Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680CH2MHill Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680...

Report of Subsurface Exploration, Laboratory Testing,

and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Jahnke Road Widening

Richmond, Virginia

F&R Project No. 60K-0680

Prepared for:

CH2M Hill 8720 Stony Point Parkway, Suite 110

Richmond, Virginia 23235

Attention: Susan With, P.E.

Prepared by:

Froehling & Robertson, Inc. 3015 Dumbarton Road

Richmond, Virginia 23228

March 2010

CH2MHill Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680 i Richmond, Virginia March 10, 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 Alluvial Soils ...................................................................................................... 7

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

4.0 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................ 8

4.1 LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................................... 8

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

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

5.2 PAVEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 12

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

5.2.2 Pavement Overlays ......................................................................................... 13

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

5.4 SHARED-USE PATH ..................................................................................................... 14

5.5 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ................................................................................................. 15

5.6 BMP ...................................................................................................................... 16

5.7 DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................ 16

6.0 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 18

6.1 SITE PREPARATION ...................................................................................................... 18

6.2 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 19

6.3 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING (CMT) CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 20

6.4 CONTROLLED STRUCTURAL FILL ...................................................................................... 20

6.5 CONSTRUCTION DRAINAGE............................................................................................ 21

7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES .................................................................................... 21

8.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 21

CH2MHill Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680 ii Richmond, Virginia March 10, 2010

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ASFE Information about Geotechnical Reports

Site Vicinity Map (Drawing No. 1)

APPENDIX B

Jahnke Road Plan View with Boring Locations (Drawing No. 2, through Drawing No. 11)

Soil Classification Chart (1 page)

Key to Boring Log Soil Classification (1 page)

B – Roadway Boring Logs, B-1 through B-39 (39 pages)

BMP – BMP Boring Logs, BMP-1 through BMP-4 (4 pages)

C – Pavement Coring Logs, (3 pages)

APPENDIX C

Permeability Test Results (2 pages)

Moisture-Density Relationship Curves (9 pages)

California Bearing Ratio Test (7 pages)

CH2MHill Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680 1 Richmond, Virginia March 10, 2010

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Information

Project information was provided by Susan With, P.E., the project manager with CH2M Hill. The

proposed project involves improvements to Jahnke Road consisting primarily of road widening

with the installation of a center two-way turn lane and curb and gutters. Further

improvements will include a concrete sidewalk on the south side of the road and a porous

asphalt pavement shared-use pathway on the north side of the road. Portions of the improved

Jahnke Road will have a raised median strip in the middle in place of the center two-way turn

lane. This project is expected to extend from the cross streets of Blakemore Road to Forest Hill

Avenue, an approximate length of 1.2 miles. The 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. The land acquired for the road widening project consists of

road-shoulders and, private property with lawns and driveways, embankments, ditches, and

drainage channels. Therefore, subgrade preparation for the widening of Jahnke Road will vary

from surficial soils stripping and regrading to over-excavation and/or demolition of driveways

and drainage systems to cutting and filling of up to approximately 6 feet of vegetated and

sometimes wooded shoulder areas with Controlled Structural Fill.

At the time of this report, maximum traffic loading information was provided as 17,349 vehicles

per day (VPD). We understand a maximum of 2% of this number will be comprised of Heavy

Commercial Vehicles (HCV).

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, and 3) 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) Obtained appropriate permits from the City of Richmond for the right to work in the

streets;

3) Coordinated with Miss Utility services for utility clearance;

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

project site;

5) Executed a geotechnical subsurface exploration program consisting of thirty-five (35)

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings drilled to depths ranging from 4.9 to 20 feet

below existing site grades;

6) Performed fourteen (14) pavement cores to ascertain existing pavement section

thicknesses in select locations;

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

characteristic soil properties;

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

project, providing descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered, providing

pavement 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-five (35) soil test borings;

thirty-one were bored to a minimum depth of 4.9 feet for pavement design considerations. The

remaining four borings were bored to a termination depth of 20 feet in areas intended for a

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

fourteen (14) pavement cores to ascertain existing pavement thicknesses.

The exploration was performed between January 19, 2010 and January 26, 2010, at the

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

Drawing No. 11, Appendix B). F&R personnel marked the boring locations in the field by


approximating distances from existing features indicated on the provided site plan. After our

borings were completed, Nick Kougoulis of NXL coordinated survey locates for each as-drilled

location. These surveyed points were numbered in correlation with our borings and overlaid on

the road site plans. The plan views with the overlaid boring locations (Drawing No. 2 through

Drawing No. 11) are attached in Appendix B at the end of this report.

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 and/or soil overburden to depths ranging

from 4.9 to 20.0 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); BMP indicates the boring was performed for the storm water detention

pond (i.e. BMP-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 Jahnke Road are projected between the western cross street of Blakemore

Road and the eastern cross street of Forest Hill Avenue. Jahnke Road passes from a commercial

zone at the western edge of the proposed widening, through a residential area with several

tributary side streets, across train tracks, and through three school zones. Additionally, there are

three traffic lights along this portion of Jahnke Road; one near each school.

We observed an overhead power line on the south side of Jahnke Road with smaller lines

supplying power to individual homes on both the north and south sides. The presence of many

underground utilities was evident by utility markings along/across Jahnke Road. Also, there were

many open drainage culverts in shallow swales along both sides of the road. An asphalt /concrete

sidewalk stretched along the south side of Jahnke Road from the intersection of Blakemore Road

and Jahnke Road almost to the train tracks, the approximate length of the proposed widening.

This sidewalk is in poor condition. The asphalt is failing and vegetation is encroaching over the

sides and through the cracks. A concrete sidewalk is located along the north side from the train

tracks to Forest Hill Avenue. The surrounding topography was generally flat with gradual

elevations changes up to approximately 45 feet. We did not observe rock outcroppings, erosion,

or evidence of shrink-swell soils and most of the land on either side of Jahnke Road was

maintained lawn.

Current pavement conditions were generally mediocre with asphalt patching and cracking

throughout. Reflective cracking was also observed intermittently along the road’s length. Rutting


was not observed within the proposed project site. Recent activity from snow removal equipment

has further damaged the roadway by removing areas of surface asphalt, thus creating potholes,

particularly towards the west end of Jahnke Road.

3.2 Regional Geology

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

the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of Virginia. The topography of the Coastal Plain is a

terraced landscape that stair-steps down to the coast and to the major rivers. The risers

(scarps) are former shorelines, and the treads (flat parts) are emergent bay and river bottoms.

The higher, older plains in the western part of the Coastal Plain are more dissected by stream

erosion than the lower, younger terrace treads. It is commonly held that this landscape was

formed over the last few million years as sea level rose and fell in response to the repeated

melting and growth of large continental glaciers and as the Coastal Plain slowly uplifted.

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

and Gravels. This formation is typically comprised of interbedded yellowish-orange to reddish-

brown gravelly sand, sandy gravel, and fine to coarse sand, poorly to well-sorted, cross-bedded

in part, and includes lesser amounts of clay and silt in thin to medium beds. It commonly caps

drainage divides (altitude 250-170 feet) in western parts of the Coastal Plain physiographic

province. The lower part of the unit, showing flaser and lenticular bedding and containing rare

to abundant Ophiomorpha nodosa, represents deposition in margin al-marine environments

and is, in part, a nearshore equivalent of the more downdip, marine facies of the Yorktown

Formation. In the northern part of the Coastal Plain, the more poorly sorted and less cleanly

washed upper part of the unit, which lacks fossils, is comprised of fluvial-deltaic sediments that

prograded eastward across the shelf during a regressive phase of the Yorktown. To the south,

the upper part of unit is massively bedded clayey sand in places containing heavy mineral

concentrations that average 8 percent or more; the sands are nearshore, beach and dune

origin; interstitial clay was derived, in part, from in-situ weathering of feldspar sand. The

Pliocene Sand and Gravel Formation ranges in thickness from 0 to 50 feet.

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 0.4 to 0.6 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 most of our borings. We performed

fourteen (14) cores in locations with existing asphalt to obtain existing pavement thicknesses.

The asphalt pavement thickness ranged from 4.0 to 18.5 inches. Aggregate was reported under

all asphalt pavements and ranged in layer thickness from 3.5 to 9.0 inches. Most of the asphalt

cores were separated at layer interfaces or broken upon removal from the coring bit. A few

pavement cores consisted of a solid surface layer underlain by disintegrated asphalt. Data from

the pavement cores are listed in Appendix C at the end of this report.


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 fifteen (15) of the roadway borings

and in three (3) of the BMP borings. The fill materials encountered in the existing roadway

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

The fill material encountered in the proposed BMP locations ranged in depth from about 1.5 to

6.0 feet.

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

CH), Clayey SAND (SC), and Silty SAND (SM). For soils samples obtained in the roadway areas,

standard penetration resistances (N-values) within the sampled coarse-grained fill materials

(SANDs) ranged from 13 to 100+ blows per foot (bpf) indicating these soils are medium dense

to very dense in relative density. The N-values obtained within the sampled fine-grained fill

material (CLAYs) ranged from 4 to 28 bpf indicating these soils are soft to very stiff in

consistency.

For soils samples obtained in the proposed BMP areas, standard penetration resistances (N-

values) within the sampled fine-grained fill material (CLAYs) ranged from 0 to 4 bpf indicating

these soils are very soft to soft in consistency.

3.3.5 Alluvial Soils

Natural Alluvial 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

Alluvial Soils consisted of Sandy Lean and Fat CLAY (CL and CH), Sandy SILT (ML), Clayey SAND

(SC), and Silty SAND (SM). The N-values in the sampled natural alluvial fine-grained soils

(CLAYs) ranged from 5 to 32 bpf indicating the fine-grained soils are firm to hard in consistency.

Standard penetration resistances in the sampled natural alluvial coarse-grained soils (SANDs)

ranged from 2 to 27 bpf. These N-values indicate the granular soils (SANDs) are very loose to

medium dense in relative density.

In the proposed locations for the BMP, the N-values in the sampled natural alluvial fine-grained

soils (CLAYs) ranged from 4 to 17 bpf indicating the fine-grained soils are firm to very stiff in

consistency. Standard penetration resistances in the sampled natural alluvial coarse-grained


soils (SANDs) ranged from 10 to 31 bpf. These N-values indicate the granular soils (SANDs) are

loose to dense in relative density.

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 not identified in any or our

roadway borings, but it was encountered in all four BMP 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)

BMP – 1 20.0 10.0 14.0 17.5

BMP – 2 20.0 18.0 17.0 18.5

BMP – 3 20.0 18.0 15.0 18.0

BMP – 4 20.0 13.5 13.0 17.5

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 table:


Boring No.

Sample Depth (Feet)

Liquid Limit/ Plasticity Index

Natural Water Content (%)

#200 Sieve Wash

USCS Class.

B – 1 3.5 – 5.0 83/46 29.4 77.1 CH

B – 2 0.0 – 2.0 NA 30.2 NA CH

B – 3 3.5 – 5.0 NA 34.0 NA CH

B – 5 1.0 – 5.0 68/39 27.2 71.8 CH

B – 7 1.0 – 3.0 NA 17.3 NA CH

B – 9 1.0 – 3.0 49/28 18.2 61.9 CL

B – 10 3.0 – 5.0 NA 13.7 NA CL

B – 11 1.0 – 5.0 20/8 12.1 40.9 SC

B – 12 1.0 – 3.0 NA 21.1 NA CL

B – 13 1.0 – 3.0 28/14 12.0 46.2 SC

B – 15 3.0 – 5.0 NA 12.4 NA SM

B – 16 1.0 – 5.0 19/6 10.5 54.6 CL – ML

B – 17 1.0 – 3.0 NA 14.2 NA CL

B – 18 1.0 – 3.0 35/20 12.5 56.7 CL

B – 19 3.0 – 5.0 NA 23.2 NA CH

B – 20 1.0 – 5.0 34/21 17.3 39.0 SC

B – 21 1.0 – 3.0 NA 14.0 NA CL

B – 22 3.0 – 5.0 NA 17.5 NA CL

B – 23 1.0 – 3.0 48/28 21.6 61.5 CL

B – 24 1.0 – 3.0 NA 12.5 NA SM

B – 25 3.0 – 5.0 NA 21.6 NA CH

B – 26 1.0 – 5.0 19/7 13.1 36.6 SC – SM

B – 27 1.0 – 3.0 NA 12.1 NA CL

B – 28 3.0 – 5.0 65/38 24.4 63.2 CH


Boring No.

Sample Depth (Feet)

Liquid Limit/ Plasticity Index

Natural Water Content (%)

#200 Sieve Wash

USCS Class.

B – 29 1.0 – 3.0 NA 12.8 NA SC

B – 30 1.0 – 5.0 33/18 10.6 40.5 SC

B – 31 3.0 – 5.0 NA 25.0 NA SC

B – 33 1.0 – 3.0 31/18 11.7 43.7 SC

B – 35 3.0 – 5.0 37/25 13.2 53.3 CL

B – 36 1.0 – 5.7 36/24 15.5 55.8 CL

BMP - 2 5.0 – 10.0 49/32 24.1 70.8 CL

BMP – 4 5.0 – 10.0 42/27 20.4 63.9 CL

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

seven (7) of the nine (9) collected bulk samples for use in pavement design recommendations.

The two (2) remaining bulk samples were tested using the Standard Proctor method (AASHTO T

99) and Remolded Permeability tests for data regarding BMP design. The results of these

laboratory tests are included in the following tables:

Boring No.

Sample Depth (Feet)

LL/PI Passing

#200 Sieve, %

Maximum Dry Density/Optimum

Moisture

CBR @ 100% Compaction

USCS Class.

B – 5 1.0 – 5.0 68/39 71.8 102.6/21.1 16.7 CH

B – 11 1.0 – 5.0 20/8 40.9 126.0/9.2 18.3 SC

B – 16 1.0 – 5.0 19/6 54.6 126.0/9.5 40.7 CL – ML

B – 20 1.0 – 5.0 34/21 39.0 115.1/14.3 19.3 SC

B – 26 1.0 – 5.0 19/7 36.6 127.0/8.8 34.5 SC – SM

B – 30 1.0 – 5.0 33/18 40.5 120.5/11.4 14.5 SC

B – 36 1.0 – 5.0 36/24 55.8 118.4/13.0 10.0 CL


Boring No.

Sample Depth (Feet)

LL/PI Passing

#200 Sieve, %

Maximum Dry Density/Optimum

Moisture

Average Permeability (cm/sec) @

97% Compaction

USCS Class.

BMP – 2 5.0 – 10.0 49/32 70.8 111.3/16.0 7.51E-6 CL

BMP – 4 5.0 – 10.0 42/27 63.9 112.4/15.4 1.93E-6 CL

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, shared-use path, 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 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”. Our analysis

was performed for the design of pavement structures based on a performance period of 20

years and a Design CBR (DCBR) value of 13.7 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 17,349 VPD with 2% of that traffic being HCVs. We

understand that 8,258 VPD are anticipated in the eastbound lane and 9,091 VPD are anticipated

in the westbound lane. We have designed our pavement sections for the eastbound and

westbound lanes using the larger value of 9,091 VPD 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

1 to 2 feet of soft soils will need to be removed in the proposed pavement areas in the vicinity of

boring B-29.

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

Base Course Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0) 4.0

Sub-Base Untreated Dense-graded

Aggregate Material No. 21B 8.0

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

swith

Highlight

swith

Highlight


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 1.0 inch. 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) 3.0

Sub-Base Untreated Dense-graded

Aggregate Material No. 21B 8.0

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, and extend maintenance intervals. 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 Shared-Use Pathway

The proposed shared-use pathway may be constructed using porous asphalt pavements. We

have designed minimum asphalt and underlying layers assuming this shared pathway will not

be used for vehicular traffic. We understand that vehicles will be crossing the share-use

pathway as they enter and exit residential driveways and it is our assumption that these

vehicles will not be Heavy Commercial Vehicles. This low volume of vehicular traffic should

have negligible effects on the porous pavement section. Based on our understanding of the

anticipated traffic loading (pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles) along the proposed shared-

use pathway, we recommend the minimum pavement section below.


Porous Pavement – Standard Duty


Thickness (Inches)

Surface Course Porous Asphalt 2.0

Bedding Course Untreated Open-graded

Aggregate Material No. 57 2.0

Reservoir Course Underdrains Surrounded by

Untreated Open-graded Aggregate Material No. 3

6.0

Amoco 2002 or Equivalent

The recommended pavement section represents minimum thickness of each layer required

considering the traffic loading. The site civil engineer should analyze the adequacy of the

recommended pavement section for stormwater management purposes.

The subgrade soil consists mainly of CLAYs with varying proportions of sand and silt. These soils

are considered poorly draining with low infiltration rates. An underdrain system should be

designed by the site civil engineer for the proposed porous pavement section to prevent

accumulation of water at the subgrade level.

5.5 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

5.6 BMP

Our borings showed approximately 1.5 to 6.0 feet of fill across the proposed BMP sites.

Subsurface water was encountered in all BMP borings and is shown on the individual boring

logs. The boring logs are attached in Appendix B. Based on our laboratory testing, the soil has

an average permeability ranging from 1.93E-6 to 7.51E-6 cm/sec while compacted to 97% of

the Standard Proctor. Our remolded permeability laboratory test results are attached in

Appendix C. 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 is surface and

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

problems related to the deterioration of the pavement may develop. 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 or sidewalks. The use of underdrains or a drainage layer

along the edges of the pavements and beneath sidewalks 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. 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.

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. 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, and/or

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 2002 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 soil (soil with N-values of 50 bpf or higher) was encountered in one (1) of our

borings. We do not believe that this high N-value indicates the presence of rock, but that a

cobble or large piece of gravel was lodged in the toe of the spoon thus inflating this number.

We anticipate excavations can generally be accomplished by conventional earthmoving

equipment.

The Fill identified in our borings was relatively “clean” or did not contain appreciable amounts

of 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 density gauge, 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 sidewalks, 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 and sidewalks.

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 and sidewalks 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 and sidewalk and

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 CH2M Hill or their agent, for specific

application to the proposed Jahnke Road 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 22 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: February 2010

SOURCE: DeLORME

DRAWN: N/A F&R# 60K-0680

Site Vicinity Map Jahnke Road Widening

Richmond, Virginia

Drawing No.

1

FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC ENGINEERING ● ENVIRONMENTAL ● GEOTECHNICAL

Approximate Site Location

APPENDIX B

THESE PLANS ARE UNFINISHED

AND UNAPPROVED AND ARE NOT

TO BE USED FOR ANY TYPE

OF CONSTRUCTION OR THE

ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY.

0

SCALE

25’ 50’

REFERENCES

( PROFILES, DETAIL & DRAINAGE

DESCRIPTION SHEETS, ETC. )

Note : Figures in brackets and dot - dashed linesdenote Permanent Easements.

Note : Figures in parenthesis and dot - dot - dashedlines denote Temporary Easements.

Asphalt Asphalt

(N85%%d13’00"E 60.00’) (N85%%d13’00"E 80.00’) (N85%%d13’00"E 70.00’) (N85%%d13’00"E 75.20’)

N 79%%d 20’ 31" E Jahnke Rd. Const. LB






0

SCALE

25’ 50’

REFERENCES










0

SCALE

25’ 50’

REFERENCES





(S38^11’00"W 140.39’)(S38^11’00"W 140.39’)(S38^11’00"W 124.34’)(S38^11’00"W) (S38^11’00"W 60.00’)

(4.86’)

N 37%%d 32’ 00" E

Jahnke Rd. Const. B L



N 37%%d 32’ 00" E N 37%%d 32’ 00" E

(S38^11’00"W 140.39’)(S38^11’00"W 140.39’)(S38^11’00"W 140.39’)(S38^11’00"W 140.39’)

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 3.5 feet

Driller used automatichammer to perform SPT

2.0

5.0

3-3-6-8

9-13-19-24

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"ALLUVIUM: Stiff to Hard, Red and Gray, SandyFat CLAY - Moist

(CH)

Boring terminated at 5 feetBoring backfilled upon completion

240.2

235.6

0.4

5.0

0.0

3.0

9

32

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:

Elevation DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS(Classification)

N Value(blows/ft)

(1 of 1) TotalDepth Elev:

Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

240.6 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10

CH2MHillJahnke Road 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

February 2010

N-3714931.9 E-11770100.73Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





2.0

5.0

2-3-3-4

5-9-13-19

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"ALLUVIUM: Firm to Very Stiff, Red, Sandy FatCLAY - Moist

(CH)


243.1

238.5

0.4

5.0

0.0

3.0

6

22

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

243.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 2


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714907.09 E-11770209.27Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





2.0

5.0

1-2-2-3

3-4-6-11

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Soft, Brown and Red, Sandy Lean CLAY,with trace Organic Material - Moist

(CL-FILL)

ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Red, Fat CLAY, with little Sand- Moist

(CH)


238.4

236.3

233.8

0.4

2.5

5.0

0.0

3.0

4

10

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

238.8 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 3


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714797.96 E-11770197.68Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10

Groundwater was notreported during drilling

Groundwater was notreported upon removal ofauger

Cave-in depth was notreported


3.0

5.0

4-7-8-11

7-12-20-25

10 inches of Asphalt

5 inches of Crushed StoneFILL: Stiff, Reddish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY -Moist

(CL-FILL)ALLUVIUM: Hard, Red, Sandy Fat CLAY - Moist

(CH)


241.7241.3240.5

237.5

0.81.22.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

15

32

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

242.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 4


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714842.02 E-11770280.93Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





2.0

5.0

WOH-1-5-3

4-5-6-10

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

(CL-FILL)ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Red, Sandy Fat CLAY - Moist

(CH)


240.1

238.5

235.5

0.4

2.0

5.0

0.0

3.0

6

11

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

240.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 5


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714787.37 E-11770268.85Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



Cave-in depth at 2 feet


3.0

5.0

11-5-6-8

5-7-10-14

5 inches of Asphalt7 inches of Crushed Stone

FILL: Stiff, Reddish-Brown, Sandy Fat CLAY, withtrace Roots - Moist

(CH-FILL)

ALLUVIUM: Very Stiff, Red, Sandy Fat CLAY -Moist

(CH)


244.1243.6

241.6

239.6

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

11

17

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

244.6 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 6


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714859.26 E-11770377.94Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

11-5-5-9

5-5-5-6


POSSIBLE FILL: Stiff, Reddish-Brown to Red,Sandy Fat CLAY - Moist

(CH-Possible FILL)


244.3243.8

239.8

0.51.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

10

10

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

244.8 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 7


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714787.97 E-11770570.83Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10


Coring terminated at 0.9 feetCore hole backfilled upon completion

243.7243.1

0.30.9

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

244.0 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 8


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714736.03 E-11770743.04Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

0.9'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

8-5-4-6

2-5-6-8


POSSIBLE FILL: Stiff, Strong Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY, with trace Gravel - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)


243.2242.6

238.5

0.30.9

5.0

1.0

3.0

9

11

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

243.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/25/10


B- 9


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714711.97 E-11770821.69Cole Ellis1/25/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

9-13-15-8

9-2-5-3

4.25 inches of Asphalt6.75 inches of Crushed Stone

POSSIBLE FILL: Medium Dense, Pale Brown,Silty Fine to Medium SAND, with trace Clay -Moist

(SM-Possible FILL)Firm, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, withtrace Gravel - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)


242.2241.5

239.5

237.5

0.31.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

28

7

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

242.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-10


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714675.25 E-11770963.95Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

13-13-4-3

9-3-6-13


POSSIBLE FILL: Medium Dense,Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine to Coarse SAND,with trace Gravel - Moist

(SC-Possible FILL)ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Yellowish-Red, Sandy LeanCLAY - Moist

(CL)


240.8240.3

238.3

236.3

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

17

9

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

241.3 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-11


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714609.64 E-11771206.05Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

5-7-11-13

8-7-9-13

4.5 inches of Asphalt6 inches of Crushed Stone

ALLUVIUM: Very Stiff, Brownish-Red, SandyLean CLAY - Moist

(CL)

Medium Dense, Yellowish-Red, Clayey Fine toMedium SAND - Moist

(SC)


239.4238.9

236.8

234.8

0.40.9

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

18

16

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

239.8 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-12


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714571.75 E-11771368.65Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

4-6-7-4

17-6-7-11


POSSIBLE FILL: Medium Dense,Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine to Medium SAND -Moist

(SC-Possible FILL)ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Reddish-Brown, Sandy FatCLAY - Moist

(CH)


235.3234.7

232.7

230.7

0.41.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

13

13

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

235.7 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-13


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714528.17 E-11771549.80Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



231.6231.1

0.51.0

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

232.1 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-14


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714508.41 E-11771660.53Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

1.0'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

4.9

4-15-16-6

4-13-50/5


POSSIBLE FILL: Dense to Very Dense, OliveBrown to Yellowish-Brown and Gray, Silty Fine toMedium SAND - Moist

(SM-Possible FILL)

Boring terminated at 4.9 feetBoring backfilled upon completion

228.6228.1

224.2

0.51.0

4.9

1.0

3.0

31

100+

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

229.1 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-15


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714501.2 E-11771768.64Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

4.9'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

5-10-17-18

3-2-3-3


ALLUVIUM: Medium Dense, Gray, Silty FineSAND, with trace Orgnaic Material - Moist

(SM)

Firm, Yellowish-Brown and Gray, Sandy LeanCLAY with some Silt - Moist

(CL-ML)


225.9225.4

223.4

221.4

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

27

5

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

226.4 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-16


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714467.68 E-11771965.27Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

13-20-8-4

7-7-7-11


POSSIBLE FILL: Very Stiff, Yellowish-Brown,Sandy Lean CLAY, with trace Gravel - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)

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

(CL)


225.9225.4

223.4

221.4

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

28

14

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

226.4 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-17


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714434.08 E-11772147.05Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

10-8-7-9

8-10-15-17


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

(CL)

Medium Dense, Yellowish-Red, Clayey Fine toCoarse SAND, with trace Gravel - Moist

(SC)


227.5227.0

225.0

223.0

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

15

25

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

228.0 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-18


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714375.71 E-11772351.15Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

2-3-3-5

4-5-10-12


ALLUVIUM: Firm, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY - Moist

(CL)

Stiff, Yellowish-Red, Sandy Fat CLAY, with traceGravel - Moist

(CH)


225.0224.5

222.5

220.5

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

6

15

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

225.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/21/10


B-19


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714282.23 E-11772540.60Cole Ellis1/21/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



223.5223.0

0.61.1

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

224.1 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-20


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714266.49 E-11772600.55Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

1.1'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

13-8-6-3

12-8-7-11

4 inches of Asphalt5.5 inches of Crushed Stone

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

(CL)


221.5221.0

216.8

0.30.8

5.0

1.0

3.0

14

15

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

221.8 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-21


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714224.45 E-11772698.31Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

10-5-3-7

10-5-3-6


ALLUVIUM: Firm, Yellowish-Brown to Gray,Sandy Lean CLAY - Moist

(CL)


218.9218.4

214.4

0.51.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

8

8

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

219.4 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-22


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714136.65 E-11772883.40Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

6-5-6-4

5-6-8-8


ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown to Gray,Sandy Lean CLAY - Moist

(CL)


216.4215.9

211.9

0.51.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

11

14

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

216.9 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-23


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714107.4 E-11773100.34Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

8-9-8-4

4-2-2-3


FILL: Medium Dense, Olive Brown, Silty Fine toMedium SAND, with trace Gravel - Moist

(SM-FILL)

Soft, Grayish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, with littleAsphalt and trace Gravel - Moist

(CL-FILL)


215.8215.3

213.2

211.2

0.40.9

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

17

4

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

216.2 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-24


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714102.58 E-11773274.57Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

15-8-9-5

7-3-3-9


ALLUVIUM: Medium Dense, Gray, Silty Fine toMedium SAND - Moist

(SM)

Firm, Gray, Sandy Fat CLAY - Moist(CH)


214.4213.9

211.9

209.9

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

17

6

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

214.9 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-25


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714137.01 E-11773482.59Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



215.5214.9

0.41.0

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

215.9 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-26


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714162.23 E-11773611.50Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

1.0'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

13-15-8-6

19-6-8-9


ALLUVIUM: Very Stiff to Stiff, Yellowish-Brown,Sandy Lean CLAY - Moist

(CL)


217.1216.6

212.6

0.51.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

23

14

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

217.6 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-27


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714193.79 E-11773714.37Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

11-7-2-4

25-5-7-8


ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Sandy FatCLAY - Moist

(CH)


221.3220.8

216.8

0.51.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

9

12

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

221.8 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/20/10


B-28


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714213.13 E-11773884.98Cole Ellis1/20/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

7-1-1-4

4-5-7-9


ALLUVIUM: Very Loose, Yellowish-Brown,Clayey Fine to Medium SAND - Moist

(SC)

Stiff, Reddish-Brown, Sandy Fat CLAY - Moist(CH)


223.1222.6

220.6

218.6

0.51.0

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

2

12

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

223.6 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-29


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714245.58 E-11774060.49Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

15-8-4-3

8-4-5-5


ALLUVIUM: Medium Dense to Loose,Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine to Medium SAND -Moist

(CL)


221.0220.5

216.5

0.51.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

12

9

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

221.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-30


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714275.66 E-11774229.59Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

11-7-3-3

8-7-3-2


POSSIBLE FILL: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, SandyLean CLAY, with trace Gravel - Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)

ALLUVIUM: Loose, Yellowish-Brown, ClayeyFine to Coarse SAND - Moist

(SC)


214.3213.9

211.7

209.7

0.40.8

3.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

10

10

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

214.7 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-31


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714338.08 E11774527.09Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



212.6212.2

0.50.9

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

213.1 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-32


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714358.72 E-11774600.11Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

0.9'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

16-10-4-3

11-10-9-7

4.5 inches of Asphalt5 inches of Crushed Stone

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

(SC)


211.6211.0

207.0

0.41.0

5.0

1.0

3.0

14

19

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

212.0 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-33


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714378.57 E-11774660.34Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

11-4-5-4

7-4-6-3


ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Yellowish-Brown and Gray,Sandy Lean CLAY - Moist

(CL)


208.8208.7

204.2

0.40.5

5.0

1.0

3.0

9

10

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

209.2 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-34


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714457.94 E-11774854.00Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.0

5.0

5-7-7

5-6-7


POSSIBLE FILL: Stiff, Gray and Yellowish-Brown,Sandy Lean CLAY, with trace Roots and Gravel -Moist

(CL-Possible FILL)


207.4

206.6

203.0

0.6

1.4

5.0

1.5

3.5

14

13

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

208.0 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-35


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714524.49 E-11775016.10Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

5.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





3.8

5.7

3-5-7-7

5-7-9

18 inches of Asphalt

4 inches of Crushed StoneFILL: Stiff to Very Stiff, Gray, Sandy Lean CLAY,with trace Gravel - Moist

(CL-FILL)

Boring terminated at 5.7 feetBoring backfilled upon completion

204.4204.1

200.2

1.51.8

5.7

1.8

4.2

12

16

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

205.9 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-36


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714660.21 E-11775242.06Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

5.7'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



205.2204.5

0.31.0

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

205.5 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-37


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714776.65 E-11775336.76Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

1.0'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



198.9198.2

0.31.0

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

199.2 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-38


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3715254.29 E-11775712.62Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

1.0'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10



197.4196.8

0.61.2

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

198.0 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/19/10


B-39


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3715577.49 E-11775957.33Cole Ellis1/19/10

60K-0680

1.2'6-inch Core

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10

Groundwater wasencountered at 10 feetduring drilling

Groundwater wasobserved at 14 feet uponremoval of auger



1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-1-2

WOH-2-2

WOH

7-6-6

5-7-7

1-4-6

8-5-9

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Soft to Very Soft, Reddish-Brown toGrayish-Brown, Sandy Lean CLAY, with traceOrganic Material - Moist

(CL-FILL)

ALLUVIUM: Medium Dense, Gray, Sandy FatCLAY, with trace Gravel - Moist

(CH)

Loose to Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown,Clayey Fine to Medium SAND, with trace Gravel -Moist

(SC)


223.4

218.0

210.5

204.0

0.6

6.0

13.5

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

3

4

0

12

14

10

14

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

224.0 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/26/10


BMP- 1


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714474.58 E-11772099.26Cole Ellis1/26/10

60K-0680

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-2-2

3-3-5

1-2-2

4-7-9

4-6-11

3-4-5

6-5-6

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"FILL: Soft, Brown and Red, Sandy Lean CLAY -Moist

(CL-FILL)ALLUVIUM: Firm to Soft, Gray, Sandy Fat CLAY -Moist

(CH)

Very Stiff to Stiff, Gray, Sandy Lean to Fat CLAY,with trace Gravel - Moist

(CL-CH)

Stiff, Yellowish-Brown, Silty Fat CLAY, with traceSand - Moist

(CH)


223.3

222.4

217.9

208.9

203.9

0.6

1.5

6.0

15.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

4

8

4

16

17

9

11

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

223.9 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/26/10


BMP- 2


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714482.23 E-11772057.02Cole Ellis1/26/10

60K-0680

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10





1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-1-2

3-5-6

3-4-7

4-7-8

4-6-9

3-6-9

5-16-15

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"POSSIBLE FILL: Soft, Gray, Sandy Fat CLAY, withtrace Organic Material - Moist

(CH-Possible FILL)ALLUVIUM: Stiff, Gray, Sandy Fat CLAY, withtrace Gravel - Moist

(CH)

Stiff, Gray, Sandy Fat CLAY, with some Gravel -Moist

(CH)

Medium Dense to Dense, Yellowish-Brown,Clayey Fine to Medium SAND - Moist

(SC)


222.8

221.9

217.4

213.4

203.4

0.6

1.5

6.0

10.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

3

11

11

15

15

15

31

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

223.4 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/26/10


BMP- 3


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714508.46 E-11772028.04Cole Ellis1/26/10

60K-0680

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10

Groundwater wasencountered at 13.5 feetduring drilling




1.5

3.0

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

20.0

1-2-2

3-3-4

3-5-8

7-6-7

6-6-8

2-2-3

15-22-7

Driller Reported "Surficial Soil"ALLUVIUM: Soft to Stiff, Gray, Sandy Fat CLAY,with trace Roots and Gravel - Moist

(CH)

Stiff, Gray and Yellowish-Brown, Sandy LeanCLAY, with some Gravel - Moist

(CL)

Firm, Light Gray, Sandy Lean CLAY - Moist(CL)

Medium Dense, Yellowish-Brown, Clayey Fine toCoarse SAND, with trace Gravel - Moist

(SC)


222.7

217.3

213.3

208.3

203.3

0.6

6.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

0.0

1.5

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

18.5

4

7

13

13

14

5

29

BORING LOG

Type of Boring:


N Value(blows/ft)


Started: Completed:

Location:

Driller:

REMARKS

223.3 ±

SampleDepth(feet)

* SampleBlows

1/26/10


BMP- 4


Report No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring No.:

Depth

February 2010

N-3714553.45 E-11772036.113Cole Ellis1/26/10

60K-0680

20.0'HSA 2-1/4" ID

Date:

BORI

NG

_LO

G 6

0K-0

680.

GPJ

F&

R.G

DT

2/2

4/10

Jahnke Road Widening Pavement Coring Logs

Depth (in) Core from Boring Location B-4

0.0 – 1.5 Surface Mix Asphalt Layer (Possible Overlay)

1.5 – 3.0 Surface Mix Asphalt Layer

3.0 – 6.0 Intermediate Mix Asphalt Layer

6.0 – 10.0 Base Mix Asphalt Layer

10.0 – 15.0 Crushed Stone Layer
















1.5 – 3.5 Disintegrated Surface Mix Asphalt Layer

3.5 – 6.0 Surface Mix Asphalt Layer with Fine Metal Mesh
















2.0 – 3.25 Disintegrated Asphalt Layer



0.0 – 4.0 Asphalt Layer






APPENDIX C

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

PERMEABILITY TESTASTM 5084 C

CLIENT: CH2M Hill Date: February 18, 2010

PROJECT:Jahnke Road Widening

LOCATION: Richmond, Va.

F&R NO.: 60K-0680

BORING: BMP-2 DEPTH: 5 to 10 feet DESCRIPTION: Brown Sandy Clay

SAMPLE PREPARATION METHOD (ASTM D 698): Specific Gravity: 2.59

CHAMBER PRESSURE (psi) 72.9 FINAL SAMPLE DATA

15.03 INFLUENT PRESSURE (psi) 67.2 HEIGHT (cm.) 15.08

7.21 EFFLUENT PRESSURE (psi) 64.1 DIAMETER (cm.) 7.23

40.83 MAX. EFFECTIVE STRESS 8.8 AREA (cm2) 41.06

613.65 MIN. EFFECTIVE STRESS 5.7 VOLUME (cm3) 619.11

1251.91 HEAD ACROSS SAMPLE (psi) 3.1 WEIGHT (g) 1288.20

17.50 FINAL SATURATION (%) 104.7 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 19.90

108.39 INITIAL SATURATION (%) 92.2 DRY DENSITY (pcf) 108.34

B PARAMETER 0.96

DATE TEMP t Inflow Outflow Ratio h Rt i k

(oC) (sec.) (cm

3) (In/Out) (h/L) (cm/sec)

18-Feb 1500 1.00 24.00 215.35

19.3 1500 13.70 11.39 1.01 182.28 1.018 13.23 8.03E-06

1500 2.00 23.00 212.75

19.9 1500 13.89 11.10 1.00 181.79 1.003 13.12 7.47E-06

1500 3.00 22.00 210.14

20.0 1500 14.75 10.21 1.00 179.55 1.000 12.96 7.45E-06

1500 4.00 21.00 207.54

22.0 1500 15.57 9.41 1.00 177.42 0.953 12.81 7.08E-06

TECHNICIAN: _GV___________________ Average k (cm/sec): 7.51E-06

INITIAL SAMPLE DATA

HEIGHT (cm.)

DIAMETER (cm.)

AREA (cm2)

VOLUME (cm3)

WEIGHT (g)

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

DRY DENSITY (pcf)

2

3

4

TEST

NUMBER

1

Froehling & Robertson, Inc.

PERMEABILITY TESTASTM 5084 C

CLIENT: CH2M Hill Date: February 22, 2010

PROJECT:Jahnke Road Widening

LOCATION: Richmond, Va.

F&R NO.: 60K-0680

BORING: BMP-4 SAMPLE: 9 DEPTH: 5 to 10 feetDESCRIPTION: Grayish-Brown Sandy Clay

SAMPLE PREPARATION METHOD (ASTM D 698): Specific Gravity: 2.52

CHAMBER PRESSURE (psi) 77.1 FINAL SAMPLE DATA

14.85 INFLUENT PRESSURE (psi) 72.6 HEIGHT (cm.) 14.93

7.23 EFFLUENT PRESSURE (psi) 69.6 DIAMETER (cm.) 7.24

41.06 MAX. EFFECTIVE STRESS 7.5 AREA (cm2) 41.17

609.67 MIN. EFFECTIVE STRESS 4.5 VOLUME (cm3) 614.65

1251.91 HEAD ACROSS SAMPLE (psi) 3.0 WEIGHT (g) 1283.67

16.80 FINAL SATURATION (%) 108.2 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 18.40

109.75 INITIAL SATURATION (%) 97.7 DRY DENSITY (pcf) 110.12

B PARAMETER 0.94

DATE TEMP t Inflow Outflow Ratio h Rt i k

(oC) (sec.) (cm

3) (cm

3) (In/Out) (cm) (h/L) (cm/sec)

22-Feb 3180 2.00 23.00 205.74

20.7 3180 8.80 16.11 0.99 188.12 0.983 13.26 1.94E-06

2700 3.00 22.00 203.15

20.6 2700 8.66 16.28 0.99 188.49 0.986 13.19 1.91E-06

2700 5.00 20.00 197.97

20.7 2700 10.68 14.21 0.98 183.25 0.983 12.84 1.97E-06

2760 6.00 19.00 195.38

20.7 2760 11.56 13.35 0.98 180.97 0.983 12.67 1.91E-06

TECHNICIAN: __GV___________________ Average k (cm/sec): 1.93E-06

4

TEST

NUMBER

1

VOLUME (cm3)

WEIGHT (g)

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

DRY DENSITY (pcf)

INITIAL SAMPLE DATA

HEIGHT (cm.)

DIAMETER (cm.)

AREA (cm2)

2

3

California Bearing Ratio

Project No.: 60K-0680 Test Date: 2/4/2010

Client: CH2MHill Tested By: C.M.

Project: Jahnke Road 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): 102.6

Swell (%): 0.1 Optimum Moisture Content (%): 21.1

Dry Density Before Soaking (pcf): 103.1

Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 104.0 Visual Description:

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

Surcharge Weight (pounds): 20.0

F&R Lab No.: 111311

Moisture Content Before Soaking (%): 20.6%

Moisture Content After Soak, Top in. (%): 22.5% Source: B-5

Moisture Content After Soak, Ave. (%): 20.8%

0

100

200

300

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







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


F&R Lab No.: 111311




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

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 Lean CLAY and SILT


F&R Lab No.: 111311




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

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 Reddish-Brown Clayey SAND


F&R Lab No.: 111311




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






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.: 111311




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

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.: 111311




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






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.: 111311




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

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 698-00a Method A Standard

60K-0680 2-4-10

Jahnke Road Widening

CH2M Hill

N/A

Reddish-Brown Sandy Fat Clay [Sample B-5]

CH

27.2 %

68 39

71.8 %

Maximum dry density = 102.6 pcf

Optimum moisture = 21.1 %

Curve No.: 1

Project No.: Date:

Project:

Client:

Location: Richmond, VA

Sample Number: 1 [Control #111311]

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-0680 2-3-10


CH2M Hill

N/A

Brown Clayey Sand [Sample B-11]

SC

12.1 %

20 8

40.9 %



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-0680 2-3-10


CH2M Hill

N/A

Brown Sandy Lean Clay and Silt [Sample B-16]

CL-ML

10.5 %

19 6

54.6 %



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-0680 2-4-10


CH2M Hill

N/A

Reddish-Brown Clayey Sand [Sanple B-20]

SC

17.3 %

34 21

39.0 %



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-0680 2-4-10


CH2M Hill

N/A


SC

13.1 %

19 7

36.6 %



Curve No.: 5

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-0680 2-3-10


CH2M Hill

N/A


SC

10.6 %

33 18

40.5 %



Curve No.: 6

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-0680 2-3-10


CH2M Hill

N/A


CL

15.5 %

36 24

55.8 %



Curve No.: 7

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

Test specification: ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard

60K-0680 2-9-10


CH2M Hill

N/A

Brown Sandy Clay [Sample BMP-2]

CL

24.1 %

49 32

70.8 %



Curve No.: 8

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

Test specification: ASTM D 698-07 Method A Standard

60K-0680 2-9-10


CH2M Hill

N/A

Grayish-Brown Sandy Clay [Sample BMP-4]

CL

20.4 %

42 27

63.9 %



Curve No.: 9

Project No.: Date:

Project:

Client:



Remarks:


Description:




% < No.200 =

TEST RESULTS



Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680CH2MHill Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680...

Documents

Transcript of Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680CH2MHill Jahnke Road Widening F&R Project No. 60K-0680...