PRARNG_MATES_Ph_1_Bid_Final_ 100_ _GeotechReport_013114.pdf

The attached is the Geotechnical Investigation Report that was completed in October-2012 for the PRARNG Camp Santiago MATES Phase I Addition Project shall be considered Supplemental Information Only (i.e. non-binding) for the Contractor's use. The Contract Plans and Specifications have taken into consideration the discussions and recommendations in the report and govern as construction requirements. The Contractor is required to verify all existing conditions necessary for proper installation, construction, and operation of all elements indicted in, and in accordance with the Contract documents.

Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed MATES At Camp Santiago

Salinas, Puerto Rico

Job No. 1195

October 27, 2012

Prepared for:

Arch. David Everett

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

125 Broadway Ave.

Oak Bridge, TN 37830

Prepared by:

MGV GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, PSC

PO Box 2636

Vega Baja, PR 00694-2636

G eo te ch ni ca l E ng in ee rs -E ar th

S ci en ce

C on su lta nt s

So il an d

C on st ru ct io n M at er ia ls

T es tin g

La bo ra to ry

Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed MATES

October 27, 2012

Prepared by:

10/27/12 Marcus García Vincenty, M.E.C.E.,P.E., Lic. #15928 Date Geotechnical Engineer

This report consists of 51 Pages

MATES

Camp Santiago Salinas, Puerto Rico October 27, 2012

Table of Content iii

1. INTRODUCTION

2. scope of work

3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Site Description

3.2 Project Description

3.3 Geologic Setting

4. FIELD EXPLORATION

5. LABORATORY TESTING

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Borehole Results

6.2 Laboratory Results

6.3 Groundwater conditions

7. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 2009 IBC Code

7.2 Seismic Liquefaction

7.3 Foundation Recommendations

7.3.1 Conventional Spread Footings

7.3.2 Slabs On Ground

7.4 Subgrade Modulus and CBR Values

7.5 Earthwork Recommendations

7.5.1 Clearing Operations

7.5.2 Cut Procedures

7.5.3 Proof Rolling

7.5.4 Fill Requirements

7.5.5 Protection of Fill During Construction

7.5.6 Runoff Waters

7.5.7 Erosion Control

8. GENERAL CONDITIONS

8.1 Post-Investigation Services

8.2 Uncertainties and Limitations

9. REFERENCES

9.1 Standards, Codes, and Procedures Cited

Appendix A - Figures

1. Site Location Map

2. Geologic Map

3. Boring Location Plan

4. Uniform Fill Thickness Criteria

Appendix B - Boring Logs

Table of Content iv

Appendix C - Classification Tests

Appendix D - Design Spectrum Data

Appendix E - Declaration

Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed MATES

1. INTRODUCTION

A new structure has been proposed in the Municipality of Salinas, Puerto Rico. This report summarizes current geotechnical data concerning the proposed project, based on the information submitted to this office by David Everett, A.I.A. from Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.. The scope of work of this exploration follows instructions from Arch. Everett as per our approved proposal No. 1402 and signed contract between the two parts.

2. SCOPE OF WORK

The main purpose of the investigation was to analyze the existing subsoil conditions to provide with the geotechnical parameters required for design and construction of the project. Among them, this report gathered the findings and recommendations regarding the following topics:

a. Description of subsurface conditions, boring logs and boring location plan.

b. Groundwater conditions.

c. Seismic considerations per International Building Code (IBC), 2009 edition, and

Seismic Hazard Analysis, including liquefaction potential.

d. Identification of any potentially expansive soils and guidelines.

e. Recommended foundation system, allowable soil bearing capacity and foundation settlement estimates.

f. Modulus of subgrade reaction for use in designing slabs on grade and CBR values for use in pavement design after subgrade preparation.

g. Fill, backfill and compaction recommendations including whether on-site excavated soils are suitable for use as structural fill.

h. Site preparation recommendations for building slab on grade and roadway pavement subgrades.

To fulfill the above tasks, a series of field and laboratory tests were completed. The field activities began with site visits to visually inspect the project area and check accessibility of the drilling equipment. With this, six (6) Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) boreholes were requested by designer and completed. In addition to routine laboratory tests, which include visual and manual description of samples, moisture content and unconfined compressive strength and

Classification Tests were executed on chosen samples.

3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Site Description

The site is located in the Puerto Rico National Guard Camp Santiago within the south coast of

Puerto Rico in the Municipality of Salinas. Camp Santiago gains access through State Road PR-

1. An approximate location for the site was obtained by means of reference orientation. The

Site Location Map taken from a portion of the USGS 7.5 Minutes Coamo Topographic

Quadrangle is shown in Figure 1.

According to the aforementioned Topographic Quadrangle, the site elevation should be close to

55 meters above mean sea level. The site topography is gently sloped toward the south.

Figure 1. Site Location Map

3.2 Project Description

The proposed project consists in the construction of a Puerto Rico ARMY National Guard

Maneuver and Training Equipment Site (MATES). The new facility will consist of a single story structure with high-bay general purpose maintenance work bays (GPWB’s). Additionally, the facility shall include: administration office, storage, locker rooms, IT rooms, toilets / showers/ lockers, and a tool/supply area. Additional components of the project include demolition, site preparation, storm water detention and drainage systems, landscaping, fencing, sidewalks, loading dock, curbs, rigid pavement for military vehicles, flexible paving for POV parking, exterior lighting, utilities, a detached facility sign, and A/T force protection measures.

Approximate building gross square footage (total 22,700 ft2).

Column loads were not provided to us during the preparation of this report. Floor slab live load varies from 50 to 150 psf.

Plans showing existing and/or proposed elevations have not been provided to us to the preparation of this report. According to site conditions, we have preformed analyses and provide recommendations by considering that no significant fill or cut operations (exceeding three feet in thickness) are expected to be performed to change site elevation. Otherwise recommendations herewith discussed shall be verified and/or amended.

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

3.3 Geologic Setting

The geology of the site has been described at the Geologic Map of the Coamo Quadrangle, Puerto Rico, published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1961 and mapped by Lynn

Glover, III. According to the USGS the studied area is underlain by the Cariblanco formation

(Kcs) and the Coamo Formation (Kcot).

The Cariblanco formation (Kcs) is described as sandstone and siltstone. Thin bedded to medium bedded. Commonly conspicuously jointed and (or) faulted.

Good to excellent foundation strength. Cut-slope stability generally excellent, but may be poor if slope parallels prominent bedding planes, faults, or joints.

The Coamo formation (Kcot) is described as tuff-breccia, tuffaceous conglomerate, and lapilli tuff, mostly dark gray to greenish black, weathering to bright reddish and purplish.

Figure 2 shows a portion of the mentioned Geologic Map with the described and nearby formations and their respective limits delineated on it.

Figure 2. Geologic Map

4. FIELD EXPLORATION

Six (6) geotechnical test borings were drilled as part of this investigation from October 5 to

October 8, 2012. Four boreholes, designated as B-1 to B-4, were executed at locations under proposed structure and were drilled to a maximum depths varying from eight (8) to ten (10) feet.

Two boreholes designated as P-1 and P-2 were drilled to maximum depths of about eight (8) and five (5) feet, respectively, and were located within driveway and parking area. All boreholes were stopped when auger could not be further advanced. Figure 3 shows the location of boreholes on a site plan provided to us by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.. Additional details about the drilling and sampling operations are presented in Appendix A. Details on the subsurface conditions are further discussed in Section 6 of this report.

Figure 3. Approximate Borings Location

The test holes were performed using a CME-45 Model Trailer Mounted Drilling Rig. The hammer, used during the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), was a 140-lb. automatic hammer.

The SPT, as described in ASTM D 1586, was used to determine the “NSPT” value and disturbed soil sampling for visual-manual descriptions in accordance with ASTM D 2488. A standard configuration consisting of a 1.375” ID split spoon sampler is used as testing probe and for sample recuperation in this sampling method. The sampler attached at the end of a solid string of drill rods is advanced for an 18-in. or 24-in. interval, depending on the sampler length, using a

140-lb hammer dropped through a 30-in. free fall. The sampler used during this investigation was 24-in length. The blows required to advance the hole for each 6-in. are recorded in a field-boring log. The standard penetration resistance, or “NSPT” value, is the sum of the blows required for the second and third 6-in. drives. The hole is then cleaned to the top of the next interval to be sampled and the procedure is repeated.

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

4220. Routine testing includes natural moisture content, and unconfined compressive strength on cohesive samples.

5. LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory testing of soil samples from the borings was performed in our affiliate laboratory which is accredited by AASHTO and certified by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. This testing consisted in visual and manual description of samples, measurement of natural water content determination, unconfined compressive strength, determination of Atterberg Limits and the execution of mechanical grain size analyses. In addition, Potential Volume Change (PVC) tests were executed on selected samples in order to obtain information about possible expansive behavior of soils.

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

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

The water content tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2216 Standard Test

Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.

In order to obtain the engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils it was imperative to conduct some classification tests as per ASTM D3282 and D2487. As per criteria of the assigned Geotechnical Engineer, six (6) samples were selected for determination of index properties. Mechanical grain size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM D 422

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

All collected field and laboratory data was evaluated in order to provide with the recommendations considered in this report. The reader is referred to the corresponding ASTM’s of each test in order to obtain the description of used procedures.

6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

6.1 Borehole Results

The detected subsoil conditions are in general accordance with the geological reference previously discussed. Relatively homogeneous conditions were detected when comparing each borehole. The subsoil conditions were found to be also homogeneous with depth. Samples were consistently described as silty sand with variable gravel content. The Standard Penetration Test showed “N” values ranging from 21 blows per foot (bpf) to refusal, or more than 100 bpf. In regards to the water content levels for these materials, the recorded values ranged between 4 to

17 percent. Its variance will be in function of the existing groundwater conditions and the amount of fines for a particular location. The lower results are associated with the more granular samples while the higher values are associated with fine materials (clay/silt) or organics. A medium dense to very dense relative density, predominantly very dense, was detected within the subsoil profile as per “N” values. Lower “N” values were measured at close to the surface.

Atterberg Limits were determined on some of the samples at depths ranging from zero (0) to four

(4) feet from surface. Plasticity Index ranged from 5 to 8 and one sample was non-plastic.

Usually samples close to the surface show more cohesion than deeper samples since they are more exposed weathering.

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

6.2 Laboratory Results

Table 1 presents a summary of the tests results used to classify the explored materials.

Table 1 – Summary of Classification Tests

ID Description LL

PL

PI

Gravel

Sand

Fines USCS AASHTO

B-1 Sample 1 silty, clayey sand with gravel 24 19 5 29.0 39.3 31.7 SC-

SM A-2-4(0)

B-2 Sample 1 silty, clayey sand 23 18 5 4.0 61.9 34.1 SC-

SM A-2-4(0)

B-3 Sample 2 clayey sand with gravel 24 16 8 30.9 44.4 24.7 SC A-2-4(0)

B-4 Sample 2 silty gravel with sand NV NP NP 57.0 26.5 16.5 GM A-1-b

P-1 Sample 1 clayey sand with gravel 30 21 9 31.4 32.5 36.1 SC A-4(0)

P-2 Sample 2 well graded sand with gravel 21 16 5 38.8 51.9 9.3 SW-

SC A-1-a

Refer to Appendix B for more detailed results.

According to a criteria established by O’Neill and Poormoayed, 1980, the potential swell of a given soil can be generally assessed from Atterberg limits as given by the following table.

Table 2 - O’Neill and Poormoayed percent swell correlation.

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

Potential swell classification

<50

<25

Low

50-60

25-35

Medium

>60

>35

High

As shown in the table, the samples revealed a low potential swell classification. Based in our experience with the geology of the site and nearby areas, we do not consider the soils at the site to be expansive.

6.3 Groundwater conditions

The groundwater table (GWT) underlying the site was not encountered during drilling operations. However, these levels shall not be considered invariant and accurate. Monitoring wells are necessary in order to provide accurate groundwater levels with time. These were beyond the scope of work of this study. In addition, it should be noted that the groundwater table is always being affected by natural factors such as the distance from water sources, the permeability of the subsoil, the topography of the area, and the amount of precipitation.

Moreover, it should be taken into account that whenever changes in the topography of a site are made, changes in the groundwater characteristics of the region frequently occur. Such conditions are difficult to detect within the normal scope of time of the exploration.

7. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 2009 IBC Code According to the International Building Code (IBC) 2009, the soils at the site fall into the Soil

Profile Type SC. Below you may find the IBC 2009 Design Spectra Graph according to the Java

Ground Motion Parameter Calculator from the U.S.G.S. web page.

Appendix C shows the detailed results from the Spectrum computations.

7.2 Seismic Liquefaction

Liquefaction is the transformation of a cohesionless material from a solid state into a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress.

One of the most dramatic causes of damage to engineering structures during an earthquake has been the development of liquefaction in saturated sand deposits. Seed (1965) has made significant contribution in studying the phenomenon of liquefaction. Based on Seeds studies, if saturated cohesionless soils are subjected to earthquake ground vibrations, the resulting tendency to compact will be accompanied by an increase in porewater pressure in the soil and a resulting movement of water from the voids. Water is thus caused to flow upward to the ground surface, where it emerges in the form of mud spouts or sand boils. The development of high pore water pressure due to ground vibration and the resulting upward flow of water may turn sand into

"quick" or liquefied conditions.

The subsoil conditions disclosed by the test borings program showed that no liquefaction problems should be expected during seismic activity since no saturated sands were encountered in borings locations.

7.3 Foundation Recommendations

7.3.1 Conventional Spread Footings

In view of the results of the exploration, the developer may construct the proposed structures over conventional spread footings with an allowable bearing pressure not exceeding 3,500 psf.

The minimum depth of foundation shall be two (2) feet below existing elevation. For footings to be cast over fill material, an allowable bearing pressure not exceeding 2,500 psf.

The minimum depth of foundation shall be two (2) feet below final elevation. Footings shall always have minimum size according to pertinent code.

Footings shall be designed to sustain a maximum vertical movement of about one (1) inch and differential settlements of about 0.75 inch between maximum and minimum loaded columns.

The bottom of the excavations of the foundations shall be dry, clean, without any loose material and / or construction waste and supported on a tested competent material.

We strongly recommend that our services are retained, or any other qualified geotechnical engineer, during the earthwork and excavation procedures in order to observe footing excavations, and approve them as adequate for concrete casting. This approval shall be done prior to steel reinforcement installation. Footings shall be always cast under dry conditions and bottom of excavation shall be always free of loose sediments prior to reinforcement placement.

Bottom of excavations might require to be compacted with the aid of hand tampers.

7.3.2 Slabs On Ground

Every slab on ground is recommended to be cast over at least six (6) inches of engineered fill (A-2-4) compacted to more than 95% of maximum dry density according to the

Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557). A vapor barrier, at least 6 mils thick, shall be placed between concrete slab and soil. A proof rolling program, as explained in the Earthwork

Recommendations, shall be executed prior to the deposition of the compacted soil buffer. These may be designed with a modulus of subgrade reaction of about 180 pci. It is strongly recommended that a vapor barrier is installed between slab and fill material.

7.4 Subgrade Modulus and CBR Values

Once the recommendations discussed in the Earthwork Recommendations of the report to be submitted are completed under the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer supervising the earthworks, the construction of the pavement may begin.

For the construction and design of a flexible or rigid pavement the following soil material with their respective strength parameters can be used.

Base - An untreated aggregate soil classifying A-1-a (AASHTO) is recommended as base material. A CBR value of 35 or a “k” value of 350 pci can be assigned to this type of soil for designing flexible or rigid pavements, respectively.

Subbase - An untreated aggregate material classifying A-2-4 (AASHTO) is recommended as subbase course. A CBR value of 20 or a “k” value of 250 pci can be used.

Subgrade - After proof rolling operations, a CBR value of 8 or a "k" value of 180 pci can be assigned to the in-situ soils.

7.5 Earthwork Recommendations

The earthwork operations constitute a very important aspect of the geotechnical design in any project. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that our services, or the services of a qualified

Geotechnical Engineer, are retained in order to observe earthwork operations in a full time basis starting with the cleaning operations. Sufficient notification to the Geotechnical Engineer or firm prior to commencement of earthwork operations is essential.

7.5.1 Clearing Operations

The first step to be followed corresponds to the clearing and grubbing operations. The clearing operations shall be performed thoroughly and consciously. Minimum thickness of material to be removed varies from 12 inches to 24 inches. The existence of deleterious material, such as garbage, organics, construction debris, among other, within additional areas which removal is mandatory can not be discarded. Existing foundations, underground utilities, septic tanks, among other structures, shall be completely removed prior to beginning of construction. The final depth and aerial extent for material removal will be established by the Geotechnical

Engineer or his representative.

7.5.2 Cut Procedures

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

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

Given the range of resistance parameters and composition of the native materials, we recommend that temporary cut slopes account with a 1.0 Horizontal : 1.0 Vertical steepness. The same drainage specifications that will be established for fill slopes apply here. Special attention shall be given to the appearance of bedding planes or joints unfavorable to the cuts. The above specified Field Inspection from an experienced Geotechnical Engineer is a must to assess the long-term slope stability, and confirm the assigned cut slope steepness.

7.5.3 Proof Rolling

Only after completion of the clearing works further works shall be allowed. Once the deleterious materials are removed to the satisfaction of the observing soils engineer (in a full time basis) and the necessary cut operations performed, the exposed surface shall be proof rolled using a 20-ton non-vibratory roller. Any soft spot disclosed during the proof rolling operations shall be removed and replaced with select engineered fills, as recommended in Section 7.5.4. The roller shall be applied over any given area at least 10 times, or 5 round trips, at a velocity not exceeding 1.5 miles per hour.

7.5.4 Fill Requirements

The fill and/or backfill used to attain the final grade below structures shall resemble the characteristic of an A-2-4, or better type of soil (based on the AASHTO Soil Classification

System). Samples of all potential sources of fill material must be submitted to the soils laboratory to establish their acceptance. It is considered that material to be cut from the project to reach final elevation may be used as engineering fill. Nevertheless, proper classification tests shall be performed during cut operations to verify its characteristics.

Every layer shall be compacted so that the dry unit weight of the material is equal to or greater than 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight as obtained in the laboratory under a Modified Proctor Compaction Test (ASTM D-1557). The moisture content of the fill material, prior to compaction, shall be varying from minus 2% to plus 3% of optimum, as determined by the Modified Proctor Test. The water content of the fill may be reduced when necessary by any appropriate procedure. The water content may be increased by addition of water on the fill or in the borrow area. In either case, the addition of water must be made by the contractor and distributed evenly through the material prior to compaction. It should be the responsibility of the Resident Engineer to instruct the Soils Engineer retained by the owner on a consultative basis to determine the optimum moisture and corresponding dry density of the fill to be used in this project.

Over the A-2-4 material the contractor should employ a 20-ton vibratory steel roller, or heavier, to obtain the required percentage of compaction. Care shall be adopted while working close to the existing structures since roller vibrations might provoke hair line cracks. One solutions is to reduce fill loose thickness and to compaction without vibration. Another solution is to monitor structures with seismograph in order to measure accelerations and to determine a safe buffer distance between structures and rollers. The contractor shall not place any additional fill until the preceding compacted layer has been found to fulfill the aforementioned compaction criteria. The contractor shall employ suitable equipment, to obtain the required compaction. The number of passes of the equipment over each section of the work surface shall be determined in the field. However, the soils engineer shall determine the density of the fill material after the compaction of each twelve (12) inches layer, and the contractor shall not place any additional fill until the preceding compacted layer has been found to fulfill the aforementioned requirements. Each successive pass shall overlap the preceding adjacent pass by

10 percent. Roller passes made on material in unsuitable condition will not be considered in judging compliance with these specifications. Should the contractor fail to obtain the required compacting energy, he must get the appropriate equipment to comply with the compacting criteria.

Filling shall be conducted so that no obstruction to drainage from other sections of the fill areas is created. Sumps, if any, shall be maintained in effective operating condition for the duration of the works.

Each layer of fill shall be inspected prior to compaction. All visible roots, vegetation or debris shall be removed. Stones larger than 6 inches in diameter for fine soil fills shall be removed or broken. Material incorporated in the fill which is not satisfactory shall be subjected to rejection and removal at the Contractor's expense.

The acceptability of the compacted fill will be established by tests (state whether at Contractor's or Owner's expense). The unit weight of compacted material will be established by in-place density tests conducted by the Soil Consultant (at the Resident Engineer's request) by the sand-cone, balloon or nuclear testing procedures, all in accordance to ASTM requirements.

Additional tests to establish or confirm maximum density, optimum moisture content, and percentage stone content will be performed as required during the progress of the works.

The fill procedures shall be performed at the early stages of construction. This will allow some time for the stabilization of the subsoil and the materials that conform the embankment.

Intermediate and final grade elevations and slopes shall provide all earthworks of correct ways of drainage. The accumulation of water over the area diminishes the effect of the soil compaction effort.

All permanent fill slopes shall maintain a maximum 2 Horizontal: 1 Vertical steepness at all times. Again proper drainage ways shall be established in these slopes to avoid runoff water across their faces. These measures shall include gutters, drainage pipes, and spillways. Also, it is recommended the seeding of grass, or any other dense vegetation to assist in controlling erosion along the slope face. Please consult a landscape professional for further recommendations.

Project designers shall observe building setbacks established in the applicable building codes when having structures adjacent to cut or fill slopes.

7.5.5 Protection of Fill During Construction

Layer placement and thickness shall be controlled so that no pounding of water can occur on any working surface. This shall be accomplished without at any time exceeding the specified maximum layer thickness. In addition to performing the grading operations necessary to insure unobstructed run-off at all times from every point on the working surface, the contractor shall be required to seal the working surface at the close of each day's operation and when practical, prior to rainfall. Sealing shall be accomplished by rolling the surface with a smooth wheel roller of approved design and weight. No fill shall be placed until an approved roller of this type is delivered to the job and demonstrated to be in working condition.

7.5.6 Runoff Waters

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

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

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

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

7.5.7 Erosion Control

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

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

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

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

8. GENERAL CONDITIONS

8.1 Post-Investigation Services

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

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

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

8.2 Uncertainties and Limitations

Only a very small portion of the subsurface conditions at the site had been observed and/or tested. The possibility of subsurface conditions differing from those assumed and developed in this investigation cannot be discounted. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon our understanding of the subsoil conditions depicted by the borings drilled and the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by the field exploration.

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

9. REFERENCES

Department of the Navy, 1986. Soil Mechanics – NAVFAC Design Manual 7.01

Duncan, J. Michael and Wright, Stephen G., 2005. Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley

& Sons, New Jersey.

Kulhawy, F.H., Mayne, P.W., 1990. Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation

Design, Electric Power Research Institute, California, U.S.

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

Glover III, Lynn, 1961 Geologic Map of the Coamo Quadrangle: U.S. Geol. Survey Map I-335

USGS, 1972 Coamo Quadrangle, Puerto Rico 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic): U.S. Geological

Survey.

9.1 Standards, Codes, and Procedures Cited

ASTM D 422 "Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils." Annual Book of ASTM

Standards - Volume 04.08 - Soil and Rock (I): D420 to D5779.

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

Modified Effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3)" Annual Book of ASTM Standards - Volume 04.08 - Soil and Rock (I): D420 to D5779.

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

Annual Book of ASTM Standards - Volume 04.08 - Soil and Rock (I): D420 to D5779.

ASTM D 2216 "Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass." Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Volume 04.08 - Soil and Rock (I): D420 to D5779.

ASTM D 2487 "Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified

Soil Classification System)." Annual Book of ASTM Standards - Volume 04.08 - Soil and

Rock (I):D420 to D5779.

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

Procedure)." Annual Book of ASTM Standards - Volume 04.08 - Soil and Rock (I): D420 to

D5779.

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

Highway Construction Purposes." Annual Book of ASTM Standards - Volume 04.08 - Soil and Rock (I):D420 to D5779.

ASTM D 4220 "Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples." Annual Book of ASTM Standards - Volume 04.08 - Soil and Rock (I):D420 to D5779.

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

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

0.0

-0.6

-1.2

-1.8

-2.4

-3.0

50/2 50/2

60/3

50/1

93/8

60/3

50/1 silty coarse to fine sand, little coarse to fine subangular gravel, brown as above as above as above as above

END OF BORING

7.9

10.1

6.7

5.1

4.5

19 24 5

BORING NO. B-1

SHEET 1 OF MGV Geotechnical Group, PSC JOB NO. 1195

PROJECT MATES Campamento Santiago DATE STARTED 10/5/12

LOCATION COMPLETED 10/5/12

SAMPLER: DRILL MACHINE CME-45

TYPE SPT SIZE 1.375"ID DRILLER J. Nieves

HAMMER: WT 140# DROP 30" GROUND ELEV.

DESCRIPTION: L. Addarich APPROVED: M. Garcia DEPTH OF HOLE 10 FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. WATER TABLE

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

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

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

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX (IP A. POCKET PENETROMETER

WL - WP) RESPECTIVELY. B. SPRING TEST

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

m

SA

M

PL

E

N O

B lo w s pe r in

. i nc r.

SP

T

N V

A

LU

E (B

LO

W

S/

FT

SA

M

PL

ER

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SY

M

B O

L

R

EC

O

VE

R

Y

Wn

MOISTURE CONTENT

Wp Wl Ip qu*

STRENGTH

(TSF)

PROPERTIES VS. DEPTH

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N value Wn

PL

LL

0.0

-0.6

-1.2

-1.8

-2.4

50/4

50/3

50/1

50/4

50/3

50/1 silty coarse to fine sand, trace coarse to fine subangular gravel, reddish brown as above, pale brown as above

No Recovery

END OF BORING

17.1

5.0

5.6

4.3

18 23 5

BORING NO. B-2

SHEET 1 OF MGV Geotechnical Group, PSC JOB NO. 1195

PROJECT MATES Campamento Santiago DATE STARTED 10/5/12

LOCATION COMPLETED 10/5/12

SAMPLER: DRILL MACHINE CME-45

TYPE SPT SIZE 1.375"ID DRILLER J. Nieves

HAMMER: WT 140# DROP 30" GROUND ELEV.

DESCRIPTION: L. Addarich APPROVED: M. Garcia DEPTH OF HOLE 8 FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. WATER TABLE

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

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

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

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX (IP A. POCKET PENETROMETER

WL - WP) RESPECTIVELY. B. SPRING TEST

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

m

SA

M

PL

E

N O

B lo w s pe r in

. i nc r.

SP

T

N V

A

LU

E (B

LO

W

S/

FT

SA

M

PL

ER

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SY

M

B O

L

R

EC

O

VE

R

Y

Wn

MOISTURE CONTENT

Wp Wl Ip qu*

STRENGTH

(TSF)

PROPERTIES VS. DEPTH

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N value Wn

PL

0.0

-0.6

-1.2

-1.8

-2.4

-3.0

50/1

50/2

50/2

50/4

100/

50/2

50/2

50/4 silty coarse to fine sand, trace coarse to fine subangular gravel, yellowish brown as above, trace roots as above as above

No Recovery

END OF BORING

6.0

9.3

4.7

5.6

4.3

16 24 8

BORING NO. B-3

SHEET 1 OF MGV Geotechnical Group, PSC JOB NO. 1195

PROJECT MATES Campamento Santiago DATE STARTED 10/5/12

LOCATION COMPLETED 10/5/12

SAMPLER: DRILL MACHINE CME-45

TYPE SPT SIZE 1.375"ID DRILLER J. Nieves

HAMMER: WT 140# DROP 30" GROUND ELEV.

DESCRIPTION: L. Addarich APPROVED: M. Garcia DEPTH OF HOLE 10 FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. WATER TABLE

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

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

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

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX (IP A. POCKET PENETROMETER

WL - WP) RESPECTIVELY. B. SPRING TEST

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

m

SA

M

PL

E

N O

B lo w s pe r in

. i nc r.

SP

T

N V

A

LU

E (B

LO

W

S/

FT

SA

M

PL

ER

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SY

M

B O

L

R

EC

O

VE

R

Y

Wn

MOISTURE CONTENT

Wp Wl Ip qu*

STRENGTH

(TSF)

PROPERTIES VS. DEPTH

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N value Wn

PL

0.0

-0.6

-1.2

-1.8

-2.4

50/4

50/3

50/2

50/4

50/3

50/2 silty coarse to fine sand, trace coarse to fine subangular gravel, trace roots, brown as above, little coarse to fine subangular gravel, brown as above as above

END OF BORING

11.9

7.4

4.7

4.9

NP NV NP

BORING NO. B-4

SHEET 1 OF MGV Geotechnical Group, PSC JOB NO. 1195

PROJECT MATES Campamento Santiago DATE STARTED 10/8/12

LOCATION COMPLETED 10/8/12

SAMPLER: DRILL MACHINE CME-45

TYPE SPT SIZE 1.375"ID DRILLER J. Nieves

HAMMER: WT 140# DROP 30" GROUND ELEV.

DESCRIPTION: L. Addarich APPROVED: M. Garcia DEPTH OF HOLE 8 FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. WATER TABLE

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

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

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

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX (IP A. POCKET PENETROMETER

WL - WP) RESPECTIVELY. B. SPRING TEST

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

m

SA

M

PL

E

N O

B lo w s pe r in

. i nc r.

SP

T

N V

A

LU

E (B

LO

W

S/

FT

SA

M

PL

ER

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SY

M

B O

L

R

EC

O

VE

R

Y

Wn

MOISTURE CONTENT

Wp Wl Ip qu*

STRENGTH

(TSF)

PROPERTIES VS. DEPTH

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N value Wn

PL

0.0

-0.6

-1.2

-1.8

-2.4

50/5

56/4

55/1

50/5

56/4

55/1 silty coarse to fine sand, little coarse to fine subangular gravel, brown as above as above

No Recovery

END OF BORING

12.2

4.8

5.5

5.7

21 30 9

BORING NO. P-1

SHEET 1 OF MGV Geotechnical Group, PSC JOB NO. 1195

PROJECT MATES Campamento Santiago DATE STARTED 10/8/12

LOCATION COMPLETED 10/8/12

SAMPLER: DRILL MACHINE CME-45

TYPE SPT SIZE 1.375"ID DRILLER J. Nieves

HAMMER: WT 140# DROP 30" GROUND ELEV.

DESCRIPTION: L. Addarich APPROVED: M. Garcia DEPTH OF HOLE 8 FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. WATER TABLE

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

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

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

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX (IP A. POCKET PENETROMETER

WL - WP) RESPECTIVELY. B. SPRING TEST

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

m

SA

M

PL

E

N O

B lo w s pe r in

. i nc r.

SP

T

N V

A

LU

E (B

LO

W

S/

FT

SA

M

PL

ER

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SY

M

B O

L

R

EC

O

VE

R

Y

Wn

MOISTURE CONTENT

Wp Wl Ip qu*

STRENGTH

(TSF)

PROPERTIES VS. DEPTH

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N value Wn

PL

0.0

-0.6

-1.2

-1.8

-2.4

-4.0

-4.6

50/4 58/5

50/5

50/4

50/3

50/3

58/5

50/5

50/4

50/3

50/3 silty coarse to fine sand, trace coarse to fine subangular gravel, brown as above as above as above as above as above

END OF BORING

10.3

6.0

4.6

4.9

11.4

15.7

16 21 5

BORING NO. P-2

SHEET 1 OF MGV Geotechnical Group, PSC JOB NO. 1195

PROJECT MATES Campamento Santiago DATE STARTED 10/8/12

LOCATION COMPLETED 10/8/12

SAMPLER: DRILL MACHINE CME-45

TYPE SPT SIZE 1.375"ID DRILLER J. Nieves

HAMMER: WT 140# DROP 30" GROUND ELEV.

DESCRIPTION: L. Addarich APPROVED: M. Garcia DEPTH OF HOLE 15 FINAL WATER DEPTH: ft. INITIAL WATER DEPTH: ft. WATER TABLE

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

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

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

LIQUID LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX (IP A. POCKET PENETROMETER

WL - WP) RESPECTIVELY. B. SPRING TEST

D

EP

TH

(f t)

EL

EV

m

SA

M

PL

E

N O

B lo w s pe r in

. i nc r.

SP

T

N V

A

LU

E (B

LO

W

S/

FT

SA

M

PL

ER

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SY

M

B O

L

R

EC

O

VE

R

Y

Wn

MOISTURE CONTENT

Wp Wl Ip qu*

STRENGTH

(TSF)

PROPERTIES VS. DEPTH

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 N value Wn

PL

APPENDIX B

CLASSIFICATION TESTS

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

MGV-GES LAB, INC.

Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

10/18/12

BOR. 1 S# 1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

silty, clayey sand with gravel 1.0 .750 .50 .375 .25 #4 #10 #20 #40

#100 #200

100.0 91.8 79.5 78.2 73.9 71.0 62.4 54.8 47.3 36.2 31.7

19 24 5

17.9332 15.2040 1.5209 0.5444

SC-SM A-2-4(0)

Campamento Santiago, Salinas

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 1 Sample Number: 1 Depth: 0-2' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 8.2 20.8 8.6 15.1 15.6 31.7 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Particle Size Distribution Report

Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

10/18/12

BOR. 2 S # 1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

silty, clayey sand .375 .25 #4 #10 #20 #40

#100 #200

100.0 98.0 96.0 85.8 70.8 56.7 40.0 34.1

18 23 5

2.8546 1.9086 0.4990 0.2792

SC-SM A-2-4(0)

Campamento Santiago, Salinas

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 2 Sample Number: 1 Depth: 0-2' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 0.0 4.0 10.2 29.1 22.6 34.1 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

10/18/12

BOR. 3 S# 2

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

clayey sand with gravel 1.0 .750 .50 .375 .25 #4 #10 #20 #40

#100 #200

100.0 94.8 86.6 80.4 73.3 69.1 55.2 44.9 36.4 29.1 24.7

16 24 8

15.0058 11.7788 2.7005

1.2998 0.1704

SC A-2-4(0)

Campamento Santiago, Salinas

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 3 Sample Number: 2 Depth: 2'-4' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 5.2 25.7 13.9 18.8 11.7 24.7 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

10/18/12

BOR. 4 S# 2

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

silty gravel with sand 1.5 1.0 .750 .50 .375 .25 #4 #10 #20 #40

#100 #200

100.0 73.4 51.7 50.2 47.9 45.0 43.0 37.0 31.7 26.4 19.8 16.5

NP NV NP

32.7175 30.3186 21.2697

12.3992 0.6790

GM A-1-b

Campamento Santiago, Salinas

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 4 Sample Number: 2 Depth: 2'-4' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 48.3 8.7 6.0 10.6 9.9 16.5 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

10/18/12

BOR. 5 S# 1

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

clayey sand with gravel 1.0 .75 .50 .375 .25 #4 #10 #20 #40

#100 #200

100.0 86.3 80.9 75.1 71.9 68.6 60.1 53.9 48.2 40.8 36.1

21 30 9

20.5897 17.2788 1.9814 0.5294

SC A-4(0)

Campamento Santiago, Salinas

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 5 Sample Number: 1 Depth: 0-2' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 13.7 17.7 8.5 11.9 12.1 36.1 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

Tested By: C. MONROIG Checked By: MARCUS GARCIS VINCENTY, PE

Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

10/18/12

BOR. 6 S# 2

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

well-graded sand with gravel .750 .50 .375 .25 #4 #10 #20 #40

#100 #200

100.0 93.5 82.9 69.2 61.2 39.9 27.5 19.1 12.9

9.3

16 21 5

11.5494 10.0807 4.5320

3.0148 1.0082 0.2121

0.0858 52.81 2.61

SW-SC A-1-a

Campamento Santiago, Salinas

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: Boring 6 Sample Number: 2 Depth: 2'-4' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand Fine Silt

% Fines Clay

0.0 0.0 38.8 21.3 20.8 9.8 9.3 in in in

½ in in

¾ in

½ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

APPENDIX C

DESIGN SPECTRUM DATA

Project Name = MATES Camp Santiago, Salinas, PR Date = Wed Oct 24 15:50:15 BOT 2012

Puerto Rico 2009 International Building Code Latitude = 18.005375 Longitude = -66.288588 Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1 Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0 Data are based on a 0.05 deg grid spacing Period Sa (sec) (g)

0.2 0.866 (Ss, Site Class B)

1.0 0.272 (S1, Site Class B)

Puerto Rico 2009 International Building Code Latitude = 18.005375 Longitude = -66.288588 Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1 SMs = Fa x Ss and SM1 = Fv x S1 Site Class C - Fa = 1.054 ,Fv = 1.528

Period Sa (sec) (g)

0.2 0.913 (SMs, Site Class C)

1.0 0.416 (SM1, Site Class C)

Puerto Rico 2009 International Building Code Latitude = 18.005375 Longitude = -66.288588 Design Spectral Response Accelerations SDs and SD1 SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 Site Class C - Fa = 1.054 ,Fv = 1.528

Period Sa (sec) (g)

0.2 0.609 (SDs, Site Class C)

1.0 0.277 (SD1, Site Class C)

Puerto Rico 2009 International Building Code Latitude = 18.005375 Longitude = -66.288588 MCE Response Spectrum for Site Class B Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values Site Class B - Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0

Period Sa Sd (sec) (g) (inches)

0.000 0.346 0.000

0.063 0.866 0.033

0.200 0.866 0.339

0.314 0.866 0.836

0.400 0.681 1.064

0.500 0.544 1.330

0.600 0.454 1.596

0.700 0.389 1.862

0.800 0.340 2.128

0.900 0.302 2.394

1.000 0.272 2.660

1.100 0.247 2.926

1.200 0.227 3.192

1.300 0.209 3.458

1.400 0.194 3.724

1.500 0.181 3.990

1.600 0.170 4.256

1.700 0.160 4.522

1.800 0.151 4.788

1.900 0.143 5.054

2.000 0.136 5.320

Puerto Rico 2009 International Building Code Latitude = 18.005375 Longitude = -66.288588 Site Modified Response Spectrum for Site Class C SMs = FaSs and SM1 = FvS1 Site Class C - Fa = 1.054 ,Fv = 1.528

Period Sa Sd

(sec) (g) (inches)

0.000 0.365 0.000

0.091 0.913 0.074

0.200 0.913 0.357

0.456 0.913 1.852

0.500 0.832 2.032

0.600 0.693 2.438

0.700 0.594 2.845

0.800 0.520 3.251

0.900 0.462 3.658

1.000 0.416 4.064

1.100 0.378 4.471

1.200 0.347 4.877

1.300 0.320 5.283

1.400 0.297 5.690

1.500 0.277 6.096

1.600 0.260 6.503

1.700 0.245 6.909

1.800 0.231 7.315

1.900 0.219 7.722

2.000 0.208 8.128

Puerto Rico 2009 International Building Code Latitude = 18.005375 Longitude = -66.288588 Design Response Spectrum for Site Class C SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SD1 = 2/3 x SM1 Site Class C - Fa = 1.054 ,Fv = 1.528

Period Sa Sd (sec) (g) (inches)

0.000 0.243 0.000

0.091 0.609 0.049

0.200 0.609 0.238

0.456 0.609 1.234

0.500 0.555 1.355

0.600 0.462 1.626

0.700 0.396 1.897

0.800 0.347 2.168

0.900 0.308 2.438

1.000 0.277 2.709

1.100 0.252 2.980

1.200 0.231 3.251

1.300 0.213 3.522

1.400 0.198 3.793

1.500 0.185 4.064

1.600 0.173 4.335

1.700 0.163 4.606

1.