Geotechnical Engineering Report Jefferson County International …portofpt.com/wp-content/uploads/JCIA-Geotechnical-Draft... · 2017. 12. 15. · 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents

130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020

(425) 778-0907

December 15, 2017

Prepared for

Reid Middletion Everett, Washington

Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report Jefferson County International Airport

Runway 9/27 Rehabilitation Jefferson County, Washington

DRAFT Landau Associates

Draft Geotechnical Engineering Report Jefferson County International Airport

Runway 9/27 Rehabilitation Jefferson County, Washington

This document was prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, the undersigned, whose seal is affixed below.

Name: Steven Wright, PE Washington/No. 32250 Date: December 15, 2017

Document prepared by: Sean Gertz, EIT Senior Staff EIT Document reviewed by: Steven Wright, PE Project Manager/Quality Reviewer Date: December 15, 2017 Project No.: 053117.010.011 File Path: \\edmdata01\projects\053\117.010\R Project Coordinator: RGM


Geotechnical Engineering Report 0053117.010.011 Jefferson County International Airport Runway 9/27 Rehabilitation December 15, 2017 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Scope of Services ................................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 General Geologic Conditions .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Surface Conditions .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Existing Runway Pavement Section .................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.1 Original As-designed Runway Pavement Section Thickness ..............................2-2

2.3.2 Measured As-built Runway Pavement Section Thickness .................................2-2

2.3.3 Laboratory Testing of Pavement Subgrade Soils ..............................................2-2

2.4 Subsurface Soil Conditions ................................................................................................. 2-3

2.5 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................................... 2-3

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Frost Susceptibility ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3 Subsurface Drainage ........................................................................................................... 3-4

4.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ................................................. 4-1

5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 6-1

FIGURES

Figure Title

1 Vicinity Map 2 Site and Exploration Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix Title

A Field Explorations B Laboratory Soil Testing


Geotechnical Engineering Report 0053117.010.011 Jefferson County International Airport Runway 9/27 Rehabilitation December 15, 2017 ii

This page intentionally left blank.


Geotechnical Engineering Report 0053117.010.011 Jefferson County International Airport Runway 9/27 Rehabilitation December 15, 2017 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study that Landau Associates, Inc.

(LAI) conducted for the proposed Jefferson County International Airport (JCIA) Runway 9/27

Rehabilitation project in Jefferson County, Washington. The general project location is shown on the

Vicinity Map (Figure 1). A project base map and the locations of the explorations we performed are

shown on the Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2).

This report has been prepared based on LAI’s discussions with Reid Middleton, Inc. (Reid Middleton);

a project base map provided by Reid Middleton; data collected during our field exploration and

laboratory testing programs; our familiarity with geologic conditions within the vicinity of the project

site; and our experience on similar projects.

1.1 Project Description

The runway and connector taxiways at the Port of Port Townsend’s (Port) JCIA are surfaced with

asphalt paving. The length of Runway 9/27 is approximately 3,000 feet (ft) with an adjacent parallel

taxiway along its full length. The existing runway is 75 ft wide and has a shed section. A crack/joint

repair and surface seal coat was applied to the runway and taxiways during the fall of 2013. This

previous work restored the physical condition of the airfield pavements to a serviceable level.

Per the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Aviation’s 2012 Pavement

Management Program Update, the runway at JCIA has a forecasted Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of

65 for the year 2018. A PCI between 56 and 70 indicates that major rehabilitation work is required,

and as a result, WSDOT Aviation recommends major rehabilitation of Runway 9/27 in 2018. Thus, the

Port’s Capital Improvement Program for JCIA has set the design for the runway in fiscal years 2017

and 2018 and rehabilitation of the runway surface is scheduled for fiscal year 2019.

The Port has authorized Reid Middleton to perform pre-design services for the above-described

runway surface rehabilitation. The pre-design phase of the project will determine the viable

configuration for the runway cross section and includes preliminary (up to 60 percent completion)

design work. Potential runway configurations include either maintaining the existing shed section or

reconstructing the runway with a crowned cross section. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

standards require all new or replaced pavement structures to have a crowned pavement section. Due

to limiting factors, the Port desires to keep the shed slope at JCIA. The FAA will need to approve a

Modification to Standards, if a shed section is to remain.

1.2 Scope of Services

Reid Middleton retained LAI to provide geotechnical engineering services to support design of the

proposed runway improvements. Our services were provided in general accordance with the scope of

services outlined in an Agreement for Subconsulting Services between Reid Middleton and LAI dated

July 10, 2017. Our scope of services included the following specific tasks:



Reviewing readily available published geologic maps and drawings for the project area and preparing a geotechnical work plan

Obtaining public and private utility clearances prior to performing field explorations

Advancing a series of exploratory borings to characterize the near-surface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site

Collecting representative soil samples at selected depth intervals

Logging the exploratory borings and recording pertinent information, including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence

Advancing a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) at the boring locations prior to advancing the boreholes and at other locations along the edges of the existing runway

Conducting a geotechnical laboratory testing program

Performing geotechnical engineering analyses and evaluating data derived from the subsurface investigation and laboratory testing programs

Preparing and submitting this written report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the project. This report includes:

a site plan showing the locations of the explorations and DCP tests completed for this study

results of laboratory and field testing and logs of the soil borings

a discussion of the near-surface soil and groundwater conditions observed in the explorations conducted at the project site

a table of the pavement and base course thicknesses measured at each borehole that was advanced along the runway

an evaluation of the frost susceptibility of the onsite soils

pavement rehabilitation recommendations based on FAA design standards, including recommended overlay thickness and identification of areas of existing pavement that should be removed and replaced prior to placement of the overlay

new pavement section design recommendations based on FAA design standards

an evaluation related to the need for pavement edge drains and/or pavement underdrain systems

recommendations for monitoring and testing during construction.



2.0 SITE CONDITIONS

This section discusses the general geologic setting of the project area and describes the surface and

subsurface conditions observed at the project site at the time of our field investigation.

Interpretations of the site conditions are based on the results of our review of available information,

and the results of our site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, and laboratory testing.

2.1 General Geologic Conditions

General geologic information for the project area was obtained from the Geologic Map of the Port

Townsend South and Part of the Port Townsend North 7.5-minute Quadrangles, Jefferson County,

Washington (Schasse et al. 2005), published by the Washington State Department of Natural

Resources. According to this source, the project area is underlain by modified land, recessional

outwash, and glaciomarine outwash.

Soil defined as recessional outwash typically consists of well-rounded pebble to cobble gravel and

sand. This unit was deposited by meltwater originating from the terminus of a retreating glacier, and

as a result is typically in a relatively loose condition.

Soil defined as glaciomarine outwash typically consists of sand with silt and lenses of gravel and may

be capped by silt and clay. This unit was deposited by rapid subaqueous west-flowing currents near an

active glacier terminus. Glaciomarine outwash typically contains marginal marine to intertidal fossils,

such as mussels and barnacles.

Much of the area in the vicinity of the JCIA has been subject to some regrading in order to create large

level areas for the existing airport facilities. The resulting modified land likely consists primarily of

reworked recessional outwash and glaciomarine outwash that in areas could include pockets of

debris, including wood and construction debris.

2.2 Surface Conditions

The project site, which is located on Airport Road near Port Townsend, Washington, is currently

occupied by the existing JCIA, which consists of a single 3,000 ft runway, an adjacent parallel taxiway

along its full length, and aircraft hangars. The runway is 75 ft wide and has a shed section that drains

toward the airport’s infield. Unpaved areas in the vicinity of the runway are generally vegetated with

grass and site topography is generally level. Structures in the vicinity of the project site include airport

facilities and businesses and development within the project area is primarily rural residential and

industrial. There is an existing stormwater detention pond near the eastern end of the runway.



2.3 Existing Runway Pavement Section

The following sections present information regarding the original as-designed runway pavement

section thickness, measured as-built runway pavement section thicknesses, and laboratory testing

that was performed on the runway pavement subgrade soils.

2.3.1 Original As-designed Runway Pavement Section Thickness

Based on discussions with Reid Middleton, we understand that the original as-designed pavement

section for Runway 9/27 was 2 inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) over 4 inches of base course over 9

inches of subbase.

2.3.2 Measured As-built Runway Pavement Section Thickness

The existing pavement thickness of Runway 9/27 was measured at the locations of our exploratory

borings that were located within the footprint of the existing runway (borings B-1, B-2, B-4, and B-5).

The locations of these exploratory borings are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2). The

measured runway pavement thicknesses along with the measured thicknesses of the base course,

subbase, and subgrade soil type are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Measured Pavement Thicknesses

Exploration

Designation

Pavement Section Thickness (inches) Subgrade Soil

Type HMAt Base Subbase

B-1 6 N/A N/A GP-GM

B-2 3 N/A N/A CL

B-4 1 N/A N/A SM

B-5 2 N/A N/A GP-GM

2.3.3 Laboratory Testing of Pavement Subgrade Soils

Three laboratory California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were conducted on soil samples obtained during

our field exploration program in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) test method D 1883. The

samples were created by combining grab samples of the drill cuttings from multiple exploratory

borings to represent the predominant soil types along the runway. The results of the CBR testing are

presented in Appendix B.



2.4 Subsurface Soil Conditions

Subsurface conditions at the project site were explored by advancing and sampling seven exploratory

borings (B-1 through B-7) on November 14, 2017. The exploratory borings were each advanced to a

depth of about 11.5 ft below the ground surface (bgs). The approximate locations of the borings are

shown on Figure 2. A discussion of field exploration procedures, together with edited logs of the

exploratory borings, are presented in Appendix A. A discussion of laboratory test procedures and the

laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

Subsurface conditions at the locations of borings B-1 through B-7 were observed to generally consist

of stratified, very soft to medium stiff silt and clay and medium dense to dense sand with variable

gravel and silt content, extending to the maximum depth of our borings (11.5 ft bgs). Fill soils were

encountered in borings B-1, B-4, and B-6, with thicknesses ranging from 2.8 to 6.25 ft. The fill soils

that were encountered generally consist of very silty sand or sandy, silty gravel.

2.5 Groundwater Conditions

At the time of our field investigation in mid-November 2017, groundwater was observed at depths

ranging from about 6.2 to 9.5 ft bgs in borings B-1, B-4, B-5, B-6, and B-7. Groundwater was not

observed within the explored depths of our other borings (B-2 and B-3).

It should be noted that the groundwater conditions reported herein are for the specific locations and

date indicated, and therefore, may not necessarily be indicative of other locations and/or times.

Furthermore, it is anticipated that groundwater conditions at the project site will vary depending on

local subsurface conditions, the weather, and other factors. It is likely that the highest groundwater

levels will occur in the winter/spring months.



3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon evaluation of the data collected during this investigation, it is our opinion that subsurface

conditions at the project site are suitable for the proposed project, provided the recommendations

contained herein are incorporated into the project design. The following sections present conclusions

and recommendations regarding frost susceptibility, pavement design, and subsurface drainage.

3.1 Frost Susceptibility

The design of pavements in areas subject to seasonal frost action requires special design

consideration and the design of reconstructed pavement sections at JCIA should take into

consideration the adverse effects of seasonal frost in accordance with FAA design recommendations

(FAA 2016).

The detrimental effects of frost action may be manifested by non-uniform heave, loss of soil strength

during frost melting, development of pavement roughness, and cracking and deterioration of the

pavement surface. In order for detrimental frost action to occur, three conditions must be met

simultaneously: 1) the soil must be frost susceptible; 2) freezing temperatures must penetrate into

the frost susceptible soil; and 3) free moisture must be available in sufficient quantities to form ice

lenses.

The frost susceptibility of a soil is dependent to a large extent on the size and distribution of voids in

the soil mass. Voids must be of a certain size for the development of ice lenses. Empirical relationships

have been developed by others correlating the degree of frost susceptibility with soil classification

and the amount of material finer than 0.02 mm by weight. For the purpose of frost design, the FAA

(FAA 2016) categorizes soil into four groups, FG-1 through FG-4. By definition, a higher frost group

number corresponds to a greater susceptibility to frost.

For the purpose of frost design, the near-surface native soils at the project site may be categorized as

Frost Groups FG-2, FG-3, and FG-4. The following table presents the laboratory test data that was

used to make this categorization. By definition, soils associated with Frost Group FG-2 are gravelly

soils (GM, GW-GM, and GP-GM) with between 10 and 20 percent (by dry weight) finer than 0.02 mm,

and sands (SW, SP, SM, SW-SM, and SP-SM) with less than 15 percent finer than 0.02 mm. Soils

associated with Frost Group FG-3 are gravelly soils and sands, except very fine silty sand (soil

classifications GM, GC, SM, and SC) with over 15 percent (by dry weight) finer than 0.02 mm. Soils

associated with Frost Group FG-4 are very fine silty sands with greater than 15 percent (by dry weight)

finer than 0.02 mm, all silts, clays with a plasticity index of 12 or less, and varved clays and other fine

grained banded sediments.



Table 2. Soil Frost Group Determination

Exploration

Designation

Sample

Depth

(ft)

Percentage

Finer Than

0.02 mm

by Weight

Unified

Soil

Classification

Plasticity Index

Soil Frost Group

B-1 5 6 SP-SM Not Determined FG-2

B-2 2.5 Not Determined

CL 8 FG-4

B-3 2.5 44 CL Not Determined FG-3

B-3 5 Not Determined

CL 13 FG-3

B-4 3.5 27 ML N/A FG-4

B-7 2.5 17 SM N/A FG-3

In the vicinity of the JCIA, the maximum depth of frost penetration is anticipated to be about 18

inches. Given the silty/clayey nature of the site soils and the potential for groundwater to perch on

top of these finer grained materials, the likelihood of water being drawn to the surface by capillary

action is considered to be relatively moderate. We therefore recommend that the pavement design

for reconstructed portions of the runway assume that sufficient water to cause detrimental frost

action will be present.

Imported structural fill used beneath reconstructed portions of the runway should have less than 3

percent (by dry weight) finer than 0.02 mm.

3.2 Pavement Design

It is anticipated that the subgrade along the majority of the project alignment will consist of primarily

very soft to medium stiff silt and clay and medium dense to dense sand with variable gravel and silt

content. DCP testing along the project alignment resulted in in situ CBR values of the subgrade soils

ranging from about 5.3 to 72.8 percent. The mean of the CBR values estimated using data obtained

from the DCP tests that were performed along the runway is about 26 percent with a standard

deviation of about 19.5 percent.

Three laboratory CBR tests were conducted on samples that were obtained by combining grab

samples of the drill cuttings from multiple exploratory borings to represent the predominant soil

types along the runway. These laboratory tests resulted in CBR values ranging from 5.5 to 7 percent,

with a mean of 6 percent and a standard deviation of 0.7 percent.



Per FAA AC 150/5320-6F - Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation, the design CBR value for subgrade

support should be conservatively selected to ensure a stable subgrade and should reflect the long

term subgrade support that will be provided to the pavement. The FAA recommends selecting a CBR

design value that is one standard deviation below the mean. Therefore, we recommend using the

results from our laboratory CBR testing, which are more conservative than the DCP testing results.

The laboratory CBR testing results suggest a design CBR of 5.3 percent [mean CBR (6 percent) minus

one standard deviation (0.7 percent)]. A CBR of 5.3 percent corresponds to a subgrade modulus of

about 7,950 psi.

Pavement design recommendations for the runway were developed by inputting project specific

information (including the fleet mix provided by Reid Middleton and summarized in Table 3) into the

FAA’s pavement design software FAARFIELD.

Table 3. Summary of Fleet Mix

Aircraft Name

Gross Wt. (lbs)

Annual

Departures

Annual

Growth

(percent)

S-3 3,000 11,475 2.8

S-5 5,000 11,475 2.8

S-10 10,000 6,248 2.8

Citation-525 12,375 198 2.8

SuperKingAir-B200 12,500 948 1.2

Citation-V 16,500 198 2.8

Because the maximum airplane gross weight operating on the new pavement will be greater than

12,500 lbs but less than 100,000 lbs, the pavement section is controlled by FAA’s minimum pavement

section requirements (i.e., not the strength of the subgrade soils). The required pavement section for

structural support is therefore 4 inches of P-401 over 6 inches of P-209 over 4 inches of P-154, for a

total pavement section thickness of 14 inches.

Because the soils at the project site are frost susceptible, a 14-inch pavement section would only

provide partial frost protection. Complete frost protection could be achieved by making up the

difference between the pavement section thickness required for structural support (14 inches) and

the estimated maximum depth of frost penetration (18 inches) with additional non-frost susceptible

material (4 inches of P-154, in this particular case).



It should be noted that because the pavement section thickness required for structural support (14

inches) is greater than 65 percent of the anticipated frost depth. The 14-inch pavement section will

provide limited subgrade frost projection. Limited subgrade frost protection can only be used when

the functional requirements of the pavement permit a minor amount (less than 1 inch) of frost heave.

Considering the age, condition, thickness, and performance of the existing pavement section at JCIA, it

is our opinion that the pavement section thickness required for structural support (14 inches) will be

provide adequate subgrade frost protection, provided some minor frost heave can be tolerated (i.e.,

the limited subgrade frost protection approach can be taken if minor frost heave is tolerable).

During our field exploration program, we encountered pavement thicknesses ranging from 1 to 6

inches, with no base course or sub-base observed at the locations we explored. In general, the

pavement condition along the runway is poor, and should not be considered to add any structural

value if left in place. However, the existing pavement could be recycled and used as base or subbase

material when rehabilitating the pavement section. However on federally funded projects, due to the

variability of recycling materials and methods, the use of recycled materials other than those meeting

P219, requires a Modification of Standards (MOS) in accordance with FAA Order 5100.1, Modification

of Agency Airport Design, Construction and Equipment Standards.

3.3 Subsurface Drainage

Near surface soils along the runway and connector taxiways generally consist of either medium stiff to

stiff silt and clay or medium dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Surface water runoff

generated by the runway will likely perch on both of these soil types. Therefore, we recommend

installing subsurface drains along the edges of the runway to collect runoff and direct it away from the

runway and connector taxiways.



4.0 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS

We recommend that LAI be retained to review the geotechnical-related portions of the project plans

and specifications to determine if they are consistent with the recommendations presented in this

report. We also recommend that monitoring, testing, and consultation be provided during

construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by our

explorations, to provide recommendations should conditions be revealed during construction that

differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether geotechnical-related construction activities

comply with project plans/specifications and the recommendations contained in this report.



5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT

Landau Associates prepared this report for the exclusive use of Reid Middleton and the Port of Port

Townsend for specific application to the design of the proposed Jefferson County International Airport

Runway 9/27 Rehabilitation project in Jefferson County, Washington. Use of this report by others or

for other projects is at the user’s sole risk. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our

services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical

engineering profession; no other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional advice

included in this report.

The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based in part upon the subsurface

data obtained from the explorations completed for this study. There may be some variation in

subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site, and the nature and extent of the

variations may not become evident until construction. Accordingly, a contingency for unanticipated

conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule.

If variations in subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, LAI should be notified for

review of the recommendations in this report, and revision of such if necessary. If there is a

substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if

conditions change due to construction operations at or adjacent to the project site, we recommend

that we review this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations

contained herein.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project and look forward to

assisting you during the construction phase of the project. If you have any questions or comments

regarding the information contained in this report, or if we may be of further service, please call.



6.0 REFERENCES

Federal Aviation Administration. 2016. Advisory Circular No. 150/5320-6F: Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. November 10.

Schasse, H. and S. L. Slaughter. 2005. Geologic Map of the Port Townsend South and Part of the Port

Townsend North 7.5-minute Quadrangles, Jefferson County, Washington.

Old FortTownsend State

Park

Jefferson CountyJefferson CountyInternationalInternational

AirportAirport

Chimacu m Creek

Discovery Bay

PortTownsend

Bay

Four CornersFour Corners

IrondaleIrondale

PortPortHadlock-IrondaleHadlock-Irondale

Rhody Dr

S D iscover y R d

Iron dal e R d

ST19

ST20

Data Source: Esri 2012Jefferson County

International AirportRunway Rehabilitation

Port Townsend, WashingtonVicinity Map

Figure1

0 0.5 1

Miles

G:\Pro

jects\

053\11

7\010\

011\F0

1VicM

ap.m

xd 12

/14/20

17

!

!

!!

!

W a s h i n g t o nW a s h i n g t o nOlympia

Port Townsend

TacomaSpokane

EverettSeattle

ProjectLocation

Project Location

®ð

®ð

&<

®ð

®ð

®ð

&<

""

""

""

Runway

Airport Cutoff Rd

Port Townsend Aero Museum

Taxiway

B-6

B-7

DCP-9DCP-8

DCP-7DCP-6

DCP-11 DCP-10

B-5 and DCP-5

B-2 and DCP-2

B-1 and DCP-1

B-4 and DCP-4

B-3 and DCP-3

Data Source: Esri World Imagery; Reid Middleton, 2017Jefferson County

International AirportRunway Rehabilitation

Port Townsend, WashingtonSite and Exploration Plan

Figure2

®ð

®ð

&<

®ð

®ð

®ð

&<

""

""

""

Runway

Airport Cutoff Rd

Port Townsend Aero Museum

Taxiway

B-6

B-7

DCP-9DCP-8

DCP-7DCP-6

DCP-11 DCP-10

B-5 and DCP-5

B-2 and DCP-2

B-1 and DCP-1

B-4 and DCP-4

B-3 and DCP-3

Legend

®ð Boring and DCP Location&< Boring Location" DCP Location Note

1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation.

0 250 500

Scale in Feet

G:\Pro

jects\

053\1

17\010

\011\F

02Sit

ePlan.

mxd 1

2/14/2

017

APPENDIX A

Field Explorations

DRAFT

A-1

APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS

Subsurface conditions at the project site were explored on November 14, 2017. The exploration

program consisted of advancing and sampling seven exploratory borings (B-1 through B-7) at the

approximate locations illustrated on the Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2 of this report). All of the

exploratory borings were advanced to a depth of about 11.5 ft below the existing ground surface

(bgs). The exploratory borings were advanced using the hollow-stem auger drilling technique by

Environmental Drilling, Inc. of Snohomish, Washington under subcontract to Landau Associates, Inc.

(LAI). The locations of the exploratory borings were located approximately in the field based on

reference to existing infrastructure. The ground surface elevations at the exploration locations were

not determined.

The field exploration program was coordinated and monitored by LAI personnel who also obtained

representative soil samples, maintained a detailed record of the observed subsurface soil and

groundwater conditions, and described the soil encountered by visual and textural examination. Each

representative soil type observed in our exploratory borings was described using the soil classification

system shown on Figure A-1, in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) D 2488, Standard

Recommended Practice for Description of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). Logs of the exploratory

borings are presented on Figures A-2 through A-8. These logs represent our interpretation of

subsurface conditions identified during the field exploration program. The stratigraphic contacts

shown on the summary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual

transitions may be more gradual. The soil and groundwater conditions depicted are only for the

specific date and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other

locations and times. A further discussion of the soil and groundwater conditions observed is contained

in the text portion of this report.

Disturbed samples of the soil encountered in the exploratory borings were obtained at selected

intervals using a 1.5-inch inside-diameter split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven up to 18 inches

into the undisturbed soil ahead of the drill bit with a 140-lb hammer falling a distance of

approximately 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler for the final 12 inches of

soil penetration, or part thereof, is noted on the boring logs, adjacent to the appropriate sample

notation. Samples collected in this manner were taken to our laboratory for further examination and

testing. A discussion of laboratory test procedures and the laboratory test results are presented in

Appendix B. Upon completion of drilling and sampling, the boreholes were decommissioned in general

accordance with the requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-160.

A-1Jefferson County International

Airport Runway 9/27Rehabilitation

Port Townsend, Washington

1

AC or PC

CLEAN SAND

FIN

E-G

RA

INE

D S

OIL

PT

OH

CH

Well-graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines

MH

OL

CL

ML

SC

Field and Lab Test Data

Soil Classification System

SM

SP(Little or no fines)

(Mor

e th

an 5

0% o

f m

ater

ial i

s sm

alle

r th

an N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

siz

e)

Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s)

Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s)

Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s)

Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey finesand or clayey silt with slight plasticityInorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandyclay; silty clay; lean clay

Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity

Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand

Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay

Organic clay of medium to high plasticity; organic silt

MAJORDIVISIONS

Pocket Penetrometer, tsfTorvane, tsfPhotoionization Detector VOC screening, ppmMoisture Content, %Dry Density, pcfMaterial smaller than No. 200 sieve, %Grain Size - See separate figure for dataAtterberg Limits - See separate figure for dataOther Geotechnical TestingChemical Analysis

PP = 1.0TV = 0.5

PID = 100W = 10D = 120

-200 = 60GSALGTCA

Groundwater

Code

SAMPLER TYPE

Code Description

SW

GC

Sample Depth Interval

Recovery Depth Interval

Sample Identification Number

SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL

TYPICALDESCRIPTIONS (2)(3)

Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement

USCSLETTER

SYMBOL(1)

Approximate water level at time of drilling (ATD)Approximate water level at time other than ATD

abcdefghi12345

Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s)

GRAPHICSYMBOL

Drilling and Sampling Key

Description

Portion of Sample Retainedfor Archive or Analysis

GM

GP

GWPoorly graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines

Well-graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines

Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines

Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content

CLEAN GRAVELGRAVEL ANDGRAVELLY SOIL

(Appreciable amount offines)

GRAVEL WITH FINES

(Little or no fines)

(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction passed

through No. 4 sieve)

SAND ANDSANDY SOIL

CO

AR

SE

-GR

AIN

ED

SO

IL

(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction retained

on No. 4 sieve)

3.25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split SpoonShelby TubeGrab SampleSingle-Tube Core BarrelDouble-Tube Core Barrel2.50-inch O.D., 2.00-inch I.D. WSDOT3.00-inch O.D., 2.375-inch I.D. Mod. CaliforniaOther - See text if applicable300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop140-lb Hammer, 30-inch DropPushedVibrocore (Rotosonic/Geoprobe)Other - See text if applicable

(Mor

e th

an 5

0% o

f mat

eria

l is

larg

er th

an N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

siz

e)

SAND WITH FINES(Appreciable amount of

fines)

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL

(Liquid limit greater than 50)

SILT AND CLAY

RK

DB

Rock (See Rock Classification)

(Liquid limit less than 50)

SILT AND CLAY

Wood, lumber, wood chips

GRAPHICSYMBOL

Construction debris, garbage

PAVEMENT

ROCK

WOOD

DEBRIS

OTHER MATERIALS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONSLETTERSYMBOL

WD

> 30% and <> 15% and <> 5% and <

<

> _ _ _ _

Primary Constituent:Secondary Constituents:

Additional Constituents:

Notes: 1. USCS letter symbols correspond to symbols used by the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM classification methods. Dual lettersymbols (e.g., SP-SM for sand or gravel) indicate soil with an estimated 5-15% fines. Multiple letter symbols (e.g., ML/CL) indicate borderlineor multiple soil classifications.

2. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils(Visual-Manual Procedure), outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based onthe Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487.

3. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and isdefined as follows:

4. Soil density or consistency descriptions are based on judgement using a combination of sampler penetration blow counts, drilling orexcavating conditions, field tests, and laboratory tests, as appropriate.

50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY," etc. 50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. 15% - "with gravel," "with sand," "with silt," etc. 5% - "with trace gravel," "with trace sand," "with trace silt," etc., or not noted.

Soil Classification System and KeyFigure

DRAFT

17

13

24

34

W = 7

W = 10GS

b2

b2

b2

b2

ACGM

SP-SM

Asphalt Pavement (6 inch thickness)(ASPHALT)

Gray, sandy, silty GRAVEL (mediumdense, moist)

(FILL)

Gray, gravelly SAND with silt (mediumdense to dense, wet)

(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)

grades to without gravel

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

Boring Completed 11/14/17Total Depth of Boring = 11.5 ft.

SPT N-Value

20 40 60 80

Moisture Content (%)

20 40 60 80

Fines Content (%)

20 40 60 800

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Notes:

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foo

t

Tes

t Dat

a

LiquidLimit

11/14/17

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

LAI Project No: 0053117.010.011

Non-Standard N-Value

Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Dep

th (

ft)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Logged By:

SOIL PROFILE

Ground Elevation (ft):

Drilling Method:

SAMPLE DATA

Date:

Hollow-Stem Auger

PlasticLimit

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

B-1

SMG

Not Determined

1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate.2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions.3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols.

Gro

undw

ater

Log of Boring B-1 A-2Figure

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

Jefferson County InternationalAirport Runway 9/27

RehabilitationPort Townsend, Washington

AT

D

DRAFT

7

9

3

9

W = 28AL

W = 34

W = 28AL

b2

b2

b2

b2

ACCL


Brown clay (soft to stiff, moist) (GLACIOMARINE OUTWASH)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4


SPT N-Value

20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Fines Content (%)

20 40 60 800

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Notes:

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foo

t

Tes

t Dat

a

LiquidLimit

11/14/17

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

LAI Project No: 0053117.010.011


Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Dep

th (

ft)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Logged By:

SOIL PROFILE


Drilling Method:

SAMPLE DATA

Date:

Hollow-Stem Auger

PlasticLimit

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

B-2

SMG

Not Determined


Gro

undw

ater


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH



Gro

undw

ater

Not

Enc

ount

ered

DRAFT

10

11

6

10

W = 26GS

W = 28AL

W = 30

b2

b2

b2

b2

CLCL

Brown, sandy CLAY with organics (loose,moist)

(TOPSOIL)

Brown, iron-stained CLAY (medium stiff tostiff, moist) (GLACIOMARINE OUTWASH)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4


SPT N-Value

20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Fines Content (%)

20 40 60 800

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Notes:

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foo

t

Tes

t Dat

a

LiquidLimit

11/14/17

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

LAI Project No: 0053117.010.011


Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Dep

th (

ft)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Logged By:

SOIL PROFILE


Drilling Method:

SAMPLE DATA

Date:

Hollow-Stem Auger

PlasticLimit

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

B-3

SMG

Not Determined


Gro

undw

ater


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH



Gro

undw

ater

Not

Enc

ount

ered

DRAFT

13

32

26

12

W = 11

W = 20GS

W = 17GS

b2

b2

b2

b2

ACSM

ML

SP-SM

SM


Gray, very silty SAND (medium dense,moist)

(FILL)

Brown SILT (stiff, moist) (GLACIOMARINE OUTWASH)

Brown, fine to coarse SAND with silt(medium dense to dense, wet)

Gray, silty SAND (medium dense, wet)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4


SPT N-Value

20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Fines Content (%)

20 40 60 800

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Notes:

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foo

t

Tes

t Dat

a

LiquidLimit

11/14/17

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

LAI Project No: 0053117.010.011


Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Dep

th (

ft)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Logged By:

SOIL PROFILE


Drilling Method:

SAMPLE DATA

Date:

Hollow-Stem Auger

PlasticLimit

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

B-4

SMG

Not Determined


Gro

undw

ater


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH



AT

D

DRAFT

27

19

2

4

W = 8GS

W = 17

W = 25AL

b2

b2

b2

b2

ACGP-GM

SP

ML


Gray, very sandy GRAVEL with silt(medium dense, wet)

(FILL)

Gray, fine to coarse SAND (mediumdense, wet) (GLACIOMARINE OUTWASH)

Gray, sandy SILT, trace wood (very soft tosoft, wet)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4


SPT N-Value

20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Fines Content (%)

20 40 60 800

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Notes:

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foo

t

Tes

t Dat

a

LiquidLimit

11/14/17

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

LAI Project No: 0053117.010.011


Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Dep

th (

ft)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Logged By:

SOIL PROFILE


Drilling Method:

SAMPLE DATA

Date:

Hollow-Stem Auger

PlasticLimit

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

B-5

SMG

Not Determined


Gro

undw

ater


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH



AT

D

DRAFT

12

12

24

22

W = 17

W = 20

b2

b2

b2

b2

SMSM

SP-SM

Dark brown, very silty SAND (loose, moist)(TOPSOIL)

Gray-brown, very silty sand with wood(medium dense, moist)

(FILL)

Gray, fine to coarse SAND with silt(medium dense, wet) (GLACIOMARINE OUTWASH)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4


SPT N-Value

20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Fines Content (%)

20 40 60 800

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Notes:

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foo

t

Tes

t Dat

a

LiquidLimit

11/14/17

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

LAI Project No: 0053117.010.011


Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Dep

th (

ft)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Logged By:

SOIL PROFILE


Drilling Method:

SAMPLE DATA

Date:

Hollow-Stem Auger

PlasticLimit

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

B-6

SMG

Not Determined


Gro

undw

ater


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH



AT

D

DRAFT

12

13

8

2

W = 14GS

W = 15

b2

b2

b2

b2

GPSM

SP-SM

ML

ML

Brown, very sandy, silty GRAVEL (dense,moist)

(FILL)

Gray-brown, very silty SAND, trace gravel(medium dense, moist) (GLACIOMARINE OUTWASH)

Brown, fine to coarse SAND with silt(medium dense, moist)

Brown, very sandy SILT (medium stiff,moist)

Brown SILT (very soft, moist)

S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4


SPT N-Value

20 40 60 80


20 40 60 80

Fines Content (%)

20 40 60 800

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

Notes:

Sam

pler

Typ

e

Blo

ws/

Foo

t

Tes

t Dat

a

LiquidLimit

11/14/17

Sam

ple

Num

ber

& In

terv

al

LAI Project No: 0053117.010.011


Gra

phic

Sym

bol

Dep

th (

ft)

US

CS

Sym

bol

Logged By:

SOIL PROFILE


Drilling Method:

SAMPLE DATA

Date:

Hollow-Stem Auger

PlasticLimit

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH

B-7

SMG

Not Determined


Gro

undw

ater


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J S

OIL

BO

RIN

G L

OG

WIT

H G

RA

PH



AT

D

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Soil Testing

DRAFT

B-1

APPENDIX B LABORATORY SOIL TESTING

Soil samples obtained from our exploratory borings were taken to our laboratory for further

examination and testing. Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to

characterize certain engineering and index properties of the soils at the project site. The laboratory

testing program, which was performed in general accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM)

standard test procedures noted below, was limited to visual inspection to confirm our field soil

descriptions and determination of natural moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg Limits,

moisture/density relationship (Proctor), and California Bearing Ratio (CBR). A brief description of the

testing performed is presented below.

Natural Moisture Content

The natural moisture contents of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings were

determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 test procedures. The results from the moisture

content determinations are indicated adjacent to the corresponding samples on the summary logs

presented in Appendix A.

Grain Size Analysis

Grain size analyses were conducted on selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings in

general accordance with ASTM D422 test procedures. Samples selected for grain size analysis are

designated with a “GS” in the column labeled “Test Data” on the summary boring logs. The test results

are presented in the form of grain size distribution curves on Figures B-1 and B-2.

Atterberg Limits Determination

The liquid limit (LL), plastic limit (PL), and plasticity index (PI) of selected soil samples obtained from

the borings were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318 test procedures. The tests

were conducted on selected fine-grained soil samples for the purpose of classification and as an aid in

estimating the compressibility characteristics of the tested soil. The test results are summarized on

Figure B-3.

Moisture/Density Relationship Testing

The optimum moisture/maximum dry density relationships of three near-surface soil samples were

determined in general accordance with ASTM D 698A (Standard Proctor) test procedures. The samples

were created by combining grab samples of the drill cuttings from multiple exploratory borings to

represent the predominant soil types along the runway. Each sample was collected from a depth

ranging from about 1 to 5 ft below the ground surface. The results of the Proctor tests are presented

on Figures B-4 through B-6.

DRAFT

B-2

California Bearing Ratio

The CBR, a semi-empirical index of the strength and deflection characteristics of a soil, was

determined for the three above-described Proctor samples in general accordance with ASTM D 1883

test procedures. Three test specimens from each soil sample were moisture conditioned to a moisture

content near optimum as determined by test method ASTM D 698A. The three specimens were

compacted using three different compactive efforts, thereby resulting in three different unit weights.

After soaking the specimens for more than 72 hours, each specimen was subjected to penetration by

a cylindrical rod. The CBR test results are presented on Figures B-7 through B-9.

DRAFT0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 1001.5 163

Fine

U.S. Sieve Numbers

3/8 140 200

Depth(ft)

NaturalMoisture (%)Symbol

U.S. Sieve Opening in Inches

14

Silt or ClayGravel

Unified SoilClassification

Grain Size in Millimeters

Per

cent

Fin

er b

y W

eigh

t4 10 303/4 3 20

Sand

Hydrometer

MediumCoarseCobbles

4

ExplorationNumber

4086

Soil DescriptionSampleNumber

Coarse

1/2 50

Fine

6012

SP-SM

CL

ML

SP-SM

GP-GM

S-2

S-1

S-2

S-2

S-1

Gravelly SAND with silt

CLAY with sand

Very sandy SILT

Gravelly SAND with silt

Very sandy GRAVEL with silt

10

26

20

17

8

5.0

2.5

3.5

5.0

2.5

B-1

B-3

B-4

B-4

B-5

Grain Size Distribution B-1Figure

0053117.010.011 12/14/17 N:\PROJECTS\0053117.010.011.GPJ GRAIN SIZE FIGURE_STRAIGHT LINE



DRAFT0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

6 1001.5 163

Fine

U.S. Sieve Numbers

3/8 140 200

Depth(ft)

NaturalMoisture (%)Symbol

U.S. Sieve Opening in Inches

14

Silt or ClayGravel

Unified SoilClassification

Grain Size in Millimeters

Per

cent

Fin

er b

y W

eigh

t4 10 303/4 3 20

Sand

Hydrometer

MediumCoarseCobbles

4

ExplorationNumber

4086

Soil DescriptionSampleNumber

Coarse

1/2 50

Fine

6012

SMS-1 Very silty SAND, trace gravel142.5B-7

Grain Size Distribution B-2Figure

0053117.010.011 12/14/17 N:\PROJECTS\0053117.010.011.GPJ GRAIN SIZE FIGURE_STRAIGHT LINE



DRAFT0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

LiquidLimit(%)

Soil Description

CL CH

ML or OL MH or OH

PlasticityIndex(%)

Depth(ft)

Unified SoilClassificationSymbol

NaturalMoisture

(%)

ExplorationNumber

PlasticLimit(%)

SampleNumber

Liquid Limit (LL)

Pla

stic

ity In

dex

(PI)

CL-ML

ASTM D 4318 Test Method

ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS

2.5

7.5

5.0

7.5

28

28

28

25

S-1

S-3

S-2

S-3

CL

CL

CL

ML

CLAY

CLAY with sand

CLAY

Non-plastic SILT

B-2

B-2

B-3

B-5

27

36

32

18

19

22

19

NP

8

14

13

NP

Plasticity ChartFigure

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J A

TT

ER

BE

RG

LIM

ITS

FIG

UR

E_P

RIN

TS

NP


RehabilitationPort Townsend, Washington B-3

80

84

88

92

96

100

104

108

112

116

120

124

128

132

136

140

144

0 10 20 30 40

Optimum Water Content:

Maximum Dry Density:

2.60

2.70

2.80

Corrected Maximum Dry Density:

Percent Greater Than 3/8" Sieve:

ROCK CORRECTED RESULTS*

Curves of 100% Saturation forSpecific Gravity equal to:

* Based on the ASTM D 4718 method.

Dry

Den

sity

in P

ound

s pe

r C

ubic

Foo

t

Water Content in Percent

Test Method:

Material Source:

Material Description:

Corrected Optimum Water Content:

TEST RESULTS (less than 3/8" material)

25 %

130 pcf

CBR-1 Sample

ASTM D 698B

123 pcf

12.5 %

10 %

Moisture-Density Relationship B-4Figure

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/15/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J C

OM

PA

CT

ION

FIG

UR

E (

PA

RA

BO

LA W

ITH

PO

INT

S)



80

84

88

92

96

100

104

108

112

116

120

124

128

132

136

140

144

0 10 20 30 40



2.60

2.70

2.80






Dry

Den

sity

in P

ound

s pe

r C

ubic

Foo

t


Test Method:

Material Source:




5 %

113 pcf

CBR-2 Sample

ASTM D 698B

111.5 pcf

16 %

15 %


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/15/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J C

OM

PA

CT

ION

FIG

UR

E (

PA

RA

BO

LA W

ITH

PO

INT

S)



80

84

88

92

96

100

104

108

112

116

120

124

128

132

136

140

144

0 10 20 30 40



2.60

2.70

2.80






Dry

Den

sity

in P

ound

s pe

r C

ubic

Foo

t


Test Method:

Material Source:




9 %

121 pcf

CBR-3 Sample

ASTM D 698B

118 pcf

14 %

13 %


0053

117.

010

.011

12

/15/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J C

OM

PA

CT

ION

FIG

UR

E (

PA

RA

BO

LA W

ITH

PO

INT

S)



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

100 110 120 130 140 150

So

aked

CB

R (

%)

(Co

rrec

ted

fo

r S

eati

ng

)

Dry Density (pcf)

Sample ID:

Description:

CBR-1

Notes:California Bearing Ratio test conducted in general accordance with ASTM D1883 test method.

Soaked CBR vs Dry DensityCBR-1 B-7

Figure

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J C

BR

VS

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y



10 blows / lift

25 blows / lift

56 blows / lift

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

90 100 110 120 130 140 150

So

aked

CB

R (

%)

(Co

rrec

ted

fo

r S

eati

ng

)

Dry Density (pcf)

Sample ID:

Description:

CBR-2



Figure

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J C

BR

VS

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y



10 blows / lift

25 blows / lift

56 blows / lift

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

100 110 120 130 140 150

So

aked

CB

R (

%)

(Co

rrec

ted

fo

r S

eati

ng

)

Dry Density (pcf)

Sample ID:

Description:

CBR-3



Figure

0053

117.

010

.011

12

/14/

17

N:\P

RO

JEC

TS

\005

311

7.0

10.0

11.

GP

J C

BR

VS

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y



10 blows / lift

25 blows / lift

56 blows / lift

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report Jefferson County International …portofpt.com/wp-content/uploads/JCIA-Geotechnical-Draft... · 2017. 12. 15. · 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents