Geotechnical Engineering Report

Similar documents
Typical Subsurface Profile. November 28, 2016

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report

EXHIBIT G GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (DRAFT)

Geotechnical Engineering Report

November 13, Eckas Water 1514 Ambrosia Court Fort Collins, Colorado Attn: Mr. Wayne Eckas

April 7, Webster Street Sub-Surface Stormwater Storage System Bid No Bid Date: 4/13/17 ADDENDUM NO 1


CONTRACT 5E-2 APPENDIX A - TEST HOLE LOGS DYREGROV ROBINSON INC. PORTAGE AVE WINSTON DR BOURKEVALE CAVELL PARKSIDE DR ASSINIBOINE AVE

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Site Location. Figure 1: Site Location Map US-24 and I-275 Interchange Ash Township, Monroe County, Michigan


Geotechnical Engineering Report

Soil Survey Summary Report

ADDENDUM No. 2 BID NO THOMPSON CREEK SUBSTATION DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Communications Tower Spain Park Site Hoover, Alabama

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION I-15 SIGN BRIDGES LAS VEGAS EA JANUARY

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Subsurface Environmental Investigation

Geotechnical Engineering Report

You also requested information regarding a sieve analysis at each boring locations. The test results are attached.

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Geotechnical Engineering Report

GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE DATA REPORT

Geotechnical Engineering Report

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT US 93 WILDLIFE UNDERCROSSINGS North of Wells, Nevada E.A July 2009

Geotechnical Engineering Report

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT US 95 WIDENING ANN ROAD

APPENDIX A DRAINAGE STUDY PHASE 2 ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS CRYSTAL LAKE ALTERNATIVE 4C IMPROVEMENTS LAKEWOOD PIRATELAND SWASH HORRY COUNTY, SC

AECOM tel 558 North Main Street fax Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION PEPSI PLACE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA E&A PROJECT NO CLIENT ID: 4784

Geotechnical Engineering Report

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT B-1942

LTISD PURCHASING DEPARTMENT HWY 71, BLDG B AUSTIN, TX 78738

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT. KU Parking Lot 300E Southeast of Lied Center Lawrence, Kansas. Project No. D16G1696. KU No. Lz_n/11062.

Sepetember 27, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Attn: Dawn Templin 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL

Page 4 Blythe Municipal Airport Project County of Riverside, California December 7, 2015 CTE Job No G

CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 CITY OF BRYAN CEMETERY EXPANSION PROJECT CITY JOB NO. 572-D April 5, 2016

Florida s Leading Engineering Source

Report of Geotechnical Study

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

Geotechnical Data Report

Introduction to Road Soil

Geotechnical Engineering Report

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION FOR PROPOSED PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS, SIERRA MIDDLE SCHOOL, 4950 CENTRAL AVENUE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

Thi_ Qar University College of Engineering/Civil Engineering Department. Highway Lectures. Fourth Class. Part #2: - Subgrade Soil

WILLMER ENGINEERING INC. Willmer Project No Prepared for. Clark Patterson Lee Suwanee, Georgia. Prepared by

Subsurface Investigation Report. Proposed New 1-Story Building 6447 Grand Avenue Gurnee, Illinois

Geotechnical Engineering Report

SOIL MECHANICS Assignment #2: Soil Classification Solution.

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Drainage Repairs (A-Side) Western Missouri Correctional Center Cameron, MO Project No: C

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS DMA TAMPA RED BRICK BUILDING TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR MRI ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC.

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION REPORT PROPOSED HAUCK FARMS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (LOT 1, FOX CHASE 1 ST AMENDED) 7624 COUNTY ROAD

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATION CITY OF MORGAN S POINT DRAINAGE HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS REPORT NO

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

REPORT OF GEOTECHNCIAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW

Presented by: Civil Engineering Academy

PAVEMENT DESIGN SUMMARY TANGERINE ROAD CORRIDOR PROJECT INTERSTATE 10 TO LA CANADA DRIVE PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA

Geotechnical Exploration and Evaluation Report

GEOTEK ENGINEERING & TESTING SERVICES, INC. 909 East 50 th Street North Sioux Falls, South Dakota Fax

Amendment 03 Soils Report. At Air Academy High School 6910 Carlton Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80840

Ardaman & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Consultants

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION: MATERIALS REPORT COVER SHEET. Revised Soil Survey Report November 24, 2015 Matthew G. Moore, P.E.

November 14, Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. PO Box 5653 Helena, MT Mr. Bill Burkland, P.E.

REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION KINLOCK FM REPLACEMENT NEW MANHOLE STRUCTURE JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA ECS PROJECT NO A CLIENT ID: 0199

Table of Contents. Description

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Geotechnical Testing Laboratory, Inc. Engineering and Construction Materials Testing Services

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS DOLLAR TREE GREENVILLE, NC GREENVILLE, PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Applied GeoScience, Inc Hammond Dr., Suite 6 Schaumburg, Illinois

Report of Exploratory Test Pits

CEEN Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnical Data Report

Classification of Soils

Draft Geotechnical Engineering Services

GEOTEK ENGINEERING & TESTING SERVICES, INC. 909 East 50 th Street North Sioux Falls, South Dakota Phone Fax

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DAYBREAK VILLAGE 8 ROADS SOUTH JORDAN, UTAH PROJECT No JULY 8, Submitted To:

PARKING LOTS 4, 7, AND 8 RECONSTRUCTION REPORT

GFA INTERNATIONAL FLORIDA S LEADING ENGINEERING SOURCE

Geotechnical Investigation

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION & GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED MONOPOLE CELL TOWER INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA A&W PROJECT NO: 15IN0464

Sieve Opening, mm Opening, in Soil Type. Cobbles mm 3 in. Gravel mm (2.0 mm) #4 [# 10 for AASHTO) ~0.2 in (~0.

Engineering Properties of Soils

SECTION 500 STRUCTURES

Subsurface Investigation and Geotechnical Analysis Target Outparcel Midlothian Turnpike Richmond, Virginia. Client: Interface Properties

Geotechnical Engineering Study

PROPOSED MONOPOLE TOWER BERKLEY GROUP HIDE-AWAY HILLS SITE 2119 MAYA LANE SUGAR GROVE, OHIO

Geotechnical Investigation Report

Geotechnical Engineering Report

CONDUCTED FOR: PREPARED FOR: 5 May 2016 YPC Project No. 16GY146

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT US 93 WILDLIFE OVERCROSSING At HD SUMMIT North of Wells, Nevada E.A December 2009

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Subsurface Investigation Report

Civil Geotechnical Surveying

Transcription:

Geotechnical Engineering Report Pavement Subgrade Survey State Highway 125 over Hudson Creek Ottawa County, Oklahoma September 23, 21 Terracon Project No. 415121 Prepared for: Guy Engineering Services, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma

Geotechnical Engineering Report Pavement Subgrade Survey S.H. 125 over Hudson Creek Ottawa County, Oklahoma September 23, 21 Terracon Project No. 415121 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 2. SUBGRADE TESTING... 1 Pavement Cores... 1 Subgrade Testing... 1 3. GENERAL COMMENTS... 2 Appendix A Site Location Map Boring Location Diagram Boring Logs Core Logs Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits Data Appendix C Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test Data Appendix D General Notes Unified Soil Classification System

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT SUBGRADE SURVEY STATE HIGHWAY 125 OVER HUDSON CREEK OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Terracon Project No. 415121 September 23, 21 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this project was to collect pavement layer thickness data and subgrade soil information for the proposed pavement tie-in at the bridge approach embankments. Pavement cores were collected from the roadway and subgrade soil samples were obtained from the two pavement core locations. This report discusses the data collection methods and presents the data collected. 2. SUBGRADE TESTING Pavement Cores Pavement cores were collected at two locations, designated B-1 and B-2, as shown on the attached Boring Location Diagram in Appendix A. Cores were cut with a diamond bit, rotary core drill. We observed the pavement cores in the laboratory to evaluate the thickness of each pavement layer. The cores were also observed for stripping and separation of asphaltic cement. These observations are recorded on the core included in Appendix A. Review of the field measurements show that the cores generally consist of approximately 9-1/4 to 9-3/4 inches of asphaltic concrete. Subgrade Testing After coring the pavement, the underlying subgrade was tested using the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) using procedures contained in ASTM D6951-3 Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications. This test procedure provides a direct measurement of penetration rate versus depth, allowing an evaluation of the relative support characteristics of the subgrade soils, as deep as about 3 inches below the pavement surface. DCP results are presented on the Test Data forms in Appendix C. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 1

Geotechnical Engineering Report Pavement Subgrade Survey S.H. 125 over Hudson Creek Ottawa County, Oklahoma September 23, 21 Terracon Project No. 415121 After completing the DCP testing, borings were advanced with a truck-mounted rotary drill rig. Disturbed samples were obtained by the split-barrel procedure by driving a 2-inch O.D. splitbarrel sampling spoon into the soils using a 14-pound, automatic hammer falling 3 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the final 12 inches or less of a typical 18-inch sampling interval are shown on the boring logs as the standard penetration resistance (N) value. The standard penetration resistance value indicates the in-place relative density of granular soils and, to a lesser degree of accuracy, the consistency of cohesive soils. The subsurface profiles are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. The soil samples collected from the borings were sealed and returned to the laboratory for testing. In the laboratory, the samples were tested for soil index properties for use in classification. The results are shown in the boring logs and in the attached appendices. A brief description of the USCS classification system is included in Appendix D. 3. GENERAL COMMENTS The scope of services of this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential of such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical exploration services for this phase of the project. We look forward to assist you in your geotechnical engineering needs on subsequent projects. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning the contents of this report, or if we can be of further service. Reliable Responsive Convenient Innovative 2

APPENDIX A

LOG OF BORING NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT Guy Engineering SITE PROJECT Ottawa County, Oklahoma SH 125 over Hudson Creek Boring Location: Station 116+81, 8' RT SAMPLES TESTS GRAPHIC LOG 9¼" ASPHALT DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 772.2 ft DEPTH, ft. USCS SYMBOL NUMBER TYPE DB RECOVERY, in. SPT-N BLOWS / ft. WATER CONTENT, % DRY UNIT WT pcf UNCONFINED COMPRESSION, psf.8 3" AGGREGATE BASE 771.5 1 SS 12 12 16 1.1 CLAYEY SAND with gravel, dark brown and brown, medium dense 771 SC S-1 LL=29 PL=15 PI=14 -#2=3% 2.3 LEAN CLAY with sand, reddish-brown, very stiff 77 CL 2 SS 12 14 18 S-2 LL=36 PL=17 PI=19 -#2=75% 3.8 BOTTOM OF BORING 768.5 BOREHOLE BORING LOGS.GPJ TERRACON.GDT 9/23/1 The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 8-25-1 WL None WD None AB BORING COMPLETED 8-25-1 WL RIG CME-75 FOREMAN WL APPROVED CSK JOB # 415121

LOG OF BORING NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT Guy Engineering SITE PROJECT Ottawa County, Oklahoma SH 125 over Hudson Creek Boring Location: Station 123+34, 1' LT SAMPLES TESTS GRAPHIC LOG 9¾" ASPHALT DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 764.7 ft DEPTH, ft. USCS SYMBOL NUMBER TYPE DB RECOVERY, in. SPT-N BLOWS / ft. WATER CONTENT, % DRY UNIT WT pcf UNCONFINED COMPRESSION, psf.8 1 2" AGGREGATE BASE SANDY LEAN CLAY reddish-brown, stiff 764 763.5 CL 1 SS 12 1 4 S-1 LL=31 PL=16 PI=15 -#2=63% 2.3 LEAN CLAY with sand, reddish-brown and gray, very stiff 762.5 CL 2 SS 14 13 19 S-2 LL=41 PL=18 PI=23 -#2=8% 3.8 BOTTOM OF BORING 761 BOREHOLE BORING LOGS.GPJ TERRACON.GDT 9/23/1 The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary lines between soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft BORING STARTED 8-25-1 WL None WD None AB BORING COMPLETED 8-25-1 WL RIG CME-75 FOREMAN WL APPROVED CSK JOB # 415121

SH 125 over Hudson Creek Core Photo Logs Terracon Project No. 415121 Core Location B-1 Date Cored 8/25/21 Highway SH-125 Station 116+81 Lane Direction Northbound Lane Designation NA (two lane road) Core Data Surface Material Type A.C. P.C.C. Continuously Reinforced Concrete Asphalt P.C.C. Stripping Separation Honeycomb D Cracking none A.C. NA NA Core Layer Data (from top to bottom) Layer Type Thickness (inches) Asphalt 1¼ Asphalt 3¼ Asphalt 1¾ Asphalt 1½ Asphalt 1½ Total 9¼

SH 125 over Hudson Creek Core Photo Logs Terracon Project No. 415121 Core Location B-2 Date Cored 8/25/21 Highway SH-125 Station 123+34 Lane Direction Southbound Lane Designation NA (two lane road) Core Data Surface Material Type A.C. P.C.C. Continuously Reinforced Concrete Asphalt P.C.C. Stripping Separation Honeycomb D Cracking none A.C. NA NA Core Layer Data (from top to bottom) Layer Type Thickness (inches) Asphalt 1½ Asphalt 1¼ Asphalt 2½ Asphalt 1½ Asphalt 3 Total 9¾

APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING

1 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 1/2 3/4 3/8 3 4 6 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 1 16 3 5 8 14 2 4 6 1 2 14 HYDROMETER 95 9 85 8 75 7 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 65 6 55 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 1 1 1.1.1.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES coarse GRAVEL fine coarse medium SAND fine SILT OR CLAY TC_GRAIN_SIZE BORING LOGS.GPJ TERRACON.GDT 9/23/1 Specimen Identification B-1.8ft B-1 2.3ft B-2.8ft B-2 2.3ft Specimen Identification B-1 B-1 B-2 B-2.8ft 2.3ft.8ft 2.3ft D1 19 4.75 12.5 4.75 Classification LL PL PI Cc CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC) 29 15 14 LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL) 36 17 19 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 31 16 15 LEAN CLAY with SAND(CL) 41 18 23 D6 2.673 D3 D1 Project: SH 125 over Hudson Creek Site: Ottawa County, Oklahoma Job #: 415121 Date: 9-23-1 %Gravel 28 1 %Sand 42 25 27 2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION %Silt 3 75 63 8 Cu %Clay

APPENDIX C

DEPTH, in DEPTH, mm DEPTH, in. DEPTH, mm DCP TEST DATA Project: SH-125 over Hudson Creek Date: 25-Aug-1 Location: B-1 Soil Type(s): Lean Clay Hammer 1.1 lbs. 17.6 lbs. Both hammers used Soil Type CH CL All other soils No. of Accumulative Type of Blows Penetration Hammer (mm) 1 5 8 75 6 11 6 14 5 155 5 175 6 195 6 21 5 25 3 28 2 32 2 375 2 41 2 455 5 48 5 5 4 53 3 545 4 565 5 65 4 62 4 655 3 685 3 715 4 75 CBR.1 1. 1. 1. 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 127 254 381 58 635 762 889 116.1 1. 1. 1. BEARING CAPACITY, psf 2 4 6 8 1 12 5 127 1 254 15 381 2 58 25 635 3 35 Based on approximate interrelationships of CBR and Bearing values (Design of Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland Cement Association, page 8, 1955) 762 889 4 14 28 42 56 69 83 BEARING CAPACITY, psi 116

DEPTH, in DEPTH, mm DEPTH, in. DEPTH, mm DCP TEST DATA Project: SH-125 over Hudson Creek Date: 25-Aug-1 Location: B-2 Soil Type(s): Lean Clay Hammer 1.1 lbs. 17.6 lbs. Both hammers used Soil Type CH CL All other soils No. of Accumulative Type of Blows Penetration Hammer (mm) 1 4 1 7 1 1 8 125 1 15 8 17 7 22 3 27 2 325 2 38 2 425 2 47 2 51 2 54 2 56 2 61 2 65 2 68 2 73 1 75 CBR.1 1. 1. 1. 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 127 254 381 58 635 762 889 116.1 1. 1. 1. BEARING CAPACITY, psf 2 4 6 8 1 12 5 127 1 254 15 381 2 58 25 635 3 35 Based on approximate interrelationships of CBR and Bearing values (Design of Concrete Airport Pavement, Portland Cement Association, page 8, 1955) 762 889 4 14 28 42 56 69 83 BEARING CAPACITY, psi 116

APPENDIX D

GENERAL NOTES DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon - 1-3 / 8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube 2 O.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger (Solid Stem) RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 14-pound hammer falling 3 inches is considered the Standard Penetration or N-value. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling BCR: Before Casing Removal WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling ACR: After Casing Removal DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring N/E: Not Encountered Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 5% of their dry weight retained on a #2 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 5% of their dry weight retained on a #2 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Standard Penetration or N-value (SS) Blows/Ft. Consistency RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Standard Penetration or N-value (SS) Relative Density Blows/Ft. < 5-1 Very Soft 3 Very Loose 5 1, 2-4 Soft 4 9 Loose 1, 2, 4-8 Medium Stiff 1 29 Medium Dense 2, 4, 8-15 Stiff 3 5 Dense 4, 8, 15-3 Very Stiff > 5 Very Dense 8,+ > 3 Hard RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents Percent of Dry Weight GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Major Component Particle Size of Sample Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (3mm) With 15 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (3mm to 75mm) Modifier 3 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75mm) Sand #4 to #2 sieve (4.75 to.75mm) Silt or Clay Passing #2 Sieve (.75mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents Percent of Dry Weight PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Plasticity Term Index Trace < 5 Non-plastic With 5 12 Low 1-1 Modifier > 12 Medium 11-3 High > 3 Rev 4/1 Exhibit D-1

Coarse Grained Soils More than 5% retained on No. 2 sieve Fine-Grained Soils 5% or more passes the No. 2 sieve UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Gravels More than 5% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Sands 5% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 5 Silts and Clays Liquid limit 5 or more Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines C Gravels with Fines More than 12% fines C Clean Sands Less than 5% fines D Sands with Fines More than 12% fines D Group Symbol Soil Classification Group Name B Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G, H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I inorganic PI 7 and plots on or above A line J CL Lean clay K,L,M organic PI 4 or plots below A line J ML Silt K,L,M Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N Organic silt K,L,M,O inorganic PI plots on or above A line CH Fat clay K,L,M organic PI plots below A line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M Liquid limit - oven dried Liquid limit - not dried.75 OH Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat Organic clay K,L,M,P Organic silt K,L,M,Q A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add with cobbles or boulders, or both to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay E (D3) Cu = D 6/D 1 Cc = D1 x D 2 6 F If soil contains 15% sand, add with sand to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. H If fines are organic, add with organic fines to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add with gravel to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 2, add with sand or with gravel, whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 3% plus No. 2 predominantly sand, add sandy to group name. M If soil contains 3% plus No. 2, predominantly gravel, add gravelly to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above A line. O PI 4 or plots below A line. P PI plots on or above A line. Q PI plots below A line. Form 111 6/98