geotechnical engineering report chuuk fsm-com 11.18.10 final (1)
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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-3/TP-3 Road 10.5 ML Sandy Silt
BH-4/TP-4 Road 10.7 ML Sandy Silt
BH-5/TP-5 Road 5.4 MH Sandy Elastic 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.
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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.
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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.
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
11/78
Location Map of Weno, Chuuk State, FSM
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
15/78
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
12 7 9 1198 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
18 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
24 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
30 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
36 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
Borehole No. 2, 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 4 5 790 ML-Sandy Silt
12 9 12 1444 ML-Sandy Silt
18 12 17 1789 ML-Sandy Silt
24 12 17 1789 ML-Sandy Silt
30 121 17 1789 ML-Sandy Silt
36 50 84 5170 ML-Sandy Silt
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
17/78
Borehole No. 3, Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.0
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
12 2 2 472 ML-Sandy Silts
18 5 6 933 ML-Sandy Silts
24 10 14 1562 ML-Sandy Silts
30 12 17 1789 ML-Sandy Silts
36 14 20 2006 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
(All soils or CL for
CBR < 10 or CH)
6 4 5 790 ML-Sandy Silts
12 3 4 638 ML-Sandy Silts
18 6 8 1068 ML-Sandy Silt
24 10 14 1562 ML-Sandy Silt
30 11 15 1677 ML-Sandy Elastic Silt
36 13 19 1899 ML-Sandy Elastic Silt
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
(All soils or CL for
CBR < 10 or CH)
6 3 4 638 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
12 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
18 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
24 6 8 1068 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
30 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
36 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
Borehole No. 6, 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 7 9 1198 SM-Silty Sand w/ Gravel
12 8 11 1323 SM-Silty Sand w/ Gravel
18 7 9 1198 SM-Silty Sand w/ Gravel
24 8 11 1323 SM-Silty Sand w/ Gravel
30 61 8 1068 SM-Silty Sand w/ Gravel
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
(All soils or CL for
CBR < 10 or CH)
6 4 5 790 ML-Sandy Silts
12 4 5 790 ML-Sandy Silts
18 7 9 1198 ML-Sandy Silts
24 9 12 1444 ML-Sandy Silts
30 11 15 1677 ML-Sandy Silts
36 7 9 1198 ML-Sandy Silts
Borehole No. 8, 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
12 6 8 1068 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
18 9 12 1444 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
24 13 19 1899 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
30 14 20 2006 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
(All soils or CL for
CBR < 10 or CH
6 4 4 731 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
12 8 11 1372 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
18 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
24 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
30 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
36 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
42 5 6 905 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
48 5 6 905 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
54 7 9 1198 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
60 8 11 1323 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
66 10 14 1562 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
72 7 9 1198 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
78 7 10 1223 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
84 7 10 1223 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
90 7 9 1198 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
96 7 9 1198 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
102 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
108 4 5 790 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
21/78
138 7 9 1198 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
144 8 11 1323 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
150 8 10 1261 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
156 7 10 1223 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
162 6 8 1068 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
168 7 9 1198 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
174 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
180 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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.
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
Grain Size Liquid Limit
%
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
Grain Size Liquid Limit
%
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
Grain Size Liquid Limit
%
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%
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
24/78
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
25/78
Borehole No. 9A, 9B, 9C and 9D
Layer
Depth,
inches
Sample
No.
USCS
Symbol
Description
Grain Size Liquid Limit
%
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%
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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.
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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.
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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-1/TP-1 Road 5.9 MH Sandy Elastic Silt
BH-2/TP-2 Road 25.3 ML Sandy Silt
BH-3/TP-3 Road 10.5 ML Sandy Silt
BH-4/TP-4 Road 10.7 ML Sandy Silt
BH-5/TP-5 Road 5.4 MH Sandy Elastic 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 P m t St t h ll i t f S l t d Fill S bb C d
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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).
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
33/78
CHAPTER 7
APPENDICES
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test Photographs:
BH-1 at ground level (Access Road):
BH-2 at ground level (Access Road):
BH-3 at ground level (Access Road):
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
34/78
BH-4 at ground level (Access Road):
BH-5 at ground level (Access Road):
BH-6 at ground level (Access Road):
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
35/78
BH-7 at ground level (Access Road):
BH-8 at ground level (Building Parking Lot):
BH-9A at 3 from ground level (Building Area):
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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):
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
37/78
Road & Test Pit Excavation Photographs:
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
38/78
Laboratory Photographs:
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) WORKSHEET - FIELD DATA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
40/78
Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom
Location: Weno, Chuuk, Federated of Micronesia
Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing:
Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.6 lbs
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)
Monday, October 04, 2010
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
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) WORKSHEET - FIELD DATA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (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
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
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 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)
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:
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-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
Monday, October 04, 2010
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)
Ultimate Bearing Pressure - lbs/ft2
by Portland Cement Association
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
)
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE)
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
42/78
Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom
Location: Weno, Chuuk, Federated of Micronesia
Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing:Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.6 lbs
Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Sunny
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 = 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
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
PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE)
Monday, October 04, 2010
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
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
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.
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) WORKSHEET - FIELD DATA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
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 '' 3 120% 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 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)
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:
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
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)
Ultimate Bearing Pressure - lbs/ft2
by Portland Cement Association
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
Monday, October 04, 2010
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)
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE)
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
44/78
Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom
Location: Weno, Chuuk, Federated of Micronesia
Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing:
Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.6 lbs
Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Sunny
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 = 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
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
PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE)
Monday, October 04, 2010
BoreholeTest Sample
No.Correlated qult(lbs/ft^2)
1461.31
2744.10
1580.42
Total Depth ininches
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
45/78
WATER (MOISTURE) CONTENT - ASTM D 2216 - 98
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
47/78
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
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 Wet Soil + Can 9.61 10.12 10.25 9.51
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.27 9.75 9.82 9.30
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%
Friday, November 05, 2010
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
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
48/78
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-2 BOREHOLE 2
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 12.57 13.54 13.35 13.00
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 11.33 12.14 12.01 11.67
Mass of Can 8.70 8.81 8.97 8.70
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 2.63 3.33 3.04 2.97
Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.24 1.40 1.34 1.33
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 :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = 0.0786 w1 = 44.08%
IF2 = 0.2900 N1 = 28
IF3 = 0.1263 w @ 25 = 44.89%
Iave = 0.16497
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 44.89% 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 Wet Soil + Can 9.23 9.17 9.35 9.60
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.01 9.05 9.15 9.37
Mass of Can 8.49 8.71 8.66 8.71
Mass of Dry Soil 0.52 0.34 0.49 0.66
Mass of Moisture 0.22 0.12 0.20 0.23Water Content, w(%) 42.31% 35.29% 40.82% 34.85%
w = 38.32%
Liquid Limit, LL = 44.89%
Plastic Limit, PL = 38.32%
Plasticity Index, PI = 6.57%
Friday, November 05, 2010
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
Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11.11.10 new.xlsxSS2
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
49/78
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-3 BOREHOLE 3
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 11.86 11.59 12.64 11.84
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 10.77 10.70 11.50 10.87
Mass of Can 8.72 8.66 8.82 8.48
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 2.05 2.04 2.68 2.39
Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.09 0.89 1.14 0.97
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 :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = 0.1748 w1 = 42.54%
IF2 = 0.3496 N1 = 34
IF3 = 0.1692 w @ 25 = 45.62%
Iave = 0.23118
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 45.62% 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 Wet Soil + Can 9.38 9.43 9.82 9.01
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.21 9.29 9.62 8.87
Mass of Can 8.71 8.82 9.09 8.49
Mass of Dry Soil 0.50 0.47 0.53 0.38
Mass of Moisture 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.14Water Content, w(%) 34.00% 29.79% 37.74% 36.84%
w = 34.59%
Liquid Limit, LL = 45.62%
Plastic Limit, PL = 34.59%
Plasticity Index, PI = 11.03%
Friday, November 05, 2010
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
Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11.11.10 new.xlsxSS3
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
50/78
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-4A BOREHOLE 4PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
LIQUID LIMIT
FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)
Mass of Wet Soil + Can 12.82 13.66 12.57 12.71
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 11.49 12.20 11.43 11.51
Mass of Can 8.44 8.80 8.77 8.76
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 3.05 3.40 2.66 2.75
Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.33 1.46 1.14 1.20
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 :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = w1 = 42.94%
IF2 = 0.0284 N1 = 24
IF3 = 0.0217 w @ 25 = 42.90%
Iave = 0.02507
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 42.90% 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 Wet Soil + Can 9.16 9.05 9.57 9.40
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.03 8.91 9.40 9.27
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%
Liquid Limit, LL = 42.90%
Plastic Limit, PL = 35.38%
Plasticity Index, PI = 7.52%
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
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
51/78
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-5 BOREHOLE 5
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
LIQUID LIMITFLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)
Mass of Wet Soil + Can 14.34 14.23 13.86 12.64
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 12.20 12.05 11.78 10.90
Mass of Can 8.71 8.59 8.67 8.28 67.56%
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 3.49 3.46 3.11 2.62
Mass of Moisture, Ww 2.14 2.18 2.08 1.74
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 :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = 0.1280 w1 = 66.88%
IF2 = 0.1525 N1 = 27
IF3 = 0.3259 w @ 25 = 67.56%
Iave = 0.20212
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 67.56% 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 Wet Soil + Can 10.13 10.42 10.30 9.98
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.53 9.80 9.72 9.60
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%
Liquid Limit, LL = 67.56%
Plastic Limit, PL = 53.80%
Plasticity Index, PI = 13.75%
Friday, November 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%
1
3
Flow Curve
4
F
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA CHUUK CAMPUS FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
52/78
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-6 BOREHOLE 6
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
LIQUID LIMITFLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)
Mass of Wet Soil + Can 12.35 14.30 12.08 13.80
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 10.90 12.49 11.03 12.18
Mass of Can 8.20 8.72 8.72 8.70
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 2.70 3.77 2.31 3.48
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
LL = 48.43%COMPUTATION :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = 0.1129 w1 = 48.01%
IF2 = 0.1663 N1 = 22
IF3 = 0.1423 w @ 25 = 47.23%
Iave = 0.14048
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 47.23% 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 Wet Soil + Can 10.64 9.70 9.40 10.19
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 10.12 9.44 9.19 9.82
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%
Liquid Limit, LL = 47.23%
Plastic Limit, PL = 43.29%
Plasticity Index, PI = 3.94%
Friday, November 05, 2010
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
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA CHUUK CAMPUS FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
53/78
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-7 BOREHOLE 7
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
LIQUID LIMITFLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)
Mass of Wet Soil + Can 12.41 14.73 13.02 14.84
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 11.34 13.06 11.73 13.25
Mass of Can 8.41 8.53 8.17 8.94
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 2.93 4.53 3.56 4.31
Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.07 1.67 1.29 1.59 36.27%
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
LL = 36.63%COMPUTATION :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = -0.0085 w1 = 36.24%
IF2 = -0.0213 N1 = 22
IF3 = 0.0094 w @ 25 = 36.27%
Iave = -0.00681
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 36.27% 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 Wet Soil + Can 9.81 9.60 9.60 9.79
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.58 9.38 9.38 9.68
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%
Liquid Limit, LL = 36.27%
Plastic Limit, PL = 31.70%
Plasticity Index, PI = 4.58%
Friday, November 05, 2010
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
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA CHUUK CAMPUS FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
54/78
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-8 BOREHOLE 8
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
LIQUID LIMITFLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)
Mass of Wet Soil + Can 15.90 14.73 15.71 14.39
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 13.37 12.54 13.03 12.15
Mass of Can 8.77 8.83 8.72 8.72
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 4.60 3.71 4.31 3.43
Mass of Moisture, Ww 2.53 2.19 2.68 2.24 59.49%
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
LL = 60.38%COMPUTATION :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = 0.2513 w1 = 62.18%
IF2 = 0.5089 N1 = 21
IF3 = 0.3068 w @ 25 = 59.49%
Iave = 0.35565
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 59.49% 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 Wet Soil + Can 10.45 9.83 9.30 9.75
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.97 9.50 9.09 9.29
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%
Liquid Limit, LL = 59.49%
Plastic Limit, PL = 46.06%
Plasticity Index, PI = 13.43%
Friday, November 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%
4
3
Flow Curve
4
F
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
55/78
, ,
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-9A and SS-9C BOREHOLE 9A and 9C
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
LIQUID LIMITFLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)
Mass of Wet Soil + Can 12.26 11.84 13.84 13.44
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 10.87 10.57 12.04 11.68
Mass of Can 8.74 8.61 8.66 8.50
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 2.13 1.96 3.38 3.18
Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.39 1.27 1.80 1.76 57.07%
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
LL = 59.66%COMPUTATION :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = 0.3799 w1 = 55.35%
IF2 = 0.0352 N1 = 31
IF3 = 0.1375 w @ 25 = 57.07%
Iave = 0.18421
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 57.07% 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 Wet Soil + Can 9.49 9.39 9.24 9.99
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.23 9.17 9.00 9.63
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%
Liquid Limit, LL = 57.07%
Plastic Limit, PL = 42.50%
Plasticity Index, PI = 14.57%
Friday, November 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%
1
3
Flow Curve
4
F
ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 - 00PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
56/78
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.: SS-9B and SS-9D BOREHOLE 9B and 9D
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
LIQUID LIMITFLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION
Can Description LL1 (grams) LL2 (grams) LL3 (grams) LL4 (grams)
Mass of Wet Soil + Can 12.74 14.54 13.70 14.25
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 11.40 12.51 11.92 12.08
Mass of Can 9.01 8.50 8.67 8.47
Mass of Dry Soil, Ws 2.39 4.01 3.25 3.61
Mass of Moisture, Ww 1.34 2.03 1.78 2.17 52.32%
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
LL = 55.39%COMPUTATION :
Flow Index: Equation of Flow Line:
Flow Index, I = (w1-w2) = w = - IF log (25/N1) + w1
log ( N2 / N1)
IF1 = 0.4175 w1 = 54.77%
IF2 = 0.4523 N1 = 21
IF3 = 0.1016 w @ 25 = 52.32%
Iave = 0.32380
Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 52.32% 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 Wet Soil + Can 9.66 9.24 9.66 9.61
Mass of Dry Soil + Can 9.37 8.92 9.42 9.27
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%
Liquid Limit, LL = 52.32%
Plastic Limit, PL = 42.26%
Plasticity Index, PI = 10.06%
Friday, November 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
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422)PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
-
8/10/2019 Geotechnical Engineering Report Chuuk FSM-COM 11.18.10 Final (1)
57/78
PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA
DATE:
TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO. SS-1 BOREHOLE 1 / TEST HOLE 1
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
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