SI

Department of Civil Engineering

KAEA 4234 Foundation Engineering

Site Investigation of Proposed Work on Suitable Foundation of

Lookout Tower, University of Malaya

Soil Exploration &

Laboratory Test Report

Name : Chia Wei Ting

Matric No. : KEA120014

Group : 3

Session : Year 2015/16 Semester 1

Lecturer : Prof. Ir. Dato' Dr. Roslan Bin Hashim

Date of Submission : 11 December 2015

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Site Description ......................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 Site Investigation ...................................................................................................................... 3

5.0 Sampling ................................................................................................................................... 4

5.1 Hand Auger ........................................................................................................................... 4

5.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4

5.1.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 5

5.1.3 Observation .................................................................................................................... 5

5.2 Soil Sampler .......................................................................................................................... 6

5.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6

5.2.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 7

5.2.3 Observation .................................................................................................................... 7

6.0 Field Test .................................................................................................................................. 8

6.1 Mackintosh Probe ............................................................................................................ 8

6.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8

6.1.2 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 9

6.1.3 Result ............................................................................................................................. 9

6.1.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 10

7.0 Laboratory Test ....................................................................................................................... 11

7.1 Triaxial Test ........................................................................................................................ 11

7.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 12

7.1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 12

7.1.3 Observation .................................................................................................................. 12

7.1.4 Result ........................................................................................................................... 13

7.1.5 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 15

8.0 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 15

9.0 Role in the Project ................................................................................................................... 15

Appendices

List of Figures

Figure 1: The proposed lookout tower in University of Malaya. ................................................... 1

Figure 2: The map of University of Malaya. .................................................................................. 2

Figure 3: Different type of hand auger. .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 4: Soil sampler equipment. .................................................................................................. 6

Figure 5: Mackintosh Probe Equipment ......................................................................................... 8

Figure 6: Graph of depth against blow-count. .............................................................................. 10

Figure 7: Soil profile of the proposed site .................................................................................... 11

Figure 8: Triaxial Apparatus. ........................................................................................................ 11

Figure 9: Graph of Stress against Strain ....................................................................................... 14

Figure 10: Mohr’s Circle for The Three Specimens ..................................................................... 14

List of Tables

Table 1: Results from Mackintosh Probe Test. ............................................................................... 9

Table 2: Standard for Mackintosh Probe. ..................................................................................... 10

Table 3: Specimens for Triaxial UU Test ..................................................................................... 13

Table 4: Strain and Deviatory Stress for Each Samples ............................................................... 13

Table 5: Initial, σ3 Stress and Maximum Deviatory Stress, σd for Each Samples ........................ 14

List of Photos

Photo 1: The depth that hand auger reached for the sampling. ....................................................... 4

Photo 2: Top layer of soil................................................................................................................ 5

Photo 3: Subsequent soil layer after the top soil. ............................................................................ 5

Photo 4: Top layer and subsequent soil layer. ................................................................................ 5

Photo 5: Soil sampler is used to extract the undisturbed soil sample. ............................................ 6

Photo 6: First and second soil samplers. ......................................................................................... 7

Photo 7: Third and fourth soil samplers. ......................................................................................... 7

Photo 8: The extracted soil sample. ................................................................................................ 7

Photo 9: Soil sample contains sand and crashed rocks ................................................................... 7

Photo 10: Mackintosh Probe field test was carried out at the proposed site................................... 9

Photo 11: The sample is tested on triaxial test. ............................................................................. 12

Photo 12: The deformed soil sample. ........................................................................................... 12

- 1 -

1.0 Introduction

University of Malaya plans to construct a lookout tower of within 10m to15m height,

located near the varsity lake in front of the Faculty of Engineering. The working area provided by

the university management for this project is 5m x 5m. The tower is constructed by using concrete.

A site investigation for proposed works has to be carried out for the proposed work. Figure 1 refers

the general idea of the lookout tower. In order to design the best foundation that should be used,

several physical properties about the soil such as its cohesion value, settlement and the angle of

cohesion are determined. All these parameters are used for the determination of the foundation

size. Thus, some site investigation and laboratory experiments are conducted using the sample of

the soil from the proposed area in order to get the important parameters.

Figure 1: The proposed lookout tower in University of Malaya.

- 2 -

2.0 Site Description

The proposed site is located at Varsity Green of University of Malaya, which is in front of

the Faculty of Engineering. The field test had been conducted at the proposed site during the site

investigation.

Figure 2: The map of University of Malaya.

3.0 Objectives

The objectives of the project are:

i. To carry out site visit

ii. To suggest possible site investigation methods that might be adopted to gain necessary soil

parameters to enable design of foundation for lookout tower to be carried out.

iii. To obtain soil samples for visual examination and laboratory testing.

iv. To study the soil properties of the proposed site.

- 3 -

4.0 Site Investigation

Soil Investigation is important to obtain information includes soil properties before the

design and construction of foundations. It helps the engineers to select the type and depth of

foundations suitable for a given structure, to evaluate the load-bearing capacity of the foundations,

to estimate the settlements of the foundations and to estimate the potential foundation problems or

changing of soil conditions.

Firstly site reconnaissance which involves a visit to the site for inspection was carried at

Varsity Green to decide equipment needed to access the site and to decide basic foundation design.

Since the area of construction is restrained at an area of 5m×5m, considerably a small area. Besides

that, the accessibility of the site is very good and the site geology does not vary too much as it can

be considered as a flat terrain. Therefore in-situ testing that uses machinery is not required to carry

out at the site. Additionally, the site is clear of any existing structures. Hence the construction area

will not invade other construction side. Other than that, it is observed that no surface water

appeared at the site. It can be assumed that the soil will be in good condition. Thus, a pad footing

is assumed to be enough to support the look out tower.

Based on the observation from site reconnaissance as discussed above, the sampling and

in situ test are carried out manually. This is due to the location of the construction is well defined

with a more simple geological condition. Furthermore, the construction area is comparatively

small. In order to obtain the soil sampler, sampling methods such as hand auger and soil sampler

are used. Hand auger is used to obtain the disturbed soil sample whereas soil sampler is used to

obtain the undisturbed soil sample. For field test, mackintosh probe is carried to estimate the

strength for soil and laboratory test such as triaxial test is carried out to determine soil strength and

angle of cohension. The sampling methods and soil testing are discussed in the following chapters.

- 4 -

5.0 Sampling

Sampling methods such as hand auger and soil sampler are used. Hand auger is used to

obtain the disturbed soil sample whereas soil sampler is used to obtain the undisturbed soil sample.

5.1 Hand Auger

Figure 3: Different type of hand auger.

5.1.1 Introduction

Hand Auger is used for obtaining disturbed soil samples near the surface and to remove

the top soil before soil sampler is used to extract the soil below top soil. Hand auger is chosen as

the sampling method because it is easy to handle as it is portable and cost effectively. Besides that,

the depth that of soil that required is at the first and second layer. Hand auger is suitable for shallow

depth exploration. The equipment is used in cohesive soil free of gravel or granular material, above

the water table. The disturbed soil samples were obtained at three locations within an area of 5m2.

The top soil and subsequently layer were extracted and its soil profile was observed. Hand auger

was used to dig until the depth of 50cm.

Photo 1: The depth that hand auger reached for the sampling.

- 5 -

5.1.2 Objectives

i. To obtain disturbed soil samples

ii. To remove top soil

5.1.3 Observation

Photo 2: Top layer of soil.

Photo 3: Subsequent soil layer after the top soil.

Photo 4: Top layer and subsequent soil layer.

From the photos above, it can be observed that the top soil is darker in color as it contains

organic matter. Therefore it is necessary to remove top soil before construction and the foundation

must be built at the depth below top soil. It was found that the top soil is about 30cm.

The soil is

lighter in color

for subsequent

layer

The soil

containing

organic matter

is darker in

color for top

layer

- 6 -

5.2 Soil Sampler

Figure 4: Soil sampler equipment.

5.2.1 Introduction

Soil sampler is used to obtain the undisturbed samples below top soil. It consists of thin

walled tubes which are pushed or driven into the soil at the bottom of the hole and then rotated

detach the lower end of the sample from the soil. Most soft and moderate stiff cohesive soil can be

sampled without extensive disturbance in thin wall seamless steel tubes. Soil sampler is chosen as

the sampling method because the depth of designed foundation is shallow, estimated to be 2m.

Additionally, the soil at site is observed to be stiff cohesive soil. Hence, sampling using manpower

is more effective and save cost. Besides that, the soil profile could be observed using soil sampler.

Three samples were obtained to carry out triaxial test.

Photo 5: Soil sampler is used to extract the undisturbed soil sample.

- 7 -

5.2.2 Objectives

i. To obtain undisturbed soil samples

5.2.3 Observation

Photo 6: First and second soil samplers.

Photo 7: Third and fourth soil samplers.

Photo 8: The extracted soil sample.

Photo 9: Soil sample contains sand and crashed

rocks

From Photo 6: First and second soil samplers.Photo 6 and Photo 7, the soil profile is

homogenous as the color of the 4 samples do not vary much. Thus, the laboratory result later is

said to be representative for the site as these soil samples would be used for the triaxial test. From

Photo 8, the soil is observed to be cohesive however for Photo 9 the soil contains sand and crashed

rocks as the depth where the sample was extracted deeper than in Photo 8. The soil sample obtained

in Photo 8 is at depth less than 1.8m. Hence, it is suggested to locate the foundation at 1.8m to ease

the excavation work.

- 8 -

6.0 Field Test

For field test, mackintosh probe is carried to estimate the strength for soil due to the small

area of construction. Besides that, probing using manpower is enough for this in-situ testing as

using machinery is expensive.

6.1 Mackintosh Probe

6.1.1 Introduction

Probing is used to provide a profile of penetration resistance with

depth, in order to give an assessment of the variability of in-situ materials

on site. Probing is carried out rapidly, with simple equipment. It produces

simple results, in terms of blows per unit depth of penetration, which are

generally plotted as blow-count/depth graphs. In this experiment,

Mackintosh Probe is used due to its lightweight and portable

penetrometer which considerably faster and cheaper tool than boring

equipment, especially when the depth of exploration is moderate and the

soils under investigation are soft and loose as Mackintosh Probe was has

been used in a variety of soft soils. Chan & Chin (1972) and Kong (1983)

also have reported the use of the Mackintosh Probe in the residual soils

of Malaysia. Since the proposed site located in Malaysia, the soil most

probably will be residual soil. Besides that, mackintosh probe equipment

can be carried to site by manpower. Thus, it is more convenient to use

this equipment compare to standard penetration test SPT as SPT requires

machinery to carry out its work. The test was carried out at three

locations within an area of 5m2.

Figure 5: Mackintosh

Probe Equipment

- 9 -

Photo 10: Mackintosh Probe field test was carried out at the proposed site.

6.1.2 Objectives

i. To identify the soil density and in-situ stress conditions

ii. To provide a profile of penetration resistance with depth

iii. To estimate soil parameters

6.1.3 Result

Table 1: Results from Mackintosh Probe Test.

Depth, d (m) Number of blows

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3

0.3 76 101 90

0.6 102 89 74

0.9 31 33 31

1.2 21 42 29

1.5 18 33 26

1.8 23 26 52

2.1 19 79 106

2.4 19 70 85

2.7 22 Reached rock at

2.206m

49

3.0 20 38

3.3 16 47

- 10 -

Table 2: Standard for Mackintosh Probe.

Mackintosh Probe

(Blows/ft)

Unconfined Compressive

Strength (kPa) Consistency

0 – 10 0.0 – 25 Very Soft

10 – 20 25 – 50 Soft

20 – 40 50 – 100 Medium (firm)

40 – 70 100 – 200 Stiff

70 – 100 200 – 400 Very Stiff

100 400 Hard

Figure 6: Graph of depth against blow-count.

6.1.4 Discussion

From Figure 6, the mackintosh probe was carried at three locations. It can be observed that

the Trial 1 varies more than the other two. This may due to the water table exist at the location

where the result for Trial 1 was carried out. The graph shows that top layer of soil is very stiff as

many people walked on the top soil and subsequently compacted the layer from time to time.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Dep

th,

d (

m)

Number of Blow-count per 0.3m

Blow-count against Depth

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard

- 11 -

However, when depth increases, the consistency of soil decreases. When it comes to around 1.8m

deep, the soil layer becomes stiffer along the depth. For Trial 2, the penetration stops at 2.206m as

it reaches cobbles or rocks. Thus, it is suggested to locate the foundation at depth around 0.8m as

the soil layer at this depth is belongs to stiff soft. Besides that, it is not suitable to locate the

foundation at depth less than 0.5m because this soil layer contains organic matters. It may make

the excavation work and compaction work easier to be carried out. The soil profile of the proposed

site is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Soil profile of the proposed site

7.0 Laboratory Test

7.1 Triaxial Test

Laboratory test such as triaxial test is carried out to determine soil strength and angle of

cohension. Based on the observation from site reconnaissance, laboratory test is carried out instead

of in-situ testing due to the homogeneity of ground formation at the site. Therefore, the lab data is

assumed to be representative of the site.

Figure 8: Triaxial Apparatus.

- 12 -

7.1.1 Introduction

Triaxial test method is carried out to determine the strength and stress-strain relationships

of a cylindrical specimen of either undisturbed or remolded cohesive soil. Specimens are subjected

to a confining fluid pressure in a triaxial chamber. No drainage of the specimen is permitted during

the test. The specimen is sheared in compression without drainage at a constant rate of axial

deformation (strain controlled). This test method provides data for determining undrained strength

properties and stress-strain relations for soils. This test method provides for the measurement of

the total stresses applied to the specimen, that is, the stresses are not corrected for pore-water

pressure

7.1.2 Objectives

i. To determine the undrained shear strength and cohesion of cohesive soil.

ii. To determine the internal friction angle

iii. To determine the soil void ratio and degree of saturation.

7.1.3 Observation

Photo 11: The sample is tested on triaxial test.

Photo 12: The deformed soil sample.

- 13 -

7.1.4 Result

Table 3: Specimens for Triaxial UU Test

Specimen Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Pressure (kPa) 50 100 150

Moisture content (%) 7.28 11.46 13.09

Bulk Density, ρ (mg/mm3) 1.969 1.956 1.998

Dry Density, ρd (mg/mm3) 1.756 1.728 1.764

Table 4: Strain and Deviatory Stress for Each Samples

Strain, ε (%)

Deviatory Stress, σd (kPa)

Sample 1

(50kPa)

Sample 2

(100kPa)

Sample 3

(150kPa)

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.1 3.49 0.00 11.26

0.2 8.71 5.59 16.87

0.3 33.30 11.18 19.66

0.4 38.81 22.33 25.25

0.5 44.31 36.25 33.64

0.6 49.80 39.00 42.01

0.7 55.28 44.52 50.36

0.8 57.98 52.82 55.89

0.9 60.68 61.10 64.21

1 66.13 69.36 66.94

2 90.02 90.63 107.68

3 102.60 106.02 131.17

4 109.55 115.68 146.05

5 113.70 122.47 149.88

6 117.74 134.35 164.19

8 122.91 139.22 176.25

10 127.76 143.76 182.56

12 129.82 150.43 183.46

14 129.26 151.84 184.14

16 130.93 155.37 186.95

18 130.10 158.56 184.81

20 129.15 159.18 184.81

- 14 -

Table 5: Initial, σ3 Stress and Maximum Deviatory Stress, σd for Each Samples

Specimen 1 2 3

σ3 (kPa) 50 100 150

σd (kPa) 130.93 159.18 186.95

σ1 = σ3 + σd (kPa) 180.93 259.18 336.95

Figure 9: Graph of Stress against Strain

Figure 10: Mohr’s Circle for The Three Specimens

0.00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

125.00

150.00

175.00

200.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Dev

iato

ric

Str

ess,

σd

(kP

a)

Strain,ε (%)

Stress against Strain

50kPa 100kPa 150kPa

- 15 -

7.1.5 Discussion

From Figure 10, the shear strength of soil, c is 41.8kPa and the internal friction ϕ is12o.

The laboratory result is able to represent the site as the soil is observed to be homogenous at the

site. These two soil parameters are used in pad foundation design.

8.0 Conclusion

- From hand auger sampling, it was observed that top soil is darker in color as it contains

organic matter. It was found that the top soil is about 30cm. Hence, top soil need to be

removed before construction and the foundation must be built at the depth below top soil.

- From mackintosh test, it is suggested to locate the foundation at depth around 0.8m as the

soil layer at this depth is belongs to stiff soft. The soil profile is very stiff at the top layer,

medium at the subsequent layer and stiff at the third layer.

- From triaxial test, the shear strength of soil, c is 41.8kPa and the internal friction ϕ is12o

with dry unit weight of 17.49kN/m3.

9.0 Role in the Project

In this project, field test and laboratory test had been carried out to determine the soil

parameters and investigate the suitability of site for the proposed lookout tower near Varsity Lake.

The sampling methods, hand auger and soil sampler were used to extract soil samples. For field

test, mackintosh probe test had been carried out to investigate the soil profile. Lastly, triaxial test

was carried out for laboratory test to determine shear strength and internal friction of the soil.

These works are distributed among the group members. All members were involved in the field

test and lab test.

In this project, we took turns to assemble the probe and drop the hammer in mackintosh

probe test. I also in charge of record the number of blows for mackintosh probe and assisted my

members to hold the probe to make sure the probe penetrated vertically into the soil. Besides that,

I helped to screw and unscrew the rod of the probe. However, more guys are involved in sampling

works as the works required more manpower.

For laboratory test, I involved in setting up the triaxial apparatus by preparing the test

samples such that inserted the samples into the membrane before it was put into the apparatus. I

also monitored and controlled the deviator stress before the test was conducted.

Appendices

The members are dropping the hammer to

obtain the mackintosh probe result.

Hand auger is used to extract disturbed

samples.

Soil sampler is drilled into the soil using

clamps.

The cylinder is unscrewed after the soil is

extracted.

Soil sample is withdrawn from the cylinder.

The sample is cut into required diameter and

length for triaxial test.

Members cooperated to take out the tested

sample from the membrane.

The borehole where the soil sampler is

extracted.

Calculations for Triaxial Test

Initially

Volume (mm3) = πD2

4× Lo(mm3)

Bulk Density, ρ (mg/mm3) = Mass(g)×1000

Volume(mm3)

Sample 1 : Volume = π×38.20

2

4 × 76.04 = 8.714×10

4mm3

ρ = 171.6×1000

8.714×104 = 1.969 mg/mm3

Sample 2 : Volume = π×38.07

2

4 × 75.50 = 8.594×10

4mm3

ρ = 168.1×1000

8.594×104 = 1.956 mg/mm3

Sample 3 : Volume = π×37.97

2

4 × 75.60 = 8.560×10

4mm3

ρ = 171.0×1000

8.560×104 = 1.998 mg/mm3

Initial Area of Cross Section, Ao = πD2

4(mm2)

Sample 1 : Ao = π×38.20

2

4 = 1146.08mm2

Sample 2 : Ao = π×38.07

2

4 = 1138.30mm2

Sample 3 : Ao = π×37.97

2

4 = 1132.30mm2

After Test

Moisture Content (%) = mass of water

mass of solids × 100%

= wet mass - dry mass

dry mass × 100%

Sample 1 : Moisture Content = 60.4 - 56.3

56.3 × 100% = 7.28%

Sample 2 : Moisture Content = 60.3 - 54.1

54.1 × 100% = 11.46%

Sample 3 : Moisture Content = 59.6 - 52.7

52.7 × 100% = 13.09%

Calculations for Triaxial Test

Sample 1

(A)

Deformation

Gauge

Reading

(B)

Compression

A×0.01

(mm)

(C)

Force Gauge

Reading

(0.002mm)

(D)

Load, P

C×0.638

(N)

(E)

Strain, Ɛ

ΔL / Lο

(%)

(F)

Area, A

Aο / (1-Ɛ)

(mm²)

0 0 0 0 1146.08 0.00

0.08 40 4 0.1 1147.23 3.49

0.15 50 10 0.2 1148.38 8.71

0.23 60 38.28 0.3 1149.53 33.30

0.3 70 44.66 0.4 1150.68 38.81

0.38 80 51.04 0.5 1151.84 44.31

0.46 90 57.42 0.6 1153.00 49.80

0.53 100 63.8 0.7 1154.16 55.28

0.61 105 66.99 0.8 1155.32 57.98

0.68 110 70.18 0.9 1156.49 60.68

0.76 120 76.56 1 1157.66 66.13

1.52 165 105.27 2 1169.47 90.02

2.28 190 121.22 3 1181.53 102.60

3.04 205 130.79 4 1193.83 109.55

3.8 215 137.17 5 1206.40 113.70

4.56 225 143.55 6 1219.23 117.74

6.08 240 153.12 8 1245.74 122.91

7.6 255 162.69 10 1273.42 127.76

9.12 265 169.07 12 1302.36 129.82

10.64 270 172.26 14 1332.65 129.26

12.16 280 178.64 16 1364.38 130.93

13.68 285 181.83 18 1397.66 130.10

15.2 290 185.02 20 1432.60 129.15

Sample 2

(A)

Deformation

Gauge

Reading

(B)

Compression

A×0.01

(mm)

(C)

Force Gauge

Reading

(0.002mm)

(D)

Load, P

C×0.638

(N)

(E)

Strain, Ɛ

ΔL / Lο

(%)

(F)

Area, A

Aο / (1-Ɛ)

(mm²)

0 0 0 0 0 1138.30

7.5 0.08 0 0 0.1 1139.44

15.2 0.15 10 6.38 0.2 1140.58

22.8 0.23 20 12.76 0.3 1141.73

30.4 0.3 40 25.52 0.4 1142.87

38 0.38 65 41.47 0.5 1144.02

45.6 0.46 70 44.66 0.6 1145.17

53.2 0.53 80 51.04 0.7 1146.32

60.8 0.61 95 60.61 0.8 1147.48

68.4 0.68 110 70.18 0.9 1148.64

76 0.76 125 79.75 1 1149.80

152 1.52 165 105.27 2 1161.53

228 2.28 195 124.41 3 1173.51

304 3.04 215 137.17 4 1185.73

380 3.8 230 146.74 5 1198.21

456 4.56 255 162.69 6 1210.96

608 6.08 270 172.26 8 1237.28

760 1.6 285 181.83 10 1264.78

912 9.12 305 194.59 12 1293.52

1064 10.64 315 200.97 14 1323.60

1216 12.16 330 210.54 16 1355.12

1368 13.68 345 220.11 18 1388.17

1520 15.2 355 226.49 20 1422.88

Sample 3

(A)

Deformation

Gauge

Reading

(B)

Compression

A×0.01

(mm)

(C)

Force Gauge

Reading

(0.002mm)

(D)

Load, P

C×0.638

(N)

(E)

Strain, Ɛ

ΔL / Lο

(%)

(F)

Area, A

Aο / (1-Ɛ)

(mm²)

0 0 0 0 0 1132.30

7.5 0.08 20 12.76 0.1 1133.43

15.2 0.15 30 19.14 0.2 1134.57

22.8 0.23 35 22.33 0.3 1135.71

30.4 0.3 45 28.71 0.4 1136.85

38 0.38 60 38.28 0.5 1137.99

45.6 0.46 75 47.85 0.6 1139.13

53.2 0.53 90 57.42 0.7 1140.28

60.8 0.61 100 63.8 0.8 1141.43

68.4 0.68 115 73.37 0.9 1142.58

76 0.76 120 76.56 1 1143.74

152 1.52 195 124.41 2 1155.41

228 2.28 240 153.12 3 1167.32

304 3.04 270 172.26 4 1179.48

380 3.8 280 178.64 5 1191.89

456 4.56 310 197.78 6 1204.57

608 6.08 340 216.92 8 1230.76

760 1.6 360 229.68 10 1258.11

912 9.12 370 236.06 12 1286.70

1064 10.64 380 242.44 14 1316.63

1216 12.16 395 252.01 16 1347.98

1368 13.68 400 255.2 18 1380.85

1520 15.2 410 261.58 20 1415.38