forest hill avenue widening f&r project no. 60k-0679r1...road widening project consists of...

Report of Subsurface Exploration, Laboratory Testing,

and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Forest Hill Avenue Widening

Richmond, Virginia

F&R Project No. 60K-0679r1

Prepared for:

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 2810 North Parham Road, Suite 242

Richmond, Virginia 23294

Attention: David L. Bowers, P.E.

Prepared by:

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. 3015 Dumbarton Road

Richmond, Virginia 23228

February 2010

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Forest Hill Avenue Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0679r1 i Richmond, Virginia February 12, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 1

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................................................... 1

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES................................................................... 2

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4

3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 4

3.2 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 5

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 5

3.3.1 General ............................................................................................................. 5

3.3.2 Surficial Soils ..................................................................................................... 6

3.3.3 Pavement Sections ............................................................................................ 6

3.3.4 Fill/Possible Fill Soils ......................................................................................... 7

3.3.5 Residual Soils .................................................................................................... 8

3.3.6 Subsurface Water.............................................................................................. 8

4.0 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................ 9

4.1 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................... 9

5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 11

5.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 11

5.2 PAVEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 11

5.2.1 New Pavements .............................................................................................. 12

5.2.2 Pavement Overlays ......................................................................................... 12

5.3 ASPHALT REINFORCEMENTS ........................................................................................... 13

5.4 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ................................................................................................. 14

5.5 RETAINING WALLS ...................................................................................................... 14

5.5.1 Foundations .................................................................................................... 14

5.5.2 Settlement ...................................................................................................... 15

5.5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures .................................................................................... 15

5.6 BMP ...................................................................................................................... 17

5.7 DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................ 17

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 19

6.1 SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................................... 19

6.2 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 20

6.3 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING (CMT) CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 21

6.4 CONTROLLED STRUCTURAL FILL ...................................................................................... 21

6.5 CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE............................................................................................ 22

7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES .................................................................................... 22

8.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 23

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Forest Hill Avenue Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0679r1 ii Richmond, Virginia February 12, 2010

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ASFE Information about Geotechnical Reports

Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1)

APPENDIX B

Boring Location Plan (Drawing No. 2, Drawing No. 3, and Drawing No. 4)

Soil Classification Chart (1 page)

Key to Boring Log Soil Classification (1 page)

B – Roadway Boring Logs, B-1 through B-18 (18 pages)

R – Retaining Wall Boring Logs, R-1 through R-16 (16 pages)

BMP – Storm Water Detention Pond Boring Logs, BMP-1 and BMP-2 (2 pages)

C – Pavement Coring Logs, C-1 through C-9, B-8, B-13, B-14, B-16, & B-17 (3 pages)

APPENDIX C

Moisture-Density Relationship Curves (5 pages)

California Bearing Ratio Test (5 pages)

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Forest Hill Avenue Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0679r1 1 Richmond, Virginia February 12, 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Information

Project information was provided by the Donald D. Logan, P.E. and Mr. Archie J. Drudge of

Stantec Consulting Services (Stantec). The proposed project consists of improvements to Forest

Hill Avenue consisting primarily of road widening with the additions of sidewalks, bicycle lanes,

and retaining walls on both sides of the road. This phase of the project is expected to extend

from Hathaway Road to the Powhite Parkway, an approximate length of one mile. The

approximate project location is shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1,

Appendix A).

We understand that portions of the existing road will be re-graded, demolished, and/or milled

and re-surfaced with new asphalt. Due to proposed grading, some retaining walls are proposed

intermittently along the north and south sides of the widened road. The land acquired for the

road widening project consists of road-shoulders, private property including lawns and

driveways, embankments, ditches, and drainage channels. In this regard, subgrade preparation

for the widening of Forest Hill Avenue will vary from simple surficial soils stripping and

regrading to over-excavation and/or demolition of driveways and drainage systems to cutting

and filling of up to 10 feet of a vegetated and sometimes wooded shoulder area with Controlled

Structural Fill.

At the time of this report, preliminary traffic loading information was provided as

approximately 45,000 vehicles per day (VPD). For design purposes, we assumed a maximum of

5% of this number will be comprised of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCV). Structural loading

for the retaining walls was not provided to us. For our analysis, we assumed that the retaining

walls will not exert more than 1,500 psf on the subgrades.

1.2 Scope of Services

The purposes of our involvement on this project were as follows: 1) provide general

descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, 2) provide

various feasible pavement design recommendations, 3) provide retaining wall design

recommendations, and 4) comment on geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. To

accomplish the above objectives, we undertook the following scope of services:


1) Visited the site to observe existing surface conditions and features;

2) Coordinated with Miss Utility services for utility clearance;

3) Reviewed readily available geologic and subsurface information relative to the

project site;

4) Executed a geotechnical subsurface exploration program consisting of thirty-six (36)

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings drilled to depths ranging from 4.5 to 20 feet

below existing site grades;

5) Performed twelve (12) pavement cores to ascertain existing pavement section

thicknesses in select locations;

6) Performed laboratory testing on select recovered soil samples to ascertain

characteristic soil properties;

7) Prepared this written report summarizing our geotechnical engineering work on the

project, providing descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered, providing

pavement and foundation design criteria, and discussing geotechnical related

aspects of the proposed construction.

Our geotechnical scope of services did not include a survey of boring locations and elevations,

quantity estimates, preparation of plans or specifications, or the identification and evaluation

of wetland.

2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Our geotechnical subsurface exploration program consisted of thirty-six (36) soil test borings;

eighteen were bored to a minimum depth of 4.5 feet for pavement design considerations. The

remaining eighteen borings were bored to a termination depth of 20 feet (except for two which

were terminated early due to auger refusal) in areas intended for retaining walls and for a

storm water detention pond along the road. In addition to the soil borings, we performed

twelve (12) pavement cores to ascertain existing pavement thicknesses.

The exploration was performed between December 4, 2009 and January 18, 2010, at the

approximate locations shown on the attached Boring Location Plans (Drawing No. 2, Drawing

No. 3, and Drawing No. 4, Appendix B). F&R personnel marked the boring locations in the field


by approximating distances from existing features indicated on the provided site plan. No claim

is made as to the accuracy of the information contained in the provided documents. In

consideration of the methods used in their determination, the boring locations shown on the

attached Boring Location Plans should be considered approximate.

The test borings were performed in accordance with generally accepted practice using a CME-

55 rotary drill rig mounted on a tracked all-terrain vehicle equipped with an automatic hammer.

Hollow-stem augers were advanced to pre-selected depths, the center plug was removed, and

representative soil samples were recovered with a standard split-spoon sampler (1 3/8 in. ID, 2

in. OD) in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, the Standard Penetration Test. The split-

spoon sampler was driven into the soil by freely dropping a weight of 140 pounds from a height

of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler three or four

consecutive 6-inch increments was recorded, and the blows of the second and third increments

were summed to obtain the Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value). The N-value provides a

general indication of in-situ soil conditions and has been correlated with certain engineering

properties of soils.

The test borings were advanced through the asphalt or soil overburden to depths ranging from

4.5 to 20 feet below the existing site grades. Subsurface water level readings were taken in

each of the test borings during and immediately upon completion of the drilling process. Upon

completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings (soil) and if the boring

was performed in an existing paved area, patched with asphaltic concrete. Periodic observation

and maintenance of the boreholes should be performed to monitor for subsidence at the

ground surface, as the borehole backfill could settle over time.

Representative soil samples recovered in the field were placed in glass jars and transported to

our laboratory for classification and further testing. A member of our geotechnical staff visually

classified each split-spoon soil sample on the basis of texture and plasticity in general

accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487) and/or the Visual-

Manual Procedure (ASTM D 2488). The group symbol for each soil type, based on the USCS, is

indicated in the parentheses following the soil description on the boring logs. The geotechnical

engineer grouped the various soil types into zones noted on the boring log. The stratification

lines designating the interfaces between earth materials on the boring log are approximate; in

situ, the transitions may be gradual. Copies of our boring logs (soil profiles) and classification

procedures are provided in Appendix B.


Boring annotations prefaced with the letter “B” indicate the boring was performed for the

roadway (i.e. B-1). The letter “R” indicates the boring was performed for the retaining walls

(i.e. R-1), BMP indicates the boring was performed for the storm water detention pond (i.e.

BMP-1), and pavement cores are prefaced with the letter “C” (i.e. C-1).

Split-spoon soil samples recovered on this project will be stored at F&R’s office for a period of

sixty days. After sixty days, the samples will be discarded unless prior notification is provided to

us in writing.

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Description

The improvements to Forest Hill Avenue are projected between the cross street of Hathaway

Road and the Powhite Parkway overpass. Forest Hill Avenue passes from a commercial zone at

the western edge of the proposed widening, through a residential area with several tributary side

streets, and to the exit from Powhite Parkway. The Willow Oaks Country Club is located on the

north side of the east end of the proposed widening project. The surrounding topography is

generally flat with gradual elevation changes up to approximately 45 feet. The majority of this

elevation change occurs in a downward slope between the country club to the Powhite Parkway

overpass.

Overhead power lines are prevalent on the north side of Forest Hill Avenue with smaller lines

supplying power to individual homes on both the north and south sides. The overhead power

lines cross to the south side of the road near 6528 Forest Hill Avenue and continue from this site

into the commercial zone. The presence of many underground utilities is evident by utility

markings along/across Forest Hill Avenue. Also, there were a few drop inlets noted along the

south side of the road. A concrete sidewalk stretched along the north side of the western portion

of Forest Hill Avenue. We did not observe rock outcroppings, erosion, or evidence of shrink-swell

soils and most of the land on either side of Forest Hill Avenue was either a maintained lawn or a

thinly treed forest.

Current pavement conditions were generally good with isolated longitudinal cracks along the road

length. There were a few small areas of pavement that had been removed and patched likely due

to utility work in those areas. Reflective cracking was also observed intermittently along the road’s

length. Rutting and pavement failure was not observed within the proposed project site.


3.2 Regional Geology

Available geologic references report that the project site lies within the very eastern edge of

the Piedmont Physiographic Province of Virginia. The Piedmont Province is the largest

physiographic province in Virginia. It is bounded on the east by the Coastal Plain Province and

on the west by the mountains of the Blue Ridge Province. The Piedmont Province is

characterized by gently rolling topography, deeply weathered bedrock, and a relative scarcity of

solid rock outcrop. Rocks are strongly weathered in the Piedmont's humid climate, and

bedrock is generally buried under a thick (5-65 feet) blanket of saprolite. Soils are residual in

nature.

Based on the Geologic Map of Virginia (1993), the project site is underlain by the Petersburg

Granite Formation. This formation consists of light- to dark-gray to pink, fine- to coarse-

grained, equigranular to porphyritic, foliated to nonfoliated, and ranges from granite to

granodiorite in composition; multiple intrusive phases are present. The granite contains

xenoliths of biotite gneiss and amphibolite. Its mineralogy includes quartz + sodic plagioclase +

potassium feldspar + biotite ± hornblende and accessory minerals include ilmenite, magnetite,

pyrite, zircon, apatite, titanite, muscovite, and fluorite (Goodwin, 1970; Daniels and Onuschak,

1974; Wright and others, 1975). Current mapping restricts the Petersburg Granite Formation to

a contiguous unit that crops out in the Cities of Richmond and Petersburg.

3.3 Subsurface Conditions

3.3.1 General

The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the

attached boring logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on

interpretation of the boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments.

The transitions between different soil strata are usually less distinct than those shown on the

boring logs. Sometimes the relatively small sample obtained in the field is insufficient to

definitively describe the origin of the subsurface material. In these cases, we qualify our origin

descriptions with “possible” before the word describing the material’s origin (i.e. possible fill,

possible residuum, etc.). Although individual test borings are representative of the subsurface

conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown, they are not necessarily indicative of

subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Data from the specific test borings

are shown on the attached boring logs in Appendix B.


3.3.2 Surficial Soils

Surficial Soil was encountered in several borings as noted on the individual boring logs and

ranged in depths from 0.1 to 0.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Surficial Soil is

typically a dark-colored soil material containing roots, fibrous matter, and/or other organic

components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering purposes. F&R has not performed any

laboratory testing to determine the organic content or other horticultural properties of the

observed Surficial Soil materials. Therefore, the term Surficial Soil is not intended to indicate a

suitability for landscaping and/or other purposes. The Surficial Soil depths provided in this

report are based on driller observations and should be considered approximate. We note that

the transition from Surficial Soil to underlying materials may be gradual, and therefore the

observation and measurement of Surficial Soil depths is subjective. Actual Surficial Soil depths

should be expected to vary across the site, especially in peripheral areas where trees and root

balls systems are located.

3.3.3 Pavement Sections

Asphalt and underlying aggregate was encountered in several of our borings. We performed

nine cores in locations with existing asphalt to obtain existing pavement thicknesses. The

asphalt pavement thickness ranged from 5.0 to 13.0 inches. Aggregate was reported under all

asphalt pavements and ranged in depth from 5.5 to 12.0 inches. Data from the pavement cores

are listed in the table below:

Core Location Thickness of Asphalt

(Inches) Thickness of Aggregate

(Inches) Total Pavement

Thickness

C – 1 6.0 9.0 15.0

C – 2 5.3 5.7 11.0

C – 3 8.5 5.5 14.0

C – 4 8.0 7.0 15.0

C – 5 6.0 8.0 14.0

C – 6 6.5 9.5 16.0

B – 8 5.0 10.0 15.0

B – 13 6.0 7.0 13.0

B – 14 6.5 7.5 14.0


In addition to the above cores, six cores were examined for pavement layer information. In

general, the cores showed the pavement to be good condition with the exception of C-8 and B-

18. The middle of these two cores was broken into several pieces upon removed from the core

hole. The individual cores and their layers are listed in the table below:

Core Location

Thickness of Surface Layer

(Inches)

Thickness of Intermediate Layer (Inches)

Thickness of Base Layer

(Inches)

Thickness of Aggregate Layer

(Inches)

Total Pavement Thickness

C – 7 1.5 3.5 3.0 11.0 19.0

C – 8 1.5 Disintegrated 3.0 7.5 12.5

C – 9 2.0 11.0

Intermediate and Base Layers indistinguishable

12.0 25.0

B – 16 1.25 3.0 3.0 9.0 16.25

B – 17 1.5 2.5 3.0 10.0 17.0

B – 18 1.5 Disintegrated 3.0 12.0 19.0

3.3.4 Fill/Possible Fill Soils

Fill/Possible Fill may be any material that has been transported and deposited by man.

Materials described as fill/possible fill were encountered in all but two roadway borings and in

all but seven retaining wall borings. The fill materials encountered in the existing roadway

ranged in depths from about 1.0 to 5.0+ (the termination depth) feet below existing grades. In

boring B-5, fill material was encountered to a depth of 7.5 feet. The fill material encountered in

the proposed retaining wall areas ranged in depth from about 1.5 to 10.0 feet.

Fill in the proposed storm water detention pond was encountered to depths ranging from 8.0

to 14.2 feet below existing site grades. This coincides with information indicating this part of

the site was previously used as a detention pond and has since been filled. We understand

there could also be large boulders buried around these locations due to past activities. Based

on the non-uniformity of the N-values obtained during our exploration, the soils sampled in the

BMP borings appear to have been placed in an uncontrolled manner.

Sampled fill/possible fill materials were generally described as Sandy Lean and Fat CLAY (CL and

CH), Sandy SILT (ML), Clayey SAND (SC), and Silty SAND (SM). For soils samples obtained in the

proposed retaining wall and roadway areas, standard penetration resistances (N-values) within


the sampled coarse-grained fill materials (SANDs) ranged from 3 to 43 blows per foot (bpf)

indicating these soils are very loose to dense in relative density. The N-values obtained within

the sampled fine-grained fill material (CLAYs and SILTs) ranged from 0 to 15 bpf indicating these

soils are very soft to stiff in consistency. In general, the very soft to soft soils were encountered

in borings B-5 and R-1.

3.3.5 Residual Soils

Natural residual soils were encountered below the Surficial Soils, Asphalt, and Fill/Possible Fill

material in most borings and extended to the borings’ termination depths. Sampled natural

residual soils consisted of Sandy Lean and Fat CLAY (CL and CH), Sandy SILT (ML), Elastic SILT

(MH), Clayey SAND (SC), and Silty SAND (SM). The N-values in the sample natural residual fine-

grained soils (CLAYs and SILTs) ranged from 3 to 19 bpf indicating the fine-grained soils are soft

to very stiff in consistency. Standard penetration resistances in the sampled natural residual

coarse-grained soils (SANDs) ranged from 4 to 100+ bpf. These N-values indicate the granular

soils (SANDs) are very loose to very dense in relative density. In a few of the retaining wall

borings and both the storm water detention pond borings, weathered rock was encountered at

the boring’s termination depth.

3.3.6 Subsurface Water

The test borings were monitored during and upon completion of drilling operations to obtain

short-term subsurface water information. Subsurface water was identified in seven of the

thirty-six borings. The subsurface water data, obtained during our subsurface exploration, have

been summarized in the following table. The borings from which subsurface water was neither

encountered nor observed have been omitted from the table for simplicity. Specific subsurface

water data may be found on individual boring logs.

Boring Location

Depth of Boring (Feet)

Subsurface Water Depth While Drilling (Feet)

Subsurface Water Depth After

Drilling (Feet)

Cave-in Depth at End of Day (Feet)

B – 5 10.0 6.0 6.0 7.5

R – 2 20.0 18.0 Not Observed 17.5

R – 3 20.0 14.0 14.9 16.0

R – 4 20.0 18.5 Not Observed 19.0

R – 9 20.0 16.0 13.0 18.0


Boring Location

Depth of Boring (Feet)

Subsurface Water Depth While Drilling (Feet)

Subsurface Water Depth After

Drilling (Feet)

Cave-in Depth at End of Day (Feet)

R – 10 20.0 Not Encountered 15.0 15.5

R – 15 20.0 18.5 18.0 19.0

It should be noted that the location of the subsurface water levels could vary by several feet

because of seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, local

topography, and other factors not immediately apparent at the time of this exploration.

Normally, the highest subsurface water levels occur in the late winter and spring and lowest

levels occur in the late summer and fall. It should be noted that borehole cave-in often

indicates wet and unstable conditions.

4.0 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Laboratory Testing

Representative soil samples were subjected to Natural Water Content, #200 Sieve Wash, and

Atterberg Limits testing to substantiate the visual classifications and assist with the estimation

of the soils’ pertinent engineering properties. The results of our laboratory testing are included

in the following tables:

Boring No.

Sample Depth (Feet)

Liquid Limit/ Plasticity Index

Natural Water Content (%)

#200 Sieve Wash

USCS Class.

B – 1 2.0 – 3.5 27/19 17.4 50.6 CL

B – 2 1.0 – 5.0 39/20 18.1 45.5 SC

B – 5 3.5 – 5.0 38/20 18.6 43.6 SC

B – 6 3.5 – 5.0 NA/NA 30.5 NA CL – CH

B – 7 1.5 – 3.0 NA/NA 12.3 NA SM

B – 8 1.0 – 5.0 49/27 19.0 43.0 SC

B – 10 1.5 – 3.0 31/15 11.9 46.0 SC

B – 11 1.0 – 5.0 43/17 20.2 34.6 SC

B – 12 1.5 – 3.0 NA/NA 23.7 NA SC


Boring No.

Sample Depth (Feet)

Liquid Limit/ Plasticity Index

Natural Water Content (%)

#200 Sieve Wash

USCS Class.

B – 13 0.0 – 1.5 35/13 9.8 25.7 SC

B – 15 1.0 – 5.0 25/9 13.4 25.5 SC

R – 1 1.5 – 3.0 46/17 22.4 42.1 SM

R – 2 8.5 – 10.0 NA/NA 20.5 NA SM

R – 5 6.0 – 7.5 NA/NA 20.3 NA SM

R – 5 3.5 – 5.0 46/15 23.1 40.0 SM

R – 9 6.0 – 7.5 NA/NA 20.7 NA SM

R – 10 3.5 – 5.0 NA/NA 27.8 NA CL

R – 11 6.0 – 7.5 NA/NA 20.3 NA SM

R – 13 1.5 – 3.0 52/21 27.2 50.0 MH

R – 15 6.0 – 7.5 NA/NA 41.8 NA CH

R – 16 3.5 – 5.0 NA/NA 4.9 NA SM

Classification procedures are further explained in Appendix B.

In addition to the above testing, moisture-density relationship testing using the Standard

Proctor method (AASHTO T 99) and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing was performed on

five (5) bulk samples for use in pavement design recommendations. The results of these

laboratory tests are included in the following table:

Boring No.

Sample Depth (Feet)

LL/PI Passing

#200 Sieve, %

Maximum Dry Density/Optimum

Moisture

CBR @ 98% Compaction

USCS Class.

Bulk 1 0.5 – 2.0 27/7 27.4 120.5/10.2 16.7 SC

Bulk 2 0.5 – 2.0 36/14 38.6 112.3/13.4 9.1 SC

Bulk 3 0.5 – 2.0 38/17 58.3 109.7/15.1 9.0 CL

Bulk 4 0.5 – 2.0 31/13 43.8 113.6/13.0 12.2 SC

Bulk 5 0.5 – 2.0 31/12 45.1 114.9/12.5 12.9 SC

The charts and graphs documenting our tests are included in Appendix C.


5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General

The following evaluations and recommendations are based on our observations at the site,

interpretation of the field data obtained during this exploration, and our experience with

similar subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration and laboratory testing data have

been used to calculate recommended pavement sections and assist with the estimation of

favorable engineering characteristics of the soil. Subsurface conditions in unexplored locations

may vary from those encountered. If the proposed road, retaining walls, and/or sidewalks

change locations or if vehicle and/or structural loading is different from that stated in Section

1.1, we request that we be advised so that we may re-evaluate our recommendations.

Determination of an appropriate pavement design and foundation system is dependent on the

proposed loads, soil conditions and characteristics, and construction constraints such as

proximity to other structures, pavements, etc. The subsurface exploration aids the

geotechnical engineer in determining the soil stratum appropriate for the design needs or the

determining the appropriate measures needed to facilitate a suitable working surface. In

addition, since the method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural

support, consideration must be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site

preparation, fill compaction, and other aspects of construction.

In general, the existing fill/possible fill materials may remain in place provided they perform

satisfactorily under proofrolling as described in Section 6.1.

5.2 Pavements

The thickness of the recommended pavement sections is directly related to the service life, the

initial cost of placement, the preparation of the soil subgrade, and the method by which the

granular base and the pavements are placed. The following pavement sections are designed and

evaluated using the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993 with the 2009 VDOT’s

“Guidelines for Use of the 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design Procedure” for the design and analysis

of pavement structures based on a performance period of 20 years and a Design CBR (DCBR) value

of 8.0 based on results from our laboratory testing. The DCBR value is calculated by taking 2/3 of

the average CBR value. For our design purposes, we used the maximum assumed vehicle count as

stated in Section 1.1 of this report. Traffic volumes are not expected to exceed 45,000 VPD with

5% of that traffic being heavy commercial vehicles. We understand that there is an approximate


50% directional split. Accounting for this, we have designed our pavement sections for the

eastbound and westbound lanes using 90% of 23,000 VPD (due to two lanes) in each direction. If

the traffic loads differ from the numbers used for our design, F&R should be notified so that we

can adjust our pavement design recommendations as necessary.

5.2.1 New Pavements

Before placement, the subgrades intended to support new pavements should be prepared in

accordance with Section 6.1 of this report. Based on the boring data, we anticipate that the upper

4 to 6 feet of soft soils will need to be removed in the proposed pavement areas in the vicinity of

boring B-5.

The following flexible pavement section is recommended in travel and turn lanes.

Flexible Pavement – Standard Duty

Layer VDOT Specification Recommended Minimum

Thickness (Inches)

Surface Course Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5) 1.5

Intermediate Course Asphalt Concrete (IM-19.0) 2.0

Base Course Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0) 4.0

Sub-Base Untreated Dense-graded

Aggregate Material No. 21B 10.0

We recommend that a drainage layer be used under all new pavement areas in accordance

with the drainage guidelines in Section 5.7. The drainage layer should consist of a minimum of

6 inches of free draining VDOT No. 57 Stone. For hydraulic continuity, wherever possible the

bottom of the Aggregate Base Material (ABM) layer, 21 B, of any widened lanes should match

or extend deeper than the bottom of the existing ABM layer. This will prevent the creation of a

“pool effect” or entrapment of water within the existing ABM layer. If water is trapped

beneath the pavement, the ensuing weakening of the subgrades may cause premature cracking

or failure in the new pavements.

5.2.2 Pavement Overlays

If the existing asphalt pavement sections are to be left in place and an overlay is to be used in

these areas, we recommend milling a maximum of 2 inches of existing pavement followed by

overlaying with a minimum of 2.0 inches of SM-19.0 and 1.5 inches of new SM-9.5. Deeper cuts


may be required depending on the condition of the existing asphalt pavement and final design

grades. It is our opinion that any existing cracks will probably reflect through an overlay within

a 1-year of the placement of new pavement. We also believe that the existing pavements will

likely crack away from the new pavements in visible joint cracks within the 1-year time frame.

5.3 Asphalt Reinforcements

There are several pavement enhancing products (i.e. HaTelit) available that can prolong the life

of and reduce crack transfers of new pavement sections or of pavement overlays. According to

Greg Kiggins with Huesker Inc., HaTelit, their pavement reinforcement, can also reduce new

pavement sections by approximately 1.5 inches. If HaTelit is used in the pavement design,

calculations show the following section can be used.

Alternate Flexible Pavement – Standard Duty


Thickness (Inches)


HaTelit or equivalent

Base Course Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0) 4.0

Sub-Base Untreated Dense-graded

Aggregate Material No. 21B 10.0

If existing pavements are to be milled and an overlay is used in concurrence with a geotextile,

the following section can be used.

Overlay Over Existing Flexible Pavement – Standard Duty


Thickness (Inches)


HaTelit or equivalent

Existing Pavement Section after Milling a maximum of 2.0 inches

In addition to reducing the design pavement thickness, products such as HaTelit are designed to

reduce longitudinal cracking between old and new pavement sections, reduce reflective

cracking, reduce the potential for rutting, extend maintenance intervals, simple to install, etc.

We recommend that the client explore the options available and consider incorporating such


products into new pavement sections and any overlays. Not all products perform equally and

appropriate calculations should be made for individual products. At a minimum, prior to

placing an overlay, we recommend implementing a surface treatment (chip seal) in order to

reduce the reflective cracking potential.

5.4 Concrete Sidewalks

A properly constructed slab-on-grade sidewalk is expected to perform adequately on approved

existing fill materials or natural soils. The design should incorporate a minimum four-inch-

thickness of positively drained, free-draining stone.

If possible, limit utility trenches underneath sidewalks. Where unavoidable, utility trench

backfill beneath sidewalks should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum

dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor), or equivalent.

Proper jointing of the sidewalks is essential to minimize cracking. For sidewalks, joint spacing

loosely depends on sidewalk geometry and aesthetics as well as guidance by appropriate ACI

design criteria.

Rigid – Sidewalks


Thickness (Inches)

Concrete 4,000 psi 28-day compressive

strength air-entrained concrete 4

Base Untreated Dense-graded

Aggregate Material No. 21B 4

5.5 Retaining Walls

5.5.1 Foundations

Based on the results of our exploration, we recommend that the retaining walls be supported

on continuous strip footings. Footings should be founded on suitable undisturbed natural soils,

approved existing fills, or on compacted structural fill (Engineered Fill). Existing soft soils

encountered (specifically those identified in boring R-1) are generally considered not suitable

for support of retaining wall foundations and should be removed from all proposed footing

locations.


The footings may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. A minimum

footing width of 24 inches should be maintained for continuous (wall type) strip footings with a

minimum embedment depth of 30 inches below final grades for shrink-swell and bearing

capacity considerations.

During construction of the retaining walls, an experienced geotechnical engineer or his/her

representative should be on site to confirm that the in-situ bearing capacity at the bottom of

each footing excavation is adequate for the design loads recommended in this report.

Over-excavation of footing areas may be required to remove unsuitable material that may

underlie the proposed retaining walls (such as those encountered in boring R-1). Any such

buried utility services must be removed from the footprint of the retaining walls, unless proper

utility abandonment is feasible (i.e. cleaning out utility pipe and backfilling with concrete,

flowable fill, or stone).

5.5.2 Settlement

Based on the boring data and assumed structural information, we estimate that foundation

settlements will be less than 1 inch with differential settlement of up to one-half the estimated

total settlement. The magnitude of differential settlements will be influenced by the variation

in excavation requirements across the along the retaining walls’ footprints, the distribution of

loads, and the variability of underlying soils.

Our settlement analysis was performed on the basis of assumed structural loading and

excavation requirements discussed in the project information section of this report. Actual

settlements experienced by the structure and the time required for these soils to settle will be

influenced by undetected variations in subsurface conditions, final grading plans, and the

quality of fill placement and foundation construction.

5.5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures

The following information is provided to aid in analysis of soil loads on the below-

grade/retaining walls constructed along the road widening. Earth pressures on walls below

grade are influenced by the structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods

of construction and/or compaction, and the strength of the materials being restrained. The

most common condition assumed for earth retaining wall design is the active condition. Active

conditions apply to relatively flexible earth retention structures, such as freestanding walls,

where some movement and rotation may occur to mobilize soil shear strength.


Based on our experience with similar soils and conditions, we recommend the following lateral

earth pressure coefficients and equivalent fluid pressure (equivalent fluid unit weight)

parameters for design of retaining or below-grade walls:

DESIGN PARAMETERS TYPICAL ON-SITE GRANULAR SOILS

VDOT NO. 57 STONE

Moist unit weight of backfill 115 pcf 105 pcf

Angle of Internal Friction (ø) 28o 36o

Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf), Active 40 30

Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf), At Rest 60 45

Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest (Ko) 0.53 0.41

Coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure (Kp) 2.01 3.01

Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure (Ka) 0.36 0.26

Coefficient of Friction [Concrete on Soil]() 0.30 0.50 ¹The given coefficient of Passive Earth Pressure (Kp) is lower than the theoretical values. This is done since the movement of the wall, necessary to develop the full extent of Kp, is excessive. The on-site parameters are considered typical for most on site borrow soils (typically Clayey SAND), which would be encountered in excavations and/or cut areas.

To reduce lateral earth pressure, drainage of the backfill behind the walls must be provided.

This drainage system may consist of drain lines located around the perimeter of the wall

foundations that discharge to a suitable outlet. These drain lines should be surrounded by a

minimum of 6 inches of free-draining granular filter or by No. 57 Stone wrapped in filter fabric.

The space between the back face of the walls and the excavation should be backfilled with an

18-inch-thick, free draining granular fill. Suitable man-made drainage materials may be used in

lieu of the granular backfill adjacent to the below grade walls. Examples of suitable materials

include Enka Mat, Mira Drain, or Geotec Drains, or equivalent. The material should be placed in

accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and hydraulically connected to the

foundation drainage system, which in turn should be properly drained. Where exposed to

weather, the top 2 feet of backfill should consist of a clayey material to minimize water

infiltration into the granular material and thus reduce the excess water to be handled by the

drainage system. The ground surface adjacent to the below-grade walls should be kept

properly graded to prevent ponding of water adjacent to the below-grade walls.

Heavy equipment should not operate within 5 feet of below-grade walls to prevent lateral

pressures in excess of those cited. If other surcharge loads are located a short distance outside

below-grade walls they may also exert appreciable additional lateral pressures. Surcharge

loads should be evaluated using the appropriate active coefficients provided above. The effect


of surcharge loads should be added to the recommended earth pressures to determine total

lateral stresses.

5.6 BMP

Based on information provided by the client and the soil samples obtained during our

exploration, we believe the proposed BMP site is currently situated on an old fill site. BMP

construction may be hindered by the presence of boulders or other uncontrolled debris. Our

borings showed approximately 8.0 to 14.2 feet of fill across the site. Beneath the fill were

residual soils and weathered rock. We recommend that all BMPs be designed in accordance

with state and local design regulations.

5.7 Drainage

An important consideration with the design and construction of pavements and foundations is

surface and subsurface drainage. Where standing water develops, softening of the subgrade and

other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement or retaining wall settlements or

failures can be expected. Furthermore, good drainage should minimize the possibility of the

subgrade materials becoming saturated over a long time. Based upon the results of the soil test

borings, we do not expect the subsurface water levels to affect the performance of pavements,

sidewalks, or retaining walls. The use of underdrains or a drainage layer along the edges of the

pavement, beneath sidewalks, and behind retaining walls, and/or the use of soils stabilization

techniques, such as those described above, will assist in decreasing the deteriorating effect of

water on the subgrades. Surface runoff water that is trapped during construction on the exposed

subgrade soils could create additional deterioration of the soil's bearing capacity. Standing water

that may develop on the surface of the pavement may be minimized by:

adequate design (surface graded to control runoff to desired locations - catch

basins, drain inlets, gutters, etc.);

adequate compaction of each lift of pavement section component material (to

minimize localized settlements that result in ponding);

accurate grading of each lift of pavement section component material (to achieve

the desired design grades);


installing temporary weep holes in drainage structures, construction of drainage swales

and diversion ditches and proper backfill and grading behind curbs to minimize water

intrusion from behind the curbs.

We note that the following guidelines are found in the Guidelines For 1993 AASHTO Pavement

Design:

1) Standard UD-2 underdrains and outlets are required on all raised medians to prevent

water infiltration through or under the pavement structure. Refer to the current VDOT

Road and Bridge Standards for installation details.

2) When Aggregate Base Material, Type I, Size #21-B is used as an untreated base or

subbase, it should be connect to a longitudinal pavement drain (UD-4) with outlets or

daylighted (to the face of the ditch) to provide for positive lateral drainage on all

roadways with a design ADT of 1,000 vehicles per day or greater. (Refer to the current

VDOT Road and Bridge Standards for installation details.) Other drainage layers can also

be used. When the design ADT is less than 1,000 vehicles per day, the Engineer must

assess the potential for the presence of water and determine if sub-surface drainage

provisions should be make.

3) Undercutting, transverse drains, stabilization, and special design surface and subsurface

drainage installations, should be considered whenever necessary to minimize the

adverse impacts of subsurface water on the stability and strength of the pavement

structure.

4) Standard CD-1 and CD-2 should be considered for use with all types of unstabilzed

aggregates, independent of the traffic levels.

5) For roadways with a design ADT of 20,000 vehicles per day or greater, a drainage layer

should be used, placed on not less than 6 inches of stabilized material and connected to

a UD-4 edge drain.

We recommend that pavement underdrains be designed and installed beneath new pavements

and sidewalks in accordance with guidelines contained in VDOT’s Road and Bridge Standards

and Drainage Manual. However, construction during wet seasonal conditions (typically

November through May) with heavy precipitation may result in a perched groundwater table or

softening of the soils at the surface. Additional underdrains may be required based on


prevailing conditions during construction that were not evident during our subsurface

exploration.

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Site Preparation

General site work, including clearing, stripping, and grubbing, should be performed in

accordance with the VDOT’s Road and Bridge Specifications.

Before proceeding with construction, surficial soils and deleterious non-soil materials should be

stripped and removed from the proposed construction area. During the clearing, stripping, and

grubbing operations, positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the

accumulation of water. Underground utilities should be re-routed to locations outside of the

proposed placement of new pavements and footprints of the retaining walls. Where

unavoidable, utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the

maximum dry density as determined by the Standard Proctor test.

Shallow ditches line the sides of the existing road throughout the majority of the project. To

accomplish the proposed roadway widening, it is our assumption that all existing ditches will be

filled with approximately 1 to 3 feet of controlled structural fill (once surficial soil and all

deleterious materials and unsuitable fill are removed).

After clearing, stripping, and grubbing, areas intended to support pavements, sidewalks,

retaining walls, and new fill should be carefully evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. At that

time, proofrolling of the subgrade with a 20- to 30-ton loaded truck or other pneumatic-tired

vehicle of similar size and weight should be performed under the observation of the

geotechnical engineer to aid in identifying any localized soft or unsuitable materials.

Proofrolling should be performed during a time of good weather and not while the site is wet,

frozen, or severely desiccated. The proofrolling observation is an opportunity for the

geotechnical engineer to locate inconsistencies intermediate of our boring locations in the

existing subgrade. Construction during periods of wet weather will exacerbate unsuitable

conditions.

Where encountered, soils deemed soft and/or unsuitable for pavement support by the

geotechnical engineer should removed from below the proposed pavement. In the event that


large areas of unstable and unsuitable subgrade are encountered, scarifying with drying and

recompaction, moderate undercutting with replacement using stable engineering fill, or a

combination of these remedial type measures could be considered under the advisement of the

geotechnical engineer. Construction during periods of wet weather will exacerbate unsuitable

conditions.

If large areas of the subgrade are identified as unsuitable for placement of the new pavement

section and the above methods do not remediate the soils, we recommend the use of a soil

stabilization geogrid (Tensar BX 1100 or equivalent) or stabilization geofabric (Amoco 2000 or

equivalent) be placed over the subgrade soils beneath the gravel base to assist in the remediation

process. An alternative to the use of geosynthetics is the use of a lime additive mixed with the

soft, wet soils. Lime stabilization has proven to be an effective way of stabilizing unsuitable soils.

Very dense soils (soils with N-values of 50 bpf or higher) were encountered in seven (7) of our

borings. Excavations above apparent rock depths can generally be accomplished by

conventional earthmoving equipment. Referencing the soil test boring logs, N-values up to

about 50 bpf indicate soils that can usually be excavated by conventional means. N-values of

50 blows for 6-inches or less penetration of the split-spoon sampler typically require heavy

equipment or rippers to efficiently excavate. Material below “Auger Refusal” depths, such as

those encountered in borings R-14 and BMP-1, may require hoe ramming or blasting. We do

not anticipate that rock will be encountered during general grading activities. It should be

understood, however, that the rock surface is variable and could be encountered at other

locations than those explored by our borings, especially at the east end of the project, although

this occurrence would most likely be isolated and somewhat limited in area.

The Fill identified in our borings was relatively “clean” or did not contain deleterious material

which would render it unusable for engineering purposes. Nonetheless, all existing fill

materials should be thoroughly evaluated in the field during construction and its suitability for

engineering use should be determined at that time.

6.2 Pavement Construction

Proper compaction of all elements of the pavement section is necessary. In accordance with

VDOT, we recommend that the upper 12 inches of all subgrades be compacted to 100% of the

Standard Proctor maximum dry density test prior to placement of new pavements. Field

compaction testing should be performed by a trained technician at a minimum of every 1000


feet with a sand cone, nuclear densiometer, or other appropriate method. The aggregate base

course should be compacted in accordance with VDOT standards, which usually range from

95% to 100% of Standard Proctor maximum dry density. The specific compaction requirement

is a function of the stone’s gradation. We recommend that asphalt compaction be monitored

at the time of placement by nuclear gauges and that acceptable compaction be defined as a

test section density of at least 98% of the maximum density determined on a density control

strip constructed by an approved roller at the start of paving operations. The size of test

sections should be determined based on field observations made by experienced testing

personnel. A minimum of 5 density tests should be performed in each test section and the

results averaged. In addition to the average required compaction recommended above, no

individual test should be below 95% compaction.

6.3 Construction Materials Testing (CMT) Considerations

We recommend that all construction activities, including pavement placement, trenching,

construction of retaining walls, and placement of backfill, be observed, and compacted backfill

be tested, by a qualified engineering technician working under the supervision of a professional

geotechnical engineer to verify that the recommendations presented herein are followed.

6.4 Controlled Structural Fill

Controlled structural fill may be constructed using the non-organic on-site soils or an off-site

borrow having a classification of CL, ML, SC, SM, or better as defined by the Unified Soil

Classification System. Other materials may be suitable for use as general controlled structural

fill materials and should be individually evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Controlled

structural fill should be free of boulders, organic matter, debris, or other deleterious materials

and should have a maximum particle size no greater than 3 inches. Soils classified as CH or MH

should not be used as structural fill in fill depths 3 feet or shallower. These soils are difficult to

moisture condition and pose expansive (heaving, shrink-swell) risk to pavements, sidewalks,

and retaining walls.

Fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts with maximum height of 8 inches loose

measure. New fill should be adequately keyed into stripped and scarified subgrade soils.

During fill operations, positive surface drainage should be maintained to prevent the

accumulation of water. We recommend that structural fill be compacted to at least 95 percent

of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density. In confined areas such as utility trenches,


portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 3 to 4 inches may be required to achieve

specified degrees of compaction.

In general, we recommend that the moisture content of fill soils be maintained within three

percentage points of the optimum moisture content as determined from the Standard Proctor

density test. Generally, we do not anticipate significant problems controlling moistures within

fill during periods of dry weather, but moisture control may be difficult during winter months or

extended periods of rain. We recommend that the contractor have equipment on site during

earthwork for both drying and wetting of fill soils. Attempts to work the soils when wet can be

expected to result in deterioration of otherwise suitable soil conditions or of previously placed

and properly compacted fill.

Where construction traffic or weather has disturbed the subgrade, the upper 8 inches of soils

intended for structural support should be scarified and re-compacted. Each lift of fill should be

tested in order to confirm that the recommended degree of compaction is attained. Field

density tests should be performed for every 10,000 square feet (approximately 100 feet square)

of fill area, with a minimum of two tests per lift, to verify fill compaction. In confined areas, a

greater frequency may be required.

6.5 Construction Drainage

Subsurface water for the purposes of this report is defined as water encountered below the

existing ground surface. Based on the subsurface water data obtained during our exploration

program, we do not anticipate that subsurface water will be have a negative impact on

construction during anticipated earthwork for the proposed pavements, sidewalks, and

retaining walls at the site. However, the contractor should be prepared to dewater work areas

with appropriate grading, drainage ditches, swales, etc. Fluctuations in subsurface water levels

and soil moisture can be anticipated with changes in precipitation, runoff, and season.

7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES

We recommend that we be given the opportunity to review pavement, sidewalk, and retaining

wall details, grading plan, and project specifications when construction documents approach

completion. This review evaluates whether the recommendations and comments provided

herein have been understood and properly implemented. We also recommend that Froehling

& Robertson, Inc. be retained for professional and construction materials testing services


during construction of the project. Our continued involvement on the project helps provide

continuity for proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. These

services are not part of the currently authorized scope of services.

8.0 LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Stantec or their agent, for specific

application to the proposed Forest Hill Avenue Widening project in Richmond, Virginia, in

accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty,

express or implied, is made. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on design

information furnished to us; the data obtained from the previously described subsurface

exploration program, and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The

conclusions and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions which

could exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site. Should such

variations become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our

conclusions and recommendations based upon on-site observations of the conditions.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that

conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are

not as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil

conditions. Therefore, experienced geotechnical engineers should evaluate earthwork and

pavement construction to verify that the conditions anticipated in design actually exist.

Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction compliance with the design concepts,

specifications, or recommendations.

In the event that changes are made in the design or location of the proposed roadways, parking

lots and walkways, the recommendations presented in the report shall not be considered valid

unless the changes are reviewed by our firm and conclusions of this report modified and/or

verified in writing. If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or

transmitted in its entirety, including text, attachments, and enclosures. Interpretations based

on only a part of this report may not be valid. This report contains 23 pages of text and the

attached appendices.

APPENDIX A

Geotechnical Services Are Performed forSpecific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs oftheir clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even anothercivil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, eachgeotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Noone except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report withoutfirst conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one— not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or projectexcept the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full ReportSerious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnicalengineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.Do not read selected elements only.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: theclient's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the generalnature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location ofthe structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless thegeotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:• not prepared for you,• not prepared for your project,• not prepared for the specific site explored, or• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnicalengineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a

parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,

• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,

• composition of the design team, or• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of projectchanges—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problemsthat occur because their reports do not consider developments of whichthey were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can ChangeA geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed atthe time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage oftime; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the reportto determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing oranalysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are ProfessionalOpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points wheresubsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professionaljudgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout thesite. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineerwho developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipatedconditions.

A Report's Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the construction recommendations included in yourreport. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnicalengineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual

Important Information About Your

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

Geotechnical Engineering ReportThe following information is provided to help you manage your risks.

subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnicalengineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not performconstruction observation.

A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject toMisinterpretationOther design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineeringreports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team aftersubmitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors canalso misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk byhaving your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstructionconferences, and by providing construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer's LogsGeotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upontheir interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors oromissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report shouldnever be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognizethat separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Contractors a Complete Report andGuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can makecontractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting whatthey provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with aclearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that thereport was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that thereport's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnicalengineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or toconduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information theyneed or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might yoube in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilitiesstemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize thatgeotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that

have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the riskof such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety ofexplanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations"many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsi-bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilitiesand risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnicalengineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnicalstudy. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usuallyrelate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks orregulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have ledto numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared forsomeone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoldDiverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold fromgrowing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should bedevised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professionalmold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water ormoisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have beenaddressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findingsare conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of thisproject is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s studywere designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyedin this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moldfrom growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your ASFE-Member GeotechncialEngineer for Additional AssistanceMembership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnicalengineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be ofgenuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Conferwith you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017

e-mail: [email protected] www.asfe.org

Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for

purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any otherfirm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

IIGER06045.0M

DATE: January 2010

SOURCE: DeLORME

DRAWN: N/A F&R# 60K-0679

Site Vicinity Map Forest Hill Avenue Widening

Richmond, Virginia

Drawing No.

1

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC ENGINEERING ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● GEOTECHNICAL

Approximate Site Location

APPENDIX B

MVillafana

Text Box

C-1

MVillafana

Text Box

Bulk 1

MVillafana

Text Box

B-18

MVillafana

Text Box

B-1

MVillafana

Text Box

C-2

MVillafana

Text Box

B-2

MVillafana

Text Box

R-1

MVillafana

Text Box

R-2

MVillafana

Text Box

R-3

MVillafana

Text Box

R-4

MVillafana

Text Box

C-3

MVillafana

Text Box

C-8

MVillafana

Text Box

B-3

MVillafana

Text Box

Bulk 2

MVillafana

Text Box

B-4

MVillafana

Text Box

NTS

MVillafana

Text Box

2

MVillafana

Text Box

B-5

MVillafana

Text Box

B-6

MVillafana

Text Box

Bulk 3

MVillafana

Text Box

C-7

MVillafana

Text Box

B-7

MVillafana

Text Box

R-7

MVillafana

Text Box

R-8

MVillafana

Text Box

B-8

MVillafana

Text Box

R-5

MVillafana

Text Box

B-16

MVillafana

Text Box

C-4

MVillafana

Text Box

R-6

MVillafana

Text Box

B-9

MVillafana

Text Box

B-10

MVillafana

Text Box

Bulk 4

MVillafana

Text Box

R-9

MVillafana

Text Box

B-17

MVillafana

Text Box

NTS

MVillafana

Text Box

3

MVillafana

Text Box

B-11

MVillafana

Text Box

R-10

MVillafana

Text Box

R-11

MVillafana

Text Box

R-12

MVillafana

Text Box

B-12

MVillafana

Text Box

Bulk 5

MVillafana

Text Box

C-5

MVillafana

Text Box

C-9

MVillafana

Text Box

R-16

MVillafana

Text Box

R-15

MVillafana

Text Box

R-13

MVillafana

Text Box

R-14

MVillafana

Text Box

B-14

MVillafana

Text Box

B-13

MVillafana

Text Box

B-15

MVillafana

Text Box

C-6

MVillafana

Text Box

BMP-2

MVillafana

Text Box

BMP-1

MVillafana

Text Box

NTS

MVillafana

Text Box

4

KEY TO BORING LOG SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS Particle Size and Proportion Verbal descriptions are assigned to each soil sample or stratum based on estimates of the particle size of each component of the soil and the percentage of each component of the soil.

Particle Size Proportion/

Descriptive Terms Descriptive Terms

Soil Component Particle Size Component Term Percentage

Boulder Cobble

Gravel-Coarse -Fine

Sand-Coarse -Medium

-Fine Silt (non-cohesive)

Clay (cohesive)

> 12 inch 3 - 12 inch 3/4 - 3 inch #4 - 3/4 inch #10 - #4 #40 - #10 #200 - #40 < #200 < #200

Major

Secondary

Minor

Uppercase Letters (e.g., SAND, CLAY)

Adjective

(e.g., sandy, clayey)

Some Little Trace

> 50% 20%-50% 15%-25% 5%-15% 0%-5%

Notes: 1. Particle size is designated by U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes. 2. Because of the small size of the split-spoon sampler relative to the size of gravel, the true percentage

of gravel may not be accurately estimated.

Density or Consistency The standard penetration resistance values (N-values) are used to describe the density of coarse-grained soils (GRAVEL, SAND) or the consistency of fine-grained soils (SILT, CLAY). Sandy silts of very low plasticity may be assigned a density instead of a consistency.

DENSITY CONSISTENCY

Term N-Value Term N-Value

Very Loose Loose

Medium-Dense Dense

Very Dense

0 - 4 5 - 10 11 - 30 31 - 50 > 50

Very Soft Soft

Firm Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

0 - 1 2 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 15 16 - 30 > 30

Notes: 1. The N-value is the number of blows of a 140 lb. hammer freely falling 30 inches required to drive a standard split spoon sampler (2.0 in. O.D., 1 3/8 in I.D.) 12 inches into the soil after properly seating the sampler six inches.

2. When encountered, gravel may increase the N-value of the standard penetration test and may not accurately represent the in-situ density or consistency of the soil sampled.

rev. Dec 2001

Groundwater was notencountered during drilling

Groundwater was notobserved upon removal ofauger

Cave-in depth at 3 feet

Driller used automatichammer to perform SPT

2.0

3.5

5.0

6-4-2

3-3-5

3-4-6

Driller Reported "Asphalt"Driller Reported "Crushed Stone"

POSSIBLE FILL: Firm, Olive Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)RESIDIUUM: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown and Gray,Sandy Fat CLAY - Moist

(CH)Boring terminated at 5 feet

Boring backfilled upon completion

0.20.6

3.5

5.0

0.5

2.0

3.5

6

8

10

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:

ElevationDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS

(Classification)N Value

(blows/ft)

(1 of 1) TotalDepth Elev:

Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKSSampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

12/10/09

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.Forest Hill Avenue Widening, Richmond, Virginia

B - 1

*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N.

Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010

See Boring Location PlanAbbott12/10/09

60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10



Cave-in depth at 2.5 feet


2.0

3.5

5.0

2-3-3

2-2-3

2-3-3

5.25 inches Asphalt5.75 inches Crushed Stone

FILL: Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine toCoarse SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM-FILL)RESIDIUUM: Firm, Yellowish-Brown, SandyLean CLAY, Micaceous - Moist

(CL)Boring terminated at 5 feet


0.51.02.0

5.0

0.5

2.0

3.5

6

5

6

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/16/09


B - 2


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010

See Boring Location PlanEllis12/16/09

60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





2.0

3.5

5.0

2-2-3

2-5-6

4-6-7

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"POSSIBLE FILL: Firm, Olive Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)Stiff, Reddish-Brown, Sandy Fat CLAY - Moist

(CH-Possible FILL)

Boring terminated at 5 feetBoring backfilled upon completion

0.3

1.5

5.0

0.5

2.0

3.5

5

11

13

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/10/09


B - 3


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





2.0

3.5

5.0

6-3-3

5-7-8

5-5-6

Driller Reported "Crushed Stone"FILL: Firm to Stiff, Strong Brown toYellowish-Brown and Grayish-Brown, Sandy FatCLAY, with little Silt, Micaceous - Moist

(CH-FILL)


0.6

5.0

0.5

2.0

3.5

6

15

11

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/15/09


B - 4


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10

Groundwater wasencountered at 6 feetduring drilling

Groundwater wasobserved at 6 feet uponremoval of auger



1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

1-2-1

1-2-1

WOH

1-3-5

3-4-6

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Very Loose, Black, Silty Fine to MediumSAND, with little Organic Material - Moist

(SM-FILL)Very Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine toMedium SAND, with trace Organic Material,Micaceous - Moist

(SC-FILL)Firm, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, withtrace Crushed Stone - Moist

(CL-FILL)RESIDIUUM: Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Silty Fineto Coarse SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)[Relict Rock Structure Apparent]


0.6

1.8

6.0

7.5

10.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

3

3

0

8

10

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/10/09


B - 5


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

10.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

2-4-2

WOH-2-2

2-2-4

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Firm, Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, with traceOrganic Material and Silt, Micaceous - Moist

(CL-FILL)RESIDUUM: Soft to Firm, Olive Brown toYellowish-Brown, Sandy Lean and Fat CLAY, traceRoots - Moist

(CL-CH)


0.3

1.5

5.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6

4

6

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/30/09


B - 6


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

10.0

4-4-5

5-4-5

3-4-4

2-3-3

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Loose, Dark Brown, Silty Fine to MediumSAND, with trace Gravel and Organic Material -Moist

(SM-FILL)Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine to MediumSAND, with trace Gravel and Organic Material -Moist

(SC-FILL)RESIDUUM: Loose, Olive Brown, Silty Fine toCoarse SAND, Micaceous - Moist



0.8

3.5

5.0

10.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

8.5

9

9

8

6

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/30/09


B - 7


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

10.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





2.0

3.5

5.0

2-3-5

3-4-6

4-6-6

5 inches of Asphalt10 inches of Crushed Stone

FILL: Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine toMedium SAND, with trace Gravel - Moist

(SC-FILL)RESIDIUUM: Medium Dense, Yellowish-Red,Clayey Fine to Medium SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SC)Boring terminated at 5 feet


0.51.3

3.5

5.0

0.5

2.0

3.5

8

10

12

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/16/09


B - 8


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

5-6-4

5-6-8

4-5-6

Driller Reported "Gravel"FILL: Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine toMedium SAND - Moist

(SC-FILL)RESIDIUUM: Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brownand Yellowish-Red, Clayey Fine to Coarse SAND -Moist

(SC)Boring terminated at 5 feet


0.2

2.0

5.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

10

14

11

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/11/09


B - 9


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

5-5-4

3-3-3

2-3-2

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"POSSIBLE FILL: Loose, Olive Brown, Clayey Fineto Medium SAND, with trace Roots, Micaceous -Moist

(SC-Possible FILL)


0.1

5.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

9

6

5

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/11/09


B -10


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

4-5-2

3-4-5

4-3-3

Driller Reported "Crushed Stone"FILL: Firm, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy SILT, withtrace Asphalt and Gravel, Micaceous - Moist

(ML-FILL)RESIDIUUM: Loose, Pink, Clayey Fine to CoarseSAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SC)[Relict Rock Structure Apparent]


0.51.0

5.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

7

9

6

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/14/09


B -11


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

2-3-3

4-5-8

2-3-3

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"RESIDIUUM: Loose to Medium Dense, OliveBrown to Reddish-Yellow, Clayey Fine to CoarseSAND, with little Silt, Micaceous - Moist

(SC)


0.3

5.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6

13

6

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/14/09


B -12


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





2.0

3.5

5.0

2-4-3

5-7-12

8-6-6

6 inches of Asphalt7 inches of Crushed Stone

RESIDIUUM: Loose to Medium Dense,Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine to Medium SAND,with little Silt, Micaceous - Moist

(SC)


0.51.0

5.0

0.5

2.0

3.5

7

19

12

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/15/09


B -13


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





2.0

3.5

5.0

6-2-3

6-8-15

4-8-15

6.5 inches of Asphalt7.5 inches of Crushed Stone

FILL: Firm, Reddish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY,with trace Gravel and Organic Material - Moist

(CL-FILL)Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine toCoarse SAND, with trace Gravel and OrganicMaterial - Moist

(SC-FILL)Boring terminated at 5 feet


0.51.12.0

5.0

0.5

2.0

3.5

5

23

23

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/16/09


B -14


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

2-5-3

4-5-8

1-2-1

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Loose to Medium Dense, Brown, ClayeyFine to Medium SAND, with trace OrganicMaterial and Silt - Moist

(SC-FILL)Soft, Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, with trace RockFragments - Moist

(CL-FILL)Boring terminated at 5 feet


0.6

3.5

5.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

8

13

3

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/15/09


B -15


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





2.5

4.5

14-10-5-4

5-7-8-7

7 inches of Asphalt

9 inches of Crushed Stone

RESIDIUUM: Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown,Clayey Fine to Medium SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SC)

[Relict Rock Structure Apparent]

Boring terminated at 4.5 feetBoring backfilled upon completion

0.5

1.2

4.5

0.5

2.5

15

15

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

1/15/10


B -16


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

4.5'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/1

2/10





3.0

5.0

12-8-7-9

6-6-5-6

7.25 inches of Asphalt

9.75 inches of Crushed Stone

FILL: Medium Dense, Brown, Silty Fine toMedium SAND - Moist

(SM-FILL)

RESIDIUUM: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY - Moist

(CL)


0.5

1.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

15

11

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

1/15/10


B -17


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





2.5

4.5

15-9-7-5

9-5-4-5

7 inches of Asphalt

12 inches of Crushed Stone

FILL: Medium Dense, Brownish-Gray, ClayeyFine to Medium SAND - Moist

(SC-FILL)

RESIDIUUM: Stiff, Gray, Sandy SILT, Micaceous -Moist

(ML)


Boring terminated at 4.5 feetBoring backfilled upon completion

0.5

1.5

2.5

4.5

0.5

2.5

16

9

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

1/15/10


B -18


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

4.5'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-1-2

1-1-1

WOH-1-1

WOH-1-1

WOH-1-1

1-2-2

2-3-2

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Very Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Silty Fine toMedium SAND, trace Roots, Micaceous - Moist

(SM-FILL)

Soft, Dark Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, trace Roots,Micaceous - Moist

(CL-FILL)

POSSIBLE FILL: Soft, Yellowish-Brown, SandyLean CLAY, with trace Organic Material andRoots, Micaceous - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)RESIDIUUM: Very Loose to Loose, LightBrownish-Gray and White, Silty Fine to CoarseSAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)


0.4

3.5

7.5

10.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

3

2

2

2

2

4

5

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/10/09


R - 1


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

3-4-3

5-5-8

4-8-7

5-7-8

4-3-3

2-3-2

1-2-3

Driller Reported "Gravel"POSSIBLE FILL: Firm, Strong Brown, Sandy FatCLAY, Micaceous - Moist

(CH-Possible FILL)Stiff, Reddish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)Medium Dense, Brown, Clayey Fine to MediumSAND - Moist

(SC-Possible FILL)RESIDIUUM: Medium Dense to Loose,Yellowish-Brown to Brown, Silty Fine to CoarseSAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)


0.2

1.7

3.5

5.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

7

13

15

15

6

5

5

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/11/09


R - 2


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10


Groundwater wasobserved at 14.9 feet uponremoval of auger



1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-1-2

5-7-8

3-5-6

2-2-3

3-3-3

2-2-2

3-5-6

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"RESIDIUUM: Soft, Olive Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY - Moist

(CL)Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy Fat CLAY,Micaceous - Moist

(CH)Very Loose to Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brownto Grayish-Brown, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND,Micaceous - Moist

(SM)



0.41.5

3.5

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

3

15

11

5

6

4

11

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/10/09


R - 3


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10

Groundwater wasencountered at 18.5 feetduring drilling




1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

6-4-4

5-7-7

5-4-5

5-9-14

8-11-12

3-4-4

3-4-5

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Firm to Stiff, Yellowish-Brown toReddish-Brown, Sandy Fat CLAY, with traceOrganic Material - Moist

(CH-FILL)Loose, Dark Brown, Silty Fine to Medium SAND,with trace Organic Material - Moist

(SM-FILL-Surficial Soil)RESIDUUM: Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brownto White, Clayey Fine to Medium SAND - Moist

(SC)

Loose, Yellowish-Brown, Silty Fine to CoarseSAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)


0.3

3.5

5.0

10.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

8

14

9

23

23

8

9

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/30/09


R - 4


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

4-3-3

5-5-7

2-4-4

2-4-4

5-6-5

3-3-6

2-4-5

Driller Reported "Gravel"RESIDIUUM: Firm, Yellowish-Brown, SandyLean CLAY, with trace Roots - Moist

(CL)Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine toMedium SAND, with little Silt, Micaceous - Moist

(SC)Loose to Medium Dense, Pink toYellowish-Brown and Black, Silty Fine to CoarseSAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)



0.20.7

3.5

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

6

12

8

8

11

9

9

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/11/09


R - 5


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10

Groundwater was notreported during drilling

Groundwater was notreported upon removal ofauger



1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-3-2

2-2-2

2-4-5

2-4-3

4-5-5

3-3-4

5-8-6

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"POSSIBLE FILL: Firm to Soft, Olive Brown, SandyLean CLAY, with trace Organic Material - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)RESIDIUUM: Stiff to Firm, Yellowish-Brown,Sandy Lean CLAY, with trace Roots, Micaceous -Moist

(CL)

Loose to Medium Dense, White, Brown, andPink, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND, Micaceous -Moist

(SM)



0.4

3.0

8.5

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

5

4

9

7

10

7

14

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/11/09


R - 6


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

2-2-3

5-7-8

3-3-5

3-3-4

3-4-5

4-4-3

2-3-4

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"RESIDUUM: Loose to Medium Dense,Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine to Medium SAND,with trace Organic Material and Silt - Moist

(SC)Loose, Pink, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND,Micaceous - Moist

(SM)



0.3

3.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

5

15

8

7

9

7

7

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/25/09


R - 7


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

2-3-3

2-4-5

4-5-7

3-3-4

3-4-5

2-3-5

2-2-3

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"RESIDUUM: Firm, Reddish-Brown, Sandy FatCLAY, trace Roots - Moist

(CH)Medium Dense to Loose, Yellowish-Brown, SiltyFine to Coarse SAND, with trace Clay, Micaceous- Moist

(SM)



0.3

1.5

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

6

9

12

7

9

8

5

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/25/09


R - 8


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

4-5-6

4-4-5

2-3-3

3-4-6

4-5-8

9-8-8

10-16-16

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"RESIDIUUM: Stiff, Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY,with trace Organic Material - Moist

(CL)Firm, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy Fat CLAY,Micaceous - Moist

(CH)Loose to Dense, Pink, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND,Micaceous - Moist

(SM)



0.4

3.0

5.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

11

9

6

10

13

16

32

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/11/09


R - 9


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

2-3-3

2-4-4

2-2-3

3-3-4

3-4-5

7-11-14

24-45-46

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"RESIDIUUM: Firm, Yellowish-Brown, SandyLean CLAY, with trace Roots, Micaceous - Moist

(CL)

Loose to Very Dense, Pinkish-White and Brown,Silty Fine to Coarse SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)



0.4

6.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

6

8

5

7

9

25

91

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/14/09


R -10


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

4-4-5

4-4-6

3-5-7

3-3-4

2-4-5

3-3-4

5-9-10

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"Roots

FILL: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy Fat CLAY,with trace Organic Material, Micaceous - Moist

(CH-FILL)RESIDUUM: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY, with little Gravel - Moist

(CL)Loose to Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown, SiltyFine to Coarse SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)


0.61.5

3.0

6.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

9

10

12

7

9

7

19

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/24/09


R -11


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

2-3-3

3-5-6

2-4-5

3-3-5

3-4-5

2-2-2

5-9-18

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"Roots

FILL: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY,with trace Organic Material - Moist

(CL-FILL)RESIDUUM: Very Loose to Medium Dense,Yellowish-Brown, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND,Micaceous - Moist

(SM)



0.41.5

3.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

6

11

9

8

9

4

27

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/24/09


R -12


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-2-3

4-4-5

2-3-4

3-4-5

3-3-5

4-6-7

18-34-41

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"RESIDIUUM: Firm to Stiff, Olive Brown toYellowish-Red, Sandy Elastic SILT, with little Silt,trace Organic Material, Micaceous - Moist

(MH)

Loose to Very Dense, Yellowish-Brown to Whiteand Brown, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND, Micaceous- Moist

(SM)



0.4

5.5

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

5

9

7

9

8

13

75

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/14/09


R -13


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

1-4-3

4-5-6

2-3-4

3-5-7

5-5-10

50/1

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Firm to Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY, with little Rock Fragments, trace OrganicMaterial - Moist

(CL-FILL)RESIDIUUM: Firm, Yellowish-Brown, SandyLean CLAY, Micaceous - Moist

(CL)Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown to White, SiltyFine to Coarse SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)


Weathered Rock sampled as Very Dense, White,Silty Fine to Corse SAND - Dry

(SM)

Boring terminated at 16 feet due to augerrefusal


0.6

3.0

6.0

13.5

16.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

7

11

7

12

15

100+

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

12/15/09


R -14


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

16.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10

Groundwater wasencountered at 18.5 feetduring drilling




1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

2-2-4

3-4-6

4-6-7

3-3-3

3-4-3

2-3-4

1-3-3

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Firm, Reddish-Brown and Brown, SandyFat CLAY, with trace Organic Material - Moist

(CH-FILL)RESIDUUM: Stiff, Reddish-Brown, Sandy FatCLAY - Moist

(CH)Medium Dense, Yellowish-Red, Silty Fine toMedium SAND - Moist


Firm, White and Yellowish-Red, Silty Fat CLAY,with trace Sand - Moist

(CH)Firm, Pink to Red, Sandy Elastic SILT - Moist

(MH)



0.51.5

3.5

6.0

10.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

6

10

13

6

7

7

6

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/25/09


R -15


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

19.3

2-5-17

17-23-20

17-32-29

3-4-4

6-4-6

10-13-19

20-50/4

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"POSSIBLE FILL: Medium Dense to Dense, OliveBrown, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND, with littleGravel - Moist

(SM-Possible FILL)RESIDUUM: Very Dense to Loose,Reddish-Brown, Silty Fine to Coarse SAND,Micaceous - Moist


Stiff, White to Red, Sandy SILT, Micaceous -Moist

(ML)[Relict Rock Structure Apparent]

Weathered Rock Sampled as Dense to VeryDense, Reddish-Brown, Silty Fine and MediumSAND - Moist

(SM)



0.3

3.0

8.5

10.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

22

43

61

8

10

32

100+

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

11/24/09


R -16


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10



Cave-in depth was at 13feet


1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

3-9-16

8-7-4

5-10-16

4-4-5

10-8-5

9-7-10

50/1

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Dark, Brown, Clayey and Sandy Mixture,with little Gravel and Asphalt, trace OrganicMaterial - Moist

(SC-CL-FILL)

RESIDIUUM: Stiff to Very Stiff,Yellowish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, with traceSilt - Moist

(CL)

Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown, Silty Fine toCoarse SAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)[Rock]

Boring terminated at 15.4 feet due to augerrefusal


0.2

8.0

14.515.315.4

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

15.0

25

11

26

9

13

17

100+

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

1/8/10


BMP-1


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

15.4'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10



Cave-in depth was at 15feet


1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

14.4

19.3

4-8-6

12-8-7

3-4-5

2-4-8

2-5-4

6-50/5

22-50/3

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Stiff, Dark Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, withlittle Gravel and Asphalt - Moist

(CL-FILL)

RESIDIUUM: Weathered Rock Sampled as VeryDense, Yellowish-Brown, Silty Fine to CoarseSAND, Micaceous - Moist

(SM)



0.2

14.2

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

14

15

9

12

9

100+

100+

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:



(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:


* SampleBlows

1/8/10


BMP-2


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

January 2010


60K-0679

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

679.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/3

/10

Forest Hill Avenue Widening Pavement Coring Logs

Depth (in) Pavement Core C-1

0.0 – 6.0 Asphalt

6.0 – 15.0 Crushed Stone


0.0 – 5.3 Asphalt



0.0 – 8.5 Asphalt



0.0 – 8.0 Asphalt



0.0 – 6.0 Asphalt



0.0 – 6.6 Asphalt



0.0 – 1.5 Surface Layer Asphalt

1.5 – 5.0 Intermediate Layer Asphalt

5.0 – 8.0 Base Layer Asphalt




1.5 – 2.0 Disintegrated Layer Asphalt





2.0 – 13.0 Asphalt


Depth (in) Boring Location B-8

0.0 – 5.0 Asphalt



0.0 – 6.0 Asphalt



0.0 – 6.5 Asphalt














1.5 – 4.0 Disintegrated Layer Asphalt



APPENDIX C

Dry

density, pcf

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Water content, %

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

100% SATURATION CURVESFOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO:

2.82.72.6

Test specification: ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard

60K-0679 1-18-10

Forest Hill Avenue Widening

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

N/A

Brown Clayey Sand [Bulk Sample #1]

SC

13.5 %

27 7

27.4 %

Maximum dry density = 120.5 pcf

Optimum moisture = 10.2 %

Curve No.: 1

Project No.: Date:

Project:

Client:

Location: Richmond, VA

Sample Number: 1 [Control #111099]

Remarks:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Description:

Classifications - USCS: AASHTO:

Nat. Moist. = Sp.G. =

Liquid Limit = Plasticity Index =

% < No.200 =

TEST RESULTS

FigureFROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.

COMPACTION TEST REPORT

Dry

density, pcf

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Water content, %

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


2.82.72.6


60K-0679 1-19-10



N/A


SC

18.5 %

36 14



Curve No.: 2

Project No.: Date:

Project:

Client:



Remarks:


Description:




% < No.200 =

TEST RESULTS



Dry

density, pcf

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Water content, %

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


2.82.72.6


60K-0679 1-18-10



N/A

Brown Sandy Clay [Bulk Sample #3]

CL

20.9 %

38 17

58.3 %



Curve No.: 3

Project No.: Date:

Project:

Client:



Remarks:


Description:




% < No.200 =

TEST RESULTS



Dry

density, pcf

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Water content, %

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


2.82.72.6


60K-0679 1-18-10



N/A


SC

18.4 %

31 13

43.8 %



Curve No.: 4

Project No.: Date:

Project:

Client:



Remarks:


Description:




% < No.200 =

TEST RESULTS



Dry

density, pcf

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Water content, %

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


2.82.72.6


60K-0679 1-19-10



N/A


SC

19.4 %

31 12

45.1 %



Curve No.: 5

Project No.: Date:

Project:

Client:



Remarks:


Description:




% < No.200 =

TEST RESULTS



California Bearing Ratio

Project No.: 60K-0679 Test Date: 1/25/2010

Client: Stantec Consulting Services Tested By: C.M.

Project: Forest Hill Avenue Widening Compaction method: AASHTO T 193

Location: Richmond, Virginia X Soaked CBR

X 65 BLOWS

Penetration(in)

0

0.025

0.05

0.075

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.4

0.5

Moisture Determination

CBR @ 0.1 in. penetration (dry): #N/A

CBR @ 0.1 in. penetration (wet): 16.7 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 120.5

Swell (%): 0.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%): 10.2

Dry Density Before Soaking (pcf): 118.5

Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 119.4 Visual Description:

Retained on 3/4 inch sieve (%): 0.0 Brown Clayey SAND

Surcharge Weight (pounds): 20.0

F&R Lab No.: 111099

Moisture Content Before Soaking (%): 9.1%

Moisture Content After Soak, Top in. (%): 4.6% Source: Bulk 1

Moisture Content After Soak, Ave. (%): 11.7%

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Str

ess o

n P

isto

n (

psi)

Penetration (inches)

Soaked

Dry

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.

Engineering Environmental Geotechnical

3015 Dumbarton RoadRichmond, Virginia 23228-5831 I USA

T 804.264.2701 I F 804.264.7862






X 65 BLOWS

Penetration(in)

0

0.025

0.05

0.075

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.4

0.5









F&R Lab No.: 111099




0

100

200

300

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Str

ess o

n P

isto

n (

psi)


Soaked

Dry




T 804.264.2701 I F 804.264.7862






X 65 BLOWS

Penetration(in)

0

0.025

0.05

0.075

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.4

0.5







Retained on 3/4 inch sieve (%): 0.0 Brown Sandy CLAY


F&R Lab No.: 111099




0

100

200

300

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Str

ess o

n P

isto

n (

psi)


Soaked

Dry




T 804.264.2701 I F 804.264.7862






X 65 BLOWS

Penetration(in)

0

0.025

0.05

0.075

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.4

0.5









F&R Lab No.: 111099




0

100

200

300

400

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Str

ess o

n P

isto

n (

psi)


Soaked

Dry




T 804.264.2701 I F 804.264.7862

forest hill avenue widening f&r project no. 60k-0679r1...road widening project consists of...

Documents