Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)

8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)

1/78

SUBSURFACE SOIL INVESTIGATIONFSM COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA

CHUUK CAMPUS

WENO, CHUUK STATE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT(Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test)

Project Proponent:

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

&

COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA

Prepared by:

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT & PLANNING SERVICES CORPORATION

1998 ARMY DRIVE ROUTE 16, 2ND FLOOR EMPSCO , DEDEDO, GUAM 96929


2/78

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

Cover Page ---------------------------------------------------------- 1

Table of Contents -------------------------------------------------- 2 - 3

Executive Summary ----------------------------------------------- 4 6

Terms of Reference ----------------------------------------------- 7 - 8

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1Background of the Project --------------------------------- 9

1.2Geography ---------------------------------------------------- 9

1.3Seismicity ----------------------------------------------------- 10

1.4Location Map ------------------------------------------------ 11

2

SITE INVESTIGATION2.1Rationale ------------------------------------------------------ 12

2.2Field Reconnaissance ---------------------------------------- 12

2.3Field Procedures ---------------------------------------------- 12-14

2.4Field Sampling and Data Recording ----------------------- 14

2.5Location of Boreholes and Test Pits ----------------------- 14-15

2.6Field Test Results -------------------------------------------- 16-21

3 LABORATORY TESTING

3.1Laboratory Test Procedures ------------------------------- 22

3.2Laboratory Test Results ------------------------------------ 23-25

4 EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1Evaluation and Analysis on Building Area Foundation 26

4.2

Evaluation and Analysis on Road & Parking Lot Areas 26-27

5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1Site Preparation and Grading ------------------------------- 28-29

5.2Building Footing Design Recommendations ------------- 29-30

5.3Road Pavement Design Parameters Recommendations 30


3/78

7 APPENDICES

7.1DCP Test Photographs -------------------------------------- 33-37

7.2

Laboratory Photographs ------------------------------------ 38

7.3DCP Test Field Data, CBR & Bearing Calculations --- 6 sheets

7.4Geotechnical Data Log --------------------------------------- 1 sheet

7.5Determination of Water Content -------------------------- 1 sheet

7.6Determination of Atterberg Limits ------------------------ 10 sheets

7.7Particles Size Analysis --------------------------------------- 22 sheets


4/78

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Program Management Unit (PMU) of the Federated States of Micronesia with

office at Palikir, State of Pohnpei, is represented by Mr. Marcelino Actouka as the Acting

Program Manager issued a Task Order No. 0001 on August 12, 2010 as part of IDP-A-

0004 to EMSPCO Engineering Consultants represented by Mr. Ernesto A. Capulong Jr. as

Principal. This task order is covered under the Indefinite-Delivery Contract for

Architectural and Engineering for Compact Infrastructural Grants Projects.

The geotechnical requirements and deliverables are as follows to wit:

1. A-E will provide geotechnical report including but not limited to graphic

logs and borings description and analysis of the surface and subsurface

conditions, geohydrologic conditions, conclusions and geotechnical design

recommendations.

2. A-E shall conduct a minimum of 2 borings at 25 feet depths or upon the A-E

Geotechnical Engineer sound judgment and professional experience to

determine the actual location and depths of borings.

3. A-E shall conduct drilling and sampling necessary to provide samples for

laboratory testing and subsurface condition data.

The project is to develop a new campus of FSM-College of Micronesia (COM)encompassing a total land area of approximately 1.2 hectares, located at uphill of the other

government offices, Weno Island. The project is developed initially by FSM-COM Chuuk

Campus Administration. The difference in elevations between the highest and lowest


5/78

The site is vegetated with coconut trees and other local variety of trees and bushes.

Much of the exposed natural soil outcrops are characterized by brownish sandy silty soil.

Building Footing Design Recommendations

Taking the field results, laboratory results, analysis and findings into considerations, the

undersigned recommends the following:

1.

It is recommended that the bottom of footings shall be set at elevation 1.5metersfrom the existing natural ground surfaceand it is further recommended that the

maximum usable bearing pressure is 1300 psf or 62 KPa which has an estimated

foundation settlement of 35 mm.

2. The footings shall be connected with adequate tie-beams to minimize

differential settlement. It is also noted that foundation design criteria mentioned above is

limited to building foundation only and does not include equipment or machine

foundation.

3. It is recommended that foundation improvement shall be employed using

remove and replace method for footings at administration building, the following

suggested modification procedure are as follows to wit:

Over-excavate the foundation bed by at least 1.00 meter depth below the

footing.

Replace with imported materials compacted in lifts not exceeding 8

inches (200 mm) in thickness to a maximum of 95 percent of maximum

density as determined by ASTM Standard D-1557. In-place density shall

be determined in accordance with ASTM D-1556, D-2167, ASTM D-

2922, ASTM D-3017 or equivalent. In-situ compaction can also be


6/78

It is strongly discourage not to use boulders as foundation improvement

due to difficulty of compaction and filling of voids.

Road Pavement Design Parameters Recommendations

Taking the field results, laboratory results, evaluation analysis into considerations,

the undersigned recommends the following:

1.

Pavement Structural Parameters:

Location Average CBR Remarks

BH-1/TP-1 Road 5.9 MH Sandy Elastic Silt

BH-2/TP-2 Road 25.3 ML Sandy Silt




BH-6/TP-6 Road 6.8 SM Silty Sand with Gravel

BH-7/TP-7 Road 7 ML Sandy Silt

BH-8/TP-8 Parking Lot 17.8 MH Sandy Elastic Silt

2. Pavement Structures shall consist of Selected Fill, Subbase Course and

Concrete Pavement.


7/78

TERMS OF REFEERENCE

Terms of Reference

The Program Management Unit (PMU) of the Federated States of Micronesia with

office at Palikir, State of Pohnpei, is represented by Mr. Marcelino Actouka as the Acting

Program Manager issued a Task Order No. 0001 on August 12, 2010 as part of IDP-A-

0004 to EMSPCO Engineering Consultants represented by Mr. Ernesto A. Capulong Jr. as

Principal. This task order is covered under the Indefinite-Delivery Contract for

Architectural and Engineering for Compact Infrastructural Grants Projects. This A-E

Statement of Work (SOW) includes geotechnical testing the four separate college

buildings in three states: Pohnpei, Kosrae and Chuuk:

i.

Pohnpei COM Campus in Kolonia Vocational Educational Building

ii. Pohnpei National COM Campus in Palikir Student Center (Full size).

iii. Kosrae COM Campus in Tofol Student Center and Learning Resource

Center (revised smaller with library elements).

iv. Chuuk COM Campus on Weno Island Two Floor Administration Buildings

with Classrooms.

The geotechnical requirements and deliverables are as follows to wit:

1. A-E will provide geotechnical report including but not limited to graphic

logs and borings description and analysis of the surface and subsurface conditions,geohydrologic conditions, conclusions and geotechnical design recommendations.

2. A-E shall conduct a minimum of 2 borings at 25 feet depths or upon the A-E

Geotechnical Engineer sound judgment and professional experience to determine the


8/78

5. A-E shall backfilled properly all borings after completion of data collection.

6.

A-E shall take precautions preserve all historical, archeological and cultural

resources encountered during the work.

7. A-E soils boring samples after laboratory testing shall be stored and

protected from undue environmental exposure for at least two years.

8. A-E Geotechnical Engineer shall manage the laboratory testing program.


9/78

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Project

The project is to develop a new campus of FSM-College of Micronesia (COM)

encompassing a total land area of approximately 1.2 hectares, located at uphill of the other

government offices at Weno Island in the State of Chuuk. The project is developed initially

by FSM-COM Chuuk Campus Administration. The difference in elevations between the

highest and lowest points within the area is approximately ____ meters.

A dirt road with cross drain traversing the area is existent to serve as an access to

the area. The road was mostly cut through the relatively thick clay with isolated armor

rocks through the steep slopes.

The site is vegetated with coconut trees and other local variety of trees and bushes.

Much of the exposed natural soil outcrops are characterized by brownish sandy silty soil.

Geography

Chuuk is formerly Truk, Ruk Hogoleu, Torres, Ugulat anf Lugulus and is an

island group in the south western part of the Pacific Ocean. It comprises one of the four

states of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), along with Kosrae, Pohnpei and

Yap. Chuuk is the most is the most populous of the FSMs states. Geographically,

Chuuk is part of the larger Carolines Islands group. Chuuk means mountain and wasknown mainly as Truk until 1990. The main population center of Chuuk state is the

Chuuk Lagoon, a large archipelago with mountainous islands surrounded by the string

of islets on a barrier reef. The two major geographical and dialectic divisions of the


10/78

Seismicity

Chuuk State is located 7 25' 0 N, and 151 47 0 E approximately 1065 km

southeast from the Mariana Ridge at the eastern edge of the Philippine Plate, which is

forced to rise in elevation as the Pacific Plate dives below it in a northwesterly direction.

At the same time, the descending Pacific Plate, while dragging the eastern edge of the

Philippine Plate with it, forms the Mariana Trench where the two plates converge. The

Mariana Trench contains the greatest measured depth of the world's oceans, approximately

11 .3 km (37,000 feet), located to the southwest of Guam.

Earthquake History of the State of Chuuk

Year of

Occurrence

Time Magn

itude

Depth Distance from nearby Islands

Mar 12, 1974 15:11:5 UTC M5.5 33 km 48km Fayu, 64km Pisaras, 173km Weno

Aug 10, 1985 17:02:12 UTC M5.2 33 km 87km Pikelot, 180km Ulul, 437km Weno

Sep 23, 1993 17:16:60 UTC M5 33 km 256km Weno, 24km Magererik, 36km Ono

Jun 11, 1998 5:40:41 UTC M4.6 33 km 320 km Weno, 109 km Pulusuk

May 11,1999 5:04:54 UTC M4.8 10 km 364 km Weno, 84 km Pulusuk

May 11, 2004 16:00:59 UTC M4.7 10 km 322 km Weno, 106 km Pulusuk

Apr 28, 2006 10:38:39 UTC M4.7 10 km 428 km Weno, 199 km Pulusuk

Aug 25, 2006 10:32:33 UTC M4.9 10 km 348 km Weno, 60 km Pulusuk

The earthquake occurrences from 1998 to 2006 shows that the epicenter coordinates

is approximately at the vicinity of 5 24' N, and 149 37 E.


11/78

Location Map of Weno, Chuuk State, FSM


12/78

CHAPTER 2

SITE INVESTIGATION

Rationale

The objective of this geotechnical investigation is to determine subsurface soil

conditions at the proposed building footprint, parking lot and the access road of the new

FSM-COM campus. The field testing and laboratory testing will enable us to come-up

with the recommendations regarding the footing design parameters and the access road

pavement criteria.

Field Reconnaissance

Based on the available preliminary building and road layout, a quick field

reconnaissance was conducted to determine the number and the location of the boreholes

and test holes which were dependent on the available space in the area of interest.

Field Procedures - Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP Test)

1. Scope of DCP Test:

This test method covers the measurement of the penetration rate of the Dynamic

Cone Penetrometer with 8-kg hammer through undisturbed soil. The penetration rate may

be related to in situ strength such as estimated in situ CBR (California Bearing Ratio) by

US Army Corps of Engineers equation and in situ Bearing Capacity by PCA equation.2. Summary of Test Method:

The operator drives the DCP tip into the soil by lifting the sliding hammer to the

handle then releasing it. The total penetration for a given number of blows is measured and


13/78

This test method is used to assess in situ strength of undisturbed soil. The

penetration rate of the 8-kg DCP can be used to estimate in-situ CBR, Bearing Capacity, to

identify strata thickness, shear strength strata, and other material characteristics.

4. Apparatus:

The 8-kg DCP consists of the following components: a 15.8 mm diameter steel

drive rod with a replaceable point or disposable cone tip, a 8-kg hammer which is dropped

a fixed height of 575 mm, a coupler assembly, and a handle. The tip has an angle of 60

degrees and a diameter at base of 20 mm.

5. Testing Sequence:

Dropping the Hammer The DCP device is held in a vertical plumb position. The

operator raises the hammer until it makes only light contact with the handle. The hammer

shall not impact the handle when being raised. The hammer is then allowed to free-fall and

impact the anvil coupler assembly. The number of blows and corresponding penetrations

are recorded.

Depth of Penetration The depth of penetration will vary with application. For

typical highway applications, a penetration less than 900 mm will generally be adequate.

Refusal - The presence of large aggregates or rock strata will either stop further

penetration or deflect the drive rod. If after 5 blows, the device has not advanced more

than 2 mm or handle has deflected more than 75 mm from the vertical position, the test

shall be stopped, and the device moved to another test location. The new test location

should be a minimum of 300 mm from the prior location to minimize test error caused bydisturbance of the material.

Extraction Following completion of the test, the device should be extracted using

the extraction using the extraction jack when using a replaceable point tip. When using a


14/78

Field Procedures - Drilling/Boring Procedures for Building Footprint

The boreholes/test pits were advanced by using open excavation method that is

large enough for two (2) persons to enter the hole. Power equipment using backhoe is

employed. The test pits were dug at 3 feet, 6 feet, 9 feet and 12 feet depth from the top of

the existing ground. The DCP test were conducted at the top of the ground, at the top of 3

feet hole, at top of 6 feet, at the top of 9 feet, and at the top of 12 feet.

Field Procedures - Drilling/Boring Procedures for Access Road/Parking Lot

The boreholes/test pits were advanced by using open excavation method that is

large enough for two (2) persons to enter the hole. Power equipment using backhoe is

employed. The test pits were dug at 3 feet and the DCP test were conducted at the top of

the ground.

Field Sampling and Data Recording

Sampling Method Samples of soil were obtained from excavated test pit by hand.

Test Specimens The objective of this test is to collect specimens of in-situ soils for

laboratory analysis. Each sample will consist of not less than 800 grams of materials.

Data Recording Describe the soil profile in a logbook noting in details of each

soil layer according to the colors, thickness, and visual classification.

Test Photographs Take photos on every sampling in the test pit.

Location of Boreholes and Test Pits

The boreholes BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, BH-4, BH-5, BH-6, BH-7 and test pits TP-1,

TP-2, TP-3, TP-4, TP-5, TP-6, TP-7 were located in the proposed access road, while


15/78


16/78

Field Test Results

Borehole No. 1, Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.0

Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks

(All soils or CL for

CBR < 10 or CH)

6 3 4 638 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt







Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks


CBR < 10 or CH)

6 4 5 790 ML-Sandy Silt




30 121 17 1789 ML-Sandy Silt



17/78


Layer Depthin inches

Corrected No. ofBlows per 6

cone penetration

CBR AllowableBearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks(All soils or CL for

CBR < 10 or CH)

6 3 4 638 ML-Sandy Silts






Borehole No. 4A & 4B, Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS =

2.0

Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks


CBR < 10 or CH)





30 11 15 1677 ML-Sandy Elastic Silt

36 13 19 1899 ML-Sandy Elastic Silt


18/78

Borehole No. 5, Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.0Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks


CBR < 10 or CH)








Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks


CBR < 10 or CH)

6 7 9 1198 SM-Silty Sand w/ Gravel






19/78

Borehole No. 7, Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.0Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks


CBR < 10 or CH)








Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks


CBR < 10 or CH)







20/78

Borehole No. 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of

Safety FS = 2.0Layer Depth

in inches

Corrected No. of

Blows per 6

cone penetration

CBR Allowable

Bearing

Capacity

(lbs/ft2)

Remarks


CBR < 10 or CH




















21/78










22/78

CHAPTER 3

LABORATORY TESTING

Laboratory Test Procedures

The following laboratory tests and their brief description were carried out on the soil

samples obtained from site.

1.

Classification of Soils for Engineering Purpose

ASTM D 2487-00 Standard Practice Classification of Soils for Engineering

Purpose (Unified Soil Classification System)

2. Particle Size Analysis of Soils

ASTM D 422-63 Standard Practice Methods for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils:

Soil was passed through a series of sieves, the weight of soil retained on each sieve

determined and recorded. For each sample analyzed, a gradation curve was drawn based

on the percent finer by weight.

3. Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit & Plasticity Index of Soils

ASTM D 4318-00 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity

Index of Soils: The liquid limit and plastic limit of soils (along with the shrinkage limit)

are often collectively referred to as the Atterberg limits. These limits distinguished the

boundaries of the several consistency states of plastic soils.

4. Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils.

ASTM D 2216-98 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water

Content (Moisture) of Soil and Rock by Mass: The ratio expressed as percentage of the

weight of water in a given mass of soil to the weight of the solid particles.


23/78

Laboratory Test Results

Borehole No. 1Layer

Depth,

inches

Sample

No.

USCS

Symbol

Description

Grain Size Liquid Limit

%

Plastic Limit

%

Plastic Index

%

Moisture

Content

%

6 to

36

SS1 MH

Sandy

Elastic Silt

R4 = 0% ;

R200= 47.6% ;

F200= 52.4%

LL = 50.2%; PL = 41% PI = 9.18% MC= 42.86%

Borehole No. 2

Layer

Depth,

inches

Sample

No.

USCS

Symbol

Description


%

Plastic Limit

%

Plastic Index

%

Moisture

Content

%

6 to

36

SS2 ML

Sandy Silt

R4 = 0% ;

R200= 49.3% ;

F200= 50.7%

LL = 44.9%; PL = 38.3% PI = 6.57% MC= 33.75%

Borehole No. 3

Layer

Depth,

inches

Sample

No.

USCS

Symbol

Description


%

Plastic Limit

%

Plastic Index

%

Moisture

Content

%

6 to

36

SS3 ML

Sandy Silt

R4 = 0% ;

R200= 46.1% ;

F200= 53.9%

LL = 45.6%; PL = 34.6% PI = 11.03% MC= 32.73%

Borehole No. 4A and 4B

Layer

Depth,

inches

Sample

No.

USCS

Symbol

Description


%

Plastic Limit

%

Plastic Index

%

Moisture

Content

%

6 to

24

SS4A ML

Sandy Silt

R4 = 0% ;

R200= 48.7% ;

F200= 51.3%

LL = 42.9%; PL = 35.4% PI = 7.52% MC= 58.86%


24/78


25/78

Borehole No. 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D

Layer

Depth,

inches

Sample

No.

USCS

Symbol

Description


%

Plastic Limit

%

Plastic Index

%

Moisture

Content

%

6 to

36

SS9A MH

Sandy

Elastic Silt

R4 = 0.3% ;

R200= 46.7% ;

F200= 53.3%

LL = 57.1%; PL = 42.5% PI = 14.57% MC= 57.05%

36

to

72

SS9B MH

Sandy

Elastic Silt

R4 = 0% ;

R200= 45.5% ;

F200= 54.5%

LL = 52.3%; PL = 42.3% PI = 10.06% MC= 49.82%

72

to

108

SS9C MH

Sandy

Elastic Silt

R4 = 0.3% ;

R200= 46.7% ;

F200= 53.3%

LL = 57.1%; PL = 42.5% PI = 14.57% MC= 53.39%

108

to

180

SS9D MH

Sandy

Elastic Silt

R4 = 0% ;

R200= 45.5% ;

F200= 54.5%

LL = 52.3%; PL = 42.3% PI = 10.06% MC= 59.12%


26/78

CHAPTER 4

EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS

Evaluation and Analysis on Building Area Foundation:

The building footprint subsurface soil samples taken from the test pits with

varying depth (from 3 feet to 12 feet) was found to be of MH using the USCS soil

classification or sandy elastic silt. This type of silt is typically has medium toughness,

high plasticity or high liquid limit, low to medium dry strength and low dilatancy.

The supposed building foundation has low allowable bearing capacities as shown

in the field test results of Chapter 2. This sandy elastic silt foundation will have enough

strength to support the proposed Two Story Administration Building on shallow

isolated spread footings but with much wider footing size. It is also necessary to

interconnect the footings with tie-beams to limit the differential settlement. The in-situ

foundation will have to be modified in order provided a stronger and more uniform soil

support foundation bed. The idea is to over-excavate the existing soil foundation by at

least one (1) meter and replace it with compacted engineered fill like sub-base course or

base course or other equivalent materials. This modification process will in effect

improved the bearing capacity at footing level by distancing from the in-situ sandy

elastic silt foundation.

Evaluation and Analysis on Road and Parking Lot Areas:

The subsurface soil samples taken from 3 feet test pits (i.e BH-1/TP-1 to BH-

8/TP-8) along the dirt roadway found to be of sandy silt (ML) and sandy elastic silt


27/78

representative CBR for sandy silt subgrade, is quite a reasonable foundation base for

Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP). However, ML and MH subgrade aretypically considered as fair to poor. The pavement structure for this type of subgrade

shall include selected fill in addition to the typical section of PCC Pavement, that is,

subbase and concrete pavement.


28/78

CHAPTER 5

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Site Preparation and Grading:

Clearing, Grubbing and Ground Preparation All surface objects and all trees,

stumps, roots and other protruding obstructions, not designated to remain, shall be cleared

and or/grubbed, including as required. The existing ground surface shall be prepared to

receive fill by removing vegetation or any materials of non-complying fill, topsoil and

other unsuitable materials, and by scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill.

Road Excavation All excavation shall be finished to reasonably smooth and

uniform surfaces. Excavation operations shall be conducted so that material outside of the

limits of slope will not be disturbed. Prior to excavation, all necessary clearing and

grubbing in the areas shall have been performed. The slopes of cut surfaces shall be not

steeper than is safe for the intended use and shall be no steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2

units horizontal.

Structure Excavation Excavation for buildings or structures shall be constructed or

protected such that they do not endanger life and property. If there are existing footings or

foundations which may be affected by any excavation, it shall be underpinned adequately

or otherwise protected by settlement and shall be protected against lateral movement.

Fills Fills to be used to support foundations of any building or structure shall be

placed in accordance with the accepted engineering practice.

Fill Slopes - Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than 1 unit

vertical in 2 units horizontal, provided further that benches shall be made to key in the

subsequent fill material.


29/78

in thickness to a maximum of 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM

Standard D-1557. In-place density shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D-1556,D-2167, ASTM D-2922, ASTM D-3017 or equivalent. For clean granular materials, the

use of the foregoing procedures is inappropriate. Relative density criteria shall be used on

ASTM D-5030-04. A minimum of three tests for every 500 m2(5380 ft

2) area should be

performed for every lift to verify compliance with the compaction requirements. In-situ

compaction can also be determined in accordance with ASTM D-7380 Standard Test

Method for Soil Compaction Determination at Shallow Depths using 5-lb (2.3 kg)

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer

Building Footing Design Recommendations

Taking the field results, laboratory results, analysis and findings intoconsiderations, the undersigned recommends the following:

1. It is recommended that the bottom of footings shall be set at elevation 1.5

metersfrom the existing natural ground surfaceand it is further recommended that the

maximum usable bearing pressure is 1300 psf or 62 KPa which has an estimated

foundation settlement of 35 mm.

2. The footings shall be connected with adequate tie-beams to minimize

differential settlement. It is also noted that foundation design criteria mentioned above is

limited to building foundation only and does not include equipment or machine

foundation.

3.

It is recommended that foundation improvement shall be employed using

remove and replace method for footings at administration building, the following

suggested modification procedure are as follows to wit:

O h f d i b d b l 1 00 d h b l h


30/78

be determined in accordance with ASTM D-1556, D-2167, ASTM D-

2922, ASTM D-3017 or equivalent.

In-situ compaction can also bedetermined in accordance with ASTM D-7380 Standard Test Method

for Soil Compaction Determination at Shallow Depths using 5-lb (2.3 kg)

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer.

Replace with base course materials or equivalent deposited in layers of

200 mm in loose thickness.

It is strongly discourage not to use boulders as foundation improvement

due to difficulty of compaction and filling of voids.

Road Pavement Design Parameters Recommendations

Taking the field results, laboratory results, evaluation analysis into considerations,the undersigned recommends the following:

1. Pavement Structural Parameters:

Location Average CBR Remarks






BH-6/TP-6 Road 6.8 SM Silty Sand with Gravel

BH-7/TP-7 Road 7 ML Sandy Silt

BH-8/TP-8 Parking Lot 17.8 MH Sandy Elastic Silt

2 P m t St t h ll i t f S l t d Fill S bb C d


31/78

In preparing this report, the professional services have been performed.

Subsurface Soil Investigation of FSM COM Chuuk Campus at Weno Island -

Geotechnical Engineering Report (Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test & Test Pits) has

been prepared by the undersigned in accordance with generally accepted Engineering

Principles and Practices.

November 18, 2010

Prepared by: Noted by:

Lizardo P. Remojo, MEng, ASEP Reynaldo M.C. Arce, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer Principal

Master of Engineering (Structural/Geotechnical) EMPSCO Engineering Consultants

CE Reg No. 36528 CE 564, SE 774

SE-ASEP No. 36528-00081-000 GUAM - PEALS

Regular Member, Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP).


32/78

CHAPTER 6

LITERATURE REFERENCES

ASTM Committee DO4 on Road and Paving Materials (2003, June). Standard Test

Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement

Applications. ASTM International,, pp. 1 7.

Kessler, K.C. (2001, January). Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Users Manual. KesslerSoils Engineering Products, Inc., Springfield VA.

Wales, Jimmy (Founder) Wikipedia Internet Free Encyclopedia, Website:

en.wikipedia.org

Earthquake Hazard Program, U.S. Geological Survey Website:

earthquake.usgs/earthquakes

Das, Braja (2006). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering 5th

Edition, PWS Publishing

Company, ISBN 0-534-55144-0

Google Earth

Geo-Engineering and Testing, Inc., (1999, November) Subsurface Soil Investigation,

College of Micronesia, Chuuk Campus, Federated States of Micronesia


33/78

CHAPTER 7

APPENDICES

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Photographs:

BH-1 at ground level (Access Road):




34/78





35/78


BH-8 at ground level (Building Parking Lot):

BH-9A at 3 from ground level (Building Area):


36/78

BH-9B at 6 from ground level (Building Area):

BH-9C at 9 from ground level (Building Area):

BH-9D at 12 from ground level (Building Area):


37/78

Road & Test Pit Excavation Photographs:


38/78

Laboratory Photographs:

EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) WORKSHEET - FIELD DATA


39/78

Pro ject : Pro po sed F SM -C OM A dmi ni st ra ti on B ui ld in g w ith C lassro om Test No.

Location: Weno, Chuuk, Federated of Micronesia

Test Conducted By: EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS - GUAM

(Office) (Date)

Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual)

Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.6 lbs

Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Quick Rain

6 '' 6 '' 3 100% 3.0 50.80 4 1276 6 '' 6 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 6 '' 3 100% 3.0 50.80 4 1276 6 '' 6 '' 3 100% 3.0 50.80 4 1276 6 ''

6 '' 12 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 '' 12 '' 9 100% 9.0 16.93 12 2889 6 '' 12 '' 2 100% 2.0 76.20 2 944 6 '' 12 '' 6 100% 6.0 25.40 8 2137 6 ''

6 '' 18 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 18 '' 12 100% 12.0 12.70 17 3578 6 '' 18 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 '' 18 '' 9 100% 9.0 16.93 12 2889 6 ''

6 '' 24 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 '' 24 '' 12 100% 12.0 12.70 17 3578 6 '' 24 '' 10 100% 10.0 15.24 14 3124 6 '' 24 '' 13 100% 13.0 11.72 19 3797 6 ''

6 '' 30 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 30 '' 12 100% 12.0 12.70 17 3578 6 '' 30 '' 12 100% 12.0 12.70 17 3578 6 '' 30 '' 14 100% 14.0 10.89 20 4012 6 ''

6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 '' 50 100% 50.0 3.05 84 10340 6 '' 36 '' 14 100% 14.0 10.89 20 4012 6 '' 36 '' 26 100% 26.0 5.86 40 6358 6 ''

Average 4.7 5.9 1761 16.5 25.3 4257 7.7 10.5 2467 11.8 17.1 3411

CBR = 292 / PR1.12

CBR Value for all soils except CL soils below CBR 10% and CH soils

CBR = 1 /(.017019* PR)2

CBR Value for CL soils (CBR < 10% ) qult = 3.794*CBR.664

(in psi - ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association)

.664

10/25/2010

Correl

ated

qult(psf)

Ground Surface

Borehole No.8

Correc

tionFactor

Correl

ated

qult(psf)

Ground Surface

CBR(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

PR

(mm/blow)

Ultimate Bearing Pressure - lbs/ft2

by Portland Cement Association

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/blow)

CBR(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

LayerThick

ness

in

inches

Total

Depthin

inche

s

No.of

Blow

s / 6"

(Fiel

d)

Ground Surface

LayerThick

ness

in

inches

Total

Depth in

inche

s

Ground Surface

LayerThick

ness

in

inches

Total

Depth in

inche

s

No.of

Blow

s / 6"

(Field

)

PR

(mm/blow)

CBR(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Correl

ated

qult(psf)

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

Correc

tionFactor

Borehole No. 1 Borehole No. 2

No.of

Blow

s / 6"

(Fiel

d)

Corre

ctionFactor

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/blow)

CBR(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Correlat

ed qult(psf)

LayerThick

ness

in

inches

Total

Depth

in

inches

Borehole No.3

Monday, October 04, 2010

Corre

cted

NOB/6

"

No.of

Blow

s / 6"

(Fiel

d)

Correc

tionFactor

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/blow)

CBR(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Ground Surface

LayerThick

ness

in

inches

Total

Depth in

inche

s

No. of

Blows /

6"

(Field)

Correct

ionFactor

Correla

ted qult(psf)

CBR =1 / (.002871*PR) CBR Value for CH soi ls qult

= (3.794*CBR.664

)*144 (in psf - ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association)

TEST PERFORMED BY:

ENGR. LIZARDO P. REMOJO JAIME ANONUEVO KAE TAKOCH KIMPO REISON D-GSON RANUCH

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER LOGISTIC /DCP OPERATOR DCP OPERATOR DCP OPERATOR DCP OPERATOR DCP OPERATOR DCP OPERATOR DCP OPERATOR

CBR Graphs BH-1 CBR Graphs BH-2 CBR Graphs BH-3 CBR Graphs BH-8

Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-1 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-2 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-3 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-8



40/78

Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom


Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing:


Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Sunny

4

9

5

6

56

5

12

17

17

17

84

4

2

6

14

17

20

4

8

12

19

20

40

n = (CBR)ave

15 (qult

)ave

= 2974 (qall

)ave

= 1487

SD = Standard Deviation

SD = ((qall-(qall)ave)2 /( n -1 )) = lbs/ ft2

(qall)ave= lbs/ft2

(qall)min= lbs/ft2

(qall)max= lbs/ft2

qall =

FS = Factor of Safety = 2.0 ( 2.0 to 3.0 for footing) max= inch

PREPARED BY:

ENGR. LIZARDO P. REMOJO, MEng, ASEP

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

qult/FS

3013BH-8 24 6 36 26 3179 1692 2862952 2172 4186

BH-8 23 6 30 14 2006 519 269510 9994012.22

6357.98

2452BH-8 22 6 24 13 1899 412 169393 891 2906

BH-8 21 6 18 9 1444 -43 1822 4372888.57

3797.07

1645BH-8 20 6 12 6 1068 -419 175271 61 2076

BH-8 19 6 6 3 638 -849 720723 -3691276.02

2136.62

2796BH-3 18 6 36 14 2006 519 269510 999 3013

BH-3 17 6 30 12 1789 302 91119 7813577.65

4012.22

1940

BH-3 16 6 24 10 1562 75 5631 555 2569

BH-3 15 6 18 5 933 -554 307042 -741865.70

3124.01

1645BH-3 14 6 12 2 472 -1015 1030307 -535 1479

BH-3 13 6 6 3 638 -849 720723 -3691276.02

943.85

1.5

BH-1 1 6 6 3 638 -849 720723 -369BH-1 2 6 12 7 1198

2494

2494

1007.336

1487

480

24 (qall-(qall)ave)2 = 23338713 480

Total Depth ininches

Allowable Bearing Pressure - lbs/ft 2

Corrected No.of Blows / 6" Correlated qall (lbs/ft^2) qall- (qall) ave (qall- (qall) ave)

2 Min. AllowableBearing Pressure

790 -697 485468 -217 1798

933

Layer Thicknessin inches Max. Allowable

Bearing Pressure

1645

-289 83456 191 2205BH-1 3 6 18 4

BOREHOLE No. 1, 2, 3, 8

10/25/2010

PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE)


BoreholeTest Sample

No.Correlated qult(lbs/ft^2)

1276.02

2396.15

1580.42

CBR

-554 307042 -74 1940

BH-1 5 6 30 4 790 -697 485468 -217 1798

BH-1 4 6 24 5 1865.70

1580.42933 -554 307042 -74 1940BH-1 6 6 36 5 1865.70

790 -697 485468 -217 1798BH-2 7 6 6 4 1580.42

1444 -43 1822 437 2452BH-2 8 6 12 9 2888.57

1789 302 91119 781 2796BH-2 9 6 18 12 3577.65

1789 302 91119 781 2796BH-2 10 6 24 12 3577.65

1789 302 91119 781 2796BH-2 11 6 30 12 3577.65

5170 3683 13564864 4163 6177BH-2 12 6 36 50 10340.03

Page 1 of 1




41/78

P roj ec t: P rop os ed FS M- COM Ad mi nis tr at io n B ui ldi ng wi th Cl as sr oo m Test No.

Loc ation: Weno, Chuuk, Federated of Micronesia


(Office) (Date)




1 6 '' 6 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 6 '' 3 100% 3.0 50.80 4 1276 6 '' 6 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 '' 6 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 ''

2 6 '' 12 '' 3 100% 3.0 50.80 4 1276 6 '' 12 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 12 '' 8 100% 8.0 19.05 11 2646 6 '' 12 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 ''

3 6 '' 18 '' 6 100% 6.0 25.40 8 2137 6 '' 18 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 18 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 '' 18 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 ''

4 6 '' 24 '' 10 100% 10.0 15.24 14 3124 6 '' 24 '' 6 100% 6.0 25.40 8 2137 6 '' 24 '' 8 100% 8.0 19.05 11 2646 6 '' 24 '' 9 100% 9.0 16.93 12 2889 6 ''

5 6 '' 30 '' 11 100% 11.0 13.85 15 3353 6 '' 30 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 30 '' 6 100% 6.0 25.40 8 2137 6 '' 30 '' 11 100% 11.0 13.85 15 3353 6 ''

6 6 '' 36 '' 13 100% 13.0 11.72 19 3797 6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 ''

Average 7.8 10.7 2545 4.3 5.4 1670 6.8 9.0 2348 7.0 9.3 2366

CBR = 292 / PR1.12


CBR = 1 /(.017019* PR)2



CBR =1 / (.002871*PR) CBR Value for CH soils qult = (3.794*CBR.664

)*144 (in psf - ult imate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association)

TEST PERFORMED BY:



CBR Graphs BH-4 CBR Graphs BH-5 CBR Graphs BH-6 CBR Graphs BH-7

Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-4 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-5 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-7

Ground Surface

Layer

Thick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Dept

h in

inche

s

No. of

Blows /

6"

(Field)

Correc

tion

Factor

Correla

ted qult

(psf)

Corre

cted

NOB/6

"

No.

of

Blow

s / 6"

(Fiel

d)

Correc

tion

Factor

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/blo

w)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

Correc

tion

Factor

Borehole No. 4 Borehole No. 5

No.

of

Blow

s / 6"

(Field

)

Corre

ction

Factor

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/bl

ow)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Correlat

ed qult

(psf)

Layer

Thick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Depth

in

inches

Borehole No.6


Ground Surface

Layer

Thick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Dept

h in

inche

s

Ground Surface

Layer

Thick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Dept

h in

inche

s

No. of

Blows

/ 6"

(Field

)

PR

(mm/blo

w)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Correl

ated

qult

(psf)

10/25/2010

Correl

ated

qult

(psf)

Ground Surface

Borehole No.7

Correc

tion

Factor

Correl

ated

qult

(psf)

Ground Surface

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

PR

(mm/bl

ow)



Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/blo

w)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Layer

Thick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Depth

in

inche

s

No.

of

Blow

s / 6"

(Field

)




42/78



Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing:Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.6 lbs


5

4

8

14

15

19

4

5

5

8

5

6

9

11

9

118

6

5

5

9

12

15

9

n = (CBR)ave 9 (qult)ave= 2232 (qall)ave= 1116


SD = ((qall-(qall)ave)2 /( n -1 )) = lbs/ft2

(qall)ave= lbs/ft2

(qall)min= lbs/ft2

(qall)max= lbs/ft2

qall =


PREPARED BY:



790 -326 106162 790 790BH-5 11 6 30 4 1580.42

933 -183 33556 933 933BH-5 12 6 36 5 1865.70

1068 -48 2278 1068 1068BH-5 10 6 24 6 2136.62

790 -326 106162 790 790BH-5 9 6 18 4 1580.42

790 -326 106162 790 790BH-5 8 6 12 4 1580.42

638 -478 228507 638 638BH-5 7 6 6 3 1276.02

1677

BH-4 4 6 24 10 3124.01

3353.47

1899 783 612312 1899 1899BH-4 6 6 36 13 3797.07

BH-4 5 6 30 11 1677 561 314387 1677

10/25/2010

BH-4 1 6 6 4

446 198888 1562 1562

CBR

1562

Layer Thicknessin inches Max. Allowable

Bearing Pressure

790

-478



Borehole

Test SampleNo.

Correlated qult(lbs/ft^2)

1580.42

1276.02

2136.62

228507 638 638BH-4 3 6 18 6

BOREHOLE No. 4, 5, 6, 7


Allowable Bearing Pressure - lbs/ft 2

Corrected No.of Blows / 6" Correlated qall(lbs/ft^2) qall- (qall) ave (qall- (qall) ave)

2 Min. AllowableBearing Pressure

1068 -48 2278 1068 1068

111624 (qall-(qall)ave)2 = 2828379 1116

1.5

765

1467

350.675

1116

qult/FS

790 -326 106162 790BH-4 2 6 12 3 638

1198BH-6 14 6 12 8 1323 207 42900 1323 1323

BH-6 13 6 6 7 1198 82 6731 11982396.15

2646.32

1198

BH-6 16 6 24 8 1323 207 42900 1323 1323

BH-6 15 6 18 7 1198 82 6731 11982396.15

2646.321068

BH-6 18 6 36 5 933 -183 33556 933 933

BH-6 17 6 30 6 1068 -48 2278 10682136.62

1865.70

790BH-7 20 6 12 4 790 -326 106162 790 790

BH-7 19 6 6 4 790 -326 106162 7901580.42

1580.42

1198BH-7 22 6 24 9 1444 328 107749 1444 1444

BH-7 21 6 18 7 1198 82 6731 11982396.15

2888.57

1677BH-7 24 6 36 7 1198 82 6731 1198 1198

BH-7 23 6 30 11 1677 561 314387 16773353.47

2396.15

Page 1 of 1

P roj ec t: P rop os ed FS M- COM Ad mi nis tr at io nB ui ldi ng wi th Cl as sr oo m Test No.




43/78

P roj ec t: P rop os ed FS M COM Ad mi nis tr at io n B ui ldi ng wi th Cl as sr oo m Test No.

Loc ation: Weno, Chuuk, Federated of Micronesia


(Office) (Date)




6 '' 6 '' 3 120% 3.6 42.33 4 1461 6 ''

6 '' 12 '' 7 120% 8.4 18.14 11 2744 6 ''

6 '' 18 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 ''

6 '' 24 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 ''

6 '' 30 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 ''

6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 ''

6 '' 42 '' 5.0 6 '' 42 '' 4 120% 4.8 31.75 6 1810 6 ''

6 '' 48 '' 6 '' 48 '' 4 120% 4.8 31.75 6 1810 6 ''

6 '' 54 '' 6 '' 54 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 ''

6 '' 60 '' 6 '' 60 '' 8 100% 8.0 19.05 11 2646 6 ''

6 '' 66 '' 6 '' 66 '' 10 100% 10.0 15.24 14 3124 6 ''

6 '' 72 '' 6 '' 72 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 '' 72 ''

6 '' 78 '' 6 '' 6.9 6 '' 78 '' 6 120% 7.2 21.17 10 2447 6 ''

6 '' 84 '' 6 '' 6 '' 84 '' 6 120% 7.2 21.17 10 2447 6 ''

6 '' 90 '' 6 '' 6 '' 90 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 ''

6 '' 96 '' 6 '' 6 '' 96 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 ''

6 '' 102 '' 6 '' 6 '' 102 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 ''

6 '' 108 '' 6 '' 6 '' 108 '' 4 100% 4.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 108 ''

6 '' 114 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6.2 6 '' 114 '' 4 120% 4.8 31.75 6 1810 6 ''

6 '' 120 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 120 '' 5 120% 6.0 25.40 8 2137 6 ''

6 '' 126 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 126 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866 6 ''

6 '' 132 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 132 '' 6 100% 6.0 25.40 8 2137 6 ''

6 '' 138 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 138 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396 6 ''

6 '' 144 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 144 '' 8 100% 8.0 19.05 11 2646 6 '' 144 ''

6 '' 150 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6.1 6 '' 150 '' 3 250% 7.5 20.32 10 2522

6 '' 156 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 156 '' 6 120% 7.2 21.17 10 2447

6 '' 162 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 162 '' 6 100% 6.0 25.40 8 2137

6 '' 168 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 168 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.77 9 2396

6 '' 174 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 174 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866

6 '' 180 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 180 '' 5 100% 5.0 30.48 6 1866

6.3

CBR = 292 / PR1.12


CBR = 1 /(.017019* PR)2



CBR =1 / (.002871*PR) CBR Value for CH soils qult = (3.794*CBR.664

)*144 (in psf - ult imate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association)

TEST PERFORMED BY:



10/25/2010

Correl

ated

qult

(psf)

Ground Surface

Borehole No. 9C

Correc

tion

Factor

Correl

ated

qult

(psf)

Ground Surface

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

PR

(mm/bl

ow)



Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/blo

w)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

LayerThick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Depth

in

inche

s

No.

of

Blow

s / 6"

(Field

)

Ground Surface

LayerThick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Dept

h in

inche

s

Ground Surface

LayerThick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Dept

h in

inche

s

No. of

Blows

/ 6"

(Field

)

PR

(mm/blo

w)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Correl

ated

qult

(psf)

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

Correc

tion

Factor

Borehole No. 9 Borehole No. 9A

No.

of

Blow

s / 6"

(Field

)

Corre

ction

Factor

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/bl

ow)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Correl

ated

qult

(psf)

LayerThick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Depth

in

inches

Borehole No. 9B


Corre

cted

NOB/6

"

No.

of

Blow

s / 6"

(Fiel

d)

Correc

tion

Factor

Correc

ted

NOB/6

"

PR

(mm/bl

ow)

CBR

(all

soils

excl

CL,C

H)

Ground Surface

LayerThick

ness

in

inche

s

Total

Dept

h in

inche

s

No. of

Blows /

6"

(Field)

Borehole No. 9D

Correc

tion

Factor

Correla

ted qult

(psf)




44/78



Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing:



4

11

5

6

5

6

66

9

11

14

9

10

10

9

9

6

5

6

8

6

8

9

11

10

10

8

9

6

6

n = (CBR)ave 7 (qult)ave= 1785 (qall)ave= 1077


SD = ((qall-(qall)ave)2 /( n -1 )) = lbs/ft2

(qall)ave= lbs/ft2

(qall)min= lbs/ft2

(qall)max= lbs/ft2

qall =


PREPARED BY:



CBR

933BH-9D 30 6 180 5 933 -144 20861 9331865.70

1198

BH-9D 29 6 174 5 933 -144 20861 933 9331865.70

1068BH-9D 27 6 162 6 1068 -9 81 10682136.62

BH-9D 28 6 168 7 1198 121 14591 11982396.15

1261

BH-9D 26 6 156 7 1223 146 21362 1223 1223

BH-9D 25 6 150 8 1261 184 33808 12612522.30

2446.88

1198

BH-9C 24 6 144 8 1323 246 60455 1323 1323

BH-9C 23 6 138 7 1198 121 14591 11982396.15

2646.32

933

BH-9C 22 6 132 6 1068 -9 81 1068 1068

BH-9C 21 6 126 5 933 -144 20861 9331865.70

2136.62

905

BH-9C 20 6 120 6 1068 -9 81 1068 1068

BH-9C 19 6 114 5 905 -172 29697 9051809.91

2136.62

933

BH-9B 18 6 108 4 790 -287 82411 790 790

BH-9B 17 6 102 5 933 -144 20861 9331865.70

1580.42

1198

BH-9B 16 6 96 7 1198 121 14591 1198 1198

BH-9B 15 6 90 7 1198 121 14591 11982396.15

2396.15

120150 731

BH-9 2 6 12 8 1372

BH-9B 14 6 84 7 1223

2446.88

2446.88

107730 (qall-(qall)ave)2 = 1210071 1077

204.271

1077

1.5

873

qult/FS

1282

-287 82411 790 790

933

Layer Thicknessin inches Max. Allowable Bearing

Pressure

731

295 86888 1372 1372

1223

146 21362 1223 1223

6 78

BH-9 3 6 18 4

BOREHOLE No. 9

10/25/2010

-144 20861 933 933

BH-9 5 6 30 4 790 -287 82411 790 790

BH-9



BoreholeTest Sample

No.Correlated qult(lbs/ft^2)

1461.31

2744.10

1580.42


Ultimate Bearing Pressure - lbs/ft2Corrected No.of Blows / 6" Correlated qall (lbs/ft^2) qall- (qall) ave (qall- (qall) ave)

2 Min. Allowable BearingPressure

790

BH-9 1 6 6 4 731 -347

4 6 24 5 1865.70

1580.42

933 -144 20861 933 933BH-9 6 6 36 5 1865.70

905 -172 29697 905 905BH-9A 7 6 42 5 1809.91905 -172 29697 905 905BH-9A 8 6 48 5 1809.91

1198 121 14591 1198 1198BH-9A 9 6 54 7 2396.15

1323 246 60455 1323 1323BH-9A 10 6 60 8 2646.32

1562 485 234954 1562 1562BH-9A 11 6 66 10 3124.01

1198 121 14591 1198 1198BH-9A 12 6 72 7 2396.15

BH-9B 13 7 1223 146 21362 1223

Page 1 of 1


45/78

WATER (MOISTURE) CONTENT - ASTM D 2216 - 98


46/78

( )PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA

DATE:

TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

WT. of WT. of WT. of WT. of WT. of Water

Empty Can Wet Sample Dry Sample Water Dry Sample Content

(grams) plus Can plus Can (grams) (grams) w , %

(grams) (grams)

SS1 34.50 122.36 96.00

26.36 61.50 42.86%

SS2 29.50 105.07 86.00 19.07 56.50 33.75%

SS3 41.00 133.91 111.00 22.91 70.00 32.73%

SS4-A 33.50 138.35 99.50 38.85 66.00 58.86%

SS4-B 28.50 114.12 83.00 31.12 54.50 57.10%

SS5 30.50 127.51 91.50 36.01 61.00 59.03%

SS6 8.79 95.01 65.02 29.99 56.23 53.33%

SS7 23.00 128.05 94.50 33.55 71.50 46.92% `

SS8 8.87 87.88 59.18 28.70 50.31 57.05%

SS9-A 22.50 76.93 57.00

19.93 34.50 57.77%

SS9-B 23.50 134.37 97.50 36.87 74.00 49.82%

SS9-C 30.00 127.40 93.50 33.90 63.50 53.39%

SS9-D 28.50 122.38 87.50 34.88 59.00 59.12%

Sample

Friday, November 05, 2010


47/78

ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING


DATE:


SAMPLE NO.: SS-1 BOREHOLE 1

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :

LIQUID LIMIT

FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION

Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)

Mass of Wet Soil + Can 12.76 11.67 14.26 13.33

Mass of Dry Soil + Can 11.39 10.52 12.37 11.73

Mass of Can 8.53 8.25 8.62 8.47

Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 2.86 2.27 3.75 3.26

Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.37 1.15 1.89 1.60

No. of Blows, N 41 27 24 20

Water Content, w(%) 47.90% 50.66% 50.40% 49.08%

0.4790 0.5066 0.5040 0.4908 50.22%1 2 3 4

LL = 49.51%

COMPUTATION :

Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:

Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1

log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.0378 w1 = 50.40%

IF2 = 0.1521 N1 = 24

IF3 = 0.1074 w @ 25 = 50.22%

Iave = 0.09908

Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 50.22% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Number of Blows, N ( log scale )

PLASTIC LIMIT

Can Description PL1 (grams) PL2 (grams) PL3 (grams) PL4 (grams)



Mass of Can 8.58 8.79 8.65 8.77

Mass of Dry Soil 0.69 0.96 1.17 0.53

Mass of Moisture 0.34 0.37 0.43 0.21Water Content, w(%) 49.28% 38.54% 36.75% 39.62%

w = 41.05%

Liquid Limit, LL = 50.22%

Plastic Limit, PL = 41.05%

Plasticity Index, PI = 9.18%


ave

F

100%

90%

80%

50%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Flow Curve

1

234

Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11.11.10 new.xlsxSS1


48/78



DATE:




LIQUID LIMIT





Mass of Can 8.70 8.81 8.97 8.70



No. of Blows, N 16 24 28 32

Water Content, w(%) 47.15% 42.04% 44.08% 44.78%

0.4715 0.4204 0.4408 0.4478 44.89%1 2 3 4

LL = 44.51%

COMPUTATION :



log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.0786 w1 = 44.08%

IF2 = 0.2900 N1 = 28

IF3 = 0.1263 w @ 25 = 44.89%

Iave = 0.16497



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.49 8.71 8.66 8.71

Mass of Dry Soil 0.52 0.34 0.49 0.66


w = 38.32%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

50%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

F

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Flow Curve

123

4

F



49/78



DATE:




LIQUID LIMIT





Mass of Can 8.72 8.66 8.82 8.48



No. of Blows, N 8 15 34 42

Water Content, w(%) 53.17% 43.63% 42.54% 40.59%

0.5317 0.4363 0.4254 0.4059 45.62%1 2 3 4

LL = 44.98%

COMPUTATION :



log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.1748 w1 = 42.54%

IF2 = 0.3496 N1 = 34

IF3 = 0.1692 w @ 25 = 45.62%

Iave = 0.23118



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.71 8.82 9.09 8.49

Mass of Dry Soil 0.50 0.47 0.53 0.38


w = 34.59%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

50%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

F

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Flow Curve

1

2

3

4

F



50/78



DATE:


SAMPLE NO.: SS-4A BOREHOLE 4PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :

LIQUID LIMIT





Mass of Can 8.44 8.80 8.77 8.76



No. of Blows, N 14 24 31 41

Water Content, w(%) 43.61% 42.94% 42.86% 43.64%

0.4361 0.4294 0.4286 0.4364 42.90%

1 2 3 4

LL = 43.26%

COMPUTATION :



log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = w1 = 42.94%

IF2 = 0.0284 N1 = 24

IF3 = 0.0217 w @ 25 = 42.90%

Iave = 0.02507



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.67 8.56 8.87 8.88

Mass of Dry Soil 0.36 0.35 0.53 0.39

Mass of Moisture 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.13

Water Content, w(%) 36.11% 40.00% 32.08% 33.33%

w = 35.38%




Friday, Novemb er 05, 2010

ave

F

100%

90%

80%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

F

2

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

20%

10%

0%

13

Flow Curve

4

F

Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11.11.10 new.xlsxSS4-A



51/78


DATE:




LIQUID LIMITFLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION




Mass of Can 8.71 8.59 8.67 8.28 67.56%



No. of Blows, N 40 31 27 16

Water Content, w(%) 61.32% 63.01% 66.88% 66.41%

0.6132 0.6301 0.6688 0.6641

1 2 3 4

LL = 64.40%COMPUTATION :



log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.1280 w1 = 66.88%

IF2 = 0.1525 N1 = 27

IF3 = 0.3259 w @ 25 = 67.56%

Iave = 0.20212



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.45 8.68 8.61 8.87

Mass of Dry Soil 1.08 1.12 1.11 0.73

Mass of Moisture 0.60 0.62 0.58 0.38

Water Content, w(%) 55.56% 55.36% 52.25% 52.05%

w = 53.80%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

F

2

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

20%

10%

0%

1

3

Flow Curve

4

F


LOCATION COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA CHUUK CAMPUS FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA


52/78


DATE:








Mass of Can 8.20 8.72 8.72 8.70


Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.45 1.81 1.05 1.62 47.23%

No. of Blows, N 10 22 38 43

Water Content, w(%) 53.70% 48.01% 45.45% 46.55%

0.5370 0.4801 0.4545 0.4655

1 2 3 4




log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.1129 w1 = 48.01%

IF2 = 0.1663 N1 = 22

IF3 = 0.1423 w @ 25 = 47.23%

Iave = 0.14048



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.99 8.81 8.70 8.96

Mass of Dry Soil 1.13 0.63 0.49 0.86

Mass of Moisture 0.52 0.26 0.21 0.37

Water Content, w(%) 46.02% 41.27% 42.86% 43.02%

w = 43.29%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%ave.

ave

ave

F

2

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

20%

10%

0%

1

3

Flow Curve

ave.

4

F


LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA CHUUK CAMPUS FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA


53/78


DATE:








Mass of Can 8.41 8.53 8.17 8.94



No. of Blows, N 11 16 22 30

Water Content, w(%) 36.52% 36.87% 36.24% 36.89%

0.3652 0.3687 0.3624 0.3689

1 2 3 4




log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = -0.0085 w1 = 36.24%

IF2 = -0.0213 N1 = 22

IF3 = 0.0094 w @ 25 = 36.27%

Iave = -0.00681



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.85 8.71 8.69 9.32

Mass of Dry Soil 0.73 0.67 0.69 0.36

Mass of Moisture 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.11

Water Content, w(%) 31.51% 32.84% 31.88% 30.56%

w = 31.70%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%ave.

ave

ave

F2

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

20%

10%

0%

1 3

Flow Curve

ave.

4

F


LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA CHUUK CAMPUS FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA


54/78


DATE:








Mass of Can 8.77 8.83 8.72 8.72



No. of Blows, N 36 30 21 14

Water Content, w(%) 55.00% 59.03% 62.18% 65.31%

0.5500 0.5903 0.6218 0.6531

1 2 3 4




log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.2513 w1 = 62.18%

IF2 = 0.5089 N1 = 21

IF3 = 0.3068 w @ 25 = 59.49%

Iave = 0.35565



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.96 8.76 8.63 8.30

Mass of Dry Soil 1.01 0.74 0.46 0.99

Mass of Moisture 0.48 0.33 0.21 0.46

Water Content, w(%) 47.52% 44.59% 45.65% 46.46%

w = 46.06%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

F

2

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

20%

10%

0%

4

3

Flow Curve

4

F




55/78

, ,

DATE:


SAMPLE NO.: SS-9A and SS-9C BOREHOLE 9A and 9C






Mass of Can 8.74 8.61 8.66 8.50



No. of Blows, N 17 23 44 31

Water Content, w(%) 65.26% 64.80% 53.25% 55.35%

0.6526 0.6480 0.5325 0.5535

1 2 3 4




log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.3799 w1 = 55.35%

IF2 = 0.0352 N1 = 31

IF3 = 0.1375 w @ 25 = 57.07%

Iave = 0.18421



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.61 8.72 8.38 8.74

Mass of Dry Soil 0.62 0.45 0.62 0.89

Mass of Moisture 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.36

Water Content, w(%) 41.94% 48.89% 38.71% 40.45%

w = 42.50%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

F

2

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

20%

10%

0%

1

3

Flow Curve

4

F




56/78

DATE:


SAMPLE NO.: SS-9B and SS-9D BOREHOLE 9B and 9D






Mass of Can 9.01 8.50 8.67 8.47



No. of Blows, N 40 27 21 16

Water Content, w(%) 56.07% 50.62% 54.77% 60.11%

0.5607 0.5062 0.5477 0.6011

1 2 3 4




log ( N2 / N1)

IF1 = 0.4175 w1 = 54.77%

IF2 = 0.4523 N1 = 21

IF3 = 0.1016 w @ 25 = 52.32%

Iave = 0.32380



PLASTIC LIMIT




Mass of Can 8.71 8.18 8.81 8.47

Mass of Dry Soil 0.66 0.74 0.61 0.80

Mass of Moisture 0.29 0.32 0.24 0.34

Water Content, w(%) 43.94% 43.24% 39.34% 42.50%

w = 42.26%





ave

F

100%

90%

80%

40%

60%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ave

ave

F

2

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

20%

10%

0%

13

Flow Curve

4

F

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422)PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING


57/78

PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING


DATE:


SAMPLE NO. SS-1 BOREHOLE 1 / TEST HOLE 1


WT. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN 282.45 Grams

WT. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN 182.50 Grams

WT. OF CAN 25.50 Grams

WT. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE 278.45 Grams

WT. OF WASHED SAMPLE 157.00 Grams

LOOSES : By Weight 99.95

Sieve No. Sieve Weight of Weight Percent CUMMULATIVE

Size Empty Sieve Retained retained Wt. Passing Passing Retained REMARKS

mm gms gms % gms % %

1-1/2'' 37.500 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Gravel

1" 25.400 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Gravel

3/4" 19.050 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Gravel

1/2" 12.700 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Gravel

3/8" 9.530 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Gravel

# 4 4.760 507.0 507 0.000 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Gravel

# 8 2.360 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Sand

# 10 2.000 482.0 482 0.000 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Sand

# 16 1.180 0.000% 278.450 100.00% 0.00% Sand

# 20 0.840 408.0 411.5 3.500 1.257% 274.950 98.74% 1.26% Sand

# 30 0.590 0.000% 274.950 98.74% 1.26% Sand

# 40 0.420 382.5 438 55.500 19.932% 219.450 78.81% 21.19% Sand

# 50 0.297 0.000% 219.450 78.81% 21.19% Sand

# 60 0.274

Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)