) Cc

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

STRESS, PSF

V O

ID

R

A T

IO

e

Yogi Kwong Engineers,LLC8/1/2007 (06034) Consolidation B11 50 ft

Reyn

3-64

B-12 20 ft Orange Brown Silt (ML) 2825 0.021 0.378 66.3 49.9 -- --

Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-6 gd

(pcf) Boring

Depth

(ft) Description po

(psf) CcCs w

LL

PI

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557

Project: Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

STRESS, PSF

V O

ID

R

A T

IO

e

Yogi Kwong Engineers,LLC8/1/2007 (06034) Consolidation B12 20 ft

Reyn

3-65

B-16 5 ft Brown Silt (ML) 20033 0.037 0.126 90.6 34.6 -- --

Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-7 gd

(pcf) Boring

Depth

(ft) Description po

(psf) CcCs w

LL

PI

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557

Project: Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

0.7

0.8

0.9

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

STRESS, PSF

V O

ID

R

A T

IO

e

Yogi Kwong Engineers,LLC8/1/2007 (06034) Consolidation B16 5 ft

Reyn

3-66

10000

11000

12000

13000

ST

R

ES

S, P

SF

Boring Depth

(ft) Description Type "U" Sampler Blow

Counts wo γd

(pcf) εf

UCS

(psf)

B-16 2.0 Brown Silt 102 32.0 88.8 1.6 6002

B-10 5.0 Brown Silt 50 - 2" 28.0 92.2 1.8 7969

B-11 5.0 Brown Silt 127 33.3 92.2 2.8 11778

B-14 10.0 Brown Silt 71 - 4" 31.9 87.1 1.2 4450

B-2 10.0 Brown Silt 120 36.7 81.2 1.2 3996

B-11 15.0 Brown Silt 52 39.3 78.7 2.3 6521

B-10 20.0 Brown Silt 41 44.4 78.0 3.0 2395

B-11 25.0 Light Brown Silt 19 36.0 73.2 1.6 2105

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-8 Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 Project: Whole Barracks Complex

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AXIAL STRAIN ε, %

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC8/1/2007 (06034) Unconfined Compressive Strength (ATT) UC Figure B-8

Reyn

3-67

10000

11000

12000

13000

ST

R

ES

S, P

SF

Boring Depth

(ft) Description Type "U" Sampler

Blow Counts wo γd

(pcf) εf

UCS

(psf)

B-11 30.0 Light Brown Elastic Silt 24 51.2 68.3 3.8 2340

B-14 30.0 Light Brown Elastic Silt 42 28.1 73.9 0.7 2063

B-16 40.0 Brown Elastic Silt 52 52.0 70.6 5.4 3840

B-12 45.0 Orange Brown Elastic Silt 42 46.0 75.0 3.5 2282

B-12 55.0 Orange Brown Elastic Silt 35 61.0 63.1 3.4 2088

B-11 60.0 Brown Elastic Silt 29 53.1 68.4 5.8 1783

B-16 60.0 Brown Elastic Silt 55 60.0 64.3 3.8 4406

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-9 Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 Project: Whole Barracks Complex

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

AXIAL STRAIN ε, %

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC8/1/2007 (06034) Unconfined Compressive Strength (ATT) UC Figure B-9

Reyn

3-68

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N R

ES

IS

TA

N

C E, p si

ASTM TEST SPECIFICATION: D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for CBR of Laboratory-Compacted Soil Boring HA 1 Depth, 2 ft Test No. 1 2 3

Water Content, % 27.7

Dry Density, pcf 82.8

Water Content, % 29.5

Dry Density, pcf 82.3

Linearity Correction (in.) 0

Surcharge Weight, lbs 10

Total Swell, % 0.6

CBR Value @ 0.1" 5.1

CBR Value @ 0.2" 5.2

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 LABORATORY CBR TEST Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-10

In iti al Fi na l

Bulk sample

Description Reddish Brown Silt

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(γdmax, pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content (wopt, %)

85.3 28

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PENETRATION, inches

8/1/2007 (06034) CBR (std. compaction) Lab CBR (HA1)

Reyn

3-69

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N R

ES

IS

TA

N

C E, p si

ASTM TEST SPECIFICATION: D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for CBR of Laboratory-Compacted Soil Boring 1 Depth, 2 ft Test No. 1 2 3

Water Content, % 31.5

Dry Density, pcf 91.6

Water Content, % 33.7

Dry Density, pcf 90.8

Linearity Correction (in.) 0

Surcharge Weight, lbs 10

Total Swell, % 0.9

CBR Value @ 0.1" 13.7

CBR Value @ 0.2" 10

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 LABORATORY CBR TEST Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-11

Fi na l

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(γdmax, pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content (wopt, %)

94.3 29.8

Description Brown Clayey Silt

In iti al

Bulk sample

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PENETRATION, inches

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC8/1/2007 (06034) CBR (std. compaction) Lab CBR B-1

Reyn

3-70

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N R

ES

IS

TA

N

C E, p sI

ASTM TEST SPECIFICATION: D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for CBR of Laboratory-Compacted Soil Boring 5&6 Depth, 2 ft Test No. 1 2 3

Water Content, % 24.0

Dry Density, pcf 91.8

Water Content, % 29.6

Dry Density, pcf 91.2

Linearity Correction (in.) 0

Surcharge Weight, lbs 10

Total Swell, % 0.7

CBR Value @ 0.1" 5.5

CBR Value @ 0.2" 5.6

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 LABORATORY CBR TEST Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-12

Fi na l

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(γdmax, pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content (wopt, %)

96.3 23.6

Bulk sample

Description Reddish Brown Clayey Silt

In iti al

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PENETRATION, inches

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC8/1/2007 (06034) CBR (std. compaction) Lab CBR B-5&B-6

Reyn

3-71

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N R

ES

IS

TA

N

C E, p si

ASTM TEST SPECIFICATION: D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for CBR of Laboratory-Compacted Soil Boring 7 Depth, 2 ft Test No. 1 2 3

Water Content, % 26.7

Dry Density, pcf 96.3

Water Content, % 27.7

Dry Density, pcf 95.8

Linearity Correction (in.) 0

Surcharge Weight, lbs 10

Total Swell, % 0.5

CBR Value @ 0.1" 20

CBR Value @ 0.2" 14.7

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 LABORATORY CBR TEST Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-13

Description Brown Clayey Silt

In iti al

Bulk sample

Fi na l

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(γdmax, pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content (wopt, %)

99 25.7

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PENETRATION, inches

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC8/1/2007 (06034) CBR (std. compaction) Lab CBR B-7

Reyn

3-72

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N R

ES

IS

TA

N

C E, p si

ASTM TEST SPECIFICATION: D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for CBR of Laboratory-Compacted Soil Boring 8 Depth, 2 ft Test No. 1 2 3

Water Content, % 25.5

Dry Density, pcf 89.5

Water Content, % 29.0

Dry Density, pcf 88.5

Linearity Correction (in.) 0

Surcharge Weight, lbs 10

Total Swell, % 1.1

CBR Value @ 0.1" 2.4

CBR Value @ 0.2" 2.4

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 LABORATORY CBR TEST Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-14

Fi na l

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(γdmax, pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content (wopt, %)

95.4 27.9

Description Brown Clayey Silt

In iti al

Bulk sample

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PENETRATION, inches

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC8/1/2007 (06034) CBR (std. compaction) Lab CBR B-8

Reyn

3-73

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N R

ES

IS

TA

N

C E, p si

ASTM TEST SPECIFICATION: D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for CBR of Laboratory-Compacted Soil Boring 17 Depth, 2 ft Test No. 1 2 3

Water Content, % 36.9

Dry Density, pcf 80.6

Water Content, % 37.9

Dry Density, pcf 79.9

Linearity Correction (in.) 0

Surcharge Weight, lbs 10

Total Swell, % 0.9

CBR Value @ 0.1" 3.3

CBR Value @ 0.2" 3.2

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 LABORATORY CBR TEST Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-15

Description Brown Clayey Silt

In iti al

Bulk sample

Fi na l

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density

(γdmax, pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content (wopt, %)

85.1 34.7

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

PENETRATION, inches

Yogi Kwong Engineers, LLC8/1/2007 (06034) CBR (std. compaction) Lab CBR B-17

Reyn

3-74

PE

N

ET

R

AT

IO

N R

ES

IS

TA

N

C E, p si

ASTM TEST SPECIFICATION: D 1883-05 Standard Test Method for CBR of Laboratory-Compacted Soil Boring 18 Depth, 2 ft Test No. 1 2 3

Water Content, % 24.0

Dry Density, pcf 90.6

Water Content, % 28.5

Dry Density, pcf 89.2

Linearity Correction (in.) 0

Surcharge Weight, lbs 10

Total Swell, % 1.5

CBR Value @ 0.1" 2.2

CBR Value @ 0.2" 2.4

Project: FY08 MCA PN 061873 / PN 059557 LABORATORY CBR TEST Whole Barracks Complex

Location: Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii Project Number: 06034 FIGURE B-16

Fi na l

Standard Proctor…