SOILTECH CONSULTANTS...Proof rolling should be performed within two days of commencement of placement of fill or construction of foundations. If a significant amount of time occurs

Geotechnical Investigation West Bolivar High School Cafeteria Addition

Rosedale, Mississippi

Prepared For

West Bolivar Consolidated School District 909 Highway 8

Rosedale, Mississippi 38769

February 15, 2018

SOILTECH CONSULTANTS Geotechnical Engineering

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 1 Proposed Construction..................................................................................................................... 1 Site Conditions/Development ........................................................................................................... 1 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................. 1 Soil Sampling ................................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................................ 2 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 2 5.1 Geology .................................................................................................................................... 2 5.2 Generalized Soil Profiles .......................................................................................................... 2 5.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................... 3 5.4 Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................................... 3 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 3 7.0 SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................................................... 4 7.1 Objectionable Materials ........................................................................................................... 4 7.2 Proof Rolling and Unstable Soils ............................................................................................. 4 7.3 Mitigation of Unstable Soils ...................................................................................................... 5 Moisture Conditioning the In-Situ Soils ............................................................................................ 5 Removal and Replacement .............................................................................................................. 5 Chemical Stabilization of In-Situ Soils ............................................................................................. 5 Bridging with Woven Geotextile ....................................................................................................... 5 7.4 Structural Fill Material .............................................................................................................. 6 7.5 Excavations .............................................................................................................................. 6 7.6 Drainage ................................................................................................................................... 6 8.0 DEEP FOUNDATION DESIGN – HELICAL PULLDOWN PILES .................................................... 6 8.1 Helical Pulldown Piles .............................................................................................................. 6 9.0 FLOOR SLAB ................................................................................................................................... 7 10.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND DOCUMENTATION ....................................................... 7 11.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Boring Location Map Figure 3 – Generalized Soil Profile A-A’ Appendix A Graphical Soil Boring Logs Soil Classification Chart Table 1 – Summary of Laboratory Data Plasticity Results

Geotechnical Investigation West Bolivar High School Cafeteria Addition


1.0 INTRODUCTION West Bolivar Consolidated School District is developing plans to expand the cafeteria at West Bolivar High School in Rosedale, Mississippi. The site is located on Bradford Street in Rosedale, Mississippi. A general location of the site is presented on Figure 1.

1.1 Purpose and Scope The purposes of the investigation reported herein were as follows:

To determine soil and groundwater conditions in the proposed construction area. To evaluate pertinent geotechnical engineering properties of the soils encountered. After analyses of available field and laboratory data, to develop guideline recommendations

related to site development, and foundation design and construction.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Proposed Construction: The proposed cafeteria addition will have plan dimensions of approximately 1,000 square feet. The addition will be adjacent the existing kitchen on the eastern side.

Site Conditions/Development: Site grades are currently relatively level with little elevation change across the proposed construction area. We understand finished floor elevation (FFE) of the proposed building will be at or very near current elevations present within the building area. As such we anticipated minimal grading will be required to establish finished subgrade elevation.

3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation for this study was completed on January 29, 2018. Subsurface conditions at the project site were investigated by a total of two soil borings made at the locations shown on Figure 2. Borings B-1 through B-2 were drilled to a depth of 20 feet in the proposed addition footprint. The borings were advanced by a truck-mounted drill rig utilizing machine auger drilling techniques. Graphical soil boring logs showing the types of soils encountered are presented in Appendix A. Symbols and soil classifications used in the graphical boring logs are presented in the Soil Classification Chart in Appendix A.

The borings were located in the field by measurement from existing features and GPS. Elevations of the borings were estimated from Google Earth imagery. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used in their determination.

Soil Sampling. Disturbed samples of soils encountered were obtained by driving an ASTM standard two-inch outer diameter split-spoon sampler 18 inches into the soils with a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches (ASTM D1586). This sampling procedure is referred to as the Standard Penetration Test. Depths at which the split-spoon samples were taken are indicated by crossed-slashes in the "Samples" column of the boring logs. The number of blows (N-value) required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of penetration is recorded at the corresponding depth in the “Field Tests Results” column of the boring logs. Also shown are the blow counts required to drive the sampler for each six-inch increment. Representative portions of each split-spoon sample were selected and sealed in plastic jars to prevent loss of moisture.

Page 2

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING The engineering properties of the soils encountered at this site were determined by means of tests completed in our laboratory. These tests were performed in accordance with recognize ASTM standards and procedures that are summarized in Table 4.0.1 below.

Table 4.0.1 Laboratory Testing

Test Designation Procedure

Moisture Content ASTM D2216

Atterberg Limit ASTM D4318

200 Wash (percent fines) ASTM C1140

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Specific types and depths of the subsurface strata encountered at the boring locations are shown in detail on the boring logs presented in Appendix A. Symbols and soil classifications used in the graphical boring logs are also presented in Appendix A. The depths on the boring logs refer to the depth from the existing (January 2018) ground at the time of our field investigation. The generalized subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Geology The soils encountered at this site are of the Holocene Formation, which is part of the Mississippi River Alluvium group. The Mississippi River alluvium is characterized by two major soil gradations; a loam and clay (fine-grained) top stratum and a sand and gravel (coarse-grained) substratum.

5.2 Generalized Soil Profiles

Soil conditions at the site can generally be characterized as outlined in Table 5.2.1 below:

Table 5.2.1 Generalized Soil Profile

Strata Designation

Material USCS Consistency/

Density

Approximate Top Depth

Range (feet)

ApproximateBottom

Depth Range (feet)

1 Silty Sand SM Very Loose Surface 2

2 Clayey Sand SC Loose Surface 2.5

3 Sand with Silt

and gravel SP-SM

Loose to Medium Dense

2 to 2.5 8

4 Silty Clay CL Very Soft to

Very Stiff 8 16

5 Clay CH Medium to Stiff 16 TD TD – Boring Terminal Depth

Page 3

The soil boring logs in Appendix A provide details of the specific conditions encountered at each boring location and the field and laboratory test data collected. A statistical summary of the laboratory test results for each stratum is presented in Table 1.

The boring logs contain our field representative's interpretation of conditions that are believed to exist in those depth intervals between the actual samples taken. Therefore, these boring logs contain both factual and interpretative information.

To better illustrate the subsurface stratigraphy, a generalized soil profile, Profile A-A’, is presented on Figure 3.

5.3 Groundwater Groundwater conditions at this site were determined by visual observation of water levels in the open borings. The borings were drilled using dry-auger drilling methods. Groundwater conditions at the project site at the time of our investigation are summarized in Table 5.3.1 below.

Table 5.3.1 Groundwater Conditions

Boring

Water Level (feet) Elapsed Time to Final

Reading (min) Initial Final

B-1 1.5 1.5 5

B-2 1.5 1.5 5

Notes pertaining to groundwater are presented on each graphical boring log in Appendix A. The presence and depth to groundwater may fluctuate with seasonal rainfall, site topography, site drainage conditions, and other environmental factors. As a result, groundwater conditions at the time of construction may be different from those conditions recorded during our field investigation. Groundwater conditions should be verified near the time of construction.

5.4 Seismic Considerations According to the IBC 2012, the seismic site class is defined based on the site soil properties in ASCE 7, Chapter 20 – Site Classification Procedure for Seismic Design. Referring to ASCE 7 Chapter 20, the seismic site class is considered Type D for this site.

6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS The recommendations provided herein assume finished subgrade elevation will closely mirror current grades. Should site development require the need for significant raising or lowering of surface grades, this office should be notified to review the grading package and evaluate the effect, if any, on the recommendations provided herein. Discussion of our findings and recommendations related to design and construction are discussed in the following sections.

The boring logs indicate the presence of varying conditions across the building footprint. In general, the soil materials consist of loose clayey sand (SC), very loose silty sand (SM) and

Page 4

loose to medium sand with silt (SP-SM) and gravel to a depth of eight feet and underlain by very soft to soft silty clay (CL) to a depth of 16 feet. There is a very stiff layer of silty clay (CL) present in Boring B-1 from 8 to 12 feet and then the layer turns soft from 12 to 16 feet.

Based on the generally poor strength characteristics related to the low blow counts of the near-surface soils, we recommend the foundation be supported on a schedule of helical pulldown piles. This is a helical pile with a grouted column so there is a larger diameter in the weaker soils. This type of foundation system is similar to an auger cast with the helical on the bottom. This type of foundation system has traditionally been very effective in locations where weak soils are located. In addition, we recommend a run of helical pulldown piles be installed against the existing foundation of the building that is being added to with either with a new construction plate or with an underpinning bracket to assist with the connection of the new addition to the existing building. The helical pulldown pile can typically be installed to a working load of 20 to 25 kips.

The floor slab area can be evaluated in the field to determine if any special considerations will be required to construct the floor slab.

Our recommendations related to mitigation, design, and construction are presented in subsequent sections of this report.

7.0 SITE PREPARATION Proper site preparation is a key aspect of the performance of new construction. Factors that can affect both the short and the long-term success of construction can include but may not be limited to removal of objectionable materials present at the site, proper clearing and stripping of vegetation, discovery and mitigation of unstable or unsuitable soil materials, proper placement of fill materials, and long-term drainage conditions. Details related to proper site development are presented in the sections below.

7.1 Objectionable Materials

Site preparation for this project should include, as a minimum, the removal of objectionable materials at or near the existing ground surface. Clearing, stripping, grubbing, and mucking (where necessary) should be performed to remove objectionable materials that include but are not limited to organic matter, wet/unstable materials, debris, etc.

7.2 Proof Rolling and Unstable Soils After removal of objectionable materials as outlined above and prior to placement of fill soils or foundations the exposed subgrade should be evaluated to verify stability. This can be accomplished by proof rolling. Proof rolling should be performed with a minimum of two passes by a fully-loaded dump truck or other suitable vehicle approved by the geotechnical engineer of record. After proof rolling, areas that are unstable (soft or “pump”) may require mitigation. Options for mitigation are provided below.

Proof rolling should be performed within two days of commencement of placement of fill or construction of foundations. If a significant amount of time occurs between the completion of the proof roll and the described operations, the subgrade could be subject to softening and/or degradation from construction traffic and/or weather. If a period of more than two days occurs between the proof roll and construction, an additional proof roll should be performed to confirm stable subgrade conditions.

Page 5

7.3 Mitigation of Unstable Soils As discussed, currently the subgrade soils at the site appear to be able to support new fill soils or structures. However, should the subgrade soils become subject to softening, mitigation may become necessary. Some options for mitigation of unstable soils proven through site evaluation are presented below.

Moisture Conditioning the In-Situ Soils: This consists of processing the unstable soil in-place to reduce the moisture content and provide stability. Generally, if the unstable soil is about 12 inches or less in depth, the materials could likely be scarified with a disc or similar and aerated in-place to reduce the moisture content. The aeration process would require frequent disking and turning of the soil.

If the unstable soils extend to greater than about 12 inches in depth, the materials may need to be excavated and spread in relatively thin layers across the site and turned and aerated to process the material and reduce the moisture content.

The materials should be moisture conditioned to within (+/-) 3% of optimum moisture content as determined by the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) test. Once the proper moisture range has been achieved, the conditioned soils can then be re-compacted in maximum nine-inch loose lifts to a minimum of 98% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) density.

Removal and Replacement: If the unstable soils extend deeper than about 12 inches, this consists of excavating the unstable soils to a stable surface and replacing the excavated materials with approved structural fill. This consists of excavation of the unstable soils to a stable surface that is capable of the placement of structural fill with compaction and stability. Once the stable surface has been exposed and verified, placement of the structural fill should consist of placing in maximum nine-inch loose lifts to a minimum of 98% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) density at (+/-) 3% of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698.

Chemical Stabilization of In-situ Soils: Chemical stabilization of the subgrade soils could be accomplished by mixing Portland cement with the in-place soils. For this site, we recommend an application rate of 7%-by-weight of Portland cement. The chemically treated soils should be compacted to a minimum of 98% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) density. Chemical stabilization is generally effective if the unstable soils do not exceed about 12- to 18-inches in depth.

Bridging with Woven Geotextile: In the areas of the site where unstable soils extend to depths greater than about six feet in building areas, the unstable soils could likely be bridged using a woven geotextile and sand bridge lift. The geotextile should be placed prior to the placement of the fill material. The unstable soils should be excavated to a minimum depth of 7 feet (building areas) below finished subgrade. These anticipated depths should be verified at the time of mitigation. The geotextile should consist of a woven geotextile such as a Mirafi 600x or equivalent and should be placed with a minimum overlap of 24 inches at all joints. The overlap should be placed in the intended direction of fill placement. A minimum of 12 inches of sand should be spread over the geotextile. The sand should be a clean, non-plastic sand with less than 10% of the soil particles passing the Number 200 sieve. The sand should be back-dumped onto the geotextile and spread with a small dozer with little compaction.

The initial lift of structural fill on top of the sand should be placed with a loose thickness of not greater than 12 inches and compacted to achieve at least 92% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) density. Some slight pumping may be observed in this initial lift. Subsequent lifts of

Page 6

structural fill be placed with a minimum compaction of 98% of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) density.

7.4 Structural Fill Materials

Table 7.4.1 Structural Fill

Material (USCS) Engineering Properties

Minimum Compaction

(%) (ASTM D698)

Moisture Content (%)(ASTM D698)

Allowed Placement Locations

Maximum Loose Lift Placement Thickness, in.

Silty Clay (CL) Sandy Clay (CL)

LL ≤ 45 10 ≤ PI ≤ 25

98 (with stability)

(+/-) 3 All

locations

9 (heavy equipment)

6

(hand equipment)

Clayey Sand (SC) LL ≤ 45

6 ≤ PI ≤ 25 98

(with stability)

Site-Excavated Soils

LL ≤ 45 10 ≤ PI ≤ 25

98 (with stability)

Field density tests should be completed in each lift of structural fill. We recommend a minimum of one test per every 500 square feet per lift in the building area with a minimum of 5 tests per lift. We also recommend one test per every 50 linear feet per lift within trench work.

7.5 Excavations

The excavations necessary for construction should be made in compliance with OSHA regulations. The federal regulations require that excavations be performed in a manner and method that would not place employees at risk in case of an excavation cave-in. Further, these regulations require that all excavations five feet or greater in depth be sloped, sheeted, braced or shored to prevent the risk of a cave-in.

7.6 Drainage

Finish grades around structures should be established to promote quick run-off of surface water away from the structure in all directions. Drainage should be established and maintained both during construction and after completion of construction operations.

8.0 DEEP FOUNDATION DESIGN – HELICAL PULLDOWN PILES Structural columns loads of the building could be supported by a deep foundation system consisting of helical pulldown piles.

We recommend a qualified technician be present during the installation of the deep foundations in order to verify and provide assurance that the foundation elements obtain proper bearing depths. Details of the deep foundations are provided below.

8.1 Helical Pulldown Piles Helical pulldown piles could be utilized to support the structural loads. The helical pulldown pile system consists of a small diameter steel shaft, typically with a square cross-section, with circular flights that is advanced into the ground by rotation advancement, or “screwing” into the subgrade. The number of lights can vary from one to as many as five or six, depending upon soil conditions and capacity requirements. A torque gauge is used to monitor the applied torque

Page 7

during advancement of the pile resulting in a direct measurement of the capacity of the pile during installation. The helical pulldown pile system is designed and installed by specialty contractors. Design of the system should be done in close coordination with the structural engineer of record.

9.0 FLOOR SLAB The use of a vapor retarder should be considered in areas of the slab that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or where supported equipment will be sensitive to moisture. A vapor retarder should be installed as outlined in the most current version of ACI 302.1R.

The floor slab should be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci). Materials disturbed by construction equipment immediately prior to placement of the concrete will reduce the allowable modulus. Control joints should be placed in the slab to help control cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual.

Building area subgrades prepared relatively early in the construction process may be exposed to utility trenching or excavations, construction traffic, and prevailing weather conditions for prolonged periods during construction operations at other locations of the site. These factors individually or in combination could result in disturbance of the subgrade that may result in unstable conditions. Considering this, the building subgrade should be carefully evaluated at the time of construction.

10.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND DOCUMENTATION Successful project performance depends in part on the quality of construction. Observation and documentation of construction activities is a key component to ensure construction is completed in accordance with project documents. It is common for unforeseen/unanticipated site conditions to be encountered or develop during construction that were not discovered during site investigations. Site conditions encountered during construction should be compared to those observed during the site investigation to note any changed condition.

We recommend that a construction-monitoring program be performed by a qualified testing laboratory employed by the owner. The testing laboratory should be under the direct supervision of a registered professional engineer employed full time by the testing laboratory.

The construction monitoring program should include at a minimum: the observation of conditions subsequent to stripping and grubbing, the observation of proof rolling and any necessary mitigation, the observation and testing of placement of fill soils, verification of suitability of foundation bearing surfaces, verification that reinforcing steel is placed in accordance with project documents, the observation and testing of structural concrete, the observation and testing of structural mortar and grout (if applicable), and the observation and testing of structural steel (if applicable).

11.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS The boring logs shown in this report contain information related to the types of soil encountered at specific locations and times and show lines delineating the interface between these materials, as well as results of tests performed in the laboratory on representative samples. The logs also contain our field representative's interpretation of conditions that are believed to exist in those depth intervals between the actual samples taken. Therefore, these boring logs contain both

Page 8

factual and interpretative information. It is not warranted that these logs are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times.

Regarding groundwater conditions, this report presents data on groundwater levels as they were observed during the fieldwork. Water level readings have been made in the borings at the times and under conditions stated in the text of the report and on the boring logs. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater table can occur with passage of time due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other environmental factors.

Unanticipated soil conditions at a construction site are commonly encountered and cannot be fully predicted by mere soil samples and test borings. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made by the owner to attain a properly designed and constructed project. Therefore, provisions for some construction contingency funds are recommended to accommodate such potential extra cost.

The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our field investigation and further on the assumption that the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site, that is, that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings at the time they were completed. If, during construction, different subsurface conditions from those encountered in our borings are observed, or appear to be present beneath excavations, we must be advised promptly so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If there is a lapse of time of more than one year between submission of this report and start of the work at the site, if conditions have changed due either to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if the structure location, loads or finish grades are changed, we urge that we be promptly informed, and retained to review our report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and/or time lapse.

Further, we request that our firm be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications for this project that pertain to earthwork and foundations to determine whether the plans and specifications are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report. In addition, we are available to observe construction, particularly the compaction of structural fill, the construction of foundations as recommended in this report, and such other field observations as might be necessary.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of West Bolivar Consolidated School District for specific application to design and construction of foundation elements for the proposed West Bolivar High School Cafeteria Addition in Rosedale, Mississippi. The only warranty made by us regarding the services provided is that we have used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended.

A P P E N D I X A

Graphical Soil Boring Logs Soil Classification Chart

Table 1 – Summary of Laboratory Data Plasticity Results

0 - 20 ft: Machine Auger

Very loose brown and gray silty sand(SM) - slightly clayey

Medium dense tan sand with silt andgravel (SP-SM) - with gray silty clay seams

- loose below 4'

Very stiff gray and tan silty clay (CL) - with sand and gravel

- soft and gray below 12'

Medium to stiff dark gray clay (CH) - with trace of gravel

Terminal Depth at 20.0 ft



- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'







- loose below 4'





Elevation estimated from Google Earth ProBlow counts determined from automatic hammer

11 b/f5-5-6

4 b/f4-2-2

28 b/f14-14-14

3 b/f1-2-1

8 b/f3-4-4

20

59

24

11

32

23

19

46

9.1

Groundwater encountered at 1.5'

No rise observed after 5 minutes

SoilTech Consultants

West Bolivar Consolidated School District


Advancement Method

Groundwater encountered at 1.5'No rise observed after 5 minutes

PROJECT:S

ymbo

lNo. B-1

Dep

th (

ft)

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Sam

ples

Abandonment Method

CLIENT:

Notes

Boring grouted upon completion

SOIL BORING LOG

Location: 33°51'25.11" -91°01'34.09"

Groundwater Observations

SHEET 1 OF 1

Geotechnical Investigation

West Bolivar High School

Cafeteria Addition


PROJECT NO.: ST.02533.000.001

DATE: 1/29/18

DRILLER: J. Price

TECHNICIAN: G. Jones

ENGINEER: M. Volk

Surface Elevation: 150 ft. MSL+/-

SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G W

ITH

ELE

& S

TR

AT

A N

OT

E 2

533.

000

.001

.GP

J G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

2/1

2/1

8

Dry PI20 40 60 80

1 2 3 4

LABORATORY DATA

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

UndrainedShear

Strength(ksf)

MC%

UnitWeight

(pcf) LL

Cohesion / Triaxial (ksf)

FieldTest

ResultsMoist

PLPla

stic

ityIn

dex

% P

assi

ng N

o. 2

00

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

0 - 20 ft: Machine Auger

Loose brown clayey sand (SC) - slightly silty

Loose tan sand with silt and gravel(SP-SM) - with gray silty clay seams *

Very soft brown silty clay (CL) - with sand and gravel


























































Elevation estimated from Google Earth ProBlow counts determined from automatic hammerWOH = Weight of Hammer*Liquid limit and plasticity index values were determined fromfine-grained soil seams within the coarse-grained soil matrix

9 b/f4-5-4

5 b/f3-3-2

0 b/fWOH-WOH-1

3 b/f2-2-1

8 b/f4-4-4

2

12

24

11

41

26

29

49

9.2

Groundwater encountered at 1.5'

No rise observed after 5 minutes

SoilTech Consultants

West Bolivar Consolidated School District


Advancement Method

Groundwater encountered at 1.5'No rise observed after 5 minutes

PROJECT:S

ymbo

lNo. B-2

Dep

th (

ft)

DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL

Sam

ples

Abandonment Method

CLIENT:

Notes

Boring grouted upon completion

SOIL BORING LOG

Location: 33°51'24.95" -91°01'34.32"

Groundwater Observations

SHEET 1 OF 1

Geotechnical Investigation

West Bolivar High School

Cafeteria Addition


PROJECT NO.: ST.02533.000.001

DATE: 1/29/18

DRILLER: J. Price

TECHNICIAN: G. Jones

ENGINEER: M. Volk

Surface Elevation: 150 ft. MSL+/-

SO

IL B

OR

ING

LO

G W

ITH

ELE

& S

TR

AT

A N

OT

E 2

533.

000

.001

.GP

J G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

2/1

2/1

8

Dry PI20 40 60 80

1 2 3 4

LABORATORY DATA

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt (

%)

UndrainedShear

Strength(ksf)

MC%

UnitWeight

(pcf) LL

Cohesion / Triaxial (ksf)

FieldTest

ResultsMoist

PLPla

stic

ityIn

dex

% P

assi

ng N

o. 2

00

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

GRAVELAND

GRAVELLYSOILS

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NOFINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILTMIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINESANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY ORCLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEYSILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES

GRAVELS WITHFINES

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITHFINES

LIQUID LIMITLESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMITGREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANICSILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND ORSILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISLARGER THANNO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%OF MATERIAL ISSMALLER THANNO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

PASSING ON NO.4 SIEVE

MORE THAN 50%OF COARSEFRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

(APPRECIABLEAMOUNT OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLEAMOUNT OF FINES)

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

FINEGRAINED

SOILS

SANDAND

SANDYSOILS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TOHIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

LETTERGRAPHSYMBOLSMAJOR DIVISIONS

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NOFINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLEOR NO FINES

CLEANGRAVELS

Stratum Number I II III IV

Classification Clayey Sand (SC)Silty Sand (SM) / Sand

with Silt (SP-SM)Silty Clay (CL) Clay (CH)

Number of Tests 1 5 4 2Maximum 24.04 41.28 28.84 48.77Minimum 24.04 10.94 19.41 46.10Average 24.04 24.01 24.46 47.44Standard Deviation NA 13.23 4.08 1.89

Number of Tests 1 1 1 1Maximum 21.00 25.00 33.00 78.00Minimum 21.00 25.00 33.00 78.00Average 21.00 25.00 33.00 78.00Standard Deviation NA NA NA NA

Number of Tests 1 1 1 1Maximum 19.00 13.00 13.00 19.00Minimum 19.00 13.00 13.00 19.00Average 19.00 13.00 13.00 19.00Standard Deviation NA NA NA NAPlasticity Index, PINumber of Tests 1 1 1 1Maximum 2.00 12.00 20.00 59.00Minimum 2.00 12.00 20.00 59.00Average 2.00 12.00 20.00 59.00Standard Deviation NA NA NA NA

Number of Tests 0 2 0 0Maximum NA 9.20 NA NAMinimum NA 9.10 NA NAAverage NA 9.15 NA NAStandard Deviation NA 0.07 NA NA

*Liquid limit and plasticity index values were determined from fine-grained soil seams within the coarse-grained soil matrix. The materials have been visually vetted and classified according to the primary soil type.

Table 1Summary of Laboratory Data

Moisture Content (%)

% Passing No. 200

Liquid Limit, LL

Plastic Limit, PL

*

*

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

MH/OH

13

19

19

13

8.5

18.5

0.5

4.5

PI

CH

ClassificationPL

33

78

21

25

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y I

ND

EX

, P

I

LIQUID LIMIT, LL

(LL-

PL

= P

I)

LLSAMPLEDEPTH

BORINGNUMBER

20

59

2

12

CL-ML

CL

ML/OL

See Soil Boring Logs for detailed material descriptions.

1

1

2

2

Gray and tan silty clay, with sand and gravel

Dark gray clay

Brown clayey sand

Gray silty clay

Project Name: West Bolivar High SchoolCafeteria AdditionLocation: Rosedale, MississippiNumber: ST.02533.000.001

SoilTech Consultants, Inc.101 Business Park Drive, Suite ARidgeland, Mississippi 39157(601)952-2995/(601)952-2944 fax

AT

TE

RB

ER

G L

IMIT

CH

AR

T (

HIG

H P

LAS

TIC

ITY

) 2

533.

000.

001

.GP

J G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

TE

MP

LAT

E.G

DT

2/1

2/1

8

Documents

SOILTECH CONSULTANTS...Proof rolling should be performed within two days of commencement of placement of fill or construction of foundations. If a significant amount of time occurs