32
Technical Report Series
Number 75-3
32
AN EVALUATION OF OFFSHORE SAND AND
GRAVEL DEPOSITS AS CONSTRUCTION OR
SPECIALTY MATERIALS
by
Roger Martin
and
R. G. Hicks
31
31
Georgia Marine Science Center
University System of Georgia
Skidaway Island, Georgia
81
AN EVALUATION OF OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL DEPOSITS
AS CONSTRUCT ION OR
SPECIAL~Y
MATERIALS
PY
Roger Martin
and
R. G, Hicks
School of Civil Engineering
Georgia Inatitute of Techno logy
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
January 1975
The Techni ca l Report Series of the Georgia Marine Sci~nce
Center is issued by the Georgia Sea Grant Program and the Marine
Extension Service of the University of Georgia on Skidaway
Island {P. 0. Box 13687, Savannah, Georgia 31406). It was
established to provide dissemination of technical information
and progress reports resulting from marine s tudies and investigations mainly by staff and faculty of the University Sy~tem of
Georgia.
In addition, it is intended for the presentation of
techniques and methods, reduced data and general information of
interest to industry, local, regional, and state governments and
the public.
Information contained in these reports is in the
public domain.
If this prepublication copy is cited, it should
be cited as an unpubli$hed manuscript.
ABSTRACT
The scarcity of quality construction aggregates is
creating an economic problem for industrial sand a nd gravel
users in parts of Georgia . Depletion of acceptable local
depos i ts and the high costs of transporting materials from
distant sources have caused the scarcity.
This report presents the r esu lts of a study investigating
the suitability of using local river bottom materials for
construction purposes.
Engineering analyses were performed on
samples taken from Georgia coastal rivers and adjacent portions
of the Continental Shelf and these findings were evaluated
against materials now in use. Potential applications of these
currently une xploited deposits are discussed and recommendations are made for further research in this area.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The work reported h erein was conducted und er a developme nt a l grant from the Georgia Sea Gr ant Program, supported by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , Department
of Commerce (Grant No . 04 - 3-158 - 6) and the Un ive rsity Syste m of
Georgia .
All samp l es tested were obtained during a prior Sea Grant
st udy conducted by Dr. James Harding and J. R. Wo olsey ,
University of Ge orgia , whose a ssistance i n selecting samples
and suggestions throughout the stud y wa s most helpful .
Th e assistance of Georgia D. 0 . T . , Vulcan Materials ,
The U. S . Army Corps of Eng ineers and vario us mate rial suppliers
is also acknowl edged .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l~CKNOWLEDGMENT
i
LIST OF TABLES
ii
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
1
2
BACKGROUND
4
3
DESCRIPTION OF LABORAT ORY EXPERIMENTS
7
Mater ials
Test Procedures
4
TEST RESULTS
13
Altamaha River
Ogeechee River
Satilla River
Doboy Sound
Wassaw Sound
Saint Catherines Sound
Sapelo Sound
Saint Marys River
Saint Simons Sound
Continental Shelf
5
EVALUATION OF RESULTS
46
Compar ison with Presently Used Mate rials
Potential Uses
Feasibility of Obtaining Materials
6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
55
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
GEORGIA D.O.T. FINE AGG REGATE SOURCES
AND LOCATIONS
57
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Descriptio n
2.1
Production of Sand and Gravel in Geo r gia .
3.1
Tests Perfo rmed on Marine Sand a nd Gravel
Deposits . . • • . . . . •
. • . .
4.1
Page
5
•
10
Summary of Test Results on the Upper
Altamaha River . • • • . •
15
Summary of Test Results on th e Lower
Altamaha River . . • • • •
• • .
18
Summary of Test Results on the Og eechee
River
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
21
4.4
Ogeechee River Fine Sand
22
4.5
Summary of Satilla River Test Re sul ts
26
4.6
Summar y of Doboy Sound Test Resu lts
28
4.7
Summary of Wassaw Sound Test Results .
30
4.8
St. Ca therines Sound Test Results .
33
4.9
Sapelo Sound Test Results
34
4.10
St. Marys River Tes t Results •
37
4.11
St . Simons Sound Test Results
40
4 . 12
Continental Shelf Test Results
42
4.13
Ogeechee River and Oss a baw Sound Test
Results
. •..
44
5.1
Mechanical Dredges
52
5.2
Hydraulic Dredges
53
4.2
4. 3
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Description
3 .1
Location of Sampling Points
3.2
Moisture Conditions of Aggregates
11
4.1
Upper A1tamaha River Gradation Limits
14
4.2
Typical Sample From the Upper A1tamaha River .
15
4. 3
Upper River Sample
17
4.4
Lower River Sample with Shell Fragments
17
4.5
Typical Sample From the Lower Altamaha River .
18
4.6
Lower Altarnaha River Samples Affected by
Ocean Currents; Gradation Limits
19
4.7
Ogeechee River Gradation Limits
20
4.8
Typical Sample from the Ogeechee River .
21
4.9
Ogeechee River Fine Sand
22
4.10
Ogeechee River Fine Sand Gradation
23
4.11
Sandy Clay Lumps From Ogeechee River
24
4.12
Satilla River Gradation Limits
25
4.13
Shells Found in Lower Satilla River Source .
4.14
Typical Sample from Dobey Sound
28
4.15
Deboy Sound Gradation Limits . .
29
4.16
Typical Sample from the Wassaw Sound .
30
4.17
Wassaw Sound Gradation • . • •
4.18
St. Catherines Sound Gradation
32
4.19
Typical Sample From St. Catherines Sound
33
4.20
Sample from Sapelo Sound Showing Shells and
Clay Lumps . . . •
• . • . . • . . . . .
34
iii
8
.
.
..
26
31
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
Description
4.21
Sapelo Sound Gradations
35
4.22
Typical Sample from St. Marys River
37
4.23
St. Marys River Gradations • . • . • .
38
4.24
Abundant Amount of Shells Present in Samples
Taken Near Mo uth of St. Marys River
39
4.25
Typical Sample from St. Simons Sound .
40
4.26
St. Simons Sound Gradations
41
4.27
Typical Sample from the Continental Shelf
of Georgia . . • . • . • . •
42
4.28
Continental Shelf Gradations •
43
4.29
Typical Sample from the Ogeechee River and
Os sabaw Sound Area . • . •
44
Ogeechee River and Ossabaw Sound Gradation
45
4.30
iv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In parts of Georgia, the supply of quality construction
aggregates (i.e. sands and gravels) is becoming an important
problem.
For example, the scarcity of easily available materials
is producing an economic problem for construction and industrial s and and gravels users in south Georgia.
The shortage
is brought about primarily by two factors:
rising costs
(1)
of transportation of materials by rail and trucks, and (2) current
sources of obtaining sands and gravels throughout Georgia are
e ither being depleted and/or becoming substandard in quality.
Both facto rs point to an urgent need to investigate every potential available site for obtaining these materials.
The need for
new sources may not immediately be apparent, but as the current
supply of quality aggregates dwindles and sources become more
sparsely located, the development of new sources and techniques
for obtaining these materials will become necessary.
With the arrival of a materials shortage in construction
and road building, current standards of quality are being
reduced (instead of new sources being developed) to meet the
demand.
This means of stabilizing the current shortage will
only be temporary.
Therefore, increased research in locating
new sources and in methods of obtaining construction ma ter ials
will be necessary.
The purpose of this report is to investigate the feasibility of usi n g local river sands and gravels for construction
purposes to a llevi ate the material shortages in t h e coastal
p la ins area.
The investigation deals not only with river sands
a nd gravels but also with materials available from the Georgia
continental s helf.
Representative samples obtained from these
sources were s tudi ed a nd analyzed in order to determine the types
of materials avai l ab l e at eac h location.
Selected materials
were then tested in the laboratory to d e t e rmine thei r applica bility to the construction industry.
Potential uses considered
were not on ly for major c onstruction materials in portland
cement and asph alt concrete , but also specialty products such as
glass sand, abrasive sand, and beach r ep leni s hment san d.
To accomplish the desi r ed results, the followin g areas
wer e researched:
1.
A review of availab l e l iterature and information was
ma de.
Literatu re s tudi es were in the areas of land
mining t echniques, dr e dging me thods, and costs and
appl ica t i o n s of river mat e rials.
2.
Representative samples were se lected to insure t h at
the wid est practica l range of coasta l aggr egates
we re evaluated.
3.
Laborato r y tests including gradation t ests , specific
gravity , absorption and sand equivalent were per formed on selected samples of river material.
4.
The feasibility of using sands and g r avels from local
-2 -
sources in construction was
evaluated and recommen-
dations for additional research were proposed.
-3-
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
The production of sand and gravel in Georgia i s a major
industry.
Recent annual production figures devel o p e d by the
Bureau of Mines ar e shown in Table 2.1 [8] .
Even though this large amount of material is being produced in the state, there are regions within Georgia without
good quality aggregate.
For exampl e , 66 % of the sand and
gravel being produced comes from only five counties :
Crawford, Effingham, Talbot, and Thomas.
Bibb,
This means that
large quantities of this material are being shipped to other
parts of the state.
Similarly, most crushed stone is pro-
duced in North Georgia requiring large quantities of it to
be shipped to South Georgia.
A recent estimate shows that
75% of the shipping is done by truck and the remaining 25%
by rail car [8].
This isolation of sources of sand, gravel, and crushed
stone and the increas i ng transportation problem, has led the
construction industry to search for other materials as usable
substitutes.
One such material currently being inv estigated
is the use of power plant fuel ash [5].
Georgia produces around
1.5 million tons of both bottom and fly ash annually.
The
asphalt paving industry is considering using fly ash as a
filler and the bottom ash as an actual aggregate.
-4-
Other
TABLE 2.1
PRODUCTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL IN GEORGIA
(Quantities in tons)
1971
Sand
Gravel
Crushed Stone
1972
3,620,000
3,547,000
78,000
270,000
30,699,000
-5-
materials being considered are incinerator
glass.
Research in these areas
waste, sulfur, and
could lead to results which
would stabilize the material shortage in Georgia and increase
the economic growth of the state.
Another potential source of aggregate which holds promise
i s the increased use of marine sands and gravels.
The current
production of marine sands and gravels from the coastal regions
of Georgia
is
limited to just 10,000 cubic yards per year [3].
This single operation makes economic use of the rivers and inland waterways to transport the processed materials by barge
to points of use.
It has always been assumed that ample sand deposits exist
along the coastal regions of Georgia; however, much of this
sand is physically unusable.
Furthermore , some of the suitable
areas of sand and gravel involve problems of environmental
impac t which must be dealt with in a futu r istic outlook.
The
fact remains that there is an abundance of suitable sand and
gravel deposits throughout the coastal regions of Georgia, with
only the problem of locating the material which is in close
proximity to the areas in ne ed of good aggregates.
-6-
CHAPTER 3
LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
Materials
All samples evaluated in this study were obtaine d fr o m
the Georgia coastal and inland areas under the auspi c es o f t he
Georgia Sea Grant Pr o gram during the year 1972-73 (2).
I n a l l,
five hundred sample s were obtained fro m depths ranging from t he
sediment-water interface to a depth 25 feet bel ow the
inter: ~ c e .
Incremental samplin g depths were g ener a ll y 5 f e et but varied
when conditions warranted.
Eac h samp le, approxima tely 500 q r am s,
was placed in plastic sampling bags and l abeled according t o
location, depth and date of sampling.
Detailed procedures o f
sampling have been described elsewhere (2,3,4).
The location of sampling points is given in Fig . 3 .1.
It
should be noted that the sampling areas included land sites,
inland waterways, rivers, coastal regions and the continental
shelf.
Th e study reported herein was undertaken to evaluate in the
laboratory certain engineering properties of the coastal depo sits
in order to determine their applicability in construction or
industri a l uses. In June , 1974, all of the samples were transporte d
to the Georgia Tech Civil Engineering Laboratories for further
evaluation.
All samples were examined visually from which 33 were s e lecte d
for further laboratory studies.
These 33 samples were considered
to be representative of the various sources along the Georgia coast.
-7-
EASTERN UNITED STATES I 250.000
= . .-
.~
,I
/
~
~ '.
'~\
. ......
-.'io.• ... t:
·-
-··
~-
t
i
...
~
..
...
_!!.. ! ..
...
:.
~
-
.
- "
=
'·
....
...
=
A
Figure 3.1:
Location of Sampling Points
-8-
T
Test Proc e dures
All samples were tested in accordance with procedures
adopted by ASTM (10) or the Geor g ia Department of Tra nsportation
(11).
The actua l tests performed are given in Tab le 3. 1 with
appropriat e reference to the test procedure used .
The three tests se lected permitted a direct comparison
with other sources of aggregates commonly u sed in construction
(Appendix A) .
The results of the sieve a nalysis test indicate
the particle size distributio n o f each material and provides
information for determ ining potential applications .
The sieve
a nalysis, in addition to yielding informat i on relative to particl e
size , also p r ovides data for ca l c ulati o n of the f i neness modu l us.
The fineness modulus is the cumulative percent retained on each
standard sieve (e . g . No. 100, 50, 30, 16, 8, 4, etc.) divided
by 100 .
A large number f o r the f inene ss modulus i nd icates a
coarse material, a nd a small number a fine material.
The fine -
ness modulus i s used in the design of portland cement concrete
mixes with values of 2.3 to 2 . 9 cons idered acceptable for fine
aggregate .
Specific grav ity and absorption tests provide information
for dete rmining potential problems when the aggregate is used
with admixtures such as asphalt or portland cements.
The spec ifi c
gravi ty is used in mix design and control and is n ot a measure
o f aggregate quality.
Absorption is a measure of t h e amount of
water which can be abso rbed by the aggre gate.
Referring to
Fig 3.2, percent absorption is calculated as fo ll ows:
-9-
TABLE 3 .l
TESTS PERFORMED ON MARINE SAND AND GRAVEL DEPOSITS
TEST
PROCEDURE
Wet and Dry Sieve Analysis
ASTM C-136
Specific Gravity and Absorption
ASTM C-127
Sand Equivalent
GHD - 63
-10-
TOTAL
MOISTURE
STATE
Oven-dry
None
Air-dry
Less than
potential
absorption
Saturated
Surface dry
Equal to
potential
absorption
Damp or wet
Greater than
total absorp
tion
Fig. 3. 2
Moisture Conditions of Aggregates
-11-
% Absorption
=
Saturated Surface Dry Wt - OVen Dry Wt
Oven Dry Wt
The sand equivalent test provides a measure of the
cleanliness of the aggregate.
value the cleaner the material.
The higher the sand equivalent
For asphalt concrete mixes in
Georgia the sand equivalent value must be greater than 20 (13).
For each 500 gram sample selected, the above mentioned
tests were performed, generally in the following order:
1.
Sand Equivalent
2.
Specific Gravity and Absorption
3.
Sieve Analysis
A sample splitter was used to obtain a small representative
sample for the sand equivalent test.
The remainder of the
material was tested for specific gravity and absorption afte r
which it was tested to determine the particle size distribution.
-12-
CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS
Generally, the results of all tests can be categorized
into two broad classes.
The first class represents those
samples originating up river and thus being affected predominately by fresh water currents.
The second class represents
those samples affected by the tidal and ocean currents which
deposit shell fragments in the sand and gravel.
The ba sic
differences between the classes of samples are color, grain
size, and shell content.
Test results of the sample areas
(see Fig. 3.1) are summarized below by river or sample area.
Included is a brief discussion noting any significant characteristics of the particular sample area.
Altamaha River
The sand from the upper Altamaha River is very uniform
in all respects from tested depths of 0'-20'.
The results
indicate that the values for the sand equivalent are above 92
and that specific gravities range from 2.60 - 2.65.
The sieve
analyses indicate that most of the sand was retained on the
#16, 30, and 50 sieves.
Table 4.1 and Figures 4.1, 4.2, and
4.3 summarize typical results and characteristics of the light
brown sand from sample points A-1 through A-21 (see Fig. 3.1).
A change was noted in the samples taken from the mouth of the
river {A-26 through A-30, see Fig. 3.1}.
-13-
For example, the color
GRADING
ANALYStS
Ste~e
M1crons
--------:5
I
·-
100
20
10
:::
::
:::
100
400 270 200
50
30
-- -·-
F=
f:;:=:=:=:
..
-·
Or-
~
10 ~
-··
---· .
-
......
~
I
~
--
I,U
::lU:
z
u
. •'•-'f
:::::·
- 70
~
--
:=:j/
-
~
"...J
C(
0
1-
...
-30
l ;:j,
~
:
ffl
J=iJ
jjj
10
-
f::
of=
~
~~
j
I
10
5
400325210200
roo
50
230 170140120 110 ro so e
20
30
40 35 ~ 20 18
Mitrons
:
'I'''''
o.oooo5
o.ooo1
I
~
I
16 ~~
1? 10
e7
6 ~
4
J
li frH i. ri·r
Sieve Stzes
3° .
1
1
•
P
I
1
I
1
~
0
1 1 1
r'~
1
1
••J'I~i f! ll'')'l''lflil
~
5
o.oo1
Figure 4.1:
ooo!5
~'
o.
I
1
?~I
20
- 10
-
~~
1-
~peninq
- 40
--
:=~
20
Av~ox~
-
:::
30
LoQSeole
50
:~
~
60
-
. •if
.;. ,,
40~
~
:
··~:/
·=·~
-
Q:
I,U
Q..
w
.•·=······:!f
·.·:··
.0.-
100
--- 90
:
-- 8J
--
·····;f
...
.·.·.·'
.··.·.·;.·t
..
~
cf
:
~=·=·:·:
-·
-
I
I' 2"~":
f
·•··•····
·:=:=:=~=~b
~
z
iii
C/)
II
=·::;y
A. ·····
.
..
----
~
Srzes
4
~··
•:Ji ~
-
'u~
8
16
1
1
:o,oo
o 5
I
1
1
rttll'Jiliii
o.r
1
1
~~ 01° 01
1
1 1~
1
I
1
fJti,itlll
Upper Altamaha River Gradation Limits
'
'* ~ Ij2f-~~
1
I·~
r
'11 lilllcnll-.
2
..,_
TABLE 4.1
SUMMARY TEST RESULTS ON THE UPPER ALTAMAHA RIVER
Range of Values
Material Properties
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
Bulk SG
2.60 - 2.63
2.
2.61 - 2.63
3.
Bulk SG (SSD)
Apparent SG
4.
Absorption
0.02%- 0.55%
2.62 - 2.65
92 - 100
SAND EQUIVALENT
FINENESS MODULUS
2.31 - 3.01
COLOR
Sand Brown
Figure 4.2:
Typical Sample From the Upper Altamaha River
-15-
changed from light brown to light gray with a scattering of
shell fragments throughout (see Fig. 4.4 and 4.5).
A change
was also noted in the sand equivalent values as it dropped t o
80-93.
Table 4.2 and Figure 4.6 summarize the general rang e
of results obtained for the lower Altamaha.
Ogeechee River
The Ogeechee River bottom is predominantly made up of
fine white sands with layers of silt and clay running through
the river bottoms.
Values for specific gravities range from
2.55 to 2.63 with sand equivalent values of 85-90 and a fineness modulus of 1.00 to 2.22 (see Table 4.3 and Figs. 4.7 and
4.8).
A sample showing the extreme fineness of the Ogeechee
sand is shown in Fig. 4.9 with test results depicted in
Table 4.4 and Fig. 4.10.
A typical sample showing the silty
clay layers is given in Fig. 4.11.
Satilla River
The Satilla River sand was similar to the Ogeechee sand
in that the specific gravity ranged from 2.51 to 2.60, the
sand equivalents from 76 to 90 and the fineness modulus from
0.71 to 1.08 (see Fig. 4.12 and Table 4.5).
The samples
taken from the mouth of the river show an abundance of shell
fragments present (see Fig. 4.13).
-16-
Figure 4.3: Upper Altamaha River Sample
Figure 4.4:
Lower Altamaha River Sample with Shell Fragments
-17-
TABLE 4. 2
SUMMARY TEST RESULTS ON THE LOWER ALTAMAHA RIVER
Range of Values
Material Pro,eerties
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
2.62
2.63
-
0.4%
-
0.98%
80
-
93
1.
2.
Bulk SG
2.58
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.60
3.
Apparent SG
4.
Absorption
SAND EQUIVALENT
2.63
2.65
FINENESS MODULUS
2.40 - 3.19
COLOR
Light Gray
Figure 4.5:
Typical Sample From the Lower Altamaha River
-18-
GRADING ANALYSIS
M1crons
5
10
20
400 270 200
100
50
s;. ,. s,., .
16~~
~
•••••
c
..
30
------~- ----r-· - .,- ··
~~··
··~ ··
·
~---~
f
'f 2'2f:!",oo
II~
I I I I I z..lt;pq I I 1111
~~~·~~··
I
I
I
I I I J~
I
I
I
1
1 I 1370
f
f
I I I Iil
~---+---+- --t-·-·· -1 ·- ~
~~~~ ---
~
I I I III I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
II
f.
~~~~flf
90
60
!-----+--+~~+4~~--+&~~--t--t~--~-rrn~
20
0
'
0~
I
I
I
I
5
Microns
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I ~~~lf
I I I t lJ~~~¥
I I I I Altwl
I I I Jil" I
400 270 00
100
50
325 230 110140120 80 70 60 45 40
30
~
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
16
8
2!1 20 18
14 12 10
S1eve S1zes
1 6
I
I
I
I
s
I
I
I
I
I 1111
I I 111
I 1111
I llll·o
40
30
20
4
•1"\oo
Lower Altamaha River samples affected b y o cean currents; gradat i on limits
GRADING ANALYSIS
Mrcrons
-,--------~
I
rOOc;::
5
Sieve Srzes
t:
90
111
E=
r-
I
I
I
I
I
··~
I-·.t ····-· ---+-
80 ;::
f:
..,.f=
I
l!:to'tf
..·.·.·
looov
;.·.·:··
·.··•·•·
+---·
o;_:f I
- · ":~
I ::::::y
- - r- ·
~
I
N
0
I
-
--
~
z
loJ
()
I_
50[
--
w
I
I
/.: ~:11
I?
.y
....
·:-:.f/
fi:~·aJ
·····
::-:::
I
t ·~t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·:·····
I H!i..if'f'
. ···:1,
t<·=·
r:=:.·~·,
0
0
1-
I=
I
. IOE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t=.
f=
orf:
....
Microns
'
·-
· -·
I I 300
I
I
I
I
I
I I 300
I
70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I 360
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I 350
,o
40
Jj:..
I
I
I I 330
Le::AI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I :120
ll.::JJ.
J:~'f'l'f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rrH i'
rrr 1i 1 .~2f !f~
..
J;.=:i
€f!L
A :~
I
!!"
... . . .
~
I I 3 I0
-
Sieve Sr£es
50
Log S cole
8
I
/}~i
20[I
~penrng
I
.~·
30I
A¥~o ~
I
·:·:·
.....
:-::
.·.··
~
~
I-
I
1
f.t·:~/1
.·.·:
40II-
C(
I
-1 , 1
o,o
Q.
....J
I:'
-~ "
0
-- -------+ ·- ~
-
a:
~,
o ,o.
•
<.:>
If
p
0 •
-
z
iii 60l:
I
(/)
z
1!.0..·.
::_, (.o"
M..:!W
0
+
-s100
r
•
/..~:-:.::::7
·- t -
~
70
~"
10
20
-- ·· -r---,-·
5000
o.oooo5
I
lrllicrorll
.,_
F igur e 4. 7:
Ogeeche e Ri v er Gr adati on Li mi ts
TABLE 4.3
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS ON THE OGEECHEE RIVER
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
Bulk SG
2.55 - 2.63
2.
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.56 -
3.
Apparent SG
2.58 - 2.63
4.
Absorption
2.63
0- 0.73%
SAND EQUIVALENT
85 -95
FINENESS MODULUS
1.49 - 2.22
COLOR
Off-white
Figure 4.8:
Typical Sample From the Ogeechee River
-21-
TABLE 4.4:
OGEECHEE RIVER FINE SAND
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bulk SG
Bu1:k SG (SSD)
Apparent SG
Absorption
2.47
2.53
2.64
2.60%
SAND EQUIVALENT
87
FINENESS MODULUS
1
% PASSING #200 SIEVE
0.45%
COLOR
White
Figure 4.9:
Ogeechee River Fine Sand
-22-
GRADING ANALYSIS
Mtcrons
5
I
10o_
20
JO
::
0;::
100
400 270 200
-
50
1
J
I
I
·-
·- -·
;::
~
IOc-
r=
f::
'()
-·
.
Steve Stzes
4
8
16
30
r
I•
2· ~·
"!
100
90
00
I
-
70
;o-
160
(,:>
z
iii
-
Cll
I
a!
IV
1-
w
I
-
z
50
ou.
11.1
-
0
cr
11.1
Q.
~
c
....
0
40
1-
1
30
c-
20
JO
I
If
~
0~
I
5
Mitrons
I
Log Stolt
40
~
F
I
AV!:r, . ~0~5, 'o.'obol •
I
I
I
~
1
10
I
•
I'
20
'P . 3°
10.:;&)~
I I
l
I
1
I
30
I
I
I
20
10
_1
40032~210,]
00
100
50
230 1701.0120 AD 70 60 4~40
I
1
~1)()1'
1
I
1
'
~1°
I
1
1
'
'
1
I
1~
.
'~1051
1
I I
~
b.
1
1
'
1
JO2~
~~
1
1
I
16 14 12 10
20 Ill
Sieve Sizes
1
:oPO
I>
'
1 ~J~I I I
a
7 6 ~
4
J
~ .0°,
50
1d1
1
I
1
I
1 I
ii lrH i' ri"r
1
1 1~
I ~
Upenmo
Figure 4.10:
Ogeechee River Fine Sand Gradati on
1
1
I I
111,
:
~ ~ Ij2f
1 •
'~
1 ~1
,
...
~
MicroN
j.,_
Figure 4.11:
Sandy Clay Lumps from Ogeechee River
-24-
GRADING ANALYSIS
M1crons
Sieve S1zes
s
10
20
"-
-
l
I
-
l
[
"-
400 270 200
so
100
s
16
~0]1 ,•,~--t'
""" ""
4
r
r
'f 2"2f3"
-1100
I
.•:•:·~L·:•:?
....
v
~
...
··=:v·.
...
.
--
,
······~r···
I
-1
•···•··
-
90
:V
~------1---+-- - ------+--
II'
- ---
~
--+--
I~
30
- -~ -
It-~
00
-
It.~
70
rt:'
=·
~
1
1
1
.f
I
I
§
I
I
I
m~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 360
I I II
I{fl I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I~~
I
~~it I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I ~40
I I I I I /t~l~ I I
I
I
I
I
I
I 11~ 30
1
1
1
1
I I I
1
I
I I I I I I ffi.ff/ I I I I I I I I 111
I
I
20
10
20
400 210200
I
1
\
I
t
II
t
t'
"
I I 'r
I
I
1
I ., 11 I ' j '•
100
50
325 230 110140120 80 10 60
Microns
',
I
I I llllf- I
5
5 f'l
I
II
~
Figure 4.12:
II
I
II
,lt
j
'
1 ., I
'r
f~
I I I; ; It:t 1Irr ·1111'
--....
0
30
45 40 35 23 20 18
I
t
rI
-r
I
16
14 12 10
a7
6 5
• ;_a
4 ' • • • r ~· ~I, I, 21"5!
-.
4
Sieve Stzes
I ' I ,·
t\
5000
1
I '
I 'j I ., •
I
,·
'r
Satilla River Gradation Limits
II
I
jj
- 1--
I I I ( I II I I I '
I
I
I
11111cran1
t --T-'t I • I
L
TABLE 4.5:
SUMMARY OF SATILLA RIVER TEST RESULTS
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
2.
Bulk SG
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.54 - 2.56
3.
Apparent SG
2.59 - 2.60
4.
Absorption
1.2% - 1.3%
2.51 - 2.52
SAND EQUIVALENT
76 - 90
FINENESS MODULUS
0.71-1.08
COLOR
Off-white
Figure 4.13:
Shells Found In Lower Satilla River Sources
-26-
Doboy Sound
The materials found in the Doboy area were coars e sands
with a fineness mo dulus of 2.94 to 3.38 , and sand equivalent
values of 52 to 95 (see Fig. 4.14, 4.15, and Table 4.6).
Wassaw Sound
The material from Wassaw Sound is a light gray fine
sand which has an abundance of she ll fragments .
The sand
equivalent for material from this area is around 50 with an
absorption of 1.7% (see Figs. 4.16 and 4.17, and Tabl e 4.7).
Saint CatherinesSound
This material was a light g ray coarse sand with a fineness modulus of 2.47 and a sand equivalent of 47
(s e e Figs.
4.18, 4.19, and Table 4.8}.
Sapelo Sound
The sands from this area have an abundance of she lls
present, and silty clay lumps dispersed in layers throughout.
These silty lumps if broken down by mechanical means reduce
the sand equivalent values drastically (see Figs . 4.20, 4.21,
and Table 4.9).
-27-
TABLE 4.6:
SUMMARY OF DOBOY SOUND TEST RESULTS
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
2.44
-
2.
Bulk SG
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.50 - 2.61
3.
Apparent SG
2.61- 2.63
4.
Absorption
0.3% - 2.7%
1.
2.60
SAND EQUIVALENT
52 - 95
FINENESS MODULUS
2.94
COLOR
Sand brown to Light brown
Figure 4.14:
-
3.38
Typical Sample From the Doboy Sound
-28-
GRADING ANALYSIS
M1crons
5
1
.oo~
20
10
40o 270 200
l - 1- I
~
so
100
I I I
I
3o
I
16
I
I
~~:~:~
~~=;j'
~
fi,'-..[;1
F
801-
z
I
N
1.0
I
w
.~';.~ t~'
•... .
]~··
Vl
-
:::.::
~:·· 11
1-
•
j_'::::::'I'FI
-!60
::t'
-
• ••
··~··
.••
• •• •
:~~·~1
w 50 :_
u
l
I ~~~
. ····~f
a:
I
l
1
~.
l
::tSO
•••••
~
..J
C(
70
l .....
. ·r·i·
6o ~
z
00
-- I.• .....
···~v
~~~~-
in
cr
a:
T T T ::i90
cli~~~~!/ .
r--
100
I I~
~
I
T
r
I
2" 2t""!
~~
! ...~~~~·
-- - E.::~~·/
t
(!)
I
1/.•:;~y
90f=
'f
r
~
I
~
70
Sieve S1zes
4
~·
8
~ ,.::·:·.::;
t.;• :·::~1~·
..
fj. :;'y•
. ..
40
40
• ••••
b
~
~·~
~~
1~~
~
:;:..·:~
I I I I l I I 141
1
20
I I 1 I 1111
f
20
~--------~--~r---+---1-~-+----~-,~~-+----+---~--~----+----+--~~~IO
I
'
I
I
LoqScole
AvM~~
~pening
I
I
I I
5
Microns
:1
obo;, 5'
0
.
I
'o~obol
•
'
I
I0
I
20
I r
10-~~
I I
I
l
I
_j
400 270 2"00
ir)O
325 230 1'10 140 120
+,, .1P . 3°.
1
I
1 11
b.bol' '
-~0
I
11 11
I '
Figure 4.15:
1
•~
cu}o51
eo ro 60
,
I I
I
50
I
I
30
I
4:1<10 3e ~
bt l ,
b.
I
'
I
?r1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16
8
20 1s 14 12 10
Sieve S1zes
I
I
1 6
0 00
1 , ) 1
.
1 I 1
i
I ~J~ 1 I I 1d 1
1
I
I
1
~ ' ~ fltl' t·ft' f J• 1l 1lldffSauor.
5
'
I
I I _L_j
I I
I
I
I
I
~
1 50,0~
r
I
Doboy So und Grad a tion Limits
1
I
~~~
I~
1
1
1
1 1 1 1:
1
1
·=ef9
r
2
1
1
Mlc:rGnl
~ ....
TABLE 4.7:
SUMMARY OF WASSAW SOUND TEST RESULTS
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
Bulk SG
2.57
2.
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.62
3.
Apparent SG
2.69
4.
Absorption
1. 7%
SAND EQUIVALENT
52
FINENESS MODULUS
1.91
COLOR
Light Gray
Figure 4.16:
Typical Sample From the Wassaw Sound
-30-
M 1~
- - -- --
I
5
;Q 8
--
GRADING ANA LYSIS
100
400 270 200
20
10
50
30
r-
- · r- . -
9 o:: :
:::
..
c::
-· -
0 ,..
;:
-
v;
If)
I
w
1-'
'
0~
-
~
.....
I
z
w ::x.J :
~
w
~
Cl.
~
....
40!=
<It
.....
30
I ' 2" 2f" '5
/
··-
ia:l
--··
70
v
t
160
!50
-'40
:
::
=·30
I
:I'20
I
10
I
I=
rI=
ol=
5
10
20
/
=10
~
I
I
~I
400 270200
I
100
50
.
1 , , , ,1
000005
, , . ~ ., ,1, r 11p J)O',
0.0001
0.
!I
3°
.
5
1 , 1 • 1° 1 1
1 1' 1 •
r
1
I
• ' '
1 1~'
0.001
1
1 ' 1 11
ODO!I
0
~
30
~40~
32!1 230 110140 12C 110 roro
Mtcrons
I,
100
!90
E
20
L ooScole
Av~:x~
/
~
f
I
~
t0
r
~
~
,.
I
I
(.)
a::
I
/
/
I
~
~
z
- · _/1
t-- · · ·· ·-
r-
0
Sieve S1zes
4
8
16
1
1
'
1
16
8
2!1 2o 1s
.. 1210
Sieve Stzes
~~ ~ ' 1 ' 1 1:opo
.
! '&'
0
1
1 6 !1
1
1 11 1
1
Ql
Oj)flll/1 9
F i gur e 4.1 7 :
Was s a w Sound Grad at ion
1
4
J
I
fi lrH i' r1·r Lf
1
50
1 • .0°1 1
1
1 I 1
r ' 1 ~~ 1 1 t 1 t
I
•
1~
~ If2f
1
Y'~
~~ , 1 1Mlcronl
,
2
...
GRADING ANALYSIS
Sieve S• zes
Mtcrons
100
50
10
20
400 270 200
3o
'r-----r------.----.-----.-~~--r---r---r-tOO~
I
16
5
I /f
,_
1::
1--- - - - -- r----+----+ -·---+--·+--+-- --+----+-
z
4
~
rI rI
1f 2· 2t·"!
I I I~ 100
l I I I I l:fV I I I f lll~~
f=
9oE
(!)
a
---+-- -
I
I
I
I
I I 300
I
I
I
I I 13ro
I
I
I
I I I~~
I I I I I l I 1 LL I I I I I
I I I F II f I 7 1 I I I I I
1111<0
11 11
)~-------+---+---+--~~~--~--~--~/-+
I I I I 1I I I I I I i I I lll!o
·-t
.
iii
601 f/1
I
w
N
I
if
I-
P
I
~ ~,=
(,)
a:
w
Cl.
..;,40
<
I0
.
I-
30
I
l III
r
l_
30
1111
20
1111' 0
. 1.
5
10
400 270200
20
''''I
0.00005
0.0001
•'
100
325 230 170 140120
Microns
.
I l
t
I
:a~
I Af
I I I I I I I VI I I I I I
I I I I i l/1 I I I ± 1 I
I
')~
20
~oascole i, '
l
50
eo 70 60
45 40
30
~
16
•s •• 12 10
Si eve S1zes
25 20
t ., ,. ,. 'f, 60'1 ,3~ ' '&;'' '•' •5\o ,, '•' /f, I I '\ ~~ , .,, ~r~,,,, F~ J I ' ·~, .,I .,~o~?o,, •/~~··
0.0
5
0.
I
0.005
Q
0 5
Ql
Optn<t'tg
Fig ure 4.18: S aint Catherin es Sound Grad atio n
l' t t'l' .
I
~ ~.· ! liilllcnlnl
2
*'-
TABLE 4.8:
SAINT CATHERINE SOUND TEST RESULTS
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
2.
Bulk SG
2.56
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.59
3.
Apparent SG
Absorption
2.63
4.
0.9%
SAND EQUIVALENT
47
FINENESS MODULUS
2.47
COLOR
Light Gray or brown
Figure 4.19:
Typical Sample From Saint Catherine Sound
-33-
TABLE 4.9: SAPELO SOUND TEST RESULTS
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
Bulk SG
2.56
2.
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.59
3.
Apparent SG
2.65
4.
Absorption
1.3%
SAND EQUIVALENT
83
FINENESS MODULUS
3.46
COLOR
Light Brown
Figure 4.20:
Sample From Sapelo Sound Showing Shells and Clay Lumps
-34-
GRADING ANALYSIS
Sieve
M1crons
I
10
10
5
400 270 200
20
100
50
f=
--
80 =
~
-
J:f::
~
Vi 60)
I
z
""' 50~
l.)
r.:
""' r=
40f::
...J
cr
~
<
f=
~
0
~
30
-
I00
7'
70
I)
I60
-
0:::
().7.
I
10
5
I
~~nmg
'40
30
'20
I
400 270~bQ
20 .
32~
10
7
I
so 30
16
a7
80 70 60 4!140 3!5 2!1 20 18
14 12 10
100
230 170140120
Sieve
M1crons
i, . i
50
-;I
10
LoqScolt
I
7
=
20_
ose
/
I
I
M
~
:a :..
r
/
90
~
c/
7
7
7
~
-
~
I
100
I-
c/)
V1
·
/
~
f-
z
w
-
- · - - · - · ·-
'-=
(,:)
'li" j
..,.(~
-- ·- ·
.
'
I • 2"
I
~
r=
)
r
"
),_
9
~
S1zes
4
8
16
30
, ,
00000!1
.
1 ,
I
1
QOOOI
•
I
~
P I);'. 13°1 !
1
1
'
,
1 •
1 r 1 •
0,0
Figure 4.21:
!I
1
I
J
'
0.001
1
I
t
!I?1
1
,'~
11
1
1
• 1 •~ 1 I t 1 1
000!1
0
~
1
Sapelo Sound Gradations
I
1
;~~ 1
,
1:
6 5
1
J
.
trH i" ·1·r It 1 ' f2f ~~
I
~
S1zes
0 00
r r1
4
'J ,I
0 5
1
1
1 1I l
0.1
1
1
, ~opo,
I
'
1
Y
~ 1~
I
1
,
I~ I 1 I I 1
I
1
I~~
1 lllk:ranl
' ' }
2
.....
Saint Marys River
Material from this river consists of a very fine sand
with sand equivalent values of about 85 (See Figs. 4.22,
4.23, and Tab l e 4.10).
The sand taken
fro~
the mouth of the
river has an enormous amount of s h e lls present (See Fi g . 4.24).
Saint S i mons Sound
The samples from th is source contain not on l y shell
fragments but cemented sand and shell .
This produces a
relatively high fineness modulus of 3.3 with a sand
equivalent value of 73 (see Fig . 4. 25, 4.26, a n d Table 4.11) .
Continental Shelf
This material is a well graded sand very low in shell
content with specific gravities o f 2 . 58 -2.63.
The sand equi-
valent i s 98 and t he fineness modulus i s 2 . 66 (See Figs . 4.27,
4.28, and Table 4.12) .
Ogeechee River and Ossabaw Sound
This source has large gravel deposits mixed into a
coarse s and.
It is well graded fine aggregate with a
fineness modulus of 4.07
(See Fig . 4.29, 4.30 , and Table 4.1 3) .
-3 6-
TABLE 4.10:
SAINT MARYS RIVER TEST RESULTS
Material Properties
Range of Values
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
Bulk SG
2.61
2.
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.62
3.
Apparent S<;;
Absorption
2.63
4.
0.2%
85
SAND EQUIVALENT
FINENESS MODULUS
1. 38
COLOR
Light Brown
Figure 4.22:
Typical Sample From Saint Marys River
-37-
GRADING AN ALYSIS
M1crons
i
"..J
·"" c
•v
20
10
----
=
·
50
-
-
- ··-·-· -
=
.C:=------·
i=
I=_
--- -
7
-- - ·
~
f:
E.
•I"\
v
z
Vi
(/)
I
r.
w
00
w
I
z
~
I.)
--
a:
Q.
...J
Cl
b1-
r
r • 2'' 2.!' 3"100
.
:
:
.
~
- 90
.:
r- - - E()
-.
.-.
-. 70
.-.-.
.- 60
-
- --
:
-:
---- 50
--
1
I
I
I
t-=
~
40~
t=
ft::
t=
30,_
--- 40
.----- 30
-
I
I=
:
.
20
-.
- 10
-.:
I
20
10
f --
"
..c~~
V.
S1eve S1zes
4
I
:x/
w
,--
8
I
I
.o :
~
1-
I
--
~
16
30
-
- -·
-
0
-·-
roo
400 270 200
:
:
~
~
f-
::
~
o=
I
5
M1crons
~i' ~~,!,.,;,' ',;,:,.,',
o'
10
20 .1
I
I
I
4003.252m2oo
100
so
30
t6 14
230 110~120 ao ro oo 4~ 40 ~ 25 20 1a
12 10
81
6 5
4
Sieve Stzes
J rt ~rH i"
1., ',.''fa:;&;\ ,3~ &),:· '•' ·'I' '•'•' . ·~.,.,.,' ' \br '•' ~f. ,' ...-r;J,' '\'J,' '~~~.....~.r·
ptn1119
Figure 4 , 23:
Saint Marys River Gradations
ri ·r
It' ~ Ij
2f ~=.
''"'l .. /~,·~=
Figure 4.24:
Abundant Amount of Shells Present in Samples Taken
Near Mouth of Saint Marys River
-39-
TABLE 4.11:
SAINT SIMONS SOUND TEST RESULTS
Range of Values
Material Properties
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
Bulk SG
2.49
2.
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.54
3.
Apparent SG
2.63
4.
Absorption
2.2%
'
SAND EQUIVALENT
73
FINENESS MODULUS
3.31
COLOR
Light Gray
Figure 4.25:
Typical Sample From Saint Simons Sound.
-40-
GRADING ANALYSIS
Sieve S1zes
M1cron s
:c
""
I
~
20 '
400 270 200
=-1.~--=1---=l -
-r l
100
50
30
4
"
L-1- .C--.--+----+------+---+
1------+------4· - -+
90
- ~-
-+-----+---+---+~--1
I I t 1' I I I
-+- · -· -
r-·1----~t= -
--+
~-+--~--+-~-
v
I I f l I I I I [II I I
i
~
jso
f
I I I I I I I I II I I I
I
01
70
/
-t
I I I
I I I II ~~
I I I IH.a
I 1 l I I I l V I I I I l I I lR
I I I I I I I If I I I I I I I 111
I I I I I I 1/ I I I I 1 I j I!UIO
30
;
20
I
_l_
5
10
20
Microns
'•
,
, , ' , , •
,•
{
·'
1
1· ,. 11 • 1 1 1 1 1·, •, · •'
50
\
Figure 4. 2 6:
' • ' 1' •' ~ • 1 1 1 't 1 \
5000
'
·'' ·
Micron~
r, ' r ' ,~ I \ ' 1 1 1 '1 1·1 ' • f · '1 'r ' t' I ' 1 ' I · 1 t' • t't ' · J • 't '• ' 1
Saint Simons Sound Gr ad at i o n s
.,_
TABLE 4.12:
CONTINENTAL SHELF TEST RESULTS
Range of Values
Material Properties
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
2.
Bulk SG
2.58
Bulk SG (SSD)
2.60
3.
Apparent SG
2.63
4.
Absorption
0.7%
SAND EQUIVALENT
98
FINENESS MODULUS
2.66
COLOR
Light Brown
Figure 4.27:
Typical Sample From the Continental Shelf of Georgia
-42-
GRADING ANALYSIS
)
JOQ.__
10
·-
-r-- · -
~
'
20
-
- T - -- - -- -,
-,----· - ·
----- 1--·-- f--- - --t------t--t-t
f=
~
90>t=
-;
-- -
I
,1:>.
VJ
I
UJ
u
Q:
--; f
-
~I-
100
~
I I I 390
!
I
I I 300
I
I
I
I
I
I I 170
I··
I
I
I
I
-
~
z
-~
-
I
I
w~
1-
I
~ - J---+
--
z
(/)
(/)
./
~
__,
c:-
(!)
P
78
/
/
-{_
-- --- _
-+----+---__._
+
70i
I
--+
)---~·- · ---
-- - - 1- - · -
·------r·
-- -
t=
t
f=
BOt:------·-- +-----+r---- - -- + --- ---+ -- +--
---
s, zes
Sieve
M1crons
-~~---.:/-
IE~
~
I
UJ
'l.
...I
<(
I
~I_
1-
~I
-t=
~I
~
t-
0
0
~
=
5
I
10
20
400 210 200
Ail'~~~
--
I
::•20
II10
____...
:
l
50
30
16
14 12 10
e7 6
5
4
J
~
li rrH i.
Sieve S1zes
50
1
000005
100
I
I
"~
:
::
::I;30
I
I
I
32~ z30 110140120 so 10 so 45 40 3!1 25 20 1s
M1crons
L oq ScoIe
'~
I
b
I
5000
0.0001
:n '* ~ I f2i ~lr::.
l*crani
....
Open1n9
Figure 4.28:
Continental Shelf Gradations (C-8)
TABLE 4.13:
Ogeechee River and Ossabaw Sound Test Results
Range of Values
Material Properties
SPECIFIC GRAVITIES
1.
Bulk SG
2.59
2.
2.61
3.
Bulk SG (SSD)
Apparent SG
2.63
4.
Absorption
0.58%
SAND EQUIVALENT
95
FINENESS MODULUS
4.07
COLOR
Light Brown
Figure 4.29:
Typical Sample From the Ogeechee River and Ossabaw
Sound Area
-44-
GRADING ANALYSIS
~
I
)01~-
F
1-:
90 t=
t=f-:- ·
80 - - --
5
--
-
10
;---
-
20
400 270 200
100
30
50
- --- - - r--·
-- -·-
- --
- r--
16
- --
r-
-
-·
/
--
-·---- .
- ·---
--· - .
·-
-
-- . -·
-
~
,_
Vl
60 -~
Vi
I
~
Ul
I
~
1/
-
u
a:
--
LoJ
I
CL.
...J
40
I00
I
70
60
50
I
40
J)
""
1-
0
1-
30
I
t=
20
--
j_
5v :
~
I
I
30
20
f(
t:
00
'
90
J
-
f-
z
I ' 2" 2f" 3
A1-'
/'~-'
1-
LoJ
~~
/
·- - ,._ I
78
z
..
'fl'
- - - f - -··
.-
- --- - -
·--
..:.
S1eve S1zes
4
8
;~
10
"I
t'\
5
10
20
Midons
k:~;"
II 0
/
, (~~ p
j
400'\70,270.~
100
50
30
16 14
730 170140 1:>0 An 10 o:;n •~ 4l'l '~ :>~:on l A
1:> 1n
a
7 f.
~
4
J
_
l
ti frH f i1 r lt"t
Si eve S1zes
i
.
I~2f
!=
~'C:.
:,,:,;,,' 'oObo, ,. l '• ',.''t;;Q Xbbo~ '•' '!' '•'•' .~.J.i ' I;!;' ' '' ~f., ' •' I'~J, 'J,' ' I'"('~. ' ,.·~0\ '' ,. ''i ' '·'?fl·'
I ,,
pe n1n9
Figur e 4 . 3 0:
Ogeechee River and Ossabaw Sound Gradation
I
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION OF RESULTS
Comparisons with Presently Used Materials
The basis for evaluating the samples tested was a comparison of the test results with existing standard specifications for sands and gravels.
These specifications are not
unique but depend primarily upon the user of the sand and grav el.
A primary user of sands and gravels in Georgia is the State
Department of Transportation.
The Department of Transportation
maintains a list of approved sources o f sands and gravels
throughout the state for use in asphalt or portland cement
concrete for highway construction.
The sources used by the
Department of Transportation are routinely tested to insure
a quality product.
Further, the sources checked routinely
by the Department of Transportation are the large sand and
gravel operations in the state.
The small mining operations
are being checked as required when a particular site is being
considered for use in highway construction (see Appendix A for
the Georgia State Department of Transportation list of approved
fine aggregate sources and their locations).
The fine aggregate sources approved by the Department of
Transportation near the coastal regions of Georgia normally have
specific gravities of 2.60 to 2.65, absorptions of 0.0 % to 0.5 %,
sand equivalents ranging from 85 - 100, and fineness modulus of
-46-
about 2.50.
These values are typical for sources in the coastal
region but are not the minimum limits accepted by the Georgia
Department of Transportation.
The samples evaluated in this study can be categorized
by the amount of shell present and the fineness of the sand.
The upper river regions which are not affected by the ocean
currents and tides have no shell present, whereas the sources
obtained from the mouths of the rivers or sounds generally have
an abundance of shell present.
An evaluation of each individual
source is given in the following paragraphs.
Altamaha River:
The samples obtained from A-1 to A-23 are uni-
form graded sands with specifications that very closely relate
to sources approved by the Georgia Department of Transportation.
Samples taken beyond A-23 become finer in texture, with an abundance of shell present.
This large source of sand could be an
excellent substitute for the sands being used by the Georgia
Department of Transportation.
Ogeechee River:
The samples running from 0-1 to 0-14 are extremely
fine white sands which are retained primarily on the #100 and
#200 sieves.
Potential problems with these sands are the layers
of clayey sands which run throughout the river.
Beyond sample
0-14 shells are present and the sands get finer which often causes
the sand equivalent to go below 75.
Satilla River:
This source is very similar to the Ogeechee River
except for a higher absorption, usually greater than 1.0%.
were not found until location S-10 was reached.
-47-
Shells
Dobey Sound:
This material is a mixture of different textured
sands ranging f rom fine to coarse but general l y containing shell
fragments.
The variations in samples indicate that quality con-
trol would be difficult to achieve since sand equivalent values
range from 50-95.
Wassaw and Saint Catherines sounds:
The presence of large amounts
of sizable shells and fragments in very fine sand would probably
make this material undesirable for construction.
This is true
despite the fact that the sand equivalent values are generally
greater than 50 in these areas making the sources acceptabl e by
the Georgia Department of Transportation standards.
Sapelo Sound:
Thes e sands are generally coarse and there is an
abundance of shells and clayey layers running throughout the
source.
Methods of separation would have to be employed to
make this source usable.
Saint Marys River:
This source would be acceptable by the
Georgia Department of Transportation as a construction material .
Saint Simons Sound:
He r e i s a mixture of gravel, shel l, and
sand which could be a suitable source depending on the she ll
content.
A limited number of samples were taken in this area;
therefore, the results are somewhat speculative.
Continental Shelf:
This source provided a medium coarse sand,
un iformly graded with very little shell present.
This source
could meet standards set by the Georgia Department of Transportation
and other users.
-48-
Ogeechee River and Ossabaw Sound:
These samples (0-19) are
isolated casesof well-graded pea gravel and sand.
This area will
definitely have to be sampled further to determine the extent of
this deposit.
Summary:
A review of the aggregates tested indicates that those
sands containing shell would probably be unfeasible to use.
The
shell present in all sources was of a friable nature with a
tendency to reduce the sand equivalency below 75.
It is ap-
parent that a need to maintain a uniform grade and quality of
sand and gravel will necessitate using the larger areas or
sources.
These areas will most probably be the upper river areas
since they provide the most uniform sand quality and shell is not
present.
The other areas to avoid are those sources that have
layered clay stratas running intermittently through the source.
Judging from the test results as well as a desire to obtain
the materials by the most economic means, the most promising
areas for continued research and investigation are given below
in order of importance:
l.
Upper Altamaha River
2.
Upper Ogeechee River
3.
Upper Satilla River
4.
Upper St. Marys River
5.
Saint Simons sound
6.
Continental Shelf
7.
Ogeechee and Ossabaw Sound Area (0-19)
8.
Doboy Sound
-49-
Potentia l Uses
Th e principa l uses of these new sand ar.c gravel s ources
wou ld probably be in the area of highway o r airfield constructi n:1 .
In addition, these s ands could be used for industrial purposes
and beach replenishment.
Sands used for g lass norma ll y must have at lea s t 93 %
silica content for co ntai n e r g lass and ovAr 99 % silica c o nt e n t
for optical g la ss (3] .
be
s ue~
The g radation of suitabl e sa nd mu st
t l;at it passes the #30 sieve a nd is retained on t h e
#40 to #270 sieve depending upon its use [l].
Coarser sands
can be used for industrial purposes such as abrasive sands where
the criteria is that they pass the #12 s ieve but be retained
on the #40 sieve.
The use of sand for beach replenishment is mainly concerned
with the economics of obtaining the sand; but as a general
rule, the new material added to the beac h should he coarser
than the sand be ing r eplenished (3].
Sands from t he Ogeechee and Satilla Rivers should be considered for futur e prospects as sources for indu strial sands .
Sands from the Altamaha and Saint Marys Rivers, Doboy and Sai nt
Simons Sounds and the Continental Shelf should be consid e r e d as
good prospects for constr uction sands, abrasive sands and beach
replenishment sands.
Fe asibility of Obtaining Materials
The feasibilit y of obtaining and using the materials
-so-
studied in this report will depend on three factors:
1.
Depth o f wate r of operation
2.
Quantity and quality of sand and
3.
Proximity to suitabl e transportation facilities
~ravel
The depth of water in which the rnininq operation is
tak ing place will affect the choices of mining equipment to
b e used.
The two basic types of dredqes f o r
rninin ~
sands are
the mechanical dredges which pick up and l ift mat e ria l s b y
means of various type buckets and shov e ls and the hydraulic
dredges which utilize centrifugal pumps which move a slurry
of water and sand [71.
Tables 5 .1 and 5 . 2 show the various
mechan ica l dredges and hydraulic dredges in use today with
their working characteristics outlined.
The quantity and quality of sand ava i labl e will dictate
the feasibility of moving in and setting up an operation which
will be efficient and econom i c .
The quant ity o f mat e rial
available at the site will have to be l arge enou gh in volume
to al low efficient operating conditions and include an allowance for natural replenishment of the bottom mate r ial .
7 here fore ,
estimates of the amount of replenishment would probably be needed
before setting up a p l a nt.
For example , in the Savannah River
area, the Corps of Engineers annually dredges the high shoal
area of the harbor t o maintain navigationa l depths in the channel .
The vo lume of sand dredged is approximatel y 400,000 to 500,000
cubic yards per month [9] •
This volume of sand is the amount
which is carried downstream i n bed loads which c ould then
-51-
TABLE 5. 1:
Dredge type
(1)
Dredging principle
1-~orizontal
working force
dredge
Anchoring while working
O'l
Effect of sw.:lls and waves
:'viaterial transrort
I
Ul
N
I
Dredged material density
Comments
Dragline
O!l
barge
(2)
Scrapes off material by
pulling si ngle bucket over
it toward stat ion<ry
crane. Lifts bucket and
deposits dredged material
in a corvcyance or on a
bank.
Medium intermittent force
toward huck!·!.
Dragline crane can be on
shore or on barge. If on
barge, l:nter can be
secured with spuds or
anchors.
Can work up to moderate
swe ll s and waves
Tran~port occurs in barges,
trucks, or car~. Crane
does not transport
material. Materd
disposal occ urs in many
ways .
Approaches in-place density
in mud and silt.
ApprotKhcs dry density
in coarser material.
The term "dredge" is
questionable for this
machine. ~in..:e it is not
exclusively bu ilt for
underwarer e .~cavation
and is frequently used for
material removal above
water. It i' suitable for
ail but the hardest
material aml has a low
productio:-~ for :ts size.
MECHANICAL DREDGES
Dipper dredge
Clam shell or orange peel bucket dredge
(3)
(4)
P.nrlless chain bucket dredge
(5)
Breaks off material by
forcing cutting edge of
single shove l into it while
dredge is stationary . Lifts
shovel and deposits
dredged material in a
conveyance or on a bank.
Hrgh very intermittent force
aw:1y from bucket.
Several h~avy spLtds.
Removes material by forcing opposing
bucket edges into it while dredge is
stationary. Lifts bucket and deposits
dredged material in a conve yance or on
a bank.
Very sensitive to swel ls and
waves.
Transport occurs in barges,
trucks, or cars; dredge
does not transport
material. Material
disposal occurs in many
ways.
Approac hes in-place density
in mud and silt.
Approaches dry density
in coarser material.
Spec ial hard material
dredge of simple
principle. Rudimentary
machine ca n be
asst>mb led for temporary
service by placing p<)wer
shovel un spud barge.
Low production fvr size
of plant u;,d inve~tr.1cnt.
Can work up to moderate swells and
waves.
Transport occurs in barges, trucks . or
cars; dredge does not transport material.
Material disposal occurs in many ways.
Removes material by forcing single cutting
euge of successive bucket:; into mar erial
while dredge is slow ly moved between
anchors. Lifts buckets and deposits
dredged material in a barge or own
hoppe1 .
Medium constant force away from buc'<et.
No forces.
I
I Several anchors.
Several spuds or anchors.
Very sensitive to swells and waves.
Transport nvrmally occurs in harges.
Dredges equipped with hoppers are
limited to material disposal by bottom
dumping.
Approaches in-place density in mud and
silt. Approaches dry density in coarser
material.
Approaches in-place density in mud and
silt. Approaches dry density in coarser
material.
This machine is simp le in principle . It can
be assemb led in rudim.: ntary fo rm for
temporary service by placing a cmne on
a barge . It is suit:Jble for all b~t the
hardc~t materials and has a low
production for its '>IZe.
Highly deve loped machine. Not used in
United States (other than as part of
minrng plani), but used exte nsively in
other countries. lt i' suitabie for .Ji l but
the hard<'>t ro!:tterials and has a high
production for it~ ,ize .
()ilhoutted outEne
·---l,j,
~~~~---.q~~
:~-
~============
8.
_a;;71[
•
··---=-·'W~-,TVI~.._,r>~t\.,._,...
--1
--:.--=--===-==:. :::;_'
U. S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbook, 1972.
--.~t~=-'
~=--=-··-==-=
TABLE 5.2 :
Dredge type
Cutterhead dredge
Dustpan dredge
Hopper dredge
Sidecasting dredge
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Dredging principle
Material is removed with a
rotary cutter (or plain
suction inlet in light
material) picked up with
dilution water by the
suction pipe , and
transported through the
pump and the di sc harge
line . Whik working,
dredr:c swings around
spud tc:>ward an an.:hor.
Med ium intermittent force
opposing swing to side.
Horizontal working force
on dredge
Anchoring while working
I
U1
w
I
HYDRAULIC DREDGES
Two spuds and two swing
an-::hors (one working
spud and one walking
spud) .
Effect of swells and waves Very sensitive to swells and
waves.
Transport occurs in
Mater;al transporr
pipeline . Length of
di ~c harge line depends on
available power , but can
be extended with booster
pump units to a total
length of several miles .
Dredgt'd material density I Dilu ted to a n average of
1,200 g / l.
I Highly developed machine
Comments
with intr ic:lle horizontal
mov ing procedure used
throughou t the world .
Suitable for all but very
ha rd mate rials. High
produ ctio n for size of
pl ant.
Siltwuttcd outline
I
I
Material is removed with
water jets, picked up by
a v·ide but shallow
suction opening and
transported through the
pump and the discharge
line . While working,
dredge is slowly pulled
towa rd two anchored
spuds or ancfJors .
Material is removed and picked up
Material is removed and picked up
together with dilution water by draghead
together with dilution water by draghead
sliding over bottom and flows through
siiding over bottom (or stationary) and
suction piping, pump, and discharge arm
flows through suction piping, pump, and
over side of vessel back into the water .
discharge piping into hoppers of vessel.
Medium constant force
opposing forward
movement.
Two spuds or anchors
secured upstream while
working.
Slight constant force opposing forward
movement.
Slight constant force opposing forward
movement.
Dredge moves under own power to dig a
channel or is anchored to dig a hole .
Dredge moves under own power to dig a
channel.
Little affected by swells and waves.
Little affected by swells and waves .
After material is in hoppers, transport is
over any suitable waterway . Material
can be bottom dumped or pumped out
(if so equipped) . Pumpout is si milar to
pipeline dredge operation.
Transport occurs in pipeline on discharge
boom over side of dredge . Material
discha rges into adjacent water.
DiluteJ to an a verage of I ,200 g/ 1.
Dtluted to an a verage of I ,200 g /L
Highl y deve loped mac hine used
throughout the world. Suitable for all
but very hard matcriab . Produc tion
depend s on traveling time to dump and
mode of disc harge.
Spec ial ~ a nd dredge . Sand transport is
li mtted to length of di scharge boom.
Used tn coa. ta l inlets or where material
d ischarge into water is not
objectionable . nigh production for size
of plant.
' Very sensitive t0 swells and
waves .
Transport occurs in
pontoon supported
pipeline to side of
dredge. Spoil discharges
iPto water. Booster pump
un its are not used with
th is plant.
Diluted to an average of
1,200 g / 1.
Special sand dredge used
onl y in United Sta:es in
M i~s is~ippi River .
Floating line is po,itioned
wi th rudder in di scharge
strea m. High production
for size of plant .
=--~
========~-~
8.
u. s.
Bureau of Mines, Hi ner a l
' ~ca :.- )(
1
ok , l
lt
12 .
-- ----
replenish dredging sites.
The quality of aggregate from each
operation site should be uniform enough that continuous sample
testing is not necessary.
This wil l insure adequate q uality
control and allow for continuous operation without chanqinq
locations.
The proximity of the dredging sites to transportation
facilities will affect the economics of the dredgin g site.
It is obvious that n o t all dredging operations will be near
enough to roads and highways to allow for direct loading of
sands and gravels into trucks.
This is a major factor in
deciding upon the site location; however, an increase in
utilization of waterways would improve the feasibility of
remote dredging sites.
Such sites would be ideal for beach
replenishment operations utilizing the new split-hull barges
which can unload themselves in desig nated areas in just seconds [6].
The dredging sites and operations in the areas of sampling
would be under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Savannah District.
All future endeavors of operating dredging
facilities in these waters would have to comply with the rules
and regulations under:
"App lication For Department of the Army
Pemits For Activities in Waterways" [12].
-54-
CHAPTER 6
Cot~CLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATI ONS
The sources of materials sampled and tested i ndicate
that there is an abundant quantity of quality sands and
gravels in the coastal regions of Ge o rgia availabl e and
suitable for commercial uses.
The ability o f p otential us c::-s
to economically mine these Georgia r esources will depe nd
on future trends i n the fields of:
1 ) mining technology,
2) development of me thods for locating and testinq prospective
depos its, and 3) adherence to the rul es a nd regulations set
forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .
It is rec ommended
that consideration be g iven to an indepth study in order to
determine more precisely the potential uses of sands and
gravels obtained from the coastal r e gions of Geo rgia.
The
study should include an evaluation of the coastal materials
when blended with quality crushed stone or asphalt and portland cements .
-55-
REFERENCES
l.
Private Conununication with Dawes Silica !1 ininq Co.,
August, 1974.
2.
Harding, James L., and Woolsey, ,J. R., '' Geophy sical
Investigation of the Potential Agqreqatc Resources in
the Georgia Coastal Area", Skidawa y Institute Progress
Report, 1972-1973.
3.
Harding, James L., and Woolsey, J.R., "Geophysical
Investigation of the Potential Aqgr ~q ate Resources in
the Georgia Coastal Area'', Skidaway I n s t itute Progress
Report, 1973-1974.
4.
Harding, James, and Woolsey, J. R.,
5.
Hicks, R. G., "Possible Replacement for conventional
Aggregates for Highway Construction", Presented t o the
Georgia Asphalt Paving Association, Sea Island, Ga., 1974.
6.
The Marine Newsletter, "Sand Transporter Being Tested in
North Carolina," Vol. 5, No. 4, July, Auq. 1974.
7.
Mohr, Adolph w., "Development and Future of Dredging",
Journal of the Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering
Division, May 1974.
8.
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Yearbook, 1972.
9.
Private Communication with Mr. Bill Young, Corps of
Engineers, Savannah District, August, 1974.
(Main reports), 1974.
10.
Part 10, Aggregates, Manual of Test, American Society of
Testing and Haterials, 1972.
11.
Sampling Testing and Inspection Manual, Georgia Department
of Transportation, Division of Materials and Test, Vol. 1 .
12.
U. S. Army Engineers' District, Savannah, "Application for
Department of the Army Permits for Activities in Waterways •,
Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia, 1974.
13.
Special Provisions to Standard Specifications April 1972
Construction, Section 400, Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete
Construction, Georgia Department of Transportation, September
18, 1974.
-56-
APPENDIX A
GEORGIA D.O.T. FINE AGGREGATE
SOURCES AND LOCATIONS
- 57-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE OF GEORGIA
ltHERDEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
FILF
~ ATE
FROM
Tom Stapler , Sta te
TO
ALL DISTRICT
S UBJECT
La borator y Memor andum N0. 101-1 4
Fine Aggre gate Sourc~s
lf i ,~hway
.January 31, 197.'+
.-;ater:i.a l s En5int•.;;r
ENCINE ~RS
Reference i s made to Sampling Proc e dures for Fine Aggr egate,
GSP-3, as contained in the Sampling, Test ing and In s pec tion Manua l
and especially t o the first par agraph r e lative to a list of ap proved
sources of fine aggregate.
Attache d for your information and guidance is a copy of our
latest list of fine aggregate sourc es which have bee n tes ted and
found to mee t the requirements of Artic le 801 .02 .
Your attention is invi ted t o Sect i on 6 which pro vides that the
approval of preliminary samples does not o bli gate the Engineer to
accept materials f rom the same source delivered later . I t furthe r
provides that only the materials actually samp l ed by authorized
inspectors will be considered for fi na l acceptance, and their
acceptance or rejec tion will be based on the result s o f tests pr escribe d in the Spec ifications.
Sourc e s providing size No . 20 mortar sand which have met r equi re ments under Article 801 .02 are shown under the "Remarks" column.
~~
,4~~
Tom Staple , P. E.
State Highway Materials Engineer
TS:PM:sc
cc:
F. L. Canup (100); George J. Lyons (50); Roy E. Brogdon (35);
John w. Wade, Jr. (50); Earl Olson (50); T. s. McKenzi e , J r. (50 ) ;
Alt on L. Dowd, Jr. (40); Thomas D. Morel and; J ohn M. Wilkerson, Jr.,
Albert S. Mosely; James D. McGee; Hal Rives; Tom Kratzer; Earl Tyre;
c. H. Breedlove (10); Lewis E. Parker; R. L. Chapman, Jr. , (3);
Al Wiggers; Housing & Ins t i tutional Sanitation Service; Hoyt E. Ro binson;
Sanford Darby; Dept. of Mine s; FHWA; GHCA; AGC; C~SA; J . E. Addison;
Each Producer Listed
- 58 -
.i : •:
I.
I ' ':
: ·
1
LADORf,TO RY HnlORANDUM No. 101 - 1..;
Lis t o f Fine Aggrega te s source£ of s i z e No. 10 sand for use in Portland cement conc rete, Whi c h Have meL
Quality Requirements o f Arti c l e 9 01 . ~2 .
Prepared in Acc ordan ce wi t h sam p l i ng Proc Pdl>re~ f o r Fine Aqqrega tee, GSP-3.
(The
;:::.:. :;;c:::~
: ::~: : ~ ~
C?
~ pe c ific
.; !'~c
SOUR:~
I ~~p II
KEY
Alexander Sand Co .
J ones, ca .
I
V1
'..0
I
Altamaha Sand Co.
Fo r est Pond, Ga.
Atlanta Sand & Supply Co.
gravities
~how n
are applic able o nly for
TYPE AND
CHARACT!::R
Of'
All uvial Sand
; 71
Al luvi al Sand
I
;
Burke Pit
Gaillard , Geor2ia
I
12
AG::..
GROUP
9ULK
I
Alluvial sand
2.63 2. &4
II
II
S. S . D.
2 .6 4 z. o 4
II
I
I'
in the =a lc u lation of a po rt land c ement ronc r ete mix.)
I
S PECIF IC GRAVITY
~:A'!'l.:RIAL
45
I I
I !
u ~e
I
APP.
2. 65
_j_
.,. I
2.& 5
Augusta sand & Grave l Co .
C leano~a te r, s. c .
Brown Bro t here Sand Company
J un c ti o n cit:~::. a eor9ia
77
' )
I
; 5
2. 6 3
II
2.6 1
2.62
Alluvial Sand
II
2 . 63
2 .~
II
2. 621
2. 63
I
I
! l : . ;· ~. :
;:)!;.
:.
'
"
~-
' '"'"
·i
2 .2 4 0
]98 ;
;-
i
I
I
I
1
~9
-~
No
'
No
i
No
I
I
Note 1
i
Alluvial sand
/ Al luvi a l s and
- - - - - c - - - - - - - . -- -- --
~
'.1.:\_!! i..:!.:_ • ..: :____:_-_:..:_·_ .. ! ~. :_: ~,;. ;-,- -
22
I
---
2.&5 I
37
2.64
-11
I
New Allo n P i t
Gaillard, Georgia
.•
c.;_,/": .
SOR.P.
~-- I
I
2.62
----·.··---...u --
l~ .
)fJ
--·
'
84
1
2 . 100
T·--~---
I I
192 II
I
~13~----; ...?.:2.0~-~-~-----No_ _ _
I
j .... iu.
t. 2. ;-, t)2
Ill ~
--~
- --
K
:>. :?.2
~ ~,
/ . •' ) 1
J.!:.::__
-tc· l
N:>
---- --r---··
; a~
.-
-1--
_
~c.:_
~~ . •l '
:-::-
_____
,j ·.,, l t ·•· ·r·
Page 2
LABORATORY ME:-lORA!\'DU~l No.
1 ::'\ 1 ~ 1-1
? : ~~ ~ ~: ~ R. •.t. ~: D
Ca lhoun sa1d & Gr a ve l co .
Columbus, Ga.
I
"'I
0
F l anders Pit
Sco t land, Ga.
Consolidated Gravel &
Pi,ee corn,ean:t
Dixieland
•
A l
nura~i lity
~
"''
Factor
8
2 . 1"7
\'f'E
Januar y 3 1,
page 3
1 ')7 ~
LABORATORY MEMORANDUM No . 10 l-14
PRODUCER AI\D
LOCATION OF SOURCE
TYPE AND
CHARACTER
OF MATERIAL
MA
KE
AGG.
GROUP
SAND
%
BULK
EQV .
ABSORP.
l
F JriENESS
l
~
APPROVE D
QUALITY
COI\TROL
RE._MA~KS
VAI.!JF: .J·lODULUS __DF*
Cornell- Young _ (c ont.)
Franklinton , Ga.
Tobesofkee Creek
119 1
1
Alluvial S a nd
Alluvial Sand
20
II
1".56 1 2.5 'l J 2.5 q
II
I ~.61 I
II
1 2 . 6 3 1 2. 6 4
~-=.E.._ - ~- '.J--1-2- 2.3~--W-Wy, t~. ~ -. SO
2. 6 ~
2 . '>2
~ .
8 .>
91
-l 5 5
~ c> l e 1 - ~ ~---
c o uch Construc tion Co.
I
Columbia, Al a .
0'1
t-'
I
L.
c.
Curtis & Son
Oconee River. South
of Watkins vi lle , Ga.
rl
22 t
I
Alluvial Sand
Alluv i al a nd
Re s idual sand
II
2.';'l_
I
2 . 67
< . 00
I
2. 6S
2.6 4
I
l. 2 6
- ...!.. . . _?]_j ..
_ _,_21_ ___
87
~
2 . 44 8_
~ -~-
_1 92 I
--2.4
-- --9 3 - ·. ~ -
1 - ~- -
Da l ton Rock P roducts
Cleveland, Tenn.
4
Dalton, Ga.
qa
I
t
Davidson Mineral Properties .
In c .
Lithonia, Ga.
1o l _j
(limes t one) Man u
fa c tur e d Sa nd
(limesto ne) Ma n u
fa c tured sand
I
2 . 70
.?..~
-
(Bi o tite Granite
Gneis s )
Manufactured
s and
6..:.._
?_. 7 3
2. 71
2. ;:;
J_r_r_.12. 6 1 -l- 2 . 0 2 I I. • •;-,_
_._7 9 -
..
.. 3
-!
-- .·-i--·
-
3 -1
__,_2_0__-
"l ·-
t _7......:_o_4__
7.
-,~t ~?~~_2 __1_ ~!.
:·r )-
:::._~_
*
Durab ili t y Facto r
23
Alluvial S a nd
II
I 2. 6U
J .._-'>_lj_1...:.i >..J .. .·Y· .. --
··...:t_~l__L -~-;. -- -
!
:' .
'J
Dawes Silic a Mining co .
Albany, Ga.
-- -
~ l
~::._-
J
·tl
') 7
..I!£__ _ _
~<: ~<
l
1
No
_
I
1 . • 1.: ·
Pa g e 4
LABORATORY
;: ?. .:-, : l: :-~ 9.
: : : ~: : c ~
C?
~lAP !
;;:-~n
SO ~RC£
nawes Silica Mining company
(Cont.)
Eden, Georgia
' ><ICY
24
I
MEMORA!'.'DL'~·I
No.
l~
1- 1_ ~
TYPE M; o
CP.;.. ;:l.A CT'3
OF
~t:•T c: a;: ;,L
!
!Alluvial Sand
2.62
II
2.63
AL_____;
.31
2.54
i
I
!
No
2 - j 13
I
I
C1'l
I:\)
I
Forest Pond, Georgia
Th~noill•,
GOO'"''
The Deerfield sand & Mingin
Tillman, S.C .
25
i 26
Allooi•l . . .,
'28
Alluvial Sand
cloxtoo, Ga .
Evans concrete co .
Dais y , Ga.
Flint Concrete Products Co.
Bainbridge, Ga.
• Durability Factor
2.63
II
II
2.62
2 . 63
2.63
2.64
97
.22
I
2.64
I
.32
co~j!
Dixie sand & Gravel co .
Chattanoo~. Tenn.
Eason-Kennedy Sand Co.
!Alluvial sand
II
.
2.62
2 . 63
2.65
. 36
L
I
31
!Alluvial Sand
I
I
I
34
35
IAllooial Saod
!
I
I
rAlluvial sand
J
!Alluvial Sand
\
2.59
.
II
11
2 . 62
2. 6 4
2. &3 _
2.C> 4__1
I
2 . 1) 4 1 : . 6 5 ;
, ·-~
]2 .631 2 .. &4
~'-'--.1 6
I
2 . 41'
J
BZ.
_ _ __:"! . ilP
r~'-"
---- ~
i
No
I
.
No
I
9B
'
Yc ~
I
[.
-·
90
-"-"-----
1
1
2 .44 )
_;7
-~- --~ --
L2!J___ g-, __j__?~
J ..:2.l .
1
I
·~
. :l
t:i
- ---------·-
No
'
19"> j No te 1
......£.._ 1 2. -197
_!:!:~
_
In i"""
2. 138
i
--r
1_ . ..'::_ 1
2 .. ')S
I
II
1
137
2 . 55
II
B3
i' 99
'
I
No t "' 1
/ HlO : Note 1
--~~~~--
I
I
No
.; , ~
. .-..: .:; t·y
· l.
·•
pag e 5
LABOAA1'0RY
l·1£~10AANDW1
NO .
l C, 1- 1.;
. -; - - ..._....
.-.:.
, '\,.
;: ·: ::.:.::::J. .;~~c
!~P
....
-. - -- -
--~ ·....:-..:..:....;.....
I
Gainesville . Stone co .
Athens, Ga .
--- -
:
'l4
2. 79 9
No
83
I
........1., 87 s
No
- - -!
0'\
w
I
Howard s and c o.
~Lee~burg
I :
I
i
2' 313
~I
No
sand co .
Leesbu rg , Georgia
•.-~
N:·
Ma rtin-Mari etta Agg r egates
camak, Georgia
Mc Lanaha n c r us hed S tone
Company, Inc.
Elberto n , Geo rgia
2 . 58
I
49
_____j
93
''
No
Montg o me r y I nd.
Mt . ve r non . Gec rqia
• Dura hi l i ty Fa c- tt' r
-'-·.....:!!:.!___ _ _ _
J
i \ · 'L'. ~ cl ~ ·~·
Page 6
r.;..;:,Q;<,::..TORY MEMORANDUM ~; o ,
~ :-:.:~L·~~~
.. ..._. -·
.-.. .. . 1.1
:y
I
0'1
~
I
~Y:E ~~~
~J!.:,:<r\~--~
I
I A..,o.,.
r-
OF :-U\TI.:RIAL
I
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
S . S.D.
_,
APP.
I
•
Rabun Quarries, Inc.
I
Dillard, Georgia
Alluvial Sand
!
(Porphyritic
Granite Gneiss)
Manufactured Sand
I
II
i
12.63_12.64
.23
2.65
j
II
2. 6 4
2.65
2.67
· ·
9
I'
Santee Sand company
Nahunta, Georgia
90
Scruggs concrete co.
Hahira, Georgia
*
Durability Fa ct or
1
i89
I
IAl'"'''' S'"d
I
I
1
I
!Alluvial sand
I
I
l
I
II
2.'2
2.&]
I
II
!Alluvial sand _j__I_I_ _
12. 6 5
i
!
.
I
' 2.291
i l OO! Note l
!
j
:
j
2.65
2. 66
__..:.l.!___
J
! 2 . S-1__1_2.- ,-,~ ! 2. 65
:
i
92
~
--~-:-=-;-:::-:_:-_
::;r - c<': ·:. ;.:-·:. - -··::-..::_: _ -
I
I
'J l
l.
;
2. 75r)
+.
I
:
!
193 I
I
I
.
f-"·'.L..-i-8.Y__J...U.e.l~---l11- !NoC• 1
'
l
l
I
I
: 2.50
,.
.4 5
I
I
-~- ~~-,---~-
_J/ .
I F .... .. .. .. ..
_',!o_LCJF_ , __:_~;~c;~~~ :,:_.=_ ~-
Ij
1
f
I~-~:.·~;[;
;,B.:;ORP.
I
'I
Pafford Sand & Hauling co.
S•tilla River, North of
Waycross, Georgia
'l
I
GROUP : BULK
l ~ 1-1 -.;
!
1 00
I
i 100 i
No
·
NO
I
!I
No
i
No
:.?_._2_Q5_~·~: ------~----
!__'l_'1______
____,_!.:!_ _ _
2 .144
I
I
J ar.u ar ·1• _I ].
Page 7
LABORATORY ND\ORANDUM No.
--w -•o -
-~~~.:._~:.....~c.::.~
-·~~·-· . _Q_, 0:
TYPE AND
AND
SOURCE
MAP
KEY
I
'l"l:"
cHA~ c •.•R
0'1
U1
Keysto ne Heights , Fla.
AG~.
OF .·L-'\TE RIAL
Shands & Baker
I
I
I
GR~.-UP
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
"
_
-ULK
I
S. 5 . D.
1 0 l- 1 4
j2 .6Jj 2.64
2.65
. 27
2. t; 3
2 .6 4
• 3.;
1 II
81
Alluv ial Sand
II
I
I
I
• •""" "-"'('
I ;
~
86
Smith sand company
I
89
2.808
162
All uvi al sand
II
2. 6 2
2. 63
2.65
t-~- -r'
il3___
j91
/All uv ial Sand
Vulcan Material5 company
Li berty, S. c.
• Du rability Factor
I lI
I
;
.
j64
84
(l ime s tone ) Manufact~ red sa~d
(Gra n J.te GneJ.ss)
Manufacture d sand
!
j II
II
I
I
II
j 2.62/ 2. 6J
j2.6')
j
,
No
NO
_1 94
'I
.:..!-";-:;.::: ·:
"••• • •-• •
::·~: : .: ;
I -'- ..-,,. . -
;.
~-+94
I
I
--- ~
I
.
The Concrete Company
Chattanooga , Tenn.
:
I !I
.i
.• _2.
•
Columbus, Georgia
I
-- ...-~ -.
.~: :::>..
I
Taylor c ounty Sand Company
Junction city, Georgia
1 ~ -· !
_ _-c • · ili..
2.03786
I
2.62
i
I
i H :~:~-- 1·_-· S
i
I
So p e rton. Georgia
, - -- -- - - ,
VnL"~- .~G~~LLS
,._':·; .
ASSORP .
I
jAlluvial sand
,_ , ,. 1
~
!
[79
£A~: D
~
AP P .
!
: L"·l
_ _
I
I
i
.4>
---:·----r-·----·- --
g4
; 2 . l ("ll
-- ~--
__
I 96
·
No
....-
NO
--
NO
_
1
I 2 . HI
2.66
i
2 - 76
j2. 80---!
2. 6~~~
. 72
I
<:!0 - - - ·
. :.'>1.__ . l -~2.._
..__
:> :.q~-- ; 84 /No te 2
2_:2._'t;_
; 92
I
Jiu:;.~ary
31 , i,')7 .1
pag e 3
LABORATORY MEMORANDUM No. 101- 14
PRODUCE R AND
LOCATI ON OF SOURCE
MAP
KEY
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
TYPE AND
CHARACTER
OF MATERIAL
AGG .
GROUP
%
BULK
s .s.n.
APP.
ABSORP .
SAND
EQV .
VALUE
FINENESS
MODULUS
DF*
REMARKS
Note 1
APPROVED
QUALITY
CONTROL
vul c an Ma teri als (cont.)
Shorter, Al abama
Wal~er
I
0'1
0'1
I
65
Alluvial sand
II
2 . 62
2 . 63
2 . 65
. 42
'lO
2 C. ll
as
69
Alluvial Sand
Il
2.63
2 . 64
2 .65
.2 5
90
2.334
97
92
All uvi al Sa nd
_n
2.61
2. 6Z _
2.65
_. _f)2
87
2 ._74 1__
~!
0
ye~
Sand Company
Lumber City, Georqia
No
webb s and company
Heflin, Alabama
--
- - ----- L.-
__ - -
--
No _
-
* Durability Facto r
No te 1, No. 20 Mortar Sand from these sources has been tested and found t o meet all quality
Note 2 , Li mesto ne sand ma y be exc lude d from bridge de c l< con c r et e on hi gh volume
r o arlwa y~
requiren~ 11 tt
l. <.>: · au ~e
:l f
? f Ar ticle 8 0 1. 0 2 .
a ry<Jre Jate pollishing cha r a c te r is t i cs .