East Riverfront Transportation Improvement City of …€¦ · · 2016-11-22East Riverfront Transportation Improvement . City of Richmond, Virginia . ... East Riverfront Transportation

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report

East Riverfront Transportation Improvement

City of Richmond, Virginia

DMY Project Number: GEO 123015.10

November 15, 2016

Prepared for

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP (WRA)

9030 Stony Point Parkway, Suite 220 Richmond, VA 23235

Prepared by

DMY Inc. 14241 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 230

Midlothian, VA 23113

November 15, 2016 Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP (WRA) 9030 Stony Point Parkway, Suite 220 Richmond, VA 23235 Attention: Mr. Mark S. Vasco, P. E.

Associate Re: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report

East Riverfront Transportation Improvement City of Richmond, Virginia

DMY Project Number: GEO 123015.10

Dear Mr. Vasco: DMY Inc. is pleased to submit this final geotechnical engineering report for the proposed East Riverfront Transportation Improvement project located in the City of Richmond, Virginia. We are pleased to transmit herewith an electronic copy of our report. This report describes the exploratory procedures, field and laboratory findings, and presents our engineering recommendations and comments related to the design and construction of the project. The appendices contain a site location map, a boring location plan, logs of test borings and laboratory test results. Representative soil samples obtained during the course of this exploration will be held at this office for a period of six (6) months and will then be discarded unless otherwise notified. We appreciate the opportunity to offer these services. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance to you, please contact our office at (804)-381-4800. Respectfully yours, DMY Inc. John Z. Ding, P.E. Richard M. Simon, P.E., Ph.D. Principal Engineer Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT East Riverfront Transportation Improvement City of Richmond, Virginia

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Information …………………………………………… ................... 3 1.2 Purpose and Scope……………………………………………………… .... 3 2.0 Subsurface Investigations

2.1 Field Explorations ................................................................................. 4 2.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................ 4

3.0 Subsurface Conditions 3.1 Regional Geology……………………………………………………… ....... 7 3.2 Soil Stratification…………………………………… .................................. 7 3.3 Groundwater ………………………………………… ............................ …8 4.0 Engineering Recommendations 4.1 General………………………………………………………....................... 9 4.2 Pavement Design…………………… ..................................................... 9 4.2.1 General ..................................................................................... 9 4.2.2 Pavement Section ................................................................... 10 4.3 Retaining Wall .................................................................................... 10 4.4 Signal Post Foundation ....................................................................... 11 4.5 Seismic Conditions ………………………………………… ................. …12 5.0 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 13 6.0 Limitations of Liability……………………………………………………… ...... 15

DMYGEO123015.10 1


List of Tables 2-1 Boring Details 2-2 Laboratory Test Items and Related Standards 2-3 Atterberg Limits Test Results 2-4 Sieve Analysis Test Results 2-5 Proctor and CBR Test Results 4-1 Summary of the Pavement Design Parameters 4-2 General Traffic Data Inputs for Pavement Design 4-3 Drilled Shaft Foundation for Signal Posts 4-4 Recommended AASHTO Seismic Design Parameters List of Figures 1 Site Vicinity Map 2 Boring Location Plan List of Appendices A Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and Boring Logs B Laboratory Test Results C ESALs Calculation and AASHTO Pavement Design Sheet

DMYGEO123015.10 2


Section 1

Introduction

1.1 Project Information The planned East Riverfront Transportation Improvement Project includes the relocation of Dock Street from Pear Street to Pebbles Street; E. Main Street streetscape from Pebble Street to Nicholson Street; and Nicholson Street from the E. Main Street intersection to Williamsburg Avenue. The design services will in generally include streetscape, bike lanes, parking lanes, ornamental lights and travel lanes, curb and gutter, and sidewalks with a roundabout, pavement design, and other traffic related details. To accommodate the grade change of the relocated Dock Street, a retaining wall of maximum 20 feet high and approximately 325 feet long is required along the existing Dock Street. It also requires engineered fill up to 20 feet high. 1.2 Purpose and Scope This report has been prepared to summarize the results of the geotechnical field and laboratory exploration and office study to provide geotechnical recommendations related to the design and construction of the project. The scope of the geotechnical study included a review of the available geotechnical related information and site geological literature, field and laboratory testing, and an engineering evaluation of the materials and conditions encountered at the site. The following sections of this report present engineering recommendations regarding the design and construction of the project.

DMYGEO123015.10 3


Section 2

Subsurface Explorations

2.1 Field Explorations Fishburne Drilling, Inc., under subcontract to DMY, Inc., completed sixteen (16) soil borings in the field along the new alignment of the Dock Street, E. Main Street, and Nicholson Street segments. The soil borings were drilled at the project site employing split spoon sampling techniques per ASTM D 1586 using conventional hollow stem augers powered by an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) mounted drill rig. The soil sampling and penetration procedures were performed by driving a standard 1⅜-inch inside diameter, 2-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler with a 140-lb. automatic hammer falling from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler 6 inches was recorded for a total of 18 inches. The penetration resistance value (N value) is the summation of the last two 6-inch increments. The standard penetration test N values are recorded on the boring logs. The results of the standard penetration tests indicate the comparative consistency of the cohesive soils and relative density of the cohesionless soils, and are used as an index to derive soil parameters from various empirical correlations. The soil samples obtained were visually classified by DMY using terms and descriptions in the Appendices. Selected samples were transported to a geotechnical laboratory for engineering testing. Table 2-1 lists the details of the boring locations and depths completed in the field.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

The soil samples obtained during the drilling operations were placed in labeled sample containers that were sealed to limit moisture loss. The DMY geotechnical engineer performed visual classification of the samples in accordance with ASTM D-2488 and the VDOT Manual of Instructions, using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Representative samples were tested for the purpose of classification and index properties. The types of tests and related standards are listed in Table 2-2. The test results are summarized in Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5. A detailed log of each boring, including laboratory test results, visual examination of the samples, and driller observations are provided in Appendix B of this report.

DMYGEO123015.10 4


TABLE 2-1 Boring Details

Boring Number

Soil Boring Depth (feet) Station*

Boring Coordinates

Latitude (N) Longitude (W)

B-DS-1 10 203+50.0 37°31'32.81” -77°25'11.83” B-DS-2 10 205+50.0 37°31'30.37” -77°25'9.90 B-DS-3 10 207+50.0 37°31'28.73” -77°25'8.63” B-RW-1 20 206+85.0 37°31'28.96” -77°25'8.68” B-RW-2 15 209+10.0 37°31'27.02” -77°25'7.37” B-EM-1 10 14+00.0 37°31'27.92” -77°25'7.22” B-EM-2 10 15+50.0 37°31'27.02” -77°25'5.90” B-EM-3 10 18+10.0 37°31'25.27” -77°25'4.80” B-EM-4 10 20+20.0 37°31'23.88” -77°25'3.10” B-EM-5 10 22+80.0 37°31'21.46” -77°25'0.68” B-EM-6 10 24+85.0 37°31'19.17” -77°24'59.33” B-EM-7 10 27+50.0 37°31'17.34” -77°24'58.29” B-EM-8 10 29+20.0 37°31'14.79” -77°24'57.17” B-SP-1 30 301+75.0 37°31'13.41” -77°24'56.19” B-SP-2 30 31+85.0 37°31'12.99” -77°24'56.43” B-SP-3 30 31+70.0 37°31'12.81” -77°24'57.75

*The Station was estimated based on the existing site features.

TABLE 2-2 Laboratory Test Items and Related Standards

Type of Test Standard

Soil Natural Moisture Contents ASTM D2216

Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318

Sieve Analysis ASTM D422

Standard Proctor ASTM D698

California Bearing Ratio ASTM D1883

DMYGEO123015.10 5


TABLE 2-3 Atterberg Limit Test Results

Boring No. Sample Depth Atterberg Limits Moisture

Content USC

S LL PL PI

B-DS-1 4.0’-10.0’ 52 26 26 25 CH

B-EM-4 6.0’-10.0’ 31 20 11 16 CL

B-EM-5 4.0’-10.0’ 59 23 36 22 CH

B-SP-2 8.0’-13.0’ 25 16 9 16 CL

TABLE 2-4 Particle Size Analysis Test Results

Boring No. Sample Depth

Percent Passing Sieve Size (%) Moisture

Content USCS No.4 No.40 No.200

B-DS- 3 2.0’ 95.0 65.2 33.9 15.1 SC

B-RW-1 6.0’ 87.3 54.0 28.9 21.4 SC

B-RW-2 4.0’ 96.0 52.5 26.9 18.4 SM

B-SP-2 23.0’ 96.7 59.5 32.9 16.1 SC

TABLE 2-5 Proctor and CBR Test Results

Sample Location

Depth (ft) Description

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

(%)

CBR (%)

Natural Moisture Content

(%)

B-EM-2 0.5-1.7

Brown Elastic Silt 95.8 22.8 3.4 22.0

DMYGEO123015.10 6


Section 3

Subsurface Conditions 3.1 Regional Geology The Project site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiographic province within the extents of the Chesapeake Group Geologic Formation. This formation generally consists of alluvial soils classifying fine- to coarse-grained sand, silt, and clay. Portions of Dock and Main Streets are as close as 250 feet from the edge of the James River. The James River typically operates at a stage of Elev. 2 to 15 with major flooding at Elev. 22 or above. The Coastal Plain extends from the Fall Zone near Richmond (approximately one mile northwest of the project site) eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. Through the Fall Zone, the larger streams cascade to sea level off the resistant igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont Province to the west. The original site subsurface soils are no longer representative locally, especially within the upper 10 to 15 feet, due to the alteration during previous site development. Existing man-made fill can be quite variable in depth, composition and consistency, and the engineering properties of such material can be difficult to assess. 3.2 Soil Stratification The proposed roadway realignments for East Riverfront Transportation Improvements stretches over different soil profiles due to significant grade changes. The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown on the test boring records in the appendices. These test boring records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on visual interpretation of field samples by a DMY geotechnical engineer and laboratory test results of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata on the test boring records represent the approximate interface locations. The actual transitions between strata may be gradual, abrupt or slightly different depths. Dock Street Fishburne Drilling completed three (3) borings along the relocated Dock Street. The soils generally consisted of man-made fills to the boring terminus at 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The fills consisted of loose to medium dense gray clayey sand underlain by dark brown clayey sand or gray high-plasticity clay. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances generally ranged from 7 blows per foot (bpf) to 51 bpf. The moisture content ranged from 16 to 30 percent.

DMYGEO123015.10 7

http://web.wm.edu/geology/virginia/provinces/fallzone/fall_zone.html

http://web.wm.edu/geology/virginia/provinces/fallzone/fall_zone.html

http://www.wm.edu/geology/virginia/provinces/piedmont/piedmont.html

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT East Riverfront Transportation Improvement City of Richmond, Virginia East Main Street Fishburne Drilling completed eight (8) borings along the relocated East Main Street. The soils generally consisted of man-made fills to the boring terminus at 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The fills consisted of very loose to very dense brown clayey sand underlying brown sandy lean clay or dark brown high-plasticity clay. The SPT resistances generally ranged from 2 bpf to 22 bpf. The moisture content ranged from 5 to 34 percent. Retaining Wall Fishburne Drilling completed two (2) borings along the proposed retaining wall on the existing Dock Street. The soils generally consisted of man-made fills underlying alluvial sandy lean clay or silty sand to the boring terminus at 20 feet below the existing ground surface. The fills consisted very loose to very dense gray clayey sand and silty sand underlying light brown silty sand or brown clayey sand. The SPT resistances generally ranged from 2 bpf to over 50 bpf. The moisture content ranged from 5 to 18 percent. Signal Posts Fishburne Drilling completed three (3) borings were performed at each proposed signal post location. The soils generally consisted of man-made fills underlying gray alluvial silty sand or clayey sand to the boring terminus at 30 feet below the existing ground surface. The fills consisted of very loose to very dense brown silty sand or clayey sand underlying brown sandy lean or brown clayey sand. The SPT resistances generally ranged from 3 bpf to over 47 bpf. The moisture content ranged from 9 to 39 percent. 3.3 Groundwater Several borings completed for this study encountered groundwater. DMY judges this water to be perched water in the isolated soil stratum. The groundwater conditions observed, or lack thereof, reflect the conditions at the time of our exploration only. The highest groundwater levels are typically encountered in late winter and early spring. Fluctuations of the groundwater table should be expected to occur both seasonally and annually due to variations in rainfall, evaporation, transpiration, construction activity, and other site-specific factors.

DMYGEO123015.10 8


Section 4 Engineering Recommendations

4.1 General The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, observations at the site, analysis of the laboratory results, interpretation of the field data obtained during the investigation and our experience with similar subsurface conditions. They are subject to the limitations set forth in Section 6 below. If the proposed construction scheme varies from that described, DMY requests the opportunity to review these recommendations. 4.2 Pavement Design 4.2.1 General We understand that some portion of the new roadway will be constructed on the existing roadway subgrade. Based on the field exploration and laboratory test results, the existing roadway subgrade was in fair condition and appears suitable to support the new pavement. Where new pavement subgrade is required, it should be suitably compacted and prepared using VDOT criteria for the roadway earthwork activities. Site work activities undertaken during the wetter portion of the year could require soil modification or stabilization to establish a proper subgrade for new fills and pavement base if aeration and drying are not permitted by seasonal weather conditions. Depending on the construction schedule, lime, cement, or other forms of soil modification or stabilization, including undercut and replacement with suitable subbase should be considered. DMY obtained design criteria from the Guidelines for 1993 AASHTO Pavement Design prepared by VDOT Materials Division. DMY developed design ESAL using the traffic data provided by WRA. Table 4-1 and 4-2 summarize DMY’s design ESAL calculations. Based on the field exploration results and laboratory testing results for the soil sample collected from the existing East Main Street, DMY adopted a California Bearing Ratio of 3.8 for the pavement design. Please note that if borrow materials are needed for the pavement subgrade, a minimum CBR value of 4.0 is required.

TABLE 4-1 Summary of the Pavement Design Parameters

Initial Serviceability

Terminal Serviceability Reliability Standard

Deviation

4.2 2.8 85% 0.49

DMYGEO123015.10 9


TABLE 4-2 General Traffic Data Inputs for Pavement Design

Pavement Design Life (Undivided Primary) 20 years

Current ADT (East Main/Dock Street) 8008/9268

ESAL Factor for Trailer Trucks 1.05

ESAL Factor for Single Unit Trucks 0.46

ESAL Factor for Passenger Cars 0.0002

Percent Trailer Trucks 1.0%

Percent Single Unit Trucks 2.0%

Percent Passenger Cars 97%

ESALs (East Main/Dock Street) 916,299/1,060,472

4.2.2 Pavement Section To meet the required structural number, DMY considered several combined pavement sections for the design. It is our opinion that an intermediate asphalt layer be incorporated into the design to facilitate the possible staged construction. Based on the design parameters and traffic data provided, considering the minimum layer thickness required by VDOT, DMY recommends the following pavement section for the relocated Dock Street and East Main Street new roadway:

Surface: 2.0” (220 lbs./S.Y.) Asphalt Concrete, Type SM-12.5D Intermediate: 2.0” (220 lbs./S.Y.) Asphalt Concrete, Type IM-19.0D Bituminous Base: 4.0” Asphalt Concrete, Type BM-25.0A Aggregate Subbase: 10.0” Aggregate Base Material, Type I, No. 21-B

Please note that Standard UD-2 underdrains and outlets are required on all raised medians. The aggregate base material (Type I, Size #21-B) should be connected to a longitudinal pavement drain (UD-4) with outlets or day lighted (to the face of the ditch) to provide for positive lateral drainage 4.3 Retaining Wall The relocated Dock Street will require significant roadway fill to establish grade match to the new roundabout construction.

DMYGEO123015.10 10

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT East Riverfront Transportation Improvement City of Richmond, Virginia Based on the latest conceptual design plan provided to us, the highest fill section will be located at approximately Station 208+10 on the relocated Dock Street, where over 25 feet of fill is required. Based on the field exploration and our understanding of the project, we recommend that Mechanical Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall be considered for the design. The amount of pressure exerted by backfill on the retaining walls depends upon the height of the wall, drainage provisions, type of backfill, and method of placing the backfill. The backfill should be compacted in accordance with VDOT specifications. It is also recommended that the granular backfill be placed with a restricted tamping and compacting. In placing the backfill material, no heavy vibratory roller should pass within five (5) feet of back of the wall. Excessive tamping or compacting the granular backfill in thin layers will increase the lateral earth pressure. Within 5-feet of the wall, hand operated equipment such as a vibratory plate or walk behind roller should be used to compact the fill. In general, the loosely placed lift thickness for a granular backfill may be no greater than eight (8) inches. However, lift thickness for the hand-operated equipment should not exceed six (6) inches to promote suitable compaction. Lateral earth pressure coefficients for active, at rest and passive conditions and equivalent fluid pressure for active condition were estimated for recommended backfill materials. DMY also recommends following earth pressure coefficients be considered:

Friction angle φ = 30° Total unit weight γ = 135 pcf Active condition: Ka = 0.34 Equivalent fluid pressure: Gh = 46 pcf (active condition) Passive condition: Kp = 3.00 Coefficients of sliding: f = 0.36

These parameters do not include local or uniform surcharge loads which should be applied along top of walls that support sidewalks, pavements, or other loading conditions not typically included in standard wall design calculations. We understand that WRA will be responsible for the wall design. The wall should be designed in accordance with AASHTO LRFD (2014) 4.4 Signal Post Foundation Based on the soils encountered in the field, DMY recommends that drilled shafts be designed to support the signal posts. Table 4-3 lists the recommended bearing capacity related to the shaft size and tip elevations.

DMYGEO123015.10 11


TABLE 4-3 Drilled Shaft Foundation for Signal Posts

Signal Post Location Drilled Shaft

Diameter

Approximate Tip

Elevation Bearing Capacity

(kips)

NW of E. Main and Nicholson

42”

EL 10.0 80

NE of E. Main and Nicholson EL 10.0 85

SE of E. Main and Nicholson EL 6.0 95

4.5 Seismic Conditions For seismic design, the subsurface condition at this site can be classified as Site Class E as determined using SPT N-values (AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, 2014). Various seismic design parameters for the site are presented in Table 4-4 below.

TABLE 4-4 Recommended AASHTO Seismic Design Parameters

AASHTO Seismic Design Parameter Value AASHTO Code Reference

Site Class E Table 3.10.3.1-1

Seismic Zone 1 Table 3.10.6.1. Tables 3.10.3.2-3, & Equation 3.10.4.2-6

Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient. (PGA) 0.035 Figure 3.10.2.1-1

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient 0.2 sec (S2) 0.09 Figure 3.10.2.1-2

Spectral Acceleration Coefficient 1.0 sec (S1) 0.035 Figure 3.10.2.1-3

DMYGEO123015.10 12


Section 5

Construction Considerations For the proposed new pavement subgrade, once the existing pavement structures, topsoil, and any other unsuitable soils are removed, the Geotechnical Engineer should observe the exposed subgrade soils. The exposed soils should be compared with those encountered in the soil test borings. Significant differences should be brought to the attention of the engineer for the appropriate recommendations. Prior to the placement of the embankment fill, the exposed subgrade soil should be proof-rolled. Proof rolling should be performed to determine if soft zones or unsuitable soils are present to provide a suitable base for placement of fill. We recommend a rubber-tired, fully loaded, tandem-axle dump truck with a fully loaded weight greater than 25 tons to be used for performing proof-rolling operations. Fill soils should be placed in maximum 8-inch-thick loose lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry soil unit weight as determined by the laboratory compaction test (VTM-1). The upper 6 inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of the maximum dry unit weight. Soil moisture during placement should be maintained within VDOT’s Specifications of ±2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content determined from the laboratory compaction tests. Any unsuitable soils undercut within 1 feet of the final pavement subgrade elevation should be replaced with VDOT select material Type I (minimum CBR of 30). Where fill materials will be placed to widen existing fills, or placed against sloping ground, the contractor must scarify the existing soil subgrade. New fill must be benched or keyed into the existing material (see VDOT Road and Bridge Specification Section 303.04(h)). In confined areas, such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 3 to 4 inches will likely be required to achieve the specified degrees of compaction. Based on the results of moisture content testing during construction, some soils within the project limits may require additional working or treatment (drying, modification/stabilization) in event of rainy periods. However, we recommend that the contractor have equipment on site during earthwork for both wetting and drying fill soils as the soil moisture levels can significantly change during earthwork operations. The moisture content of clays and silts is difficult to adjust (when compared to sands) for the purposes of obtaining proper compaction. Additionally, the nature of a confined space such as culvert excavation typically limits compaction techniques to hand-operated equipment, whose dynamic action is usually adequate for densifying sands but may not be adequate to place clays and silts. For signal post drilled shaft construction, the bottom of the drilled shaft excavation must be flat; steps in the bearing surface, or a sloping bearing surface, are not acceptable. The drilled shaft excavation must be thoroughly cleaned of loose sand, clay and silt. Cleanout may be performed by a cleanout bucket, or other methods acceptable to the Engineer. Final bottom should be inspected. At the time of concrete placement, a minimum of 50 percent of the base of the shaft should have

DMYGEO123015.10 13

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT East Riverfront Transportation Improvement City of Richmond, Virginia less than ½ inch of sediment, and sediment on the base of the shaft should not be greater than 1-1/2 inches anywhere on the base of the shaft. It is estimated that dry method will be used for the drilled shaft excavation. If wet method is used, the contractor must place concrete by tremie methods or pumping. Concrete placement must be in accordance with VDOT Standard Specifications. Concrete slump should be 6.5 to 9.5 inches for tremie placement and not less than 4 inches for the full duration of concrete placement. Proper concrete placement methods must be used to prevent mixing of slurry into the concrete. A plug or valve is required to prevent contamination of the concrete in the tremie pipe or pump discharge pipe. The pump or tremie discharge point must remain at least 10 feet below top of concrete at all times during placement. Concrete placement must be continuous without interruption.

DMYGEO123015.10 14


Section 6

Limitations of Liability

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP (WRA) , City of Richmond, VDOT, and other team members for the project. Our conclusions and recommendations have been rendered in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession in the Commonwealth of Virginia at the time of our study. We make no other warranty, express or implied. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the available soil information, currently accepted engineering principles, and design details furnished by the client. DMY should be notified of any revisions to the scope of this project so that these revisions may be evaluated against the subsurface conditions. DMY will submit a written supplementary report to confirm the recommendations contained herein or to address changes to our recommendations. The soils encountered in the borings varied between boring locations. Other discontinuity in soil type and geology may exist, including abrupt strata changes and soil strength variations. The extent of these variations may not be fully determined from the borings or site reconnaissance. Additional variations may not become apparent until mass excavation commences. It is recommended that the owner retain the services of the DMY to observe the construction.

DMYGEO123015.10 15

East Riverfront Transportation Improvements

City of Richmond, Virginia Figure 1

Project Site Vicinity Map

DMY Project No. GEO 123015.10

Project Site

Brick Paver

Sidewalk

C/L Creek

270'

R276'

R

= POT 100+00.00 PEEBLES ST.= POT 209+33.90 DOCK ST.PT 14+82.84 MAIN ST.

R

BL: XX NW, NE, SW, SE

GD

15"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

T/Tg

6"W

CATV

10"SFM

2"G

E

12"SAN.

MH

/ /

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

MH

EP

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

E

GV

T

"

"

"

"EXISTING SIDEWALK

"

"

"

"

"

WM

WV

LP

"

SU

RV

EY

ED

BY: ..

CIT

Y

OF

RIC

HM

ON

D..

Curb & Gutter

Sidewalk

Basin

Sewer Manhole

Storm Sewer

Sanitary Sewer

Sanitary Sewer (Gravity)

Electric Line

Gas Line

Telephone/Telegraph

TV Cable

Water Line

Tree / Exist. Tree To Be Removed / Stump

Property Line Asphalt

Curb & Gutter

Basin

Manhole

Proposed Sewer

Utility Pole

Property Pin

Cornerstone

Fence

Edge of Pavement

Fire Hydrant

Alley Crossing/Driveway

Coping

Existing Curb Cut Ramp

-:LEGEND:-Proposed Conc. Sidewalk

Brick Sidewalk

Water ValveCastings:

Water Meter

Gas Valve

Gas Drip

Telephone Manhole

Electric Manhole

Proposed Curb Cut Ramp

Decorative Light

Conduit

Conduit (Conc. Encased)

Retaining Wall

(Force Main)

Technical Administrative

Surveys Superintendent

Project Engineer

Maintenance Engineer

City Traffic Engineer Director of Public Works

Transportation / Public Works

Deputy Director for

Capital Project Administrator

CHECKED BY:

REVIEWED BY FIELD NOTES SCALE DATE SHEET DRAWING NO.REFERENCES REVISIONS

1. Lot dimensions in parentheses are from deed.

20 ,2. Property owners correct as of

3. Ordinance Number

4. Adopted

5. Accepted

NOTES Existing Curb

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 0-28708

CIP:XXX-XXX-XXXX

APRIL 2016

EAST RIVERFRONT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT

DESIGN BY:

DRAWN BY:

SU

PE

RVIS

ED

BY:

DESCRIPTIONPROPOSEDEXISTING

ROADWAY LIGHTING LEGEND

J

E

CONDUIT RUN IDENTIFIER

JUNCTION BOX

CONDUIT

DECORATIVE LUMINAIRE ON ALUMINUM POLE IN BLACK COLOR)

DECORATIVE LIGHT POLE AND LUMINAIRE (RICHMOND LANTERN

UTILITY POLE

CONVENTIONAL ROADWAY LUMINAIRE AND BRACKET ARM ON

THESE PLANS ARE UNFINISHED

AND UNAPPROVED AND ARE NOT

TO BE USED FOR ANY TYPE

OF CONSTRUCTION OR THE

ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY.

NOT TO SCALE 10(1)

LIGHTING

GENERAL NOTES - LIGHTING

2"

L

REFERENCED

CONSTRUCTION BASELINESTATION, OFFSET

STATION AND POLE TYPE IDENTIFIER

(N/A FOR DECORATIVE POLES)

POLE STANDARD

LP-1, BW

___________ CONST. B

STA. 123+45.6, 78.9' LEFT

(N/A FOR DECORATIVE POLES)

BW=BREAKAWAY, NBW=NON-BREAKAWAY

2" -EMPTYFOR ROADWAY LIGHTING

INDICATES PROPOSED CONDUIT

MOUNTING HEIGHT

POLE NUMBER

LUMINAIRE IDENTIFIER

LIGHT POLES)

FOR DECORATIVE

(NOT APPLICABLE

ARM LENGTH

LUMINAIRE WATTAGE

XX - 250W - XX'xXX'

E. CARY S

TREET PE

AR

ST

RE

ET

DOCK STREET

DOCK STREET

E. M

AIN STREET

PEEBLES

STREET

E. MAIN STREET

E. MAIN STREET

E. MAIN STREET

NIC

HOLS

ON ST

RE

ET

30% PLANS

LIGHTING PLAN

INDICATES EXISTING STREET LIGHT TO BE REMOVEDR

E INDICATES EXISTING STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN

WORKS AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.

REMOVAL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE REMOVAL WITH THE CITY OF RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE THE EXISTING LUMINAIRES, BRACKET ARMS AND UTILITY POLES DESIGNATED FOR

LOCATIONS WHERE PROPOSED CONDUIT WILL CROSS CONDUIT DESIGNATED TO BE ABANDONED.OR THE CONTENTS THEREOF. THESE CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY AT ALL SUCH CONDUIT CROSSINGS EXCEPT THOSE HAND-DIG THE TRENCH AND SHALL TAKE ADEQUATE CARE NOT TO DAMAGE THE EXISTING CONDUIT, UTILITY LINE AT LOCATIONS WHERE PROPOSED CONDUIT CROSSES EXISTING CONDUIT OR UTILITIES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL

STRENGTH.

NOTED ON PLANS. ALL CONDUITS SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH A PULL STRING WITH A 500 POUND MINIMUM PULL PLANS. ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40, RIGID POLYVINYL CHLORIDE UNLESS OTHERWISE ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STD. ECI-1 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON

INLETS, MANHOLES, AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS.

CONDUITS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE LARGE RADIUS OFFSETS (5' MINIMUM RADIUS) TO BYPASS DRAINAGE

LOCATING ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.SHOWN ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO BE COMPLETE OR ACCURATELY LOCATED. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CERTAIN UTILITIES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THIS CONTRACT AREA ARE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE UTILITIES

ALL JUNCTION BOXES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A MEANS FOR DRAINAGE.

TO INSTALLATION.

THE LOCATIONS OF ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STAKED OUT IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR

GROUND RODS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL POLE FOUNDATIONS AND JUNCTION BOXES.

CONDITIONS.

CONDUITS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND ACTUAL CONDUIT RUNS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FIELD

MASTER CIRCUITS THAT THE CITY OF RICHMOND DPU WILL PROVIDE TO EACH LIGHT POLE.

LUMINAIRES SHALL NOT REQUIRE A PHOTOCELL OR PHOTOEYE CONTROL. PHOTOCONTROL IS PRESENT ON THE

NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN PRIOR TO NEEDING INSPECTION.

CONDUITS PRIOR TO TRENCHES BEING CLOSED OR ENCASEMENT CONCRETE BEING POURED. AT LEAST TWO WEEKS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ROBERT PARHAM WITH THE CITY OF RICHMOND AT 804-363-3437 TO INSPECT

COMPLETION OF LIGHT POLE AND LUMINAIRE INSTALLATION.

804-646-7000 TO ENERGIZE THE LIGHT POLES. AT LEAST 4 WEEKS NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN PRIOR TO THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT BRIAN CULVER WITH THE CITY OF RICHMOND DPU STREET LIGHT SECTION AT

POLES AFTER INSTALLATION BY THE CONTRACTOR.

PUBLIC UTILITIES (DPU) STREET LIGHT SECTION WILL INSTALL ALL ELECTRICAL WIRING AND ENERGIZE LIGHT CONCRETE ENCASEMENT, JUNCTION BOXES, LIGHT POLES AND LUMNAIRES. THE CITY OF RICHMOND DEPARTMENT OF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL LIGHT POLE FOUNDATIONS, CONDUITS,

13.

12.

11.

10.

9.

8.

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

Baltimore, Maryland

Whitman, Requardt & Associates

10(3)

10(4)

10(5)

10(6)

10(7)

10(8)

JDC

JDC

KWF

B-SP-1

B-SP-2

B-SP-3

B-EM-8

BORING LOCATION PLAN

B-DS-1 B-DS-2 B-DS-3

B-EM-1

B-EM-2 B-EM-3

B-EM-4 B-EM-5B-EM-6

B-EM-7

B-RW-1

Note:

Boring Location (16 Total)

B- Boring Number

B-RW-2

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

PLASTICITY CHART

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)

(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)

Well-graded gravels, gravel-sandmixtures, little or no fines

greater than 4;

greater than 4;

between 1 and 3

between 1 and 3

=

=

=

=

Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

u

u

c

c

60

60

30

30

x

x

10

10

10

10

60

60

Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines)

Above "A" line with P.I. between4 and 7 are borderline casesrequiring use of dual symbols

Limits plotting in shaded zonewith P.I. between 4 and 7 areborderline cases requiring useof dual symbols.

Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Dependingon percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size),coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

Less than 5 percentMore than 12 percent5 to 12 percent

GW, GP, SW, SPGM, GC, SM, SC

Borderline cases requiring dual symbols

Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines)

Sands with fines (More than 12% fines)

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands,little or no fines

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixturesAtterberg limits below "A"line or P.I. less than 4

Atterberg limits below "A"line or P.I. less than 4

Atterberg limits above "A"line with P.I. greater than 7

Atterberg limits above "A"line with P.I. greater than 7

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rockflour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayeysilts with slight plasticity

Inorganic clays of low to mediumplasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,silty clays, lean clays

Inorganic silts, micaceous ordiatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,elastic silts

Peat and other highly organic soils

Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sandmixtures, little or no fines Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

Not meeting all gradation requirements for GWPoorly graded sands, gravelly sands,little or no fines

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-claymixtures

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fatclays

Organic silts and organic silty clays oflow plasticity

Organic clays of medium to highplasticity, organic silts

60

50

40

30

20

10

00 10 20 30 40 50

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)

CL

CL+ML

CH

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

(P

I) (

%)

60 70 80 90 100

GW GW

GRAVELS

SANDS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

SILTSAND

CLAYS

HIGHLYORGANIC

SOILS

More than 50%of coarse

fraction largerthan No. 4sieve size

50% or moreof coarse

fraction smallerthan No. 4sieve size

Liquid limitless than

50%

Liquid limit50%

or greater

SW SW

GM GM

SM SM

ML

MH

PT

GP GP

SPSP

GC GC

SC SC

CL

CH

OL

OH

MH&OH

A LINE:PI = 0.73(LL-20)

ML&OL

UNIFIED SOILCLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

CH -

Fat Clay

CL -

Lean Clay

FL -Fill

GC - Clayey

Gravel

GM - Silty

Gravel

GP - Poorly-

graded Gravel

GW - Well-

Graded Gravel

ML - Silt

SC -

Clayey Sand

CL-ML

GC-GM

SW - Well-

Graded Sand

SM - Silty

Sand

SP - Poorly-

Graded Sand

Pavement/Soils

ASPH-

ASPHALT PVT

CONC-

CONCRETE PVT

GP-GC

GP-GM

GW-GC

GW-GM

SP-SC

SP-SM

SW-SC

SW-SM

AND -

Andesite

BST -

Basalt

CAV -

Cavity

DBS -

Diabase

DRT -

Diorite

GBR -

Gabbro

GGE -

Gouge SPT

Core

Grab

No

Recovery

Other

SLS -

Siltstone

SST-SHL -

Interbedded

Sandstone/Shale

MYL -

Mylonite

PHY -

Phyllite

RHY -

Rhyolite

SCH -

Schist

SedimentaryRocks

MetamorphicRocks

SamplingIgneousRocks

MATERIAL AND SAMPLESYMBOLS LIST

GNS -

Gneiss

Auger

Undisturbed

CGL -

Conglomorate

COL -

Coal

GWK -

Graywacke

LST -

Limestone

SHL -

Shale

SST -

Sandstone

CLST - Cherty

Limestone

SLT -

Slate

GRD -

Granodiorite

GRN

Granite

POR -

Porphyry

SE -

Shell Bed

UCY -

Underclay

SST-SLS -

Interbedded

Sandstone/Siltstone

MH -

Elastic Silt

MH/CH

MH/ML

MH/SM

ML/CL

ML/GM

ML/SM

GM/GP

GM/ML

GM/SM

HWR

Highly Weathered

Rock

MST

Mudstone

BRC -

Breccia

Misc.

SHDS

Shaly Dolostone

CHK

Chalk

SHLS-Shaly

Limestone

MSH

Silty Shale

Page 1of 2

SSHL

Sandy Shale

Vane

Pavement/SoilsSedimentary

RocksMetamorphic

RocksSampling

IgneousRocks

MATERIAL AND SAMPLESYMBOLS LIST

TOPS-

TOPSOIL CH/CL CH/MH CH/SC

CL/ML CL/SC CL/CHCRA

Crushed Aggregate

GC/SC

GP/GW

GP/SPGW/GP ML/MH

OH

Organic

OH/OL

OL

OrganicOL/OHPT

Peat

SC/CH

SC/CL

SC/GC SC-SM

BLD-Boulder

Bed

CHT

Charnocktite

DLS

Dolostone

LST-DLS-

Interbedded

Limestone/Dolostone

MSLS

Metasiltstone

MSST

Metasandstone

QZT -

Quartzite

MBST

Metabasalt

SPS

Soapstone

MBL

Marble

Page 2 of 2

SP/SW SM/GM SM/MH

SM/ML SM/SC SP/GP SW/SP

CHRT

PROJECT #:LOCATION:STRUCTURE:STATION:LATITUDE: LONGITUDE:

Date (s) Drilled:Drilling Method (s):SPT Method (s):Other Test (s):Driller:Logger:

LL PI

0 17

2716

15

14

13

30

12

11

10

9

8 52 26 25

7

REMARKS:

Roadway

LAB DATASURFACE ELEVATION:

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

37°31'32.81"NCOORD.DATUM:

OFFSET:Sta. 203+50.00-77°25'11.83"W

17.00 Feet

DIP*

5

3

7

B-DS-1

Boring Backfilled upon completion

5-4-5-2

Dark Gray Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Loose, Wet

Gray High- Plasticity Sandy CLAY (CH) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Stiff, Wet

9-5-4-3

2

3-4-10-71

9

10

4" TOPSOIL

Boring Terminated at 10.0 Feet on 06-22-2016

Gray High- Plasticity Sandy CLAY (CH) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Stiff, Wet

6

11-4-3-6

4

5-3-4-4

Dark Gray Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Loose to Medium Dense, Moist

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

14241 Midlothian Turenpike Suite 230Midlothian, VA 23113(804)-381-4800 www.dmy-inc.com

ROCK

East Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsB-DS-1City of Richmond

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATERGroundwater Encountered Encountered at 5.5 Feet

Automatic Hammer2.25" H.S.A.

FIELD DATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/22/2016

No Long Term Measurements TakenFIELD DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA



LL PI0 15

14

13

12

11 22

10

9

8

7

6

5

REMARKS:


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 205+50.00-77°25'9.90"W

15.00 Feet6/22/2016

5

3

7

Roadway

9

10


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

12-91

4" ASPHALT CONCRETE overlaying 8" AGGREGATE

Gray Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Dense, Dry

8

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

4-5-5-7

2

SOIL

6

4-4-8-8

4

B-DS-2


11-10-10-9

PAGE 1 OF 1


Dark Brown Clayey SAND (SC) Fill, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Dense, Moist

9-9-10-10


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATERNo Groundwater Encountered


FIELD DATA

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

DIP*



LL PI0 13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5 16

4

3

REMARKS:

6/22/2016

2-4-7-9

2

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATERGroundwater Encountered AT 8.0 Feet


FIELD DATA

Gray Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Dense, Dry

PAGE 1 OF 1


Dark Brown Clayey SAND (SC) Fill, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Dense, Moist

B-DS-3


6

14-17-16-15

4


33-36-26-25

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

131


5" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

8

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

17-22-25-249

10

DIP*

5

3

7

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 207+50.00-77°25'8.63"W

15.00 Feet



LL PI

0 27

26

25

24

23 14

22

21

20

19

18

17

REMARKS:

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 14+00.00-77°25'7.22"W

No Groundwater Encountered

Automatic HammerDIP*

5

3

7

B-EM-1


4-6-6-5

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

9

10

4-4-6-4

2

6

5-4-5-3

4

3-6-6-4

4-6-5-41

27.00 Feet


ROCK

East Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsB-EM-1City of Richmond

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATER

FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/22/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

6" TOPSOIL

Brown Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Stiff, Moist

Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) Fill, Trace of Gravel, Medium Stiff, Moist


2.25" H.S.A.



LL PI

0 25

24

23

22

21

20

19 7

18

17

16

15

REMARKS:

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 15+50.00-77°25'5.90"W

Groundwater Encountered at 9.5 Feet


5

3

7

B-EM-2


5-8-6-4

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

9

10

3-4-3-4

2

6

4-3-2-1

4

2-4-5-17

2-3-2-31

25.00 Feet


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATER

2.25" H.S.A.FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/22/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

6" TOPSOIL


Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) Fill, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Stiff, Moist

Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Dense, Moist

Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense, Moist



LL PI

0 23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15 26

14

13

REMARKS:

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 18+10.00-77°25'4.80"W



5

3

7

B-EM-3


11-5-5-3

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

9

10

2-2-1-2

2

6

2-2-2-1

4

2-2-2-3

2-2-1-11

23.00 Feet


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATER


ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/22/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

4" TOPSOIL


Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Very Loose, Moist

Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) Fill, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Soft, Moist

Dark Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense, Moist



LL PI

0 25

24

23 5

22

21

20

19

18

17 31 11 16

16

15

REMARKS:

4" TOPSOIL



Dark Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) Fill, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Stiff, Moist


ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/22/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

25.00 Feet


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATER

2-2-2-3

2

6

2-1-2-2

4

3-3-3-4

2-2-2-21

B-EM-4


4-6-5-4

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

9

10

DIP*

5

3

7

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 20+20.00-77°25'3.10"W


Automatic Hammer



LL PI

0 25

24

23

22

21

59 36 22

20

19

18

17 19

16

15

REMARKS:

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 22+80.00-77°25'0.68"W



5

3

7

B-EM-5


4-6-6-5

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

9

10

8-7-6-5

2

6

3-4-3-5

4

4-4-4-4

2-8-6-61

25.00 Feet


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATER

FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/22/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

2" TOPSOIL


2.25" H.S.A.


Dark Brown Sandy High Plasticity CLAY (CH) Fill, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Stiff, Moist



LL PI

0 27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

REMARKS:

4" TOPSOIL


Dark Brown Clayey SAND (SC) Fill, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Very Loose, Moist

Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Loose, Moist

Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Stiff, Moist


ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/21/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

27.00 Feet


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATER

4-5-5-5

2

6

4-4-4-3

4

2-3-2-3

2-3-4-21

B-EM-6


2-2-2-2

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

9

10

DIP*

5

3

7

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 24+85.00-77°24'59.33"W


Automatic Hammer



LL PI

0 27

26

25

24

23 34

22

21

20

19

18

17

REMARKS:

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 27+50.00-77°24'58.29"W



5

3

7

B-EM-7


2-2-1-1

PAGE 1 OF 1

8

9

10

4-4-3-3

2

6

2-3-1-2

4

2-2-1-1

3-3-3-31

27.00 Feet


ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATER


ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

6/21/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

6" TOPSOIL



Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Loose, Moist

Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Stiff to Soft, Moist



LL PI0 28

27

26

25

24 16

23

22

21

20

19

18

REMARKS:

Roadway


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 29+20.00-77°24'57.17"W

28.00 Feet

DIP*

5

3

7

3-4-5-59

10

6

6-4-2-2

4


1-2-2-2

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

10-20-271


Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Dense, Dry

8

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1



Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Stiff to Soft, Moist

B-EM-8



ROCK


SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS



FIELD DATA 6/21/2016

12-15-8-9

2

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION



LL PI0 14

1

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 5

0

-1

REMARKS:

Brown Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Loose, Wet

124" AGGREGATE

Dark Gray Silty SAND (SM) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense, Moist


ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

8" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

12-12-7-6

2

7" ASPHALT CONCRETE underlaying 2" AGGREGATE

Automatic Hammer

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

6/22/2016

Retaining Wall


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PAGE 1 OF 2

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

37°31'28.96"N

B-RW-1

Boring Backfilled upon completion PAGE 1 OF 2

15

8

14

11

12

13

9

10

Dark Gray Clayey SAND (SC) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Loose, Wet

Gray GRAVEL (GP) with Sand, Very Dense, Moist4-15-34-17

1-1-2-2

2-1-1-1

4

13

DIP*

5

3

7

T. Fosler

6

2-3-3-2

COORD.DATUM:

OFFSET:Sta. 206+85.00-77°25'8.93"W


14.00 Feet


ROCK

East Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsB-RW-1City of Richmond

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

GROUND WATERGroundwater Encountered at 5.5 Feet



LL PI15 -1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

REMARKS: PAGE 2 OF 2

B-RW-1


4-6-8-8

16

17

18

20

19

FIELD DATA 6/22/2016 LAB DATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

ROCK

STR

ATA

LEG

END

2.25" H.S.A.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)



37°31'28.96"N

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

DIP* Automatic Hammer

STR

ATA

JOIN

TS

Fishburne DrillingT. Fosler

GROUND WATER

B-RW-1City of RichmondRetaining Wall PAGE 2 OF 2

Sta. 206+85.00 OFFSET:-77°25'8.93"W

SURFACE ELEVATION: 14.00 Feet COORD.DATUM:

Groundwater Encountered at 5.5 FeetNo Long Term Measurements Taken

FIELD DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

Light Brown Sandy CLAY (CL), Trace of Gravel, Medium Stiff, Moist

Boring Terminated at 20.0' on 06-22-2016



LL PI0 12

1

9

8

7

6

18

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

REMARKS:

COORD.DATUM:

OFFSET:Sta. 209+10.00-77°25'7.37"W


12.00 Feet

2.25" H.S.A.DIP*

5

3

7

T. Fosler

6

1-1-2-2

B-RW-2

Boring Backfilled upon completion PAGE 1 OF 1

15

8

14

11

12

13

9

10

Light Brown Silty SAND (SM) with Gravel, Very Dense, Moist

Gray Silty SAND (SM) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Very Dense, Moist



ROCK

East Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsB-RW-2City of Richmond

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS


Automatic Hammer

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

6/22/2016

Retaining Wall


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PAGE 1 OF 1

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

37°31'27.02"N

FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

5-2-2-3

2

9" ASPHALT CONCRETE

50/2

4

11

10

7" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE underlaying 3" AGGREGATE

12-15-20-20

2-3-5-7

Light Brown Silty SAND (SM) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense to Loose, Moist



LL PI0 24

23

22

21

20 10

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

REMARKS:


ROCK


1


ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

B-SP-1


OFFSET:Sta. 301+75.00-77°24'56.19"W

23.70 Feet

City of RichmondPAGE 1 OF 2

6/21/2016

Signal Post


7

2

4-5-7-5

T. FoslerSA

MPL

E LE

GEN

D

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

4

5

2" TOPSOIL

Brown Silty SAND (SM) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Loose to Medium Dense, Moist

Light Brown Sandy CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Soft, Wet

4-4-2-2

13

9

6

10

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

1-2-7-11

3-4-6-4

4-6-4-3

1-2-4-5

Brown Silty SAND (SM) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Caly, and Organics, Loose to Medium Dense, Moist

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS


Automatic Hammer


B-SP-1


DIP*

Gray Silty SAND (SM), Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense to Dense, Moist

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

PAGE 1 OF 2

15

8

3

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

14

11

12



LL PI15 9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

REMARKS:


Grey Silty SAND (SM), Trace of Gravel, Dense to Medium Dense, Moist

PAGE 2 OF 2

B-SP-1


29

30

6-15-19-24

6-8-10-11

19

24

25

26

6-16-27-20

27

28



20

21

22

23

16

17

18

Grey Silty SAND (SM), Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense to Very Dense, Moist


DEP

TH (f

t)

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

ROCK

STR

ATA

LEG

END

2.25" H.S.A.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)



37°31'13.41"N

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION


STR

ATA

JOIN

TS


GROUND WATER

B-SP-1City of RichmondSignal Post PAGE 2 OF 2

Sta. 301+75.00 OFFSET:-77°24'56.19"W




LL PI0 26

25

24

23

22

21

20 39

19

18 25 9 16

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

REMARKS:

6/21/2016


STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

Gray Silty SAND (SM), Trace of Gravel, Loose, Moist

2-1-1-2

26.00 Feet


ROCK

East Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsB-SP-2City of Richmond

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS

15

8

14

11

12

13

9

10

4

4-4-3-4

-/-/-3-51

5

3

B-SP-2


1-2-2-1

4-4-5-4

2

6

4-2-3-4

Sta. 31+85.00

Brown Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Medium Stiff, Moist

DIP*

4" ASPHALT CONCRETE underlaying 5" GRAVEL

PAGE 1 OF 2



FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

-77°24'56.43"W

7

Signal Post

LAB DATA

Brown Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Soft to Very Soft, Wet

Light Brown Silty SAND (SM) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense, Moist

SURFACE ELEVATION:

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 2

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:



LL PI15 11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 16

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

REMARKS:


Grey Clayey SAND (SC), Trace of Gravel, Very Dense to Medium Dense, Moist

PAGE 2 OF 2

B-SP-2


29

30

12-24-50/6

4-5-6-8

19

24

25

26

11-19-19-17

27

28



20

21

22

23

16

17

18

Grey Silty SAND (SM), Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense to Very Dense, Moist


DEP

TH (f

t)

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

ROCK

STR

ATA

LEG

END

2.25" H.S.A.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)



37°31'12.99"N

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION


STR

ATA

JOIN

TS


GROUND WATER


Sta. 31+85.00 OFFSET:-77°24'56.43"W




LL PI0 25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

REMARKS:

6/21/2016


ROCK

East Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsB-SP-3City of Richmond

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

STR

ATA

LEG

END

JOIN

TS



10

1-2-3-5

3-3-2-3

4-3-2-1

25.00 Feet

1

FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

STR

ATA

DEP

TH (f

t)

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

5-7-5-4

2

4" TOPSOIL

6

2-1-2-2

4

Brown Silty SAND (SM) FILL, Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense, Moist

Gray Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) FILL, Trace of Gravel and Organics, Soft to Very Soft, Wet

Brown Silty SAND (SM), Trace of Gravel, Loose to Medium Dense, Moist

4-3-3-2

PAGE 1 OF 2

15

8

14

B-SP-3


11

12

13

9

DIP*

5

3

7

Signal Post


LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

T. Fosler

PAGE 1 OF 2

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)


OFFSET:Sta. 31+70.00-77°24'57.75"W




LL PI15 10

9

8

7 9

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

REMARKS:


PAGE 2 OF 2

B-SP-3


29

30

11-11-11-13

24

25

26

15-21-32-39

27

28

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

14-26-50/5

19


DEP

TH (f

t)

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

ROCK

STR

ATA

LEG

END

2.25" H.S.A.

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)



37°31'12.81"N

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION


STR

ATA

JOIN

TS


GROUND WATER


Sta. 31+70.00 OFFSET:

Brown Silty SAND (SM), Trace of Gravel, Medium Dense, Moist

Grey Clayey SAND (SC), Trace of Gravel, Dense to Very Dense, Moist

-77°24'57.75"WSURFACE ELEVATION: 25.00 Feet COORD.DATUM:



0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

ML

CL

LIQUID LIMIT

B-DS-1

B-EM-4

B-EM-5

B-SP-2

FinesPIPL TestingLab

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), dark brown, black and gray(Visual)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark brown (Visual)

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), trace gravel, light brown (Visual)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel, contains petroleumodor, dark gray (Visual)

LLSpecimen

PLOTTED DATA REPRESENTS SOIL PASSING NO. 40 SIEVE

52

31

59

25

26

20

23

16

26

11

36

9

CL-ML MH

CH

Description

RICH

RICH

RICH

RICH

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

ATTERBERG LIMITS

4.0 ft

6.0 ft

4.0 ft

8.0 ft

Project: City of RichmondEast Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsRichmond, VA

Contract: 12613036AT

TE

RB

ER

G_L

IMIT

S 1

261

303

6 T

AS

K 2

5 L

AB

DA

TA

.GP

J S

CH

NA

BE

L D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

200

8_0

4_2

2.G

DT

7/8

/16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

4 3

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

200100 1406040

0.3

23 3/41.5 6

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace sand, contains mica, brown (Visual)

Specimen

--

LL

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

5030

GRADATION CURVES

1/23/8

PL PI Cc Cu

B-EM-2 -- -- --

%Clay

B-EM-2

%Silt%GravelSpecimen

Sample Description

D30

16 2014

%Sand

ASTM D422 9.3

81041

90.4

HYDROMETER

6

Test Method D10

----

D60

--

D100

19RICH

Testing Lab

--0.7 ft

0.7 ft


Contract: 12613036SIE

VE

5 S

HE

ET

126

130

36 T

AS

K 2

5 L

AB

DA

TA

.GP

J S

CH

NA

BE

L D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

201

0_0

2_2

5.G

DT

8/1

0/1

6

fine coarseCOBBLES SILT OR CLAY

medium fine

SANDGRAVELcoarse

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

3.4, Soaked

Dry Density Before Soaking (pcf):

Dry Density After Soaking (pcf):

Maximum Dry Density (pcf):

Moisture Content Before Soaking (%):

Moisture Content After Soaking (Avg) (%):

Sample Description:

PENETRATION (INCHES)

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Surcharge (psf):

CBR:

2.1

50

Optimum Moisture Content (%): 22.8

26.1

22.0

95.8

95.1

97.1

Swell (%):

ST

RE

SS

ON

PIS

TO

N (

psi)

Test Method:

Sample Depth:

B-EM-2

VTM-8

Sample Source:

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace GRAVEL, contains mica, brown (Visual)

0.7 ft Moisture Content Top Inch After Soak (%): 32.1

RICHTesting Lab:


Contract: 12613036

Liquid Limit (LL): --

Plasticity Index (PI): --

% Passing # 200 Sieve: 90.4

% Retained #4 Sieve: 0.3

CB

R S

ING

LE P

OIN

T 1

261

3036

TA

SK

25

LA

B D

AT

A.G

PJ

SC

HN

AB

EL

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E 2

008

_04_

22.

GD

T 8

/10

/16

B-EM-2

0.7 - 1.5

Bulk

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, contains mica, brown (Visual) RICH 90.4 98.2 0.3 95.8 22.8 97.1 22.0 2.1 3.4

Sheet 1 of 1

BoringNo.

Summary Of Laboratory TestsAppendix

Description of SoilSpecimen

Project Number: 12613036

Notes: 1. Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.2. Soil classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2487(as applicable), based on testing indicated and visualclassification.3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; -- indicates no test performed

Project:

Elevationft

City of RichmondEast Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsRichmond, VA

SampleType

SampleDepth

ft

DY

NA

MIC

LA

B S

UM

MA

RY

12

613

036

TA

SK

25

LA

B D

AT

A.G

PJ

SC

HN

AB

EL

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E 2

010

_02_

25.

GD

T 8

/10

/16

CB

R D

ry D

ensi

tyA

t C

om

pac

tio

n (

pcf

)

CB

R M

ois

ture

Co

nte

nt

(%)

Max

imu

m D

ryD

ensi

ty (

pcf

)

CB

R V

alu

e

% P

assi

ng

No

. 40

Sie

ve

Op

tim

um

Mo

istu

reC

on

ten

t (%

)

% P

assi

ng

No

. 200

Sie

ve

% R

etai

ned

No

. 4 S

ieve

Tes

tin

g L

abo

rato

ry

CB

R P

erce

nt

Sw

ell

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

4 3

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

200100 1406040

1.5

12.7

4.0

3.3

23 3/41.5 6

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine to coarse grainedsand, contains rock and coal fragments, gray (Visual)

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained sand, trace gravel,dark gray (Visual)

SILTY SAND (SM), fine to coarse grained sand, trace gravel,gray (Visual)

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse sand, contains rockfragments, gray (Visual)

Specimen

--

--

--

--

LL

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

5030

GRADATION CURVES

1/23/8

PL PI Cc Cu

B-DS-3

B-RW-1

B-RW-2

B-SP-2

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

%Clay

B-DS-3

B-RW-1

B-RW-2

B-SP-2

%Silt%GravelSpecimen

Sample Description

D30

16 2014

%Sand

ASTM D422

ASTM D422

ASTM D422

ASTM D422

64.6

58.4

69.1

63.8

81041

33.9

28.9

26.9

32.9

HYDROMETER

6

Test Method D10

--

--

--

--

--

0.08

0.1

--

D60

0.32

0.57

0.55

0.43

D100

19

19

19

9.5

RICH

RICH

RICH

RICH

Testing Lab

--

--

--

--

2.0 ft

6.0 ft

4.0 ft

23.0 ft

2.0 ft

6.0 ft

4.0 ft

23.0 ft


Contract: 12613036SIE

VE

5 S

HE

ET

126

130

36 T

AS

K 2

5 L

AB

DA

TA

.GP

J S

CH

NA

BE

L D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

201

0_0

2_2

5.G

DT

7/8

/16

fine coarseCOBBLES SILT OR CLAY

medium fine

SANDGRAVELcoarse

Project No.

Boring No. B-DS-1 B-DS-2 B-DS-3 B-EM-1 B-EM-2 B-EM-3Depth (ft) 4.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 6.0 8.0Tare No. T28 T4 T11 T1 40 T10

Wgt. Tare + Wet Wgt, gm. 80.2 74.0 74.0 86.6 95.8 83.9Wgt. Tare + Dry Wgt, gm. 68.8 66.2 68.1 79.9 91.5 73.0

Wgt. Water, gm. 11.4 7.8 5.9 6.7 4.3 10.9Wgt. Tare, gm. 30.3 30.3 30.1 30.2 32.6 30.3

Dry Wgt of Material, gm. 38.5 35.9 38.0 49.7 58.9 42.7

Water Content, % 29.6 21.7 15.5 13.5 7.3 25.5

Boring No. B-EM-4 B-EM-5 B-EM-7 B-EM-8 B-RW-1 B-RW-2Depth (ft) 2.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 13.0 6.0Tare No. T25 T2 55 T13 87 14

Wgt. Tare + Wet Wgt, gm. 83.1 90.2 74.2 82.0 102.3 89.7Wgt. Tare + Dry Wgt, gm. 80.4 80.7 63.5 74.7 98.7 80.7

Wgt. Water, gm. 2.7 9.5 10.7 7.3 3.6 9.0Wgt. Tare, gm. 30.4 30.4 31.8 30.3 31.6 31.9

Dry Wgt of Material, gm. 50.0 50.3 31.7 44.4 67.1 48.8

Water Content, % 5.4 18.9 33.8 16.4 5.4 18.4

Rocks Rocks RocksBoring No. B-SP-1 B-SP-2 B-SP-3 B-DS-1 B-SP-2Depth (ft) 4.0 8.0 18.0 0.5 6.0Tare No. 32 76 86 130 67

Wgt. Tare + Wet Wgt, gm. 82.3 84.2 76.9 103.1 91.2Wgt. Tare + Dry Wgt, gm. 77.7 78.5 73.1 87.6 74.5

Wgt. Water, gm. 4.6 5.7 3.8 15.5 16.7Wgt. Tare, gm. 31.8 31.9 31.8 30.4 31.9

Dry Wgt of Material, gm. 45.9 46.6 41.3 57.2 42.7

Water Content, % 10.0 12.2 9.2 27.1 39.2Root fragments

Equipment ID: Tested by: MP Checked by: DS Date: 8/1/2016 Date: 8/8/2016

Project Name

12613036 Moisture Content Analysis (ASTM D2216)

East Riverside Improvements

Q:\Laboratory\Soils Lab Data\Richmond Soils Lab data\2016\08-16 August\12613036\12613036 Moisture Content_gINT

87.0

88.0

89.0

90.0

91.0

92.0

93.0

94.0

95.0

96.0

97.0

98.0

99.0

16 18 20 22 24 26 28

ASTM D698 Method B

Comments:

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y, p

cf

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP

95.8

22.8

Test Methods:

Sample Description:

Opt. Moisture (%):

Max. Dry Density (pcf):

Assumed Specific Gravity:

Sample Source: B-EM-2, 0.7 ft

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace sand, contains mica, brown (Visual)

2.58

8-08-16Date: DSReviewed By:

WATER CONTENT, %

Testing Lab: RICH

Liquid Limit (LL): --

Plasticity Index (PI): --

% Passing # 200 Sieve: 90.4

% Retained #4 Sieve: 0.3


Contract: 12613036CO

MP

AC

TIO

N 1

2613

036

TA

SK

25

LA

B D

AT

A.G

PJ

SC

HN

AB

EL

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E 2

008

_04_

22.

GD

T 8

/10

/16

B-DS-1

4.0 - 10.0

Jar

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), dark brown, blackand gray (Visual) RICH 25.2 52 26 26 -- -- --

B-DS-3

2.0 - 8.0

Jar

CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC), fine tocoarse grained sand, contains rock and coalfragments, gray (Visual)

RICH 15.6 -- -- -- 33.9 65.7 1.5

B-EM-4

6.0 - 10.0

Jar

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), dark brown (Visual)

RICH 15.7 31 20 11 -- -- --

B-EM-5

4.0 - 10.0

Jar

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), trace gravel, lightbrown (Visual) RICH 22.0 59 23 36 -- -- --

B-RW-1

6.0 - 10.0

Jar

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grainedsand, trace gravel, dark gray (Visual) RICH 21.4 -- -- -- 28.9 54.0 12.7

B-RW-2

4.0 - 10.0

Jar

SILTY SAND (SM), fine to coarse grainedsand, trace gravel, gray (Visual) RICH 18.4 -- -- -- 26.9 52.5 4.0

B-SP-2

8.0 - 13.0

Jar

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel,contains petroleum odor, dark gray (Visual) RICH 16.1 25 16 9 -- -- --

Sheet 1 of 2

BoringNo.

Summary Of Laboratory TestsAppendix

Description of SoilSpecimen

Project Number: 12613036

Notes: 1. Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.2. Soil classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2487(as applicable), based on testing indicated and visualclassification.3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; -- indicates no test performed

Project:

Elevationft

City of RichmondEast Riverfront Transportation ImprovementsRichmond, VA

SampleType

SampleDepth

ft

DY

NA

MIC

LA

B S

UM

MA

RY

12

613

036

TA

SK

25

LA

B D

AT

A.G

PJ

SC

HN

AB

EL

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E 2

010

_02_

25.

GD

T 7

/8/1

6

Pla

stic

Lim

it

% P

assi

ng

No

. 40

Sie

ve

Liq

uid

Lim

it

% P

assi

ng

No

. 200

Sie

ve

Nat

ura

lM

ois

ture

(%

)

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

% R

etai

ned

No

. 4 S

ieve

Tes

tin

g L

abo

rato

ry

Project Name

Design Feature:

DMY Project No.: Calculated By: JZD Reviewed By RMS Date: August 10, 2015

Client:

9268 30 1.00% 12,368 50% 90% 1.05 0.46 0.0002

1.0% 2.0% 97%

54 108 5,247

57 50 1

559,715 490,417 10,341

Total EASLs

2

ESALs Calculation

Daily ESALs

Percent of Truck

Load Equivalent factor for Tractor Trailor Truck (TTT)

Load Equivalent factor for Single Unit Truck (SUT)

Load Equivalent factor for Cars

Vehicle in One Direction

GEO 123015.10

Roadway-Dock Street Project Location: City of Richmond

Note: If not provided, Percent of Truck in the Design Lane should be as follows (per VDOT):Number of Lane in the Design Direction TL (Lane Distribution Factor)

1 100%2 90% 3 70%4 60%

Traffic Information

Initial ADT

East Riverfront Transportation Improvements Project Owner City of Richmond

Total EASLs per Vehcile

1,060,472

ADT in One Direction 5,409

Number of Lane in the Design DirectionWRA

Growth Rate (G)Percent of Truck in

the Design Direction (TD)

Percent of Truck in the Design Lane (TL)

Truck Factor (TF)

Design Year Design Year ADT

Layer Str. Coeff. Dar.Coff.1 0.44 1 220 lbs/SY2 0.44 1 220 lbs/SY3 0.44 1 440 lbs/SY4 0.12 15 0.10 1

TOTAL Inches

Roadway-Dock Street

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

Flexible Pavement Design

GEO 123015.10East Riverfront Transportation Improvements

City of Richmond

Roadway-Dock Street

1,060,47218-kip ESALs Over Initial Period:4.22.9

Flexible Structureal Design Module Data

850.49

Initial Serviceability:Terminal Serviceability:Reliablity Level (%):Overall Standard Deviation:

4.05Calculated Design Structural Number (SN)

Specified Layer Design

Roadbed Soil Resilent Modulus (PSI) 5700Stage Construction 1

Material Thickness (in) Application Calculated SNSM-12.5D 2.0 0.88IM-19.0A 2.0 0.88BM-25.0A 4.0 1.76VDOT 21B 10.0 1.20

Selected Matl CBR-30 0.0 0.00

18.0 4.72

ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years): 30

Two-Way Daily Traffic (AADT): 9268

Heavy Vehicle % (FHWA Class 5 or greater): 3.0%

Number of Lanes in Design Direction: 2

Percent of Trucks in Design Direction: 50%

Percent of Trucks in Design Lane: 90%

0.0002

1.05

0.46




Annual Traffic Growth Rate (%): 1.00%

Total Calculated ESALs: 1,060,472

Project Name

Design Feature:

DMY Project No.: Calculated By: JZD Reviewed By RMS Date: August 10, 2015

Client:

8008 30 1.00% 10,687 50% 90% 1.05 0.46 0.0002

1.0% 2.0% 97%

47 93 4,533

49 43 1

483,620 423,744 8,935

Total EASLs

East Riverfront Transportation Improvements Project Owner City of Richmond

Total EASLs per Vehcile

916,299

ADT in One Direction 4,674

Number of Lane in the Design DirectionWRA

Growth Rate (G)Percent of Truck in

the Design Direction (TD)

Percent of Truck in the Design Lane (TL)

Truck Factor (TF)

Design Year Design Year ADT

2

ESALs Calculation

Daily ESALs

Percent of Truck




Vehicle in One Direction

GEO 123015.10

Roadway-East Main Street Project Location: City of Richmond

Note: If not provided, Percent of Truck in the Design Lane should be as follows (per VDOT):Number of Lane in the Design Direction TL (Lane Distribution Factor)

1 100%2 90% 3 70%4 60%

Traffic Information

Initial ADT

Layer Str. Coeff. Dar.Coff.1 0.44 1 220 lbs/SY2 0.44 1 220 lbs/SY3 0.44 1 440 lbs/SY4 0.12 15 0.10 1

TOTAL Inches


Annual Traffic Growth Rate (%): 1.00%

Total Calculated ESALs: 916,299

Percent of Trucks in Design Direction: 50%

Percent of Trucks in Design Lane: 90%

0.0002

1.05

0.46



Two-Way Daily Traffic (AADT): 8008

Heavy Vehicle % (FHWA Class 5 or greater): 3.0%

Number of Lanes in Design Direction: 2

18.0 4.72

ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years): 30

VDOT 21B 10.0 1.20Selected Matl CBR-30 0.0 0.00

IM-19.0A 2.0 0.88BM-25.0A 4.0 1.76

Material Thickness (in) Application Calculated SNSM-12.5D 2.0 0.88

3.95Calculated Design Structural Number (SN)

Specified Layer Design

Roadbed Soil Resilent Modulus (PSI) 5700Stage Construction 1

850.49

Initial Serviceability:Terminal Serviceability:Reliablity Level (%):Overall Standard Deviation:

916,29918-kip ESALs Over Initial Period:4.22.9

Flexible Structureal Design Module Data

GEO 123015.10East Riverfront Transportation Improvements

City of Richmond

Roadway-East Main Street

Roadway-East Main Street

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

Flexible Pavement Design

Documents

East Riverfront Transportation Improvement City of …€¦ · · 2016-11-22East Riverfront Transportation Improvement . City of Richmond, Virginia . ... East Riverfront Transportation