SUBSURFACE SOIL INVESTIGATION

FSM 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
PO BOX 21794 GMF, BARRIGADA, GU 96921

TEL (671) 638-4716/5716

November 2010

FAX (671) 638-2136

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Cover Page ----------------------------------------------------------

1

Table of Contents --------------------------------------------------

2-3

Executive Summary -----------------------------------------------

4–6

Terms of Reference -----------------------------------------------

7-8

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Project --------------------------------1.2 Geography ---------------------------------------------------1.3 Seismicity ----------------------------------------------------1.4 Location Map ------------------------------------------------

9
9
10
11

2 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Rationale -----------------------------------------------------2.2 Field Reconnaissance ---------------------------------------2.3 Field Procedures ---------------------------------------------2.4 Field Sampling and Data Recording ----------------------2.5 Location of Boreholes and Test Pits ----------------------2.6 Field Test Results --------------------------------------------

12
12
12-14
14
14-15
16-21

3 LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Laboratory Test Procedures ------------------------------3.2 Laboratory Test Results ------------------------------------

22
23-25

4 EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Evaluation and Analysis on Building Area Foundation
4.2 Evaluation and Analysis on Road & Parking Lot Areas

26
26-27

5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Site Preparation and Grading ------------------------------5.2 Building Footing Design Recommendations ------------5.3 Road Pavement Design Parameters Recommendations
5.4 Signature Page -------------------------------------------------

28-29
29-30
30
31

6 LITERATURE REFERENCES
6.1 Literature References --------------------------------------

32

Page 2 of 38

7 APPENDICES
7.1 DCP Test Photographs -------------------------------------7.2 Laboratory Photographs -----------------------------------7.3 DCP Test Field Data, CBR & Bearing Calculations --7.4 Geotechnical Data Log --------------------------------------7.5 Determination of Water Content -------------------------7.6 Determination of Atterberg Limits -----------------------7.7 Particles Size Analysis ---------------------------------------

Page 3 of 38

33-37
38
6 sheets
1 sheet
1 sheet
10 sheets
22 sheets

is represented by Mr. Ernesto A. A dirt road with cross drain traversing the area is existent to serve as an access to the area. State of Pohnpei. 0001 on August 12. This task order is covered under the Indefinite-Delivery Contract for Architectural and Engineering for Compact Infrastructural Grants Projects. A-E will provide geotechnical report including but not limited to graphic logs and borings description and analysis of the surface and subsurface conditions. The difference in elevations between the highest and lowest points within the area is approximately ____ meters. Marcelino Actouka as the Acting Program Manager issued a Task Order No. The road was mostly cut through the relatively thick clay with isolated armor rocks through the steep slopes. Page 4 of 38 . geohydrologic conditions. The project is to develop a new campus of FSM-College of Micronesia (COM) encompassing a total land area of approximately 1. 2. as Principal. Weno Island.2 hectares. The geotechnical requirements and deliverables are as follows to wit: 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Program Management Unit (PMU) of the Federated States of Micronesia with office at Palikir. 2010 as part of IDP-A0004 to EMSPCO Engineering Consultants represented by Mr. The project is developed initially by FSM-COM Chuuk Campus Administration. A-E shall conduct drilling and sampling necessary to provide samples for laboratory testing and subsurface condition data. conclusions and geotechnical design recommendations. Capulong Jr. located at uphill of the other government offices. 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.

ASTM D-3017 or equivalent. laboratory results. Building Footing Design Recommendations Taking the field results. 3. 2. In-place density shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D-1556.The site is vegetated with coconut trees and other local variety of trees and bushes. 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. ASTM D2922. Much of the exposed natural soil outcrops are characterized by brownish sandy silty soil. D-2167. 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.5 meters from the existing natural ground surface and 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. analysis and findings into considerations. • 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. • Replace with base course materials or equivalent deposited in layers of 200 mm in loose thickness. the undersigned recommends the following: 1.3 kg) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer”. It is recommended that foundation improvement shall be employed using remove and replace method for footings at administration building. Page 5 of 38 . It is also noted that foundation design criteria mentioned above is limited to building foundation only and does not include equipment or machine foundation. The footings shall be connected with adequate tie-beams to minimize differential settlement. It is recommended that the bottom of footings shall be set at elevation 1.

Pavement Structures shall consist of Selected Fill. Pavement Structural Parameters: Location Average CBR Remarks BH-1/TP-1 Road 5.4 MH – Sandy Elastic Silt BH-6/TP-6 Road 6.9 MH – Sandy Elastic Silt BH-2/TP-2 Road 25.8 MH – Sandy Elastic Silt 2. Road Pavement Design Parameters Recommendations Taking the field results. Page 6 of 38 .5 ML – Sandy Silt BH-4/TP-4 Road 10.• It is strongly discourage not to use boulders as foundation improvement due to difficulty of compaction and filling of voids.3 ML – Sandy Silt BH-3/TP-3 Road 10.8 SM – Silty Sand with Gravel BH-7/TP-7 Road 7 ML – Sandy Silt BH-8/TP-8 Parking Lot 17. laboratory results. Subbase Course and Concrete Pavement. the undersigned recommends the following: 1. evaluation analysis into considerations.7 ML – Sandy Silt BH-5/TP-5 Road 5.

A-E will provide geotechnical report including but not limited to graphic logs and borings description and analysis of the surface and subsurface conditions. conclusions and geotechnical design recommendations. 3.TERMS OF REFEERENCE Terms of Reference The Program Management Unit (PMU) of the Federated States of Micronesia with office at Palikir. Page 7 of 38 . is represented by Mr. 2010 as part of IDP-A0004 to EMSPCO Engineering Consultants represented by Mr. Chuuk COM Campus on Weno Island – Two Floor Administration Buildings with Classrooms. The geotechnical requirements and deliverables are as follows to wit: 1. Marcelino Actouka as the Acting Program Manager issued a Task Order No. geohydrologic conditions. as Principal. Kosrae and Chuuk: i. This A-E Statement of Work (SOW) includes geotechnical testing the four separate college buildings in three states: Pohnpei. State of Pohnpei. A-E shall conduct drilling and sampling necessary to provide samples for laboratory testing and subsurface condition data. 4. A-E shall record the depth of ground water. This task order is covered under the Indefinite-Delivery Contract for Architectural and Engineering for Compact Infrastructural Grants Projects. Ernesto A. 0001 on August 12. iv. 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. 2. Capulong Jr. iii. Pohnpei National COM Campus in Palikir – Student Center (Full size). Pohnpei COM Campus in Kolonia – Vocational Educational Building ii. Kosrae COM Campus in Tofol – Student Center and Learning Resource Center (revised smaller with library elements).

archeological and cultural resources encountered during the work. A-E Geotechnical Engineer shall manage the laboratory testing program. 8. A-E soils boring samples after laboratory testing shall be stored and protected from undue environmental exposure for at least two years. Page 8 of 38 . A-E shall take precautions preserve all historical. 7. 6. A-E shall backfilled properly all borings after completion of data collection.5.

The two major geographical and dialectic divisions of the Chuuk Lagoon are Faichuuk. A dirt road with cross drain traversing the area is existent to serve as an access to the area. along with Kosrae. the eastern islands.2 hectares. The project is developed initially by FSM-COM Chuuk Campus Administration. Much of the exposed natural soil outcrops are characterized by brownish sandy silty soil. Geographically. the western islands. Chuuk means mountain and was known mainly as Truk until 1990. The road was mostly cut through the relatively thick clay with isolated armor rocks through the steep slopes.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. The site is vegetated with coconut trees and other local variety of trees and bushes. Chuuk is the most is the most populous of the FSM’s states. Chuuk is part of the larger Carolines Islands group. Ruk Hogoleu. Page 9 of 38 . and Namoneas. Torres. The main population center of Chuuk state is the Chuuk Lagoon. It comprises one of the four states of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). a large archipelago with mountainous islands surrounded by the string of islets on a barrier reef. Ugulat anf Lugulus and is an island group in the south western part of the Pacific Ocean. The difference in elevations between the highest and lowest points within the area is approximately ____ meters. located at uphill of the other government offices at Weno Island in the State of Chuuk. Pohnpei and Yap. Geography Chuuk is formerly Truk.

437km Weno Sep 23.8 10 km 364 km Weno. 2006 10:38:39 UTC M4. and 151° 47’ 0” E approximately 1065 km southeast from the Mariana Ridge at the eastern edge of the Philippine Plate. 1974 15:11:5 UTC M5. located to the southwest of Guam. Page 10 of 38 . 1985 17:02:12 UTC M5.7 10 km 322 km Weno. while dragging the eastern edge of the Philippine Plate with it. 106 km Pulusuk Apr 28.2 33 km 87km Pikelot. 180km Ulul. 64km Pisaras. which is forced to rise in elevation as the Pacific Plate dives below it in a northwesterly direction. 36km Ono Jun 11. The Mariana Trench contains the greatest measured depth of the world's oceans. 199 km Pulusuk Aug 25. 173km Weno Aug 10.Seismicity Chuuk State is located 7° 25' 0” N. forms the Mariana Trench where the two plates converge.3 km (37. 1998 5:40:41 UTC M4. 2004 16:00:59 UTC M4. 24km Magererik. and 149° 37’ E.7 10 km 428 km Weno. approximately 11 .6 33 km 320 km Weno.000 feet). 2006 10:32:33 UTC M4. 1993 17:16:60 UTC M5 33 km 256km Weno. Earthquake History of the State of Chuuk Year of Time Occurrence Magn Depth Distance from nearby Islands itude Mar 12.5 33 km 48km Fayu.1999 5:04:54 UTC M4. 60 km Pulusuk The earthquake occurrences from 1998 to 2006 shows that the epicenter coordinates is approximately at the vicinity of 5° 24' N. 84 km Pulusuk May 11. the descending Pacific Plate. 109 km Pulusuk May 11. At the same time.9 10 km 348 km Weno.

FSM Page 11 of 38 .Location Map of Weno. Chuuk State.

CHAPTER 2 SITE INVESTIGATION Rationale The objective of this geotechnical investigation is to determine subsurface soil conditions at the proposed building footprint. 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. 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. 2. parking lot and the access road of the new FSM-COM campus. 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 total penetration for a given number of blows is measured and recorded in mm/blow. 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 Reconnaissance Based on the available preliminary building and road layout. 3. Summary of Test Method: The operator drives the DCP tip into the soil by lifting the sliding hammer to the handle then releasing it. which is then used to describe stiffness. Significance and Use of DCP Test Method: Page 12 of 38 . Field Procedures . estimate an in situ CBR strength and Bearing Capacity from an appropriate correlation chart or other material characteristics.Use of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP Test) 1.

If after 5 blows. Apparatus: The 8-kg DCP consists of the following components: a 15. The number of blows and corresponding penetrations are recorded. the device is extracted by driving the hammer upward against the handle. to identify strata thickness. a 8-kg hammer which is dropped a fixed height of 575 mm. Depth of Penetration – The depth of penetration will vary with application. The penetration rate of the 8-kg DCP can be used to estimate in-situ CBR. For typical highway applications. When using a disposable cone. a coupler assembly. Page 13 of 38 . 4. Refusal . Extraction – Following completion of the test. The hammer is then allowed to free-fall and impact the anvil coupler assembly. and the device moved to another test location. 5. The hammer shall not impact the handle when being raised. shear strength strata. 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 a handle. the device should be extracted using the extraction using the extraction jack when using a replaceable point tip. The tip has an angle of 60 degrees and a diameter at base of 20 mm.8 mm diameter steel drive rod with a replaceable point or disposable cone tip.This test method is used to assess in situ strength of undisturbed soil. The operator raises the hammer until it makes only light contact with the handle. Bearing Capacity. a penetration less than 900 mm will generally be adequate. The new test location should be a minimum of 300 mm from the prior location to minimize test error caused by disturbance of the material.The presence of large aggregates or rock strata will either stop further penetration or deflect the drive rod. Testing Sequence: Dropping the Hammer – The DCP device is held in a vertical plumb position. and other material characteristics.

TP-6. TP-3. TP-9D were located in the building footprint. and visual classification. Field Sampling and Data Recording Sampling Method – Samples of soil were obtained from excavated test pit by hand. BH-2. The test pits were dug at 3 feet. at the top of 9 feet. Each sample will consist of not less than 800 grams of materials. while borehole BH-8 and test pit TP-8 was at the proposed parking lot. BH-6. BH-4. TP-7 were located in the proposed access road.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. BH-9C. BH-9D and test pits TP-9A. BH-7 and test pits TP-1. TP-4. Power equipment using backhoe is employed. Location of Boreholes and Test Pits The boreholes BH-1. 9 feet and 12 feet depth from the top of the existing ground. and at the top of 12 feet.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. thickness. and boreholes BH-9. TP-9B. Power equipment using backhoe is employed. Page 14 of 38 .Field Procedures . at the top of 3 feet hole. TP-2. BH-3. BH-9A. Data Recording – Describe the soil profile in a logbook noting in details of each soil layer according to the colors. The DCP test were conducted at the top of the ground. Test Specimens – The objective of this test is to collect specimens of in-situ soils for laboratory analysis. Field Procedures . BH-5. TP-5. at top of 6 feet. BH-9B. Test Photographs – Take photos on every sampling in the test pit. 6 feet. TP-9C. The test pits were dug at 3 feet and the DCP test were conducted at the top of the ground.

Page 15 of 38 .

of in inches CBR Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) (lbs/ft2) 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.Field Test Results Borehole No. Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.0 Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) Layer Depth Corrected No. Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.0 Layer Depth Corrected No. 2. of in inches CBR (lbs/ft2) 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 Page 16 of 38 . 1.

4A & 4B. Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2. Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.0 Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) Layer Depth Corrected No. 3.0 Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) Layer Depth Corrected No. of in inches CBR (lbs/ft2) 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 Page 17 of 38 . of in inches CBR (lbs/ft2) 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.Borehole No.

5.0 Layer Depth Corrected No. 6.0 Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) Layer Depth Corrected No. Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2. Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.Borehole No. of in inches CBR Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) (lbs/ft2) 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. of in inches CBR (lbs/ft2) 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 36” 5 6 933 SM-Silty Sand w/ Gravel Page 18 of 38 .

8.0 Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) Layer Depth Corrected No. of in inches CBR (lbs/ft2) 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 36” 26 40 3179 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt Page 19 of 38 . Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.Borehole No. 7. of in inches CBR Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH) (lbs/ft2) 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.0 Layer Depth Corrected No. Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2.

Allowable Bearing Capacity using Factor of Safety FS = 2. of in inches CBR (lbs/ft2) 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 114” 5 6 905 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt 120” 6 8 1068 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt 126” 5 6 933 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt 132” 6 8 1068 MH-Sandy Elastic Silt Page 20 of 38 . 9B.Borehole No. 9C. 9. 9D.0 Allowable Remarks Blows per 6” Bearing (All soils or CL for cone penetration Capacity CBR < 10 or CH Layer Depth Corrected No. 9A.

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 Page 21 of 38 .

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.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. Page 22 of 38 . 4. 1. a gradation curve was drawn based on the percent finer by weight. Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils. Plastic Limit & Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D 4318-00 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit. 3. the weight of soil retained on each sieve determined and recorded. 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. For each sample analyzed. Liquid Limit. These limits distinguished the boundaries of the several consistency states of plastic soils. 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. Classification of Soils for Engineering Purpose ASTM D 2487-00 Standard Practice Classification of Soils for Engineering Purpose (Unified Soil Classification System) 2.

No.9%. F200 = 50. 3 Layer Sample USCS Depth. LL = 42. PL = 35. No.3% .2%.7% Borehole No. LL = 44. No. 5 Page 23 of 38 . PL = 34. 36” Elastic Silt F200 = 53.4% PI = 7.6% .Laboratory Test Results Borehole No.9%. PL = 46% PI = 13.18% MC= 42. F200 = 51.6% PI = 11.12% MC= 57. 1 Layer Sample USCS Depth. Symbol inches 6” to Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS2 36” ML – Sandy Silt % R4 = 0% .4% SS4B Borehole No.3% 24” MH – R4 = 0% .75% R200= 49. to Sandy R200= 46. Symbol inches 6” to Grain Size Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS3 36” ML – Sandy Silt % R4 = 0% .9% Borehole No.1% .03% MC= 32.3% PI = 6. 2 Layer Sample USCS Depth. PL = 41% PI = 9.86% LL = 59. Symbol inches 6” to Grain Size Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS4A 24” ML – Sandy Silt % R4 = 0% . LL = 45. F200 = 53.6%.1%. Sandy R200= 47.57% MC= 33. No. Symbol inches 6” to Grain Size Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS1 36” % MH – R4 = 0% .73% R200= 46.7% . PL = 38.4% Grain Size LL = 50.6% .1% R200= 48.52% MC= 58. 4A and 4B Layer Sample USCS Depth. Elastic Silt F200 = 52.86% Borehole No.

6% . Sandy R200= 41. 6 Layer Sample USCS Depth. PL = 43.Layer Sample USCS Depth.58% MC= 46.7% Grain Size LL = 67. No. Sand with R200= 76.3% PI = 3. Sandy R200= 48. Symbol inches 6” to Grain Size Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS5 36” % MH – R4 = 0% . Gravel F200 = 23.6%.43% MC= 57.03% Borehole No.75% MC= 59. Page 24 of 38 PL = 46.5%. Elastic Silt F200 = 51.8% . PL = 31.2%. No.8% . No.1% PI = 13.2% LL = 59.05% .2% Borehole No.3% Grain Size LL = 47.8% . Symbol inches 6” to Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS6 36” % SM – Silty R4 =19. 7 Layer Sample USCS Depth.94% MC= 53. LL = 36.3% . Elastic Silt F200 = 58.7% PI = 4. Sandy Silt R200= 46.3%.92% F200 = 53. Symbol inches 6” to Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS7 36” % ML – R4 = 12.33% Borehole No. No. 8 Layer Sample USCS Depth.8% PI = 13.7% . Symbol inches 6” to 36” Grain Size Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content Description SS8 % MH – R4 = 0% . PL = 53.

05% LL = 52.5% .57% MC= 57.12% Page 25 of 38 .3%.3% .3% PI = 10. PL = 42.5% MH – R4 = 0.06% MC= 59.7% .5% PI = 14.3% R4 = 0% . to Sandy R200= 45. Elastic Silt F200 = 53. 9A. 9B.1%.3% PI = 10.3% .Borehole No. Sandy R200= 46. 108” Elastic Silt F200 = 53. PL = 42.57% MC= 53.06% MC= 49.82% LL = 57. No.3% 108” Plastic Limit Plastic Index Moisture % % % Content % MH – 72” Liquid Limit Description 36” 36” Grain Size SS9B SS9C MH – R4 = 0% . to Sandy R200= 46.3%.39% LL = 52.1%. 180” Elastic Silt F200 = 54.5% . Symbol inches 6” to SS9A MH – R4 = 0. PL = 42.7% . to Sandy R200= 45. PL = 42.5% SS9D LL = 57.5% PI = 14. 72” Elastic Silt F200 = 54. 9C and 9D Layer Sample USCS Depth.

The access road average CBR is 9. 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.9 Page 26 of 38 . The in-situ foundation will have to be modified in order provided a stronger and more uniform soil support foundation bed. The supposed building foundation has low allowable bearing capacities as shown in the field test results of Chapter 2. very low dry strength and medium to high dilatancy. low liquid limit. This silt soil of ML type typically has slight toughness. 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.e BH-1/TP-1 to BH8/TP-8) along the dirt roadway found to be of sandy silt (ML) and sandy elastic silt (MH).5 for sandy elastic silt subgrade and 13. 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.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. low to medium dry strength and low dilatancy. high plasticity or high liquid limit. It is also necessary to interconnect the footings with tie-beams to limit the differential settlement.

representative CBR for sandy silt subgrade. that is. subbase and concrete pavement. ML and MH subgrade are typically 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. Page 27 of 38 . However. is quite a reasonable foundation base for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP).

topsoil and other unsuitable materials. Grubbing and Ground Preparation – All surface objects and all trees. Prior to excavation. If there are existing footings or foundations which may be affected by any excavation. Fills – Fills to be used to support foundations of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with the accepted engineering practice. Excavation operations shall be conducted so that material outside of the limits of slope will not be disturbed. shall be cleared and or/grubbed. Fill Slopes . all necessary clearing and grubbing in the areas shall have been performed. it shall be underpinned adequately or otherwise protected by settlement and shall be protected against lateral movement. provided further that benches shall be made to key in the subsequent fill material. The existing ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation or any materials of non-complying fill. and by scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill. Structure Excavation – Excavation for buildings or structures shall be constructed or protected such that they do not endanger life and property. 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. including as required.CHAPTER 5 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Grading: Clearing. Compaction – All fills shall be compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches (200 mm) Page 28 of 38 . Road Excavation – All excavation shall be finished to reasonably smooth and uniform surfaces. stumps. No rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches (200 mm) shall be buried or placed in fills. roots and other protruding obstructions. not designated to remain. Fill Material – Any organic or deleterious material shall be removed and will not be permitted in fills.Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal.

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. A minimum of three tests for every 500 m2 (5380 ft2) area should be performed for every lift to verify compliance with the compaction requirements. the following suggested modification procedure are as follows to wit: • Over-excavate the foundation bed by at least 1. The footings shall be connected with adequate tie-beams to minimize differential settlement.3 kg) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer” Building Footing Design Recommendations Taking the field results. ASTM D-3017 or equivalent. 3.5 meters from the existing natural ground surface and 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. Relative density criteria shall be used on ASTM D-5030-04. the use of the foregoing procedures is inappropriate.00 meter depth below the footing. laboratory results.in thickness to a maximum of 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM Standard D-1557. • 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. ASTM D-2922. D-2167. the undersigned recommends the following: 1. 2. In-place density shall Page 29 of 38 . It is recommended that the bottom of footings shall be set at elevation 1. analysis and findings into considerations. It is also noted that foundation design criteria mentioned above is limited to building foundation only and does not include equipment or machine foundation. In-place density shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D-1556. It is recommended that foundation improvement shall be employed using remove and replace method for footings at administration building. For clean granular materials.

be determined in accordance with ASTM D-1556. ASTM D-3017 or equivalent.5 ML – Sandy Silt BH-4/TP-4 Road 10.8 MH – Sandy Elastic Silt 2.3 kg) Dynamic Cone Penetrometer”. Page 30 of 38 . evaluation analysis into considerations. D-2167.3 ML – Sandy Silt BH-3/TP-3 Road 10. ASTM D2922. 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. laboratory results. • Replace with base course materials or equivalent deposited in layers of 200 mm in loose thickness.7 ML – Sandy Silt BH-5/TP-5 Road 5.8 SM – Silty Sand with Gravel BH-7/TP-7 Road 7 ML – Sandy Silt BH-8/TP-8 Parking Lot 17.4 MH – Sandy Elastic Silt BH-6/TP-6 Road 6. Pavement Structures shall consist of Selected Fill. the undersigned recommends the following: 1. Road Pavement Design Parameters Recommendations Taking the field results. • It is strongly discourage not to use boulders as foundation improvement due to difficulty of compaction and filling of voids. Pavement Structural Parameters: Location Average CBR Remarks BH-1/TP-1 Road 5.9 MH – Sandy Elastic Silt BH-2/TP-2 Road 25. Subbase Course and Concrete Pavement.

E. November 18. P. 2010 Prepared by: Noted by: Lizardo P. Geotechnical Engineer Principal Master of Engineering (Structural/Geotechnical) EMPSCO Engineering Consultants CE Reg No. MEng. Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP). StE 137 (Structural) Page 31 of 38 .C. the professional services have been performed. SE 774 SE-ASEP No. Remojo.In preparing this report.PEALS • Regular Member. ASEP Reynaldo M. 36528 CE 564. • Life Member of Philippines Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) • PICE Specialist Member Certificate No. 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. Arce. 36528-00081-000 GUAM .

org Earthquake Hazard Program. PWS Publishing Company.. Wales. Website: en. Federated States of Micronesia Page 32 of 38 . Braja (2006). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering 5th Edition. “Dynamic Cone Penetrometer User’s Manual”. ASTM International. 1 – 7. Chuuk Campus.. College of Micronesia. Geological Survey Website: earthquake. (2001. pp. Kessler Soils Engineering Products.wikipedia. November) Subsurface Soil Investigation. U. June). K. “Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow Pavement Applications”. January). Springfield VA. Jimmy (Founder) Wikipedia – Internet Free Encyclopedia. Inc..usgs/earthquakes Das.C. (1999. Kessler. Inc. ISBN 0-534-55144-0 Google Earth Geo-Engineering and Testing.S.CHAPTER 6 LITERATURE REFERENCES ASTM Committee DO4 on Road and Paving Materials (2003.

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): Page 33 of 38 .

BH-4 at ground level (Access Road): BH-5 at ground level (Access Road): BH-6 at ground level (Access Road): Page 34 of 38 .

BH-7 at ground level (Access Road): BH-8 at ground level (Building Parking Lot): BH-9A at 3’ from ground level (Building Area): Page 35 of 38 .

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): Page 36 of 38 .

Road & Test Pit Excavation Photographs: Page 37 of 38 .

Laboratory Photographs: Page 38 of 38 .

ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association) TEST PERFORMED BY: ENGR.EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) WORKSHEET .0 50.0 1761 38. 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 10 100 25 50 8 80 20 40 6 60 15 Series1 4 2 Series1 40 20 0 2 3 4 5 1 BH-1 2 3 4 5 3000 12000 2500 10000 2000 8000 0 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) 1 BH-2 2 3 4 5 1 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-3 2 3 4 5 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-8 7000 5000 6000 4000 5000 3000 1500 Series1 20 10 0 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) 30 Series1 10 5 0 1 BH-8 4000 6000 Series1 Series1 1000 4000 500 2000 0 2 3 4 5 6 3000 Series1 2000 1000 0 1 Series1 2000 1000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 .6 lbs Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Quick Rain Ultimate Bearing Pressure .8 Borehole No.0 21.9 Borehole No.0 12.80 6 '' 12 '' 6 100% 6.10 5 1580 6 '' 30 '' 12 100% 12.C (psf) CL.0 50.70 17 3578 6 '' 36 '' 14 100% 14.0 25.0 16. Thick (all Correl ness (all Correc Corre (all Correl ness Depth of Correc of ness Depth Correlat Correc PR Corre PR Correc PR in soils ated ted Blow soils ated soils ted cted Blow in in in in ed qult (mm/bl ction (mm/bl tion tion (mm/blo inche qult inche qult s / 6" excl excl NOB/6 NOB/6 excl NOB/6 s / 6" inche Factor ow) Factor ow) Factor w) (psf) inche inches s (Fiel CL. Federated of Micronesia Test Conducted By: EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS .86 40 6358 6 '' 2467 Total CBR Dept No.C (psf) s H) ) Layer Thick ness in inche s No. 2010 Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.0 12.FIELD DATA Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom Location: Weno.ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association) CBR =1 / (. 1 Borehole No.93 12 2889 6 '' 6 '' 24 '' 13 100% 13.70 17 3578 6 '' 24 '' 5 100% 5.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 '' 50 100% 50.664 (in psi .0 16.C " (Field) H) 11.0 5. of (all Correc Correla PR h in Blows / Correct ted soils ted q ult (mm/blo ion inche excl NOB/6 6" w) Factor (psf) s CL.89 20 4012 6 '' 6 '' 36 '' 26 100% 26.5 5 25.lbs/ft 2 by Portland Cement Association Borehole No.70 17 3578 6 '' 30 '' 4 100% 4. October 04.48 6 1866 6 '' 24 '' 12 100% 12.0 30.3 1580 6 '' Ground Surface 6 '' 3 100% 3.017019* PR) 2 CBR Value for all soils except CL soils below CBR 10% and CH soils CBR Value for CL soils (CBR < 10% ) qult = 3.002871*PR) CBR Value for CH soils qult = (3.0 15.0 38. CBR CBR CBR Thick Thick Total No.48 6 1866 6 '' 24 '' 10 100% 10.794*CBR .664 )*144 (in psf .12 CBR = 1 /(.0 10.794*CBR .5 1276 6 '' Ground Surface 6 '' 3 100% 3. LIZARDO P.0 11. 2 Layer Total No.10 16.0 30.0 3.93 12 2889 6 '' 18 '' 4 100% 4.7 5.7 10.0 50.C " " CL.77 9 2396 6 '' 12 '' 9 100% 9.72 19 3797 6 '' 6 '' 30 '' 14 100% 14.70 17 3578 6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.80 4 6 '' 12 '' 2 100% 2.89 20 4012 4257 7. of Blow s / 6" (Fiel d) 4 100% Ground Surface Ground Surface Ground Surface 6 '' 6 '' 3 100% 3.05 84 10340 Average 4.3 Layer Layer Layer Total No.0 76.0 38.10 5 1580 6 '' 18 '' 12 100% 12.40 8 2137 6 '' 6 '' 18 '' 9 100% 9.C (psf) " (Fiel s s s d) H) H) H) d) Total Dept h in inche s 4.0 30.24 14 3124 6 '' 30 '' 12 100% 12.80 4 1276 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 12 '' 7 100% 7.1 1276 6 '' 3411 CBR = 292 / PR 1. CBR Thick Dept Correc (all Correl ness of PR h in Blow Correc ted soils ated in inche s / 6" tion NOB/6 (mm/bl excl qult inche ow) s (Field Factor " CL. 10/25/2010 (Office) (Date) Monday.0 12.8 4 17.GUAM Test No.20 2 944 6 '' 18 '' 5 100% 5.0 10. Chuuk.0 12.

Allowable Bearing Pressure BH-1 1 6 6 3 4 1276.57 1444 -43 1822 437 2452 BH-8 22 6 24 13 19 3797.0 ( 2. LIZARDO P.lbs/ft 2 Borehole Test Sample Layer Thickness Total Depth in No.07 1899 412 169393 891 2906 BH-8 23 6 30 14 20 4012.02 638 -849 720723 -369 1645 BH-8 20 6 12 6 8 2136.70 933 -554 307042 -74 1940 BH-2 7 6 6 4 5 1580. REMOJO.02 638 -849 720723 -369 1645 BH-3 14 6 12 2 2 943.(qall) ave)2 Min. MEng.65 1789 302 91119 781 2796 BH-3 18 6 36 14 20 4012.22 2006 519 269510 999 3013 BH-8 19 6 6 3 4 1276.15 1198 -289 83456 191 2205 BH-1 3 6 18 4 5 1580.65 1789 302 91119 781 2796 BH-2 11 6 30 12 17 3577.03 5170 3683 13564864 4163 6177 BH-3 13 6 6 3 4 1276. Chuuk. in inches inches Corrected No. 2010 Sample Description: Hammer Weight : Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Sunny Allowable Bearing Pressure . 3.(qall) ave (qall .5 inch .42 790 -697 485468 -217 1798 BH-2 8 6 12 9 12 2888.70 933 -554 307042 -74 1940 BH-3 16 6 24 10 14 3124.57 1444 -43 1822 437 2452 BH-2 9 6 18 12 17 3577. Federated of Micronesia Kind of Material: 10/25/2010 Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing: Monday.65 1789 302 91119 781 2796 BH-2 12 6 36 50 84 10340.6 lbs qall . 1. 2.22 2006 519 269510 999 3013 BH-8 24 6 36 26 40 6357.02 638 -849 720723 -369 1645 BH-1 2 6 12 7 9 2396.01 1562 75 5631 555 2569 BH-3 17 6 30 12 17 3577.42 790 -697 485468 -217 1798 BH-1 4 6 24 5 6 1865.85 472 -1015 1030307 -535 1479 BH-3 15 6 18 5 6 1865.65 1789 302 91119 781 2796 BH-2 10 6 24 12 17 3577. Allowable Bearing Pressure Max.62 1068 -419 175271 61 2076 BH-8 21 6 18 9 12 2888. of Blows / 6" CBR Correlated qult (lbs/ft^2) Correlated qall (lbs/ft^2) 17. October 04.336 lbs/ft 2 1487 lbs/ft 2 (qall)min= 480 lbs/ft 2 (qall)max= 2494 lbs/ft 2 (qall)ave= qall FS = = Factor of Safety = qult /FS 2. ASEP GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER Page 1 of 1 Δmax= 1.70 933 -554 307042 -74 1940 BH-1 5 6 30 4 5 1580.0 for footing) PREPARED BY: ENGR. 8 Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom Location: Weno.EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE) BOREHOLE No.0 to 3.98 3179 1692 2862952 2172 4186 n= 24 (CBR)ave 15 ∑(qall-(qall)ave)2 = 23338713 480 2494 (qult)ave= 2974 (qall)ave= 1487 SD = Standard Deviation SD = √(∑(qall-(qall)ave)2 / ( n -1 )) = 1007.42 790 -697 485468 -217 1798 BH-1 6 6 36 5 6 1865.

10 5 1580 6 '' 2 6 '' 12 '' 3 100% 3.77 9 2396 6 '' No.EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) WORKSHEET .85 15 3353 6 '' 6 6 '' 36 '' 13 100% 13.0 11.664 (in psi .0 30.0 25.0 38.0 21.4 1670 Ground Surface Ground Surface 6.0 38.002871*PR) CBR Value for CH soils qult = (3. 10/25/2010 (Office) (Date) Monday.10 5 1580 6 '' 12 '' 8 100% 8.8 10.05 11 2646 6 '' 12 '' 4 100% 4.0 16.0 25.0 13.77 9 2396 6 '' 4 6 '' 24 '' 10 100% 10.lbs/ft2 by Portland Cement Association Borehole No.ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association) CBR =1 / (.794*CBR.8 9.0 19. of Correc (all Correla PR h in Blows / Correc ted soils ted qult tion (mm/blo inche 6" NOB/6 excl Factor w) (psf) s (Field) " CL.0 19.0 38.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 '' 7 100% 7.6 lbs Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Quick Rain Ultimate Bearing Pressure .794*CBR.10 5 1580 6 '' 18 '' 7 100% 7. 5 Borehole No.77 9 2396 6 '' 18 '' 7 100% 7.80 4 1276 6 '' 6 '' 7 100% 7.0 2348 Total CBR Dept No.C H) 7.0 9.40 8 2137 6 '' 24 '' 8 100% 8. 4 Borehole No.85 15 3353 6 '' 30 '' 4 100% 4.0 13.12 5.10 5 1580 6 '' 30 '' 6 100% 6.24 14 3124 6 '' 24 '' 6 100% 6.0 38.0 30.6 Layer Thick ness in inche s Total Dept h in inche s Layer Layer Layer Total No.C (psf) CL.3 1.10 5 1580 6 '' 6 '' 3 100% 3.72 19 3797 6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.40 8 2137 6 '' 18 '' 4 100% 4.FIELD DATA Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom Location: Weno.0 21. Federated of Micronesia Test Conducted By: EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS .0 25.0 38. Thick Thick of Corre of Correc (all Correc (all Correl ness Depth of (all Correl ness ness Depth Correlat Corre PR Correc PR PR in Blow Correc cted Blow Blow ted soils ted soils ated soils ated in in in in ed qult ction (mm/bl tion (mm/blo tion (mm/bl inche qult inche qult NOB/6 s / 6" NOB/6 excl s / 6" NOB/6 excl s / 6" excl inche Factor ow) Factor w) ow) (psf) inche inches s (Field Factor " (Field " CL.77 9 2396 6 '' 6 '' 4 100% 4.0 21. 2010 Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.C (psf) s H) Borehole No. No.93 12 2889 6 '' 5 6 '' 30 '' 11 100% 11.0 21. Chuuk.0 50.ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association) TEST PERFORMED BY: ENGR. LIZARDO P. CBR CBR CBR Thick Total No.017019* PR) CBR Value for all soils except CL soils below CBR 10% and CH soils CBR Value for CL soils (CBR < 10% ) qult = 3.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.0 38. of Blows / 6" (Field ) Layer CBR Thick Correc (all Correl ness Correc PR ted soils ated in tion (mm/blo qult NOB/6 excl inche Factor w) " CL.7 2545 Ground Surface 4.10 5 1580 6 '' 3 6 '' 18 '' 6 100% 6.664 )*144 (in psf .C (psf) s s s ) H) d) H) ) H) Ground Surface Ground Surface Average 7.3 2366 CBR = 292 / PR 2 CBR = 1 /(.0 50. October 04.C (Fiel " CL.GUAM Test No.80 4 1276 6 '' 12 '' 4 100% 4.05 11 2646 6 '' 24 '' 9 100% 9. 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 20 15 10 Series1 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 BH-6 CBR Graphs 12 10 8 6 Series1 Series1 4 2 0 1 BH-4 CBR Graphs 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-5 2 3 4 5 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) 1 BH-5 2 3 4 5 2500 3000 2000 2500 BH-6 Series1 1000 500 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) 1500 Series1 1000 Series1 1 2000 1500 Series1 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 6 Bearing Capacity (ultimate) BH-7 BH-7 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Series1 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 Total Dept h in inche s 1 6 '' 6 '' 4 100% 4.0 15.40 8 2137 6 '' 30 '' 11 100% 11.

(qall) ave)2 Min.62 1068 -48 2278 1068 1068 BH-5 11 6 30 4 5 1580. 6. 5.70 933 -183 33556 933 933 BH-6 13 6 6 7 9 2396. REMOJO.15 1198 82 6731 1198 1198 (CBR)ave 9 ∑(qall-(qall)ave)2 = 2828379 1116 1116 n= 24 (qult)ave= 2232 (qall)ave= 1116 SD = Standard Deviation SD = √(∑(qall-(qall)ave)2 / ( n -1 )) 350. of Blows / 6" CBR Correlated qult (lbs/ft^2) 17.47 1677 561 314387 1677 1677 BH-7 24 6 36 7 9 2396. MEng. 4.57 1444 328 107749 1444 1444 BH-7 23 6 30 11 15 3353.15 1198 82 6731 1198 1198 1323 BH-6 14 6 12 8 11 2646.42 790 -326 106162 790 790 BH-5 9 6 18 4 5 1580.15 1198 82 6731 1198 1198 BH-7 22 6 24 9 12 2888. October 04. 2010 Sample Description: Hammer Weight : Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Sunny Allowable Bearing Pressure .62 1068 -48 2278 1068 1068 BH-6 18 6 36 5 6 1865.675 = lbs/ft 2 lbs/ft 2 (qall)ave= 1116 (qall)min= 765 lbs/ft 2 (qall)max= 1467 lbs/ft 2 qall FS qult /FS = = Factor of Safety = 2.5 inch . ASEP GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER Page 1 of 1 1.32 1323 207 42900 1323 1323 BH-6 17 6 30 6 8 2136.42 790 -326 106162 790 790 BH-7 20 6 12 4 5 1580. Federated of Micronesia Kind of Material: 10/25/2010 Sandy Soil (Visual) Date of Testing: Monday.lbs/ft 2 Boreho Test Sample Layer Thickness Total Depth in le No.70 933 -183 33556 933 933 BH-7 19 6 6 4 5 1580. Allowable Bearing Pressure Max.32 1323 207 42900 1323 BH-6 15 6 18 7 9 2396.02 638 -478 228507 638 638 BH-4 3 6 18 6 8 2136.01 1562 446 198888 1562 1562 BH-4 5 6 30 11 15 3353.62 1068 -48 2278 1068 1068 BH-4 4 6 24 10 14 3124. Allowable Bearing Pressure BH-4 1 6 6 4 5 1580.0 to 3.42 790 -326 106162 790 790 BH-7 21 6 18 7 9 2396.42 790 -326 106162 790 790 BH-4 2 6 12 3 4 1276.42 790 -326 106162 790 790 BH-5 10 6 24 6 8 2136. LIZARDO P.6 lbs Correlated qall (lbs/ft^2) qall . 7 Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom Location: Weno.(qall) ave (qall .42 790 -326 106162 790 790 BH-5 12 6 36 5 6 1865. in inches inches Corrected No. Chuuk.47 1677 561 314387 1677 1677 BH-4 6 6 36 13 19 3797.02 638 -478 228507 638 638 BH-5 8 6 12 4 5 1580.15 1198 82 6731 1198 1198 BH-6 16 6 24 8 11 2646.07 1899 783 612312 1899 1899 BH-5 7 6 6 3 4 1276.0 for footing) Δmax= PREPARED BY: ENGR.EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE) BOREHOLE No.0 ( 2.

017019* PR) 2 CBR Value for all soils except CL soils below CBR 10% and CH soils CBR Value for CL soils (CBR < 10% ) qult = 3.17 10 2447 6 '' 90 '' 6 '' 6 '' 90 '' 7 100% 7.24 14 3124 6 '' 6 '' 72 '' 6 '' 72 '' 7 100% 7.0 21.48 6 1866 6 '' 132 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 132 '' 6 100% 6. of Correc (all Correla PR h in Blows / Correc ted soils ted qult (mm/blo tion inche NOB/6 excl 6" w) Factor (psf) s " CL.75 6 1810 6 '' 6 '' 48 '' 6 '' 48 '' 4 120% 4.EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) WORKSHEET .C (Field) H) Ground Surface Ground Surface 72 '' 6 '' 78 '' 6 120% 7.0 30.3 1.48 6 1866 6 '' 36 '' 6 '' 42 '' 6 '' 42 '' 4 120% 4.664 TEST PERFORMED BY: ENGR.12 CBR = 292 / PR CBR = 1 /(.8 31.4 18.9 Total CBR Dept No.0 21.48 6 1866 6.C (psf) " s s s H) ) H) d) H) ) Ground Surface 5. 2010 Sample Description: Hammer Weight : 17.0 21.17 10 2447 6 '' 162 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 162 '' 6 100% 6.ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association) .0 21.8 31.C (psf) (Fiel " CL.6 42.0 30.10 5 1580 6 '' 6 '' 36 '' 5 100% 5.75 6 1810 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 120 '' 5 120% 6.8 31.0 21.0 19. October 04.C (psf) (Field " CL. LIZARDO P.0 Borehole No.0 30.5 20.2 21.0 21.FIELD DATA Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom Location: Weno.6 lbs Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Quick Rain Ultimate Bearing Pressure . 9C Borehole No.75 6 1810 6 '' 6 '' 54 '' 6 '' 54 '' 7 100% 7. Federated of Micronesia Test Conducted By: EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS .40 8 2137 6 '' 6 '' 138 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 138 '' 7 100% 7.002871*PR) CBR Value for CH soils qult = (3.14 11 2744 6 '' 6 '' 18 '' 4 100% 4. No. 10/25/2010 (Office) (Date) Kind of Material: Sandy Soil (Visual) Monday.0 25.40 8 2137 6 '' 168 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 168 '' 7 100% 7.794*CBR (in psi .77 9 2396 6 '' 6 '' 96 '' 6 '' 6 '' 96 '' 7 100% 7. of Blows / 6" (Field ) Layer CBR Thick (all Correl ness Correc PR Correc soils ated ted in (mm/blo tion qult excl NOB/6 inche w) Factor CL.48 6 1866 6 '' 6 '' 30 '' 4 100% 4.40 8 2137 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 126 '' 5 100% 5.77 9 2396 6 '' 6 '' 60 '' 6 '' 60 '' 8 100% 8.0 38.77 9 2396 6 '' 6 '' 102 '' 6 '' 6 '' 102 '' 5 100% 5.2 21. Thick Thick of (all Correl ness Correc (all Correl ness Depth of Correc (all Correl ness Depth of Corre PR Corre PR Correc PR in Blow Correc cted Blow soils ated ted soils ated ted soils ated Blow in in in in tion (mm/bl ction (mm/bl tion (mm/bl qult inche inche s / 6" qult qult inche inches s / 6" excl s / 6" NOB/6 excl NOB/6 excl NOB/6 inche ow) Factor ow) Factor ow) s (Field Factor CL.77 9 2396 6 '' 174 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 174 '' 5 100% 5.10 5 1580 6 '' 6 '' 24 '' 5 100% 5.0 25.48 6 1866 6 '' 6 '' 108 '' 6 '' 6 '' 108 '' 4 100% 4.ultimate bearing pressure by Portland Cement Association) CBR =1 / (.794*CBR.2 6. 9B Layer Thick ness in inche s Ground Surface Ground Surface 6. 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 .33 4 1461 6 '' 6 '' 12 '' 7 120% 8.C (psf) " s H) Total Dept h in inche s Borehole No.05 11 2646 6 '' 144 '' 6 '' 150 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 150 '' 3 250% 7.GUAM Test No.10 5 1580 6 '' 6 '' 114 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 120 '' 6 '' 6 '' 126 '' 6 '' 108 '' 6 '' 114 '' 4 120% 4.664 )*144 (in psf . 9 Borehole No.05 11 2646 6 '' 6 '' 66 '' 6 '' 66 '' 10 100% 10. 9D Layer Layer Layer Total No.0 19. 9A Total Dept h in inche s 6 '' 6 '' 3 120% 3.0 25.32 10 2522 6 '' 156 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 156 '' 6 120% 7.0 38.0 15.lbs/ft2 by Portland Cement Association Borehole No.0 30.77 9 2396 6 '' 6 '' 78 '' 6 '' 6 '' 84 '' 6 '' No.0 30. Chuuk.0 30.77 9 2396 6 '' 6 '' 144 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 144 '' 8 100% 8.17 10 2447 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 84 '' 6 120% 7.2 21.1 6.48 6 1866 6 '' 180 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 6 '' 180 '' 5 100% 5.0 38. CBR CBR CBR Thick Total No.

70 933 -144 20861 933 933 BH-9D 30 6 180 5 6 1865.70 933 -144 20861 933 933 BH-9 5 6 30 4 5 1580.62 1068 -9 81 1068 1068 BH-9C 23 6 138 7 9 2396.6 lbs Sunny Ultimate Bearing Pressure . REMOJO.30 1261 184 33808 1261 1261 BH-9D 26 6 156 7 10 2446.15 1198 121 14591 1198 1198 BH-9B 13 6 78 7 10 2446.15 1198 121 14591 1198 1198 BH-9D 29 6 174 5 6 1865.271 = 1077 lbs/ft2 1077 lbs/ft2 (qall)min= 873 lbs/ft2 (qall)max= 1282 lbs/ft2 (qall)ave= qall FS = = Factor of Safety = qult /FS 2.(qall) ave)2 Min.0 Δmax= ( 2. in inches Total Depth in inches 17.42 790 -287 82411 790 790 BH-9 4 6 24 5 6 1865.88 1223 146 21362 1223 1223 BH-9B 14 6 84 7 10 2446.70 933 -144 20861 933 933 n= 30 (CBR) ave 7 ∑(qall-(qall)ave)2 = 1210071 1077 1077 SD = Standard Deviation SD = √(∑(qall-(qall)ave)2 / ( n -1 )) (qult)ave= 1785 (qall)ave= 204.62 1068 -9 81 1068 1068 BH-9D 28 6 168 7 9 2396.15 1198 121 14591 1198 1198 BH-9B 17 6 102 5 6 1865. October 04. 9 Project: Proposed FSM-COM Administration Building with Classroom Location: Weno.62 1068 -9 81 1068 1068 BH-9C 21 6 126 5 6 1865.15 1198 121 14591 1198 BH-9A 10 6 60 8 11 2646. Allowable Bearing Pressure Pressure BH-9 1 6 6 4 4 1461.91 905 -172 29697 905 905 BH-9C 20 6 120 6 8 2136.88 1223 146 21362 1223 1223 BH-9D 27 6 162 6 8 2136. MEng.32 1323 246 60455 1323 1323 BH-9D 25 6 150 8 10 2522.42 790 -287 82411 790 790 BH-9C 19 6 114 5 6 1809.88 1223 146 21362 1223 1223 BH-9B 15 6 90 7 9 2396.lbs/ft2 Corrected No.91 905 -172 29697 905 905 1198 BH-9A 9 6 54 7 9 2396.(qall) ave (qall .01 1562 485 234954 1562 1562 BH-9A 12 6 72 7 9 2396.31 731 -347 120150 731 731 BH-9 2 6 12 8 11 2744.70 933 -144 20861 933 933 BH-9B 18 6 108 4 5 1580.0 to 3.70 933 -144 20861 933 933 BH-9A 7 6 42 5 6 1809.EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PCA BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATION USING DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER CORRELATION (ALLOWABLE) BOREHOLE No.0 for footing) PREPARED BY: ENGR.32 1323 246 60455 1323 1323 BH-9A 11 6 66 10 14 3124.10 1372 295 86888 1372 1372 BH-9 3 6 18 4 5 1580. LIZARDO P.42 790 -287 82411 790 790 BH-9 6 6 36 5 6 1865.15 1198 121 14591 1198 1198 BH-9C 24 6 144 8 11 2646. 2010 Date of Testing: Sample Description: Hammer Weight : Location: Climate / Temperature during Testing: Borehole Test Sample Layer Thickness No. Allowable Bearing Max.15 1198 121 14591 1198 1198 BH-9B 16 6 96 7 9 2396. Chuuk.91 905 -172 29697 905 905 BH-9A 8 6 48 5 6 1809. of Blows / 6" CBR Correlated qult (lbs/ft^2) Correlated qall (lbs/ft^2) qall . ASEP GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER Page 1 of 1 1.5 inch .70 933 -144 20861 933 933 BH-9C 22 6 132 6 8 2136. Federated of Micronesia Kind of Material: 10/25/2010 Sandy Soil (Visual) Monday.

61 0.02 0.7% 23.16 0.0% 49.6% 34.00 9.03% 19.9% 35.0% 46.8% 13.3 ML Sandy Silt 17.94% 19.75% 34.00 10.7 SS9C BH-9C / TP-9C 2.06% 33.71% 23.86 42.3% 0.8 .53% 35.3% 46.8% 76.82 45.00 10.16 0.8 ML Sandy Silt 7.81 0.0% 41.3% 0.09% 59.57% 27.80% 59.Line Cc % % % % % % GRAIN SIZE Unifor- Coeffi- ANALYSIS mity cient of Liquid % COARSE Coeffi- Grada- cient tion Cu Gravel Sand F200 Fraction Fraction SF/GF ENCY 0. CHUUK CAMPUS.1% 42. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.33 17.84 50.82% 0.8% 76.68% 0.7% 23.17 1.0 -0.63 0.6 SS9D BH-9D / TP-9D LEGEND : SS ST CS - 9.4% 23.5% 46.88% 14.3% 3.7% 0.93 59.6% 11.5% 22.02 0.9 SS8 BH-8 / TP-8 0. R4 R200 F-PASSING .4% 0.45 57.17% 57.65% 46.73% 0.06% 27.92% 0.6% 58.0 -0.32 1.17% 22.52% 16.6 SS4-A BH-4A / TP-4A 0.06% 33.9 SS6 BH-6 / TP-6 UNIFIED SOIL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) SYM SOIL OR ROCK BOL DESCRIPTION 4.3% 10.3% 53.45% 143.05% 0.68% 0.16 0.0 -0.75% 0.0 -0.7 ML Sandy Silt 7.0% 53.85 0.00 18.3% 46.3.6% 0.3% 10.06% 32.3% 45.3% 0.59% 29.81 67.0 .1 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 6. 2010 EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Start: Finish: 04-Oct-10 04-Oct-10 LABORATORY DATA LOG in 2 unit DEPTH (m) Average CPT SAMPLE BOREHOLE / TEST Corrected measured N NO.7 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 16.2% 41.8 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 4.86% 0.77% 0.5% 22.1.46 52.5% 14.3% 31.59% 29.3% 0.0 -0.7% 54.00 9.6% 46.88 56.6% 50.36% 57.2% 43.45 57.39% 0.3% 46.12% 28.0% 47.2.3% 19.6% 46.00 18.5R200 Plastic Plastic Plastic Index Index Index Plastic from from from Water SOIL Limit Limit Test Chart Chart Content CONSIS- A .7% 38.00 18.5% 143.7% 23.10.1% 0.1% 46.1% 42.3% 0.3% 46.4% 51.0 -0.7% 54.3% 20.29 36.0.0% 48.8% 24.2% 0.3% 0.9 SS7 BH-7 / TP-7 0.5% 0.00 8.85 0.57% 18.3% 53.3 MH Sandy Elastic Silt SOIL SAMPLE SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GeotechDataLog-Chuuk 11.03% 18.5 ML Sandy Silt 7.1% 13.GEOTECHNICAL DATA LOG PROJECT : LOCATION: DATE: TESTING BY : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.0% 49.3% 45.3% 45.00 9.36% 53.7% 24.0% 48.09% 49.33 17.5% 14.58% 11.36% 57.9 .8% 52.3% 45.2 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 6.12% .01 44.7% 0.00 8.40% 33.9 SS3 BH-3 / TP-3 0.47 0.0 .1 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 5 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 6.80 0.43% 28.7% 0.00% 48.0% 13.9 SS4-B BH-4B / TP-4B 0.73 28.9 SS9A BH-9 / TP-9A 0.6% 0.9 SS2 BH-2 / TP-2 0. November 05.8 SM % R-RETAINED.57% 27.0% 47.10 47.2% 12.3% 53.7% 4.6mm) NO SAMPLE NOT APPLICABLE NON PLASTIC .0 -0.3% 24.9 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 6.6% 53.06% 23. HOLE Blows 0.3% 42.8% 3.3% 46.9 SS9A BH-9A / TP-9A 0.45 57.75% 0.87 59.4% 51.46 52.71% 20.4% 7.9 SS5 BH-5 / TP-5 0.0% 41.06% 23.88% 24.Line U .06% 33.8 SS9B BH-9B / TP-9B 1.83% 35.0% 46.xlsxfield & laboratory data NNS NA NP - CONE PENETRATION NUMBER (Blow/152.0% 48. Silty Sand with Gravel 0.6% 23.05% 0.72% 42.7% 0.61% 58.0% 9.3% 42.9 SS1 BH-1 / TP-1 0.3% 46.0.18% 22.3% 53.20% 42.7 .33% 12.1% 23.5% 0.9% 0.9% 38.5% 14.8% 23.51% 53.1% 42.54% 57.10% 0.3 MH Sandy Elastic Silt 6.6 -0.86% 0.3% 6.4% 0.0% 46.0% 46.4% 53.7% 3.6% 23.10.0 -0.57% 27.

93 34.79 95.50 76.70 50.91 70. November 05.01 65.50 122.00 58.12 54.98 PROJECT : LOCATION: DATE: TESTING BY : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA. of Dry Sample plus Can (grams) WT.07 86.00 133.00 19.50 38. 2010 EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WT. CHUUK CAMPUS.50 122.36 96.00 19.50 33.85 66.50 134.12% Sample ` .50 36.31 57.87 74.99 56.90 63.33% SS7 23.77% SS9-B 23.50 53.50 57.91 111. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.55 71.87 87.50 57.01 61.ASTM D 2216 .50 138.07 56.50 46.05 94.51 91.00 49.00 26.37 97.92% SS8 8.00 31.93 57.12 83.75% SS3 41.05% SS9-A 22. of Wet Sample plus Can (grams) WT.40 93.38 87.86% SS2 29. of Dry Sample (grams) Water Content w.50 127.23 53.10% SS5 30. of Water (grams) WT.% SS1 34.00 32.88 59.73% SS4-A 33.00 59.39% SS9-D 28.86% SS4-B 28.50 34.00 127.18 28.88 59.50 114.50 105.36 61.00 22.03% SS6 8.50 33.50 42.50 33.82% SS9-C 30. of Empty Can (grams) WT.WATER (MOISTURE) CONTENT .50 36.02 29.00 59.35 99.00 128.

39 8.37 41 47.34 49.12 9.30 8.40% IF2 = 0.5066 LL3 (grams) 14. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.51% 90% 80% 70% Flow Curve 60% 50.89 24 50. N Water Content.4790 LL2 (grams) 11. LL Plastic Limit.73 8.40% 0.26 12.86 1.21 39.05% 50.82 8.62 3.62% 40 45 50 55 .25 9.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0.4908 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.10 new.37 38.43 36. November 05. Ww No. PI = = = ave = 41.1074 w @ 25 = Iave = 0.47 3.53 0.33 11.1521 N1 = 24 IF3 = 0.75 8. CHUUK CAMPUS.05% 9.58 0. w(%) LL1 (grams) 12.52 8.5040 LL4 (grams) 13.65 1.08% 0.11.17 0.xlsxSS1 PL2 (grams) 10.27 1.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .: SS-1 BOREHOLE 1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.96 0. I = F ave = 49.22% 41.75 1. of Blows.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.22% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.27 8.18% Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11.60 20 49.79 0.77 0.0378 w1 = 50.67 10.15 27 50. Ws Mass of Moisture.26 1.61 9. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.28% w Liquid Limit. PL Plasticity Index.51 9.22% 10% 0% 50.75% PL4 (grams) 9.09908 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 50.90% 0.54% PL3 (grams) 10.37 8.22% 50% 4 Equation of Flow Line: 2 3 1 40% w = .69 0.25 2. w(%) PL1 (grams) 9.76 11.66% 0.53 2.

0786 w1 = 44.66 0. Ws Mass of Moisture.89% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.: SS-2 BOREHOLE 2 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil.37 8.00 11.85% 40 45 50 55 .10 new.71 0.31% w Liquid Limit.23 34.14 8.15 8.12 35.33 8.11.01 8. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO. w(%) LL1 (grams) 12.08% 0.49 0. w(%) PL1 (grams) 9. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.32% 6.81 3.20 40.66 0.33 32 44.78% 0.29% PL3 (grams) 9.08% IF2 = 0. CHUUK CAMPUS.51% 90% 80% Flow Curve 70% 44. I = F ave = 44. PL Plasticity Index.71 0.24 16 47.89% 10% 0% 44.35 12.60 9.70 2. PI = = = ave = 38.67 8.82% PL4 (grams) 9.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .01 8.32% 44.52 0.34 28 44.70 2.xlsxSS2 PL2 (grams) 9. of Blows.49 0.57 11.89% 38.97 1. N Water Content. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.04 1.4715 LL2 (grams) 13. LL Plastic Limit.4204 LL3 (grams) 13.05 8.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.4408 LL4 (grams) 13.89% 60% 4 50% Equation of Flow Line: 3 2 1 40% w = .34 0.40 24 42.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0.15% 0.2900 N1 = 28 IF3 = 0.16497 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 44.35 9.04% 0.54 12.22 42. November 05.4478 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.97 3.23 9.33 1.57% Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11. Ww No.17 9.63 1.1263 w @ 25 = Iave = 0.

ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .10 new.71 0. LL Plastic Limit.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0.59% 11.79% PL3 (grams) 9.66 2. Ws Mass of Moisture.14 29.82 0.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.59% 0.89 15 43. PI = = = ave = 34.xlsxSS3 PL2 (grams) 9.4363 LL3 (grams) 12.54% IF2 = 0. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.4059 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.62% 10% 0% 45.49 0.01 8.43 9.09 0.62 9. N Water Content.29 8. Ww No. CHUUK CAMPUS.84% 40 45 50 55 .63% 0.59 10.04 0.87 8.98% 90% 80% Flow Curve 70% 45.21 8.3496 N1 = 34 IF3 = 0.62% 34.53 0.62% 60% 4 3 50% Equation of Flow Line: 2 1 40% w = .14 34 42.05 1.70 8.20 37.77 8.47 0.38 9.54% 0.38 0.17% 0.97 42 40. w(%) PL1 (grams) 9.5317 LL2 (grams) 11. November 05.62% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.82 2.74% PL4 (grams) 9.87 8.68 1. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.48 2.50 0. I = F ave = 44.64 11.50 8. of Blows.59% 45.4254 LL4 (grams) 11.00% w Liquid Limit.84 10.11.86 10. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.23118 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 45.09 8 53.14 36. w(%) LL1 (grams) 11.72 2.82 9. PL Plasticity Index.: SS-3 BOREHOLE 3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil.39 0.17 34.1748 w1 = 42.1692 w @ 25 = Iave = 0.03% Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11.

13 36.11% w Liquid Limit.53 0.82 11.90% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.26% 90% 80% 70% Flow Curve 42.39 0.90% 10% 0% 42.38% 7.94% 0. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.66 1. N Water Content.80 3.75 1.57 11. CHUUK CAMPUS.51 8.4361 LL2 (grams) 13.05 1.90% 35.35 0.11.40 9.4286 LL4 (grams) 12.xlsxSS4-A PL2 (grams) 9.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .0217 w @ 25 = = 0. PI = = = ave = 35. w(%) LL1 (grams) 12.40 1.66 12.27 8.20 41 43.16 9.14 40.44 3.38% 42.43 8.56 0.52% Atterberg Limit Chuuk 11. PL Plasticity Index.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA. Ws Mass of Moisture.91 8.14 31 42.94% 0.4294 LL3 (grams) 12. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday. w(%) PL1 (grams) 9.36 0.88 0.05 8.0284 N1 = 24 = 0.86% 0.: SS-4A BOREHOLE 4 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil.17 32.49 8.87 0.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = IF2 = IF3 Iave w1 = 42. LL Plastic Limit.90% 60% 50% Equation of Flow Line: 4 3 1 2 40% w = .03 8.64% 0.40 8. I = F ave = 43.61% 0.33% 40 45 50 55 .76 2.33 14 43. Ww No.00% PL3 (grams) 9.46 24 42.4364 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.57 9.67 0.02507 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 42.77 2.13 33.71 11.08% PL4 (grams) 9. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO. November 05.10 new. of Blows.20 8.

FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.11 0.41% 0.42 9.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .62 55.20212 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 67.36% PL3 (grams) 10.6132 LL2 (grams) 14. w(%) PL1 (grams) 10.25% PL4 (grams) 9.34 12. November 05.60 55.72 8.6641 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index. of Blows.56% 10% 0% 67.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0.58 52.61 1. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.05 8.88% 0.73 0.45 1.30 9.11 2.: SS-5 BOREHOLE 5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil. PL Plasticity Index.68 1.75% PL2 (grams) 10. CHUUK CAMPUS. PI = = = ave = 53.12 0.62 1. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.49 2.1525 N1 = 27 IF3 = 0.78 8.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.80 8.56% w Liquid Limit. Ww No. N Water Content.23 12.18 31 63. w(%) LL1 (grams) 14.56% 80% 4 70% 3 2 1 60% 50% Equation of Flow Line: 40% w = .64 10.71 3.88% IF2 = 0.13 9.40% Flow Curve 90% 67.86 11.87 0.98 9.60 8.90 8.05% 40 45 50 55 .6688 LL4 (grams) 12.56% 53.80% 67.46 2.1280 w1 = 66.14 40 61.28 2.56% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.38 52.20 8.01% 0. Ws Mass of Moisture.08 27 66.80% 13.67 3. LL Plastic Limit.59 3.32% 0.74 16 66.3259 w @ 25 = Iave = 0.53 8. I = F ave = 64.08 0.6301 LL3 (grams) 13.

40 9. PL Plasticity Index. Ww No.49 8.49 0.80 12.4655 2 3 4 48.01% 0.4545 LL4 (grams) 13.21 42.63 0.30 12.44 8. of Blows.82 8. Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 47.23% 10% 0% 47.45% 0.29% 47.48 1.70 0.70 1.23% 43.26 41.23% 70% 60% 1 50% 2 Equation of Flow Line: 40% w = .64 10.45 10 53.55% 0.20 2.81 0.1663 N1 = 22 IF3 = 0. PI = = = ave = 43.19 8.1423 w @ 25 = = 0.81 22 48.1129 w1 = 48.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.70 3.43% 90% Flow Curve 80% 47. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.13 0.86 0.05 38 45.01% IF2 = 0.96 0. November 05.70% 0.14048 Iave ave.62 43 46.52 46. CHUUK CAMPUS.27% PL3 (grams) 9.86% PL4 (grams) 10. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.90 8.08 11.72 2. I = F ave = LL2 (grams) 14. w(%) LL1 (grams) 12.19 9.5370 1 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.03 8.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 . LL Plastic Limit.72 3.31 1. Ws Mass of Moisture.37 43.99 1.70 9. N Water Content.77 1.35 10.4801 LL3 (grams) 12.29% 3.02% w Liquid Limit.12 8.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 4 3 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0.: SS-6 BOREHOLE 6 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil. w(%) PL1 (grams) 10.18 8. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.02% 40 45 50 55 .23% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.94% PL2 (grams) 9.

93 1.02 11.85 0.59 30 36.38 8.17 3.56% 40 45 50 55 .84 13.70% 36.73 8.73 13.07 11 36.31 1.27% 10% 0% 36.67 16 36. Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = w @ 25 = 20% 36.00681 Iave ave.88% PL4 (grams) 9. N Water Content.58 8.25 8.52% 0.22 32.69 0. w(%) PL1 (grams) 9.87% 0.56 1.94 4.41 2.71 0.24% IF2 = -0. PI = = = ave = 31.23 31.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 1 30% 4 3 2 log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = -0.3689 2 3 4 36.38 8. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.32 0.41 11. Ws Mass of Moisture. of Blows.27% 31.0085 w1 = 36. LL Plastic Limit. w(%) LL1 (grams) 12.29 22 36.68 9. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.22 31.11 30.73 0.34 8.51% w Liquid Limit.60 9. Ww No.69 0. November 05.53 4.84% PL3 (grams) 9.79 9.0213 N1 = 22 IF3 = 0.89% 0.27% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.24% 0.36 0.3624 LL4 (grams) 14.53 1. I = F ave = LL2 (grams) 14.0094 = -0.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 . CHUUK CAMPUS.27% 70% 60% 50% Equation of Flow Line: 40% w = .: SS-7 BOREHOLE 7 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil.63% 90% Flow Curve 80% 36.81 9.70% 4.67 0.60 9.58% PL2 (grams) 9.3687 LL3 (grams) 13.06 8. PL Plasticity Index.3652 1 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.

5089 N1 = 21 IF3 = 0.21 45.45 9.75 9.6531 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.90 13.19 30 59.72 3.33 44.96 1.71 13.49% 10% 0% 59.43% PL2 (grams) 9. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.54 8.49% 46.83 9.30 0.3068 w @ 25 = Iave = 0.43 2.30 9.73 12.24 14 65.29 8. w(%) LL1 (grams) 15. of Blows.59% PL3 (grams) 9.49% 4 70% 3 60% 2 50% Equation of Flow Line: 4 40% w = . PL Plasticity Index.18% IF2 = 0. LL Plastic Limit.76 0.97 8.31% 0.37 8. PI = = = ave = 46. Ws Mass of Moisture.50 8.39 12.52% w Liquid Limit.6218 LL4 (grams) 14.09 8.06% 59. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.03% 0.01 0.35565 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 59.48 47.2513 w1 = 62. N Water Content.46 46.06% 13. November 05. Ww No.77 4. I = F ave = 60.5903 LL3 (grams) 15. w(%) PL1 (grams) 10.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .38% 90% Flow Curve 80% 59.46% 40 45 50 55 .74 0.65% PL4 (grams) 9.49% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.68 21 62.71 2.03 8.53 36 55.31 2.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0.83 3.72 4.63 0.46 0.99 0.00% 0.5500 LL2 (grams) 14.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.18% 0.: SS-8 BOREHOLE 8 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil. CHUUK CAMPUS.60 2.15 8.

84 10.61 0.74 0.0352 N1 = 31 IF3 = 0.72 0.94% w Liquid Limit.18 1.63 8.99 9.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0. PL Plasticity Index.80 44 53.00 8.26 10.39 17 65.61 1. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.49 9.89 0.50% 14. Ww No.36 40.62 0.50 3.26% 0.89% PL3 (grams) 9.17 8. w(%) PL1 (grams) 9. Ws Mass of Moisture.23 8.66 3.39 9. N Water Content.07% 10% 0% 57. LL Plastic Limit.13 1. November 05.5325 LL4 (grams) 13. PI = = = ave = 42.71% PL4 (grams) 9. w(%) LL1 (grams) 12. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.68 8.38 1.35% 0.18421 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 57.26 41.6526 LL2 (grams) 11.22 48.07% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows.07% 1 70% 2 4 60% 3 50% Equation of Flow Line: 40% w = .3799 w1 = 55.5535 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.80% 0.07% 42.45% 40 45 50 55 .27 23 64. I = F ave = 59.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .24 9.45 0.62 0.66% Flow Curve 90% 80% 57. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.24 38.25% 0.00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.: SS-9A and SS-9C BOREHOLE 9A and 9C PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil. CHUUK CAMPUS.50% 57.1375 w @ 25 = Iave = 0.84 12.87 8.38 0.57 8. of Blows.57% PL2 (grams) 9.76 31 55.74 2.04 8.6480 LL3 (grams) 13.44 11.35% IF2 = 0.96 1.

32380 Liquid Limit @ 25 Blows = 20% 52.4175 w1 = 54.32% 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows. Ww No.01 2.66 9.70 11.39 1.42 8. November 05. PI = = = ave = 42.07% 0.47 0.67 3.32 43.ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS: ASTM D 4318 .00 PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.92 8.39% Flow Curve 90% 80% 52.29 43.92 8.81 0. CHUUK CAMPUS.34 42.77% IF2 = 0.5062 LL3 (grams) 13. PL Plasticity Index.61 9.26% 10. w(%) PL1 (grams) 9.24 8.6011 1 2 3 4 LL COMPUTATION : Flow Index: Flow Index.61 0.11% 0.17 16 60. N Water Content.IF log (25/N1) + w1 (w1-w2) = 100% 30% log ( N2 / N1) IF1 = 0.40 9.54 12.24% PL3 (grams) 9. of Blows. w(%) LL1 (grams) 12.18 0.34% PL4 (grams) 9. LL Plastic Limit.78 21 54.27 8.71 0.77% 0.62% 0.08 8.34 40 56.24 39.74 0. N ( log scale ) PLASTIC LIMIT Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil Mass of Moisture Water Content.32% 42.03 27 50.74 11.1016 w @ 25 = Iave = 0.25 12.4523 N1 = 21 IF3 = 0. I = F ave = 55.06% PL2 (grams) 9.32% 10% 0% 52.80 0.25 1.51 8.50% 40 45 50 55 .: SS-9B and SS-9D BOREHOLE 9B and 9D PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE FOR LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION Can Description Mass of Wet Soil + Can Mass of Dry Soil + Can Mass of Can Mass of Dry Soil.01 2.66 0.94% w Liquid Limit. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.66 9. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO. Ws Mass of Moisture.37 8.5477 LL4 (grams) 14.5607 LL2 (grams) 14.47 3.50 4.26% 52.32% 70% 4 3 60% 1 2 50% Equation of Flow Line: 40% w = .61 2.

19% Sand # 60 0.000% 219. 200 0.489% 206. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.5 408.450 100.450 100.257% 274.180 0.00% 0.45 157.274 366.00% 0.700 0.5 24.42% 47.000% 278.74% 1.00% Gravel 1" 25.420 # 50 0.000% 278.500 4.074 334.00% Sand # 16 1.5 358.000 8.95 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.00% 0.58% Sand PAN Wash Passing No.450 100. CHUUK CAMPUS.000% 278.001 407.000% 274.450 100. 2010 DATE: TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.000% 278. SS-1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.14649 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.500 0.00% 100. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.000% 278.450 100.00% Sand # 10 2. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.11.450 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.760 0.950 52.01493 mm 0.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.932% 219.00% 0.00% Gravel #8 2.95 Total Weight 278.000 0.0 438 382.000% 278.00% 0.297 507 507.26% Sand 0.450 100.10 new.415% 0.00% 0.000 52.400 0. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No.000 13.04278 mm 0.000 0.97% Sand # 200 0.03% 38.5 0.000 0.81% 21.0 411.00% 0.0 453 46.950 74.68% Sand # 100 0. November 05.00% Gravel #4 4.0 378.5 37.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.840 # 30 0.619% 145.19% Sand 0.950 61.950 98.0 482 482.288% 169.00% 0.00% Sand # 20 0. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA Friday.00% 0.50 278.000% 278.5 12.000% 278. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.450 78.590 # 40 0.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 99.050 0.45 182.00 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 99.450 100.450 100.000% 278.26% Sand 19.149 342.81% 21.32% 25.530 0.450 78. OF CAN WT.74% 1.50 25.360 0.xlsx SS-1 1 of 22 . Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 1 / TEST HOLE 1 282.500 55.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.950 98.5 379.450 100.000 3.500 1.

005mm Particle Size Conversion Item No. Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.00% Series1 40.00% 1 1-1/2'' Percentage Passing  100.58% % Fines = 52.00% R200 = 47. Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0.00% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 47. inches Particle Size Distribution 120.00% 60.#40 Fine #40 .58% 9.3/4" Coarse #4 .0.00% 0..42% Coefficient of Uniformity.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN PAN 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.005mm < .84 SILT: Coarse 3" .10 new.81 D60) = SAND: 0.00% 20.#4 Medium #10 .11.00% 80.#10 Fine 3/4" .#200 CLAY: #200 .xlsx SS-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 of 22 .

November 05.274 366.050 0.00% 0.500 100.00% Sand # 10 2.98% 16.590 # 40 0.000% 374.0 482 482.16% Sand # 100 0.01539 mm 0.00 30.5 411 76. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.11.5 0.180 0.00% 0.000% 346.00% Gravel 1" 25.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.0 436.840 # 30 0.700 0.500 83.000 0.000% 374.000% 374.5 15.84% 20.04417 mm 0.50 374. SS-2 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 2 / TEST HOLE 2 405.610% 346.139% 299.0 528 121.61% Sand 8.500 0.00% 0. CHUUK CAMPUS.500 100.000 28.00% 0.500 7.000% 374.00% 0.12579 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.420 # 50 0.00% 0.50 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 69.427% 190.500 100.00% 0.39% 7.00 Total Weight 374.00 336.500 100.500 100.500 31.297 507 507.10 new.360 0.500 100.98% 16.000% 374. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.500 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.50 305.00% 100.00% Sand # 16 1.400 0.84% Sand # 200 0.500 4.000% 374.000 50. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.500 20.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.02% Sand # 60 0.0 414 382.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.00% Gravel #4 4.000% 374.000 92.000 0.000 92.000 50.5 408.xlsx SS-2 3 of 22 .00% Gravel 3/4" 19.149 342.500 83.500 100.00% 0.000 0.61% Sand 0.000% 374.00% Sand # 20 0.39% 7.5 375 32.16% 28. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No.500 71.500 8.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 69.02% Sand 0.0 381.27% Sand PAN Wash Passing No.000 79.00% 0.001 407. OF CAN WT.760 0.734% 0. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.73% 49.500 100.411% 314. 200 0. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday.500 100.00% Gravel #8 2.530 0.678% 266.000% 314.074 334.000% 374. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.00 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.

3/4" Coarse #4 .00% 80.11..00% Percentage Passing  100.005mm < . Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.10 new.#40 Fine #40 .00% Series1 40.27% % Fines = 50.00% 20. Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0.27% 8.#4 Medium #10 .00% 60.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.00% 0.73% Coefficient of Uniformity.17 D60) = SAND: 1.xlsx SS-2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 4 of 22 .00% R200 = 49.0.#10 Fine 3/4" . inches 120.00% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 49.005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.01 SILT: Coarse 3" .#200 CLAY: #200 .

0 400.360 0.297 507 507.00% 0.00 30.78% Sand 0.00 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.08% Sand PAN Wash Passing No.840 # 30 0.734% 270.468% 213.000% 372.000 100.000 67.5 28.000 0.000 100.00% Sand # 16 1. November 05.823% 372.000% 395.000 53.700 0.78% Sand # 60 0.92% 46.18% 5.000 100.000 100.22% 22.000% 395.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.000 94.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.00% Gravel 1" 25.000% 305.400 0.00% 0.000 100. SS-3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.0 431 408.149 342.000% 395.01454 mm 0.61% Sand # 200 0.180 0. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.82% Sand 16. 200 0.000 53. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.00% 0.000 100.760 0.xlsx SS-3 5 of 22 . CHUUK CAMPUS.00% Sand # 10 2.00 Total Weight 395. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.39% 38.22% 22.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.050 0.000 5.074 334. OF CAN WT.000 100.000% 395.000% 395.500 61.00% 0.14564 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.00% 0.52% Sand # 100 0. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday.00 208.10 new.924% 0.5 34.48% 31.000 100.5 370.530 0.500 8.962% 305.000 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.500 68.000% 395.000% 395.590 # 40 0.000 77.00% 0.500 0.04161 mm 0.00% Sand # 20 0.5 382.000 94.0 449.00% 0.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.00 238. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.18% 5.000 7.000% 395.5 0.274 366.00% 100.089% 242.11.00% 0.500 7.000 77.000 100.000 23. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 3 / TEST HOLE 3 425.00% 0.000 0.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 187.82% Sand 0.00% Gravel #4 4.000 0.00% Gravel #8 2.00 395.5 364 29.0 482 482.420 # 50 0.00 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 187.001 407.0 433 26.000% 395. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No.

#40 Fine #40 .#10 Fine 3/4" .08% % Fines = 53.00% 0.xlsx SS-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 6 of 22 .00% 20.08% 10. Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.00% Series1 40.02 D60) = SAND: 0.00% Percentage Passing  100.#200 CLAY: #200 .00% R200 = 46.10 new.00% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 46.00% 80.#4 Medium #10 .82 SILT: Coarse 3" . Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0..0.005mm < .3/4" Coarse #4 .00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11. inches 120.11.00% 60.005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.92% Coefficient of Uniformity.

500 81.29% 48.532% 177.000% 290.11.5 376 33.37% Sand # 100 0.50 219.500 0.000 98.000 51.63% 27.205% 287.149 342.500 100.530 0.20% Sand 17. November 05.50 249. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.840 # 30 0.00% 0.14633 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.700 0.760 0.500 50.500 51.41% 18.00% 0.811% 149.000% 290.000 3.80% 1.80% 1.291% 0.00 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 71.000% 290.000 72.00% 0.00% 0.500 61.500 100.xlsx SS-4A 7 of 22 .0 484.500 81.000% 290.000 98.500 1.00 290.5 25.000 0.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.420 # 50 0.000% 287.41% 18.5 77.5 0.500 11.00% Sand # 10 2.5 433 382.500 100.500 100.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.500 100.590 # 40 0.500 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.500 100.50 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.50 Total Weight 290.384% 236.778% 211. SS-4A PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.00% 100.00% 0.074 334.00% Sand # 16 1.000% 290.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.000% 290. OF CAN WT.0 411.500 9.5 363 28.90% Sand # 200 0.500 8. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday.180 0.00% Gravel 1" 25.000% 236. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.500 100.00% Gravel #8 2.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 71.001 407.00% Sand # 20 0.00% Gravel #4 4.00% 0. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No. 200 0.10% 38.500 100.59% Sand 0.00% 0.00 30.00% 0.01523 mm 0.0 391.59% Sand # 60 0.050 0.000% 290.71% Sand PAN Wash Passing No.0 408.360 0.274 366.000% 290.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.10 new. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 4A 320.0 482 482.00% 0.000% 290.000 0.20% Sand 0.500 100.000 0.400 0. CHUUK CAMPUS. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.04370 mm 0. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.297 507 507.

00% 60.00% Percentage Passing  100.29% Coefficient of Uniformity.3/4" Coarse #4 .005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.00% 0..#200 CLAY: #200 .86 SILT: Coarse 3" .00% Series1 40.11. Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0.#40 Fine #40 .00% R200 = 48.#10 Fine 3/4" .71% % Fines = 51.xlsx SS-4A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 8 of 22 . Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.00% 80.10 new.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.71% 9. inches 120.61 D60) = SAND: 0.#4 Medium #10 .0.00% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 48.00% 20.005mm < .

04203 mm 0.500 100.004% 194.63% Sand PAN Wash Passing No.000 53.00% 0.590 # 40 0.666% 256.00 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.000 0.274 366.000% 363.09% Sand 15.000% 363.77% Sand # 60 0.500 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.10 new.000 53.760 0.00% 0.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.681% 288.000% 363.000 18.23% 20.5 365 22.5 426.50 321. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.149 342.500 100.00% 0.44% Sand # 100 0.000 94.00% Gravel #4 4.500 100.500 100.000% 363. SS-4B PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.180 0.840 # 30 0.000% 363.000 94.000% 363.500 6.420 # 50 0.500 100.000% 345.000% 363.000 64.400 0.91% 5.000 5.0 397.500 8.00% Gravel 1" 25.50 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 72.5 40.700 0.370% 0.13894 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.000% 363.500 100. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.500 100.23% 20.50 291.09% Sand 0.50 30.00% 0.000 79.5 31.5 439.00 Total Weight 363.050 0.00% 0. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.500 100.000% 288.000 79.297 507 507.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.11.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.360 0.00% 0.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.000% 363. CHUUK CAMPUS.00% Sand # 20 0.00% 0.5 0.00% 0.01468 mm 0.089% 345.63% Sand # 200 0.00% Gravel #8 2.0 382.000 0.074 334.500 100.00% 100.500 0.91% 5.xlsx SS4-B 9 of 22 .37% 46.000 11.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 72.00% 0. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.00% Sand # 10 2. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.0 408.77% Sand 0. 200 0.000 0.190% 234.00 363.0 529 122.500 70. November 05. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 4B 393. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No. OF CAN WT.37% 35.56% 29.530 0.5 374.500 57.00% Sand # 16 1.001 407.0 482 482.

10 new.#4 Medium #10 .3/4" Coarse #4 .00% R200 = 46.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.#200 CLAY: #200 . Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0.00% 60.11.37% Coefficient of Uniformity.00% Percentage Passing  100.00% 80.#10 Fine 3/4" .005mm < . Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.0.63% 9.#40 Fine #40 . inches 120.00% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 46.00% Series1 40.00% 20.005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.87 SILT: Coarse 3" .00% 0.63% % Fines = 53.xlsx SS4-B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 10 of 22 ..47 D60) = SAND: 0.

85% Sand # 100 0.500 100. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.50 30.180 0.000% 238.500 7.000% 238.00% 0.00% 0.00% Gravel #4 4.0 425 18.500 0.500 100.00% 0.05% Sand 0.074 334.0 387 21. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.5 0.00% Sand 0.297 507 507.500 100.500 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.000 85. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.000 0.00% 0.00% Sand # 10 2.0 482 482.700% 0.5 353 18.000% 205.95% 14.54% Sand # 200 0.00% 0.000 77.000% 238.530 0.000 0.xlsx SS-5 11 of 22 .11.00% 0.805% 184.50 116.000% 238.00% 100.000 0.00% 0.00 238.5 368 25. November 05.95% 14.000% 238. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.500 100.50 146.000 85.01344 mm 0.760 0.000 58.500 100. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No.000% 238.46% 33.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 122.420 # 50 0.00 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.00% 0.00% Gravel 3/8" 9. SS-5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.000% 238.000% 238.15% 22.500 100.05% Sand # 60 0.274 366.00 Total Weight 238.500 66.13462 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.500 100.000 58.757% 140.0 416 382.0 408 408.840 # 30 0.500 10.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.00% Gravel #8 2.03831 mm 0.500 100.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.500 100.70% 41.000 8.30% Sand PAN Wash Passing No. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 5 268.000% 238.400 0.692% 158.590 # 40 0. OF CAN WT.000% 238.00% 0.00% Sand # 20 0.000 33.000% 238.00% Gravel 1" 25.360 0. 200 0.500 100.10 new.500 100.00% 0.050 0.000 0.00% Sand 14.149 342.00% Sand # 16 1.001 407. CHUUK CAMPUS.50 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 122.00% 0. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday.700 0.046% 205.500 0.

#10 Fine 3/4" .xlsx SS-5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 12 of 22 .00% 60.02 D60) = SAND: 0.#200 CLAY: #200 .. inches 120.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.30% % Fines = 58.00% 20.00% 0.00% 80.81 SILT: Coarse 3" .00% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 41. Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0.#4 Medium #10 .00% Percentage Passing  100.10 new.30% 10.70% Coefficient of Uniformity.3/4" Coarse #4 .11. Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.#40 Fine #40 .005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.005mm < .0.00% R200 = 41.00% Series1 40.

59% Sand 13.000% 312.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.82353 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.59% Sand 0.000 100.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.000 100.0 464 408.000% 147. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday.81% 34.274 366.590 # 40 0.00 342. CHUUK CAMPUS.000 65.41% 48.000 51.000% 389. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.760 19.00% 0.5 77.61% 73.530 0.03238 mm 0. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.79% Gravel #8 2.5 13.000 56.500 5.00% Gravel #4 4.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 77.79% 62.10 new. OF CAN WT.19% Sand # 20 0.625% 147. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.0 387.xlsx SS-6 13 of 22 .79% Sand # 10 2.000 56.0 420.00 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.000% 389.180 0.050 0.00 312. SS-6 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.000 100. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.000 51.074 334.700 0.400 0.297 584 507.500 32.11.26% 76.26% 67.500 23.00 389.21% 19.420 # 50 0.149 342.21% Sand 0.5 13.74% Sand PAN Wash Passing No. 200 0.79% 62.000 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.5 21.00% Gravel 1" 25.265% 0.527% 125.00% 0.656% 103.000 14.840 # 30 0.00% 0.00 Total Weight 389.5 382.360 0. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.74% Sand # 100 0.000 37.5 364.19% Sand # 16 1.41% 48.001 407. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 6 419.000 100.39% Sand # 200 0.21% 19.00% 0.81% 34.396% 256. November 05.000 37.5 347.794% 312.00% 0.000 14.500 26.21% Sand # 60 0.000 100.000 5.000% 389.0 538 482.000% 256.0 435.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.396% 200.25486 mm 1.000 3.000 80.00 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 77.00 30.000% 389.000 65.000% 200.342% 90.5 22.500 23.000 80.00% 100.000 53.000 0.500 0.000% 389.

00% 20.10 new.00% Series1 40. Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.xlsx SS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 14 of 22 .74% 56.#10 Fine 3/4" .79% % Fines = 23.00% 60.005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.#40 Fine #40 .00% 80.#4 Medium #10 ..79% R200 = 76.00% 0.94% Coefficient of Uniformity.10 SILT: Coarse 3" .26% R4 = 19.00% Percentage Passing  100.3/4" Coarse #4 .32 D60) = SAND: 1.#200 CLAY: #200 .005mm < . Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 56.% Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 19.11. inches 120.

5 48.000 0.5 408.400 0.000 53.00 179.5 13.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.000% 386.00% Gravel 1" 25.000 4.530 0.74% 43.00% 0.590 # 40 0. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.500 87.10% Sand # 16 1.000 1.04184 mm 0.000% 320.00 Total Weight 386. November 05.500 44.000% 275.000 53. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.5 338.10% Sand # 20 0.56% Sand # 10 2.700 0.0 499.500 71.000% 386.036% 207. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday.627% 0.37% 28.001 407.500 3.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 207.50 386.5 482.77% Sand # 60 0.000% 232. OF CAN WT.360 0.0 425.000 2.000 82.10 new.420 # 50 0.149 342.0 407 0.000% 386.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.297 555.00% 0.500 87.50 30.00% 0.0 379.000 100.000 82.5 8.00% 0.500 0.66% 45.44% 12.xlsx SS-7 15 of 22 .34% Sand # 200 0.000 100. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.050 0.000 100. SS-7 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.073% 211.5 350.000% 386.180 0.41838 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.760 12.63% 46.840 # 30 0.274 366.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.000 54.5 507.23% 39.77% Sand 0.074 334. 200 0.5 382.500 60.000 100.90% 17.23% 39.00 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.500 60.000 56.63% Sand 11.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.500 71.44% 12.565% 337.00% 100.56% Gravel #8 2.50 209. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLE 7 416.140% 232.500 17.37% Sand PAN Wash Passing No.26% Sand # 100 0.37% 28.497% 219. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.00 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 207. CHUUK CAMPUS.63% Sand 0.00% 0.90% 17.0 452.000 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.11.534% 320.000 100.5 4.500 43.000 11.000% 386.528% 275.000% 337.00% Gravel #4 4.01461 mm 0. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No.

00% 60.00% Series1 40..37% 33.xlsx SS-7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 16 of 22 .00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11. inches 120.10 new.#200 CLAY: #200 .00% 80.00% 0.81% Coefficient of Uniformity.% Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 12.29 SILT: Coarse 3" .#40 Fine #40 .005mm < .63 D60) = SAND: 0.11.56% R200 = 46. Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.3/4" Coarse #4 .005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.#10 Fine 3/4" .00% Percentage Passing  100.#4 Medium #10 . Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 28.63% R4 = 12.56% % Fines = 53.00% 20.

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422)
PROJECT :

PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

LOCATION:

COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA

DATE:

Friday, November 05, 2010

TESTING BY :
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.
SS-8
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
WT. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN
WT. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN
WT. OF CAN
WT. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE
WT. OF WASHED SAMPLE
LOOSES :
Sieve No.

Sieve
Size
mm

Weight of
Weight of
Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil
Retained (gms)
gms

BOREHOLE 8
370.50
291.50
30.00
340.50
261.50

Grams
Grams
Grams
Grams
Grams
By Weight

79.00

Weight

Percent

Retained

retained

Wt. Passing

CUMMULATIVE
Passing

Retained

gms

%

gms

%

%

REMARKS

1-1/2''

37.500

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

1"

25.400

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

3/4"

19.050

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

1/2"

12.700

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

3/8"

9.530

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

#4

4.760

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

#8

2.360

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Sand

# 10

2.000

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Sand

# 16

1.180

0.000%

340.500

100.00%

0.00%

Sand

# 20

0.840

# 30

0.590

# 40

0.420

# 50

0.297

507

507.0

482

482.0

417.5

408.0

396.5

382.5

0.000
0.000
9.500
14.000

2.790%

331.000

97.21%

2.79%

Sand

0.000%

331.000

97.21%

2.79%

Sand

4.112%

317.000

93.10%

6.90%

Sand

0.000%

317.000

93.10%

6.90%

Sand

# 60

0.274

366.0

413.5

47.500

13.950%

269.500

79.15%

20.85%

Sand

# 100

0.149

342.5

385

42.500

12.482%

227.000

66.67%

33.33%

Sand

# 200

0.074

334.5

387

52.500

15.419%

174.500

51.25%

48.75%

Sand

PAN
Wash Passing
No. 200

0.001

407.0

502.5

95.500

51.248%

0.000

0.00%

100.00%

Silt & Clay

Passing

Retained

79.00

Total Weight

340.500

GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS:

D10 =
D30 =
D60 =

0.01524 mm
0.04373 mm
0.13420 mm

ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.11.10 new.xlsx SS-8

17 of 22

0.00%

% Gravel (GF) =
% Sand (SF) =

48.75%

% Fines =

51.25%

Coefficient of Uniformity,

Cu = D60/D10 =

Coefficient of Concavity, Cc

GRAVEL:

=

D302/(D10

R4 =

0.00%

R200 =

48.75%

8.80

D60) =

SAND:

0.93

SILT:

Coarse

3" - 3/4"

Coarse

#4 - #10

Fine

3/4" - #4

Medium

#10 - #40

Fine

#40 - #200

CLAY:
#200 - .005mm

< .005mm

Particle Size
Conversion

Particle Size Distribution

Item No. inches

120.00%

Percentage Passing 

100.00%

80.00%

60.00%
Series1
40.00%

20.00%

0.00%
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Particle Size (mm)

ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.11.10 new.xlsx SS-8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1-1/2''
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#8
# 10
# 16
# 20
# 30
# 40
# 50
# 60
# 100
# 200
PAN

18
19
20
21
22

PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN

18 of 22

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422)
PROJECT :

PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

LOCATION:

COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA, CHUUK CAMPUS, FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA

DATE:

Friday, November 05, 2010

TESTING BY :
EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
SAMPLE NO.
SS-9Afor BH-9A / TP-9A & SS-9C for BH-9C / TP-9C
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION :
WT. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN
WT. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN
WT. OF CAN
WT. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE
WT. OF WASHED SAMPLE
LOOSES :
Sieve No.

Sieve
Size
mm

Weight of
Weight of
Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil
Retained (gms)
gms

BOREHOLES 9A & 9C / TEST HOLES 9A & 9C
365.50
204.50
34.50
331.00
170.00

Grams
Grams
Grams
Grams
Grams
By Weight

161.00

Weight

Percent

Retained

retained

Wt. Passing

CUMMULATIVE
Passing

Retained

gms

%

gms

%

%

REMARKS

1-1/2''

37.500

0.000%

331.000

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

1"

25.400

0.000%

331.000

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

3/4"

19.050

0.000%

331.000

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

1/2"

12.700

0.000%

331.000

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

3/8"

9.530

0.000%

331.000

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

#4

4.760

0.000%

331.000

100.00%

0.00%

Gravel

#8

2.360

0.000%

331.000

100.00%

0.00%

Sand

# 10

2.000

2.719%

322.000

97.28%

2.72%

Sand

# 16

1.180

0.000%

322.000

97.28%

2.72%

Sand

# 20

0.840

# 30

0.590

# 40

0.420

# 50

0.297

507.0
482.0
408.0
382.5

507
491
436.5
441

0.000
9.000
28.500
58.500

8.610%

293.500

88.67%

11.33%

Sand

0.000%

293.500

88.67%

11.33%

Sand

17.674%

235.000

71.00%

29.00%

Sand

0.000%

235.000

71.00%

29.00%

Sand

# 60

0.274

366.0

397

31.000

9.366%

204.000

61.63%

38.37%

Sand

# 100

0.149

342.5

358.5

16.000

4.834%

188.000

56.80%

43.20%

Sand

# 200

0.074

334.5

346

11.500

3.474%

176.500

53.32%

46.68%

Sand

PAN
Wash Passing
No. 200

0.001

407.0

422.5

15.500

53.323%

0.000

0.00%

100.00%

Silt & Clay

Passing

Retained

161.00

Total Weight

331.000

GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS:

D10 =
D30 =
D60 =

0.01469 mm
0.04207 mm
0.26677 mm

ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.11.10 new.xlsx SS1-9A&SS3-9C

19 of 22

16 D60) = SAND: 0.00% 60.#40 Fine #40 .xlsx SS1-9A&SS3-9C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 20 of 22 .00% 0.32% Coefficient of Uniformity.45 SILT: Coarse 3" .68% % Fines = 53.005mm < .00% 20.68% 18.00% 80. Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No.#4 Medium #10 . Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.00% Percentage Passing  100.11..10 new.00% Series1 40.#10 Fine 3/4" .#200 CLAY: #200 .00% R200 = 46. inches 120.0.3/4" Coarse #4 .00% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 46.

10 new.500 6. OF CAN WT. CHUUK CAMPUS.000% 473.530 0.000 100.00% Gravel 1/2" 12.000 54.5 374 31.00% Silt & Clay Passing Retained 223.001 407.760 0.11.5 508.500 10.5 48.0 408. OF WASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT.25670 mm ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.000% 473.55% 45.69% Sand 0.44% 8.149 342.000 98.000 6.00% 0.45% Sand PAN Wash Passing No.94% # 100 0.000% 473.420 # 50 0. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE+CAN WT. OF WASHED SAMPLE LOOSES : Sieve No.500 91.074 334.000 1.500 99.000 GRAIN SIZE DIAMETERS: D10 = D30 = D60 = 0.274 366.000 100. Sieve Size mm Weight of Weight of Empty Sieve Sieve+ Soil Retained (gms) gms BOREHOLES 9B & 9D / TEST HOLES 9B & 9D 571.500 0.374% 465.000 100.00% 0.PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) PROJECT : PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATION: COLLEGE OF MICRONESIA.44% 8.68% 0.31% 25.500 81. November 05.500 2.297 507.050 0. FEDERATED STATE OF MICRONESIA DATE: Friday.000% 351.0 382.590 # 40 0.000 64.5 1.5 463. SS-9B for BH-9B / TP-9B & SS-9D for BH-9D / TP-9D PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION : WT.00 Grams Grams Grams Grams Grams By Weight 223.50 348.5 488.854% 258.31% 1.01438 mm 0.400 0.00 Total Weight 473.32% Gravel #8 2.840 # 30 0.317% 471.500 57. 2010 TESTING BY : EMPSCO ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS SAMPLE NO.50 473.871% 432.700 0.31% 1.360 0.000 98.56% Sand 0.0 442 35.00 Weight Percent Retained retained Wt.69% Sand # 16 1.500 74.68% 0.500 32.545% 0.125% 351.06% 35.00% 0.000 54.5 440.00% Gravel #4 4.5 348 13. Passing CUMMULATIVE Passing Retained gms % gms % % REMARKS 1-1/2'' 37.500 99.000 0.000 100.000% 473. 200 0.180 0.000% 473.254% 303.60% Sand # 200 0.00% Gravel 3/8" 9.31% 25.000% 465.500 6.000% 471.32% Sand # 10 2.00% Gravel 1" 25.50 98.xlsx SS2-9B&SS4-9D 21 of 22 .000 100.56% Sand 17.00% 0.000% 432.0 482.04115 mm 0.500 74.69% Sand # 20 0.00% 100. OF UNWASHED SAMPLE WT.660% 271.500 91.0 414.00% 0.00% Gravel 3/4" 19.00 250.40% 42.69% Sand Sand # 60 0.

#200 CLAY: #200 .#4 Medium #10 .3/4" Coarse #4 .#10 Fine 3/4" . Cc GRAVEL: = D302/(D10 R4 = 0.11.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Particle Size (mm) ParticleSizeAnalysis Chuuk 11.85 D60) = SAND: 0. inches 120.00% 0.005mm < .#40 Fine #40 .46 SILT: Coarse 3" .00% 60.32% % Gravel (GF) = % Sand (SF) = 45.32% R200 = 45.00% 80.14% % Fines = 54.45% 17.10 new.00% 20.00% Series1 40.00% Percentage Passing  100.55% Coefficient of Uniformity.0.005mm Particle Size Conversion Particle Size Distribution Item No..xlsx SS2-9B&SS4-9D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-1/2'' 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 # 10 # 16 # 20 # 30 # 40 # 50 # 60 # 100 # 200 PAN 18 19 20 21 22 PAN PAN PAN PAN PAN 22 of 22 . Cu = D60/D10 = Coefficient of Concavity.