Project Planner: Sean Conner

Organization: University of Idaho

Project: Troy Highway Mall

Date: 27 March 2019

Introduction
For this project we have been tasked with developing a mostly level area around 300 feet with
the natural slope being 45° and the finished slope being 26.6°. We have performed a variety of
different tests that include testing the Unit Weight, Water Content, Atterberg Limits, Grain Size
Distribution, and Proctor Compaction test to ensure that we have the most accurate data about
the soil. The overall goal of this project is to make sure that the cleared area will be suitable for
the development of a mall. After analyzing the data in the previously noted tests
recommendations will be made as to the suitability of soil, depth of excavation, and the suitable
dry unit weights for the sands and granular fills.

Tests Performed
Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318. This test is to help classify the Clayey Silt material and we
should see a higher water content since it is a Clayey Silt, specifically around 20%.

Standard Proctor ASTM D698. This test is also for the Clayey Silt material and is to help us
understand how well this material can be compacted.

Grain Size Distribution ASTM D6913. The GSD Test is to help us understand if the Granular
Fill is suitable for development, and to help classify it. Since it is mostly Granular fill, we should
see a skew towards the right side or see more gravel in this sample.

Natural Water Content ASTM D2216. The Natural water content is used for the Clayey Silt in
order to determine the water content of the Clay which affects Unit Weight.

Density Estimation of Sands ASTM D2488. This test is to help estimate the field densities of
the sand. These should be consistent, but since they are estimations there will be variations.
Laboratory Test Results

Unit Weight and Water Content

The average unit weight for Sand A, Sand B and Clayey Soil were 12.73, 13.73 and 15.68
kN/m^3 respectively with minimums 12, 12.75 and 15.22 kN/m^3 and maximums 14.03, 14.85
and 16.16 kN/m^3 respectively. The variations in the unit weight can be accounted for since the
soil is not one sample. There are slight variation in conditions of the soils that make variations in
what the unit weight will be. The average water content for the clayey soil is 21.7% with
minimum 20.34% and maximum 24.37%.

Atterberg and GSD Tests

The tests performed were the Plastic Limit Test and the Liquid Limit Test. The Plastic Limit Test
had an average of 17% with minimum 13% and maximum 22% while the Liquid Limit test
produced and average of 26.1% with a minimum of 22% and maximum of 36.7%. This data was
then used to calculate the Plasticity Index with the average being 9% and the minimum and
maximum being 4% and 17.7% respectively. For the GSD Test all the minimums, maximums
and averages are relatively close to one another which is good. This means that none of the soil
was getting hung up while the test was being performed and that we have an accurate graph in
representing the data.

Standard Proctor Test

The values were all consistent which is good because it shows the soil is consistant. For the
creation of the Proctor curve test number 2 was used because after the averages were taken the
optimum water content came out to be 14.6% and average density was 17.4%. Test 2 had the
closest values with 14.7% water content and 17.5% for density.
Recommendations
(a) The use of the clayey silt soil will be okay, but it is good that the gravel fill is being mixed in
under the foundations. Any ASTM rating with clayey silt is rated poor to not suitable when it
comes to pavement. There will need to be a little bit of moisture condistioning, specifically
drying, to ensure that the clay and gravel fill are at the optimum moisture content.

(b) For the optimum excavation depth there will need to be a couple of measurements taken in
order to complete the excavation. See the attached AutoCAD drawing for specifications.

(c) The ASTM rating classifies the fill soil as GW or GP. Recommendation Values
This means there is almost no compaction and the soil is Relative Compaction 90-95%
reasonably stable. It is also a very valuable as pavement Dry Unit Weight 15.66 kN/m^3
subgrade even when it is subjected to frost. The following Moisture Content 16%
table gives the values for the Relative Compaction, Dry Unit Weigh and Moisture Content.

(d) The Dry Unit weight for Sand A should be right around 12.73 and Sand B should be around
13.71. These are what were found as the average unit weights in the lab. For the granular fill a
unit weight of 15.26 would be what should be expected initially before compaction.

Appendix
To calculate the area of fill a lot of trig was used. Formulas were used in MathCAD to relate the
two areas. Once the formulas were entered it was a simple trial and error of adjusting some
values until the values of the two areas became equal.

For the relative compaction it is understood that it is hard to get a relative compaction close to
100%, but not impossible. For that reason, a value of 95% relative compaction was chosen with
the minimum being set at 90%. The following formula was used to calculate 𝛾𝑑.

𝛾𝑑
CR= 𝛾𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 x 100%

Since there were 12 samples taken anytime the samples were referenced an average was taken. It
should be noted that all values discussed in this report are from averages taken from the data. For
the soil classification I used the ASTM chart D2487 in order to classify the soil from the
excavation and fill.