Geotechnical Engineering Report - fce-digs.com€¦ · Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Chesterfield County ... 3.4.2 Standard Proctor and California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Chesterfield County TaskRoute 10 Eastbound WideningChesterfield County, Virginia

March 10, 2017

19955 Highland Vista Drive, Suite 170Ashburn, VA 20147Phone 703 726 8030 ● www.geoconcepts-eng.com

19955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

March 10, 2017 Mr. Matthew Thomas, PE Project Manager Dewberry 4805 Lake Brook Drive, Suite 200 Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Chesterfield County Task - Route 10 Eastbound Widening, Chesterfield County, Virginia (GeoConcepts Project No. 14344.01)

Dear Mr. Thomas:

GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. (GeoConcepts) is pleased to present the following Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) prepared for the Route 10 Eastbound (EB) Widening project in Chesterfield County, Virginia. We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or want to meet to discuss the findings and recommendations contained in the report. Sincerely,

GEOCONCEPTS ENGINEERING, INC. Christopher Lynch, PE Senior Engineer [email protected]

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................... 1

3.1 Geology .............................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Stratification ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 2 3.4 Soil Laboratory Test Results ................................................................................................. 3

3.4.1 Classification Test Results ................................................................................................... 3 3.4.2 Standard Proctor and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results .......................................... 3

4.0 Pavements .................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Existing Pavement ............................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Traffic Analyses .................................................................................................................. 4 4.3 Pavement Design Recommendations .................................................................................... 5

5.0 Design and Construction Considerations ......................................................................................... 7 5.1 Earthwork ........................................................................................................................... 7

5.1.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 7 5.1.2 Unsuitable Soils .................................................................................................................. 7

6.0 General Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Appendix A: Subsurface Investigation Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Results Appendix C: Engineering Calculations

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 1

1.0 Introduction This Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) presents the results of the field investigation, soil laboratory testing, and engineering analysis prepared for the proposed Route 10 Eastbound (EB) Widening project. Specifically, this GER addresses the following:

• An evaluation of subsurface conditions within the area of the proposed roadway widening.

• An assessment of subgrade conditions for support of flexible pavement, including recommended flexible pavement sections based on an estimated design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value from laboratory test results and traffic loading information provided by VDOT.

• Earthwork recommendations for construction of loadbearing fills, including an assessment of on-site soils to be excavated for re-use as fill.

Services not specifically identified in the contract for this project are not included in the scope of services.

2.0 Project Description The site is located along Route 10 (Iron Bridge Road) in Chesterfield County, Virginia. In the vicinity of the project, between Route 288 and Frith Lane (also referred to as Lori Road), Route 10 is typically a four-lane divided roadway. The elevation (EL) at the site ranges from approximately EL 200 to EL 210. Based on a project description provided to us by Dewberry on May 9, 2016, the proposed construction consists of two sections of widening, referred to as Section 1 and Section 2. We understand that the project includes the following:

• Section 1: widening of approximately 300 feet of Route 10 EB, west of Courthouse Road.

• Section 2: widening of approximately 600 feet of Route 10 EB, between Deerfield Drive and Frith Lane.

3.0 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling a total of three Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings and three pavement cores. The SPT borings and pavement coring were completed by Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (F&R) under our observation between November 16 and 17, 2016 using a CME 75 rig, utilizing 2-¼ inch inside diameter hollow stem auger with an automatic hammer. The split-spoon sampler was advanced by driving the spoon into undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lbf hammer free-falling from 30 inches height per ASTM D1586-11. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the automatic hammer is about 33 percent greater than the applied energy using the standard safety hammer. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. The borings were staked and surveyed by Dewberry in advance of our work. The offset distances were estimated in the field by GeoConcepts. Northing and Easting information were updated in the boring logs to reflect the offsets made in the field. Ground surface elevations on the logs correspond to initially surveyed locations. Test boring locations are shown in the boring location plans, Figures 2 and 3, presented in Appendix A of this report. A summary of subsurface explorations performed is provided below in Table 3.0-1. Test boring logs are also presented in Appendix A of this report.

Table 3.0-1: Subsurface Exploration Summary Segment Number of Test Borings Number of Pavement Cores

Section 1 1 2*

Section 2 2 1

Total 3 3 * One in mainline pavement and one in existing paved shoulder

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 2

A GeoConcepts engineer was on-site to observe the standard penetration tests, conduct pocket penetrometer tests on the cohesive soils when encountered, and record pavement layer thicknesses.

3.1 Geology The site is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of Virginia. The Coastal Plain consists of a seaward thickening wedge of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sedimentary deposits from the Cretaceous Geologic Period to the Holocene Geologic Epoch. These deposits represent marginal-marine to marine sediments consisting of interbedded sands and clays. The Coastal Plain is bordered to the east by the Atlantic Ocean and to the west by the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The dividing line between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont is locally referred to as the “Fall Line”. This name comes from the waterfalls that form as a result of the differential erosion that occurs as streams cross the Piedmont/Coastal Plain contact. Specifically, according to local geologic maps, the site is mapped in the Pliocene Sand and Gravel of the Tertiary geologic period. Based on our subsurface investigation, the sediments and strata correspond favorably to the geologic publications.

3.2 Stratification The subsurface materials encountered have been stratified for purposes of our discussions herein. These stratum designations do not imply that the materials encountered are continuous across the site. Stratum designations have been established to characterize similar subsurface conditions based on material gradations and parent geology. The generalized subsurface materials encountered in the test borings completed at the site have been assigned to the following strata:

Stratum A (Existing Fill)

loose to medium dense or stiff, clayey SAND (SC), silty SAND (SM), and sandy LEAN CLAY (CL), contains organics, moist, brown, gray, and black

Stratum B (Alluvial)

soft to very stiff, LEAN CLAY (CL) and SILT (ML), with varying amounts of sand, moist, brown, gray, and black

The two letter designations included in the strata descriptions presented above and on the test boring logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) group symbol and group name based on laboratory testing per ASTM D2487 and visual classifications per ASTM D2488. It should be noted that visual classifications per ASTM D2488 may not match classifications determined by laboratory testing per ASTM D2487.

3.3 Groundwater Groundwater level observations were made in the field during drilling. A summary of the water level readings are presented below in Table 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-1: Summary of Groundwater Observations

Test Boring No.

Ground Surface Elevation (ft)

Depth to Groundwater (ft) Groundwater Elevation (ft)

First Encountered Long-Term First

Encountered Long-Term

SB-1 206.5 8.0 7.0 198.5 199.5

SB-2 206.4 Dry Dry N/A N/A

SB-3 206.6 Dry Dry N/A N/A

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 3

As shown in Table 3.3-1, groundwater was encountered at the location of SB-01 at depths of about 7 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface, or at about EL 198 to EL 199. Groundwater was not encountered at test borings SB-02 and SB-03. The groundwater observations presented herein are considered to be an indication of the groundwater levels at the dates and times indicated. Where more impervious Stratum B silt and clay soils are encountered, the amount of water seepage into the borings is limited, and it is generally not possible to establish the location of the groundwater table through short term water level observations. Accordingly, the groundwater information presented herein should be used with caution. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected with seasons of the year, construction activity, changes to surface grades, precipitation, or other similar factors. The final design should anticipate the fluctuations of the hydrostatic water table depending on surface runoff, evaporation, leaking utilities, stream levels, and similar factors.

3.4 Soil Laboratory Test Results Selected soil samples obtained from the field investigation were tested for grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics using standard effort, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and natural moisture content. The results of natural moisture content and Atterberg limits test results are presented on the test boring logs in Appendix A. Individual soil laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. A summary of soil laboratory test results is presented in the subsequent section of this report.

3.4.1 Classification Test Results A summary of soil laboratory test results is presented below in Table 3.4.1-1.

Table 3.4.1-1: Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results

Test Boring

No.

Depth (ft)

Sample Type Stratum Description of

Soil Specimen

Sieve Results

Atterberg Limits Natural

Moisture Content

(%) Percent

Retained #4 Sieve

Percent Passing #200 Sieve

LL PL PI

SB-1 1.0-6.0 Bulk A/B clayey SAND (SC) 11.6 43.0 35 15 20 13.0

SB-2 1.0-6.0 Bulk A sandy LEAN CLAY (CL) 0.1 61.7 36 16 20 16.7

SB-3 1.0-6.0 Bulk A/B sandy LEAN CLAY (CL) 0.9 59.1 34 15 19 15.2

Notes: 1. Soil tests are in accordance with applicable ASTM standards 2. Soil classification symbols are in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System 3. Visual identification of samples is in accordance with ASTM D2488 4. Key to abbreviations: LL = liquid limit; PL = plastic limit; PI = plasticity index; NP = nonplastic; N/T = not tested

3.4.2 Standard Proctor and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test Results A total of three standard proctor tests (VTM-1) and CBR tests (VTM-8) were performed on bulk samples collected from the test borings. The results of the standard proctor and CBR tests are presented below in Table 3.4.2-1.

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 4

Table 3.4.2-1: Standard Proctor and CBR Test Results Summary

Test Boring

No.

Sample Depth

(ft)

USCS Symbol

AASHTO Classification

Maximum Dry

Density (pcf)

Optimum Moisture Content

(%)

CBR Value at 0.1-inch

CBR Swell (%)

SB-1 1.0-6.0 SC A-6 123.2 10.5 10.7 0.37

SB-2 1.0-6.0 CL A-6 116.6 14.2 14.4 0.11

SB-3 1.0-6.0 CL A-6 117.6 13.0 9.3 0.61

4.0 Pavements Project improvements include construction of new pavement as well as rehabilitation of existing pavements. A summary of existing pavement structures, a minimum recommended full depth pavement section and milling and overlay section are presented below.

4.1 Existing Pavement A total of three pavement cores were collected to assess the condition and structure of existing pavements. Pavement cores were taken from both the mainline and shoulder at selected test boring locations. Based upon the information obtained from subsurface investigation, the existing pavement within the limits of this project consists of asphalt concrete over crushed aggregate. Table 4.1-1 below presents a summary of the existing pavement thicknesses. The existing asphalt and subbase thicknesses were measured from the core hole, and pavement core pictures are presented in Appendix A. Asphalt was also encountered in test boring SB-1, which was offset from the staked location due to conflicts with underground utilities. However, the asphalt thickness encountered in test boring SB-1 is not considered representative of the shoulder section as it was along the edge of pavement, and this asphalt thickness is, therefore, not included in Table 4.1-1 and is not included in pavement design recommendations.

Table 4.1-1: Existing Pavement Thickness

Core No. Existing Asphalt Thickness (inch) Subbase Thickness (inch)

PC-1 9.0 8.0

PC-2 9.0 8.0

PC-3 12.0 12.0

4.2 Traffic Analyses The design of required pavement sections was performed using the traffic data provided by Dewberry. Table 4.2-1 below summarizes the design traffic data and resulting design equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) used for pavement design. We recommend a design CBR value of 7, determined as the average of laboratory results CBR multiplied by 2/3 to account for variability of the test data.

Table 4.2-1: Traffic Data Summary and Resulting Design ESALs Used for Full Depth

and Mill and Overlay Pavement Design

Roadway Full Depth Pavement Mill & Overlay

Highway Classification Divided Primary Road Divided Primary Road

Pavement Design Years(1) 30 --

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 5

Roadway Full Depth Pavement Mill & Overlay

Overlay Design Years(1) -- 12

Base Year Average Annual Daily Traffic, AADT (2015)(2) 39,000 39,000

Design Year Average Annual Daily Traffic, AADT 53,623 44,829

Percent Trucks (%) (2) 3 3

Annual Traffic Volume Growth Rate (%)(3) 1.0 1.0

Number of Lanes in Design Direction 3 3

Lane Distribution Factor (%)(2) 53 53

Percentage of All Trucks in Design Lane (%)(1) 70 70

Average Initial Truck factor, Assuming Single-Unit Trucks Only (ESALs/Truck) (1) 0.46 0.46

Design CBR 7.0 7.0

Design Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus (psi) 10,500 10,500

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 3,488,068 1,063,181

Required Structural Number, SNreq 4.09 3.29

Notes: 1. Recommended from Manual of Instructions from Virginia Department of transportation (VDOT), Chapter 6 2. Taken from VDOT published Traffic Data for 2015. 3. Assumed

Table 4.2-2 below presents the design parameters used in the AASHTO design equation for the flexible pavements.

Table 4.2-2: Pavement Design Parameters

Roadway Route 10

Initial Serviceability(1) 4.2

Terminal Serviceability(1) 2.9

Overall Standard Deviation(1) 0.49

Reliability Level (%)(1) 90

Note: 1. Recommended from Manual of Instructions from Virginia Department of transportation (VDOT), Chapter 6.

4.3 Pavement Design Recommendations The minimum pavement designs are based upon the following criteria: (a) a minimum soil subgrade CBR value of 7 (therefore all imported fill material shall have a minimum CBR value of 7), (b) all subgrade is compacted in accordance with the applicable sections of the Road and Bridge specifications and applicable special provisions, and (c) that all unsuitable materials at or below subgrade have been removed or modified. Table 4.3-1 herein presents the minimum recommended thicknesses for full depth flexible pavement sections for the project. Pavement design calculations are presented in Appendix C.

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 6

Table 4.3-1: Recommended Full Depth Pavement Section

Roadway Thickness (inches)

SM-9.5D 1.5 (165 lb/yd2)

IM-19.0A 2.0 (240 lb/yd2)

BM-25.0A 4.5

Graded Aggregate Base 21A or 21B 6.0

Note: 1. Asphalt pavement shall meet or exceed the depths and types of the existing pavement.

Pavement widening shall be performed in accordance with the VDOT Road and Bridge Standards WP-2 detail for asphalt pavement widening. We have reviewed the existing in-service pavement sections encountered in the test borings. Based on this information, the existing structural number (SNEFF) was calculated assuming reduced structural layer coefficients to account for pavement conditions. Based on Table 5.2 in the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures AASHTO (1993), we used structural layer coefficients of 0.35 and 0.1 for existing asphalt concrete layers and crushed aggregate layers, respectively. Table 4.3-2 below presents the recommended flexible pavement mill and overlay section. Pavement design calculations are presented in Appendix C.

Table 4.3-2: Recommended Pavement Section for Mill and Overlay

Roadway Thickness (inches)

Milling Depth 1.5

SM-9.5D 1.5 (165 lb/yd2)

Pavement Aggregate Base Material, Type I, Size No. 21B should connected to a standard UD-4 edgedrain located beneath the outer edge of the paved shoulder or placed beneath the curb and gutter. Modified UD-1 shall be provided in lieu of standard UD-4 edgedrain for pavement subdrainage in areas of high groundwater, springs or deep (>15’) cuts; the modification consists of wrapping the aggregate with geotextile drainage fabric. On the high side of super-elevated sections where the new pavement will drain towards the existing pavement, provide six inches of Aggregate Base Material, Type I, Size No. 21A, pugmill mixed with 4% hydraulic cement by weight in lieu of 21B. The roadway shoulder or adjacent ground should be graded so that surface drainage runs away from the pavement and does not pond on the pavement’s edge. The final pavement design should also include suitable storm inlets and diversion structures for collecting surface runoff and to limit excessive ponding on paved surfaces. The recommended pavement sections consider post-construction traffic conditions and do not take into account construction traffic. Construction loading conditions may be more severe than post-construction conditions and typically occurs prior to placement of the total pavement sections recommended herein. Construction traffic activity on partially constructed pavement sections may result in subgrade and pavement failures due to the reduced support qualities of a partially constructed pavement section and the relatively heavy loads associated with construction traffic. Accordingly, consideration should be given to the construction of designated haul roads where the thickness of the granular subbase and/or asphalt base course has been increased to account for the heavier-loaded construction traffic. We suggest that

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 7

placement of the asphalt surface course not occur until all the major construction has been completed for pavement areas subjected to construction traffic.

5.0 Design and Construction Considerations Based on the presented site description, subsurface investigation, and soil laboratory testing data, the geotechnical aspects that should be considered during design and construction of site improvements are outlined in the following sections.

5.1 Earthwork Earthwork recommendations for construction of loadbearing fills, including an assessment of on-site soils to be excavated for re-use as fill, the locations of potentially unsuitable soils that may be encountered at pavement subgrades during construction, and pavement subgrade treatment options are presented below.

5.1.1 General All earthwork procedures should conform to Section 303 of the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications. Unsuitable soils should be stripped to approved subgrades as determined by the geotechnical engineer. The actual depth of stripping necessary to provide a suitable base for placement and compaction of earthwork may include topsoil and other soft surficial layers with or without organic matter. All subgrades should be proofrolled with a minimum 20 ton, loaded dump truck or suitable rubber tire construction equipment approved by the geotechnical engineer, prior to the placement of new fill. Materials used for compacted fill for support of the roadway should consist of soils classifying CL, ML, SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW per ASTM D2487, with a minimum CBR value of 7, and a swell percentage less than five. Based on the test borings and soil laboratory test results, it is expected that portions of soils excavated at the site will be suitable for re-use as fill based on classification and expected CBR value. However, drying of excavated soils by spreading and aerating may be necessary to obtain proper compaction. Drying of fill materials by the use of lime may also be considered. However, in the event that lime is used, refer to the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications for more specific details regarding the percentage of lime used and installation techniques. Individual borrow areas should be sampled and tested to verify classification of materials prior to their use as fill. Fill materials should not be placed on frozen or frost-heaved soils, and/or soils that have been recently subjected to precipitation. All frozen or frost-heaved soils should be removed prior to continuation of fill operations. Borrow fill materials should not contain frozen materials at the time of placement. Compaction equipment that is compatible with the soil type used for fill should be selected. Theoretically, any equipment type can be used as long as the required density is achieved; however, sheepsfoot roller equipment are best suited for fine-grained soils and vibratory smooth drum rollers are best suited for granular soils. Ideally, a smooth drum roller should be used for sealing the surface soils at the end of the day or prior to upcoming rain events. All areas receiving fill should be graded to facilitate positive drainage of any water associated with precipitation and surface run-off. After completion of compacted fill operations in pavement areas, asphalt operations should begin as soon as practically possible, or the finished subgrade should be protected from exposure to inclement weather conditions. Exposure to precipitation and freeze/thaw cycles will cause the finished subgrade to soften and become excessively disturbed. If construction plans require that finished subgrades remain exposed to weather conditions after completion of fill operations, additional fill should be placed above finished grades to protect the newly placed fill, or reworking of the upper 1 to 2 feet of previously placed compacted fill should be planned.

5.1.2 Unsuitable Soils Unsuitable materials for use as embankment fill and in cut areas for subgrade directly beneath pavements and bedding for minor structures are defined as any soils that meet one or more of the following criteria:

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 8

classifies as CH, MH, OH and OL in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), contains more than 5% by weight organic matter, exhibits a swell greater than 5% as determined from the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test using VTM-8, or exhibits strength or consolidation properties, or any other characteristics that are deemed unsuitable. Saturated or very dry, and/or very loose or very soft coarse- and fine-grained soils that exhibit excessive pumping, weaving, or rutting under the weight of construction equipment are also considered unsuitable unless they can be moisture conditioned through either mechanical or chemical means to an acceptable moisture content that allows adequate compaction to meet project specifications, and classification testing indicates they are not otherwise unsuitable. All materials within the uppermost 2 feet of a pavement subgrade that exhibit a CBR value less than that stipulated in the pavement design shall also be considered unsuitable. Topsoil or other organic soils are considered unsuitable for use in embankment fills other than as a cover for slopes for the purpose of establishing vegetative cover. When used as cover for slopes, the thickness of topsoil shall not exceed 12 inches. Acceptable methods of dealing with these unsuitable soils are: a) complete removal from 2 feet beyond the outside edge of shoulder on each side of the pavement or bedding limits of minor structures and replacement with acceptable fill; b) partial removal to at least 2 feet below final pavement subgrade or minor structure bedding elevation to within the limits noted in a) and replacement with select material per Section 207 of the Road and Bridge Specifications and geosynthetic fabric; c) raising grades with select material per Section 207 of the Road and Bridge Specifications and geosynthetic fabric to provide a minimum 2 feet of separation between these soils and final pavement subgrade or minor structure bedding; and d) chemical stabilization of the soils to a minimum depth of 12” below final pavement subgrade except for highly plastic clays and extremely soft or highly organic soils. A qualified geotechnical engineer should perform an inspection of all pavement subgrades and minor structure excavations immediately prior to placement of aggregate base, subbase, or bedding materials to identify excessively soft, loose, dry, or saturated soils that exhibit excessive pumping, weaving, or rutting under the weight of the construction equipment. Such soils are considered unsuitable and must be removed or modified in place to provide adequate support for embankments, pavement subgrade, or minor structures. According to Section 305.03(a) of the VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications (2007), excessively wet soils are defined as soil with natural moisture content in excess of +20 percent of the optimum moisture content. Optimum moisture contents are determined based on the proctor test results.

6.0 General Limitations Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the data obtained from the relatively limited number of test borings. This report does not reflect conditions that may occur between the points investigated, or between sampling intervals in test borings. The nature and extent of variations between test borings and sampling intervals may not become evident until the course of construction. Therefore, it is essential that on-site observations of subgrade conditions be performed during the final investigation as well as construction period to determine if re-evaluation of the recommendations in this report must be made. This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of the site and to assist your office and the design professionals in the design of this project. It is intended for use with regard to the specific project as described herein. An allowance should be established for additional costs that may be required for foundation and earthwork construction as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for various reasons including wet fill materials, soft subgrade conditions, unexpected groundwater problems, etc. This report should be made available to bidders prior to submitting their proposals to supply them with facts relative to the subsurface conditions revealed by our investigation and the results of analyses and studies that have been performed for this project. In addition, this report should be given to the successful contractor and subcontractors for their information only.

March 10, 2017 14344.01 Page 9

We recommend the project specifications contain the following statement: “A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project by GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. This report is for informational purposes only and should not be considered part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the geotechnical engineer and represent their interpretation of the subsoil conditions, tests and results of analyses that they performed. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the contractor’s purposes, the contractor may make their own investigations, tests, and analyses prior to bidding.” This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services included in this report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please contact the undersigned if you require clarification of any aspect of this report. Sincerely,

GEOCONCEPTS ENGINEERING, INC. Christopher Lynch, PE Senior Engineer Paul Burkart, PE Principal FM/CL/PEB/shm N:\PROJECTS\Active 14 Projects\14344.01, Chesterfield Co Rt 10 EB Widening\Final\14344.01 Route 10 EB Widening GER (Final 2017-03-10).docx

Appendix A Subsurface Investigation Subsurface Investigation Procedures (1 page)

VDOT Unified Soil Classification System (1 page)

VDOT Material and Sample Symbols List (2 pages)

Test Boring Notes (1 page)

Test Boring Logs (6 pages)

Pavement Core Pictures (3 pages)

Boring Location Plan, Figures 2 to 3 (2 pages)

Subsurface Investigation Procedures 1. Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 2-¼ inches. A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights. Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger, by standard methods, after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure. 2. Standard Penetration Tests Standard penetration tests are performed by driving a 2-inch O.D., 1-⅜ inch I.D. sampling spoon with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, according to ASTM D1586. After an initial 6 inches penetration to assure the sampling spoon is in undisturbed material, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches is generally taken as the N value. In the event 30 or more blows are required to drive the sampling spoon the initial 6-inch interval, the sampling spoon is driven to a total penetration resistance of 100 blows or 18 inches, whichever occurs first. 3. Test Boring Stakeout The test boring stakeout was provided by the project civil engineer.

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

Test Boring Notes 1. Classification of soil is by visual inspection and is in accordance with ASTM D2487. 2. Estimated groundwater levels are indicated on the logs. These are only estimates from available data

and may vary with precipitation, porosity of soil, site topography, etc. 3. Sampling data presents standard penetrations for 6-inch intervals or as indicated with graphic

representations adjacent to the sampling data. Where undisturbed tube samples are taken, they are designated “Shelby Tube” on the test boring log.

4. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the

particular time when drilled. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the test locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface conditions at the test locations.

5. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types as determined in the

sampling operation. Some variation may be expected vertically between samples taken. The soil profile, groundwater level observations, and penetration resistances presented on the logs have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

6. The information presented in the pocket penetrometer column are shear strength readings on soil

samples obtained from the split spoon. The pocket penetrometer is a hand-held instrument used to measure shear strength, which indicates unconfined compressive strength.

0.0 / 208.59Asphalt = 9 inches ASPH

0.75 / 207.84Crushed Stone = 8 inches CRA

1.42 / 207.17BOTTOM OF BORING AT 1.42 FT.

PAGE 1 OF 1

PC-1

PC-1

FIELD DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

GROUND WATER

PAGE 1 OF 1OFFSET: 18 REasting: 11768757.33 ftCOORD. DATUM: VA North

REMARKS:

Copyright 2016, Commonwealth of Virginia

SP

T_L

OG

:RO

UT

E 1

0 E

B W

IDE

NIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ:

8.30

.002

:021

011:

12/1

3/16

LAB DATA

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

PILL

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

SO

IL R

EC

OV

ER

Y (

%)

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

NO LONG TERM MEASUREMENTS TAKEN

DIP °

R O C K

SA

MP

LE L

EG

EN

D

S O I L

PROJECT #:LOCATION:STRUCTURE:

ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

208

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SA

MP

LE IN

TE

RV

AL

RO

CK

QU

ALI

TY

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

ST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

HA

MM

ER

BLO

WS

FIELD DATA

ST

RA

TA

LE

GE

ND

JOIN

TS

ST

RA

TA

0.20.40.60.81.01.21.4

STATION: 11+77NORTHING: 3666729.42 ftSURFACE ELEVATION: 208.59 ft

14344.01Route 10 EB WideningROADWAY

Date(s) Drilled: 11/17/2016 - 11/17/2016Drilling Method(s): 2.25" I.D. HSASPT Method: Automatic HammerOther Test(s):Driller: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. (Gooden)Logger: GeoConcepts Engineering, Inc. (K. Hayes)




PAGE 1 OF 1

PC-2

PC-2


GROUND WATER


REMARKS:


SP

T_L

OG

:RO

UT

E 1

0 E

B W

IDE

NIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ:

8.30

.002

:021

011:

12/1

3/16

LAB DATA

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

PILL

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

SO

IL R

EC

OV

ER

Y (

%)

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%



DIP °

R O C K

SA

MP

LE L

EG

EN

D

S O I L


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

207

206

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SA

MP

LE IN

TE

RV

AL

RO

CK

QU

ALI

TY

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

ST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

HA

MM

ER

BLO

WS

FIELD DATA

ST

RA

TA

LE

GE

ND

JOIN

TS

ST

RA

TA

0.20.40.60.81.01.21.4







PAGE 1 OF 1

PC-3

PC-3


GROUND WATER


REMARKS:


SP

T_L

OG

:RO

UT

E 1

0 E

B W

IDE

NIN

G L

OG

S.G

PJ:

8.30

.002

:021

011:

12/1

3/16

LAB DATA

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

PILL

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

SO

IL R

EC

OV

ER

Y (

%)

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%



DIP °

R O C K

SA

MP

LE L

EG

EN

D

S O I L


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

206

205

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SA

MP

LE IN

TE

RV

AL

RO

CK

QU

ALI

TY

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

ST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

HA

MM

ER

BLO

WS

FIELD DATA

ST

RA

TA

LE

GE

ND

JOIN

TS

ST

RA

TA

0.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0




3.25

0.25

4

3.5

16.6

18.0

23.3

19.2

23.4

0.0 / 206.48Asphalt = 6 inches ASPH0.5 / 205.98(A) Fill, Gray and black, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILLWITH GRAVEL, medium dense, moist SM

2.0 / 204.48(B) Alluvial, Black and brown, SILT, stiff, moist ML

4.0 / 202.48(B) Alluvial, Black and brown, LEAN CLAY, soft, moist CL

6.0 / 200.48SAME: brown and gray below 6.0 ft.

8.0 / 198.48SAME: stiff below 8.0 ft.


75

75

100

84

100

PAGE 1 OF 1

SB-1

SB-1


GROUND WATER


REMARKS: Cave-in depth: 8.0 ft.Bulk sampled collected from 0.0 to 6.0 ft.


SP

T_L

OG

A:R

OU

TE

10

EB

WID

EN

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J:8.

30.0

02:0

2101

1:12

/13/

16

PK

T. P

EN

ET

RO

ME

TE

R (

tsf)

LAB DATA

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

PILL

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

SO

IL R

EC

OV

ER

Y (

%)

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

FIRST ENCOUNTERED AT 8.0 ft DEPTH

STABILIZED AT 7.0 ft

DIP °

R O C K

SA

MP

LE L

EG

EN

D

S O I L


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

206

204

202

200

198

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SA

MP

LE IN

TE

RV

AL

RO

CK

QU

ALI

TY

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

ST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

HA

MM

ER

BLO

WS

FIELD DATA

ST

RA

TA

LE

GE

ND

JOIN

TS

ST

RA

TA

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0




7

2

2

0

3

13

6

2

1

5

12

9

2

2

8

3

11

3

4

9

2

4

6

8

10

1.5

2.25

10.5

16.2

16.0

16.7

19.4

0.0 / 206.35Topsoil = 4 inches TOPS0.33 / 206.02(A) Fill, Brown and black, fine, SILTY SAND FILL, containsorganics, loose, moist SM

2.0 / 204.35(A) Fill, Brown and gray, fine, CLAYEY SAND FILL, mediumdense, moist SC

4.0 / 202.35SAME: brown, gray and black below 4.0 ft.

6.0 / 200.35(B) Alluvial, Gray, brown, and black, fine to medium, SANDYLEAN CLAY, stiff, moist CL

7.0 / 199.35SAME: brown, red and gray below 7.0 ft.

8.0 / 198.35SAME: gray, brown, and black below 8.0 ft.


25

84

100

100

100

PAGE 1 OF 1

SB-2

SB-2


GROUND WATER




SP

T_L

OG

A:R

OU

TE

10

EB

WID

EN

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J:8.

30.0

02:0

2101

1:12

/13/

16

PK

T. P

EN

ET

RO

ME

TE

R (

tsf)

LAB DATA

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

PILL

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

SO

IL R

EC

OV

ER

Y (

%)

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING


DIP °

R O C K

SA

MP

LE L

EG

EN

D

S O I L


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

206

204

202

200

198

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SA

MP

LE IN

TE

RV

AL

RO

CK

QU

ALI

TY

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

ST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

HA

MM

ER

BLO

WS

FIELD DATA

ST

RA

TA

LE

GE

ND

JOIN

TS

ST

RA

TA

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0




3

4

4

4

4

6

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

8

9

9

7

8

10

11

2

4

6

8

10

2.5

1.25

1.5

3.5

14.3

13.1

19.4

17.8

18.4

0.0 / 206.55Topsoil = 2 inches TOPS0.17 / 206.38(A) Fill, Brown, fine to medium, SILTY SAND FILL, containsrock fragments, trace debris, loose, moist SM1.0 / 205.55(A) Fill, Gray, brown, and black, fine to medium, SANDYLEAN CLAY, contains organics, stiff, moist CL2.0 / 204.55(A) Fill, Brown, fine to medium, SILTY SAND, containsquartz, medium dense, moist SM

4.0 / 202.55(B) Alluvial, Gray, LEAN CLAY, soft, moist CL

6.0 / 200.55SAME: brown and gray, stiff below 6.0 ft.

8.0 / 198.55SAME: very stiff below 8.0 ft.


PAGE 1 OF 1

SB-3

SB-3


GROUND WATER




SP

T_L

OG

A:R

OU

TE

10

EB

WID

EN

ING

LO

GS

.GP

J:8.

30.0

02:0

2101

1:12

/13/

16

PK

T. P

EN

ET

RO

ME

TE

R (

tsf)

LAB DATA

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

PILL

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

SO

IL R

EC

OV

ER

Y (

%)

CO

RE

RE

CO

VE

RY

(%

)

NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING


DIP °

R O C K

SA

MP

LE L

EG

EN

D

S O I L


ELE

VA

TIO

N (

ft)

206

204

202

200

198

DE

PT

H (

ft)

SA

MP

LE IN

TE

RV

AL

RO

CK

QU

ALI

TY

DE

SIG

NA

TIO

N

ST

AN

DA

RD

PE

NE

TR

AT

ION

TE

ST

HA

MM

ER

BLO

WS

FIELD DATA

ST

RA

TA

LE

GE

ND

JOIN

TS

ST

RA

TA

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0




4

1

3

5

5

5

2

2

6

16

7

2

2

6

13

9

5

4

8

10

2

4

6

8

10

Route 10 EB Road Widening

Chesterfield, Chesterfield County, Virginia

(Our Project No. 14344.01)

Core # Asphalt

Thickness (inch)

Subbase Thickness

(inch)

Subbase Material

Type

PC-01 9.0 8.0 Crushed

Aggregate




Core # Asphalt

Thickness (inch)

Subbase Thickness

(inch)

Subbase Material

Type

PC-2 9.0 8.0 Crushed

Aggregate




Core # Asphalt

Thickness (inch)

Subbase Thickness

(inch)

Subbase Material

Type

PC-3 12 12 Crushed

Aggregate

Appendix B Soil Laboratory Test Results Summary of Laboratory Testing (1 page)

Atterberg Limits and Grain Size Analysis Test Data (3 pages)

Moisture Density Relationship Test Data (3 pages)

CBR Test Data (3 pages)

- JAY KAY TESTING, INC.

SAMPLES: 3 LOCATION: 5233 Lehman Road, Suite 110

Spring Grove, PA 17362

Phone: (410) 259-5101REPORT: 11/29/16 REMARKS:

BORING SAMPLE DEPTH MC % OM % LL PL PI

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING

ROUTE 10 EB WIDENING

PROJECT NO. 14344.01 SAMPLE DATE

% FINES USCS

-

-

35 15 20 43.0 SC

SB-2 Bulk 1.0-6.0 16.7 - 36 16 20 61.7 CL

SB-3 Bulk 1.0-6.0 15.2 - 34 15 19 59.1 CL

SB-1 Bulk 1.0-6.0 13.0 -

11/29/16 TESTED BY: JMK REVIEWED BY: CL

Jay Kay Testing, Inc. (AASHTO-Accredited)

3/8 #60 #100

AASHTO T-89/T-90

ATTERBERG LIMITS CLASSIFICATION

Sample: Bulk Sample Date: - 5233 Lehman Road, Suite 110


Phone: (410) 259-5101Depth: 1.0-6.0' Location: -

GRAIN SIZE (mm) AASHTO T-88

Diameter U.S. Standard Sieve Hydrometer

GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY

3 3/4 #4 #10 #40 #200


Boring: SB-1 Project No.: 14344.01 JAY KAY TESTING, INC.

98.0 94.7 92.2 88.4 83.5 67.7 58.7 51.1 43.0

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Diameter 75.0 50.8 37.5 25.4 19.0 12.7 9.51 4.75 2.0 0.42 0.25 0.147 0.074

15.8 24.7 - -

% GRAVEL % SAND Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand CC CU

Sieve Size 3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 # 200

% Passing - 100.0 99.6 98.9

Moisture Content 13.0 Organic Content -

pH - Other -

Liquid Limit 35 AASHTO A-6

11.6 45.4 2.0 9.6 4.9

Plastic Limit 15 USCS SC

Plasticity Index 20

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dark greenish brown clayey SAND


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

PER

CEN

T CO

AR

SER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

pla

stic

ity

ind

ex

liquid limit

3/8 #60 #100

AASHTO T-89/T-90







3 3/4 #4 #10 #40 #200




100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 92.9 85.1 75.0 61.7

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Diameter 75.0 50.8 37.5 25.4 19.0 12.7 9.51 4.75 2.0 0.42 0.25 0.147 0.074

6.7 31.2 - -


Sieve Size 3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 # 200

% Passing - - - -


pH - Other -


0.1 38.2 - 0.1 0.3

Plastic Limit 16 USCS CL

Plasticity Index 20

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Brown sandy lean CLAY


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

PER

CEN

T CO

AR

SER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

pla

stic

ity

ind

ex

liquid limit

3/8 #60 #100

AASHTO T-89/T-90






3 3/4 #4 #10 #40 #200




GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

Diameter 75.0 50.8 37.5 25.4 19.0 12.7 9.51 4.75 2.0 0.42 0.25 0.147 0.074


Sieve Size 3" 2" 1.5" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #60 #100 # 200

% Passing - - - 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.4 99.1 98.6 87.9 79.5 70.3 59.1

0.9 40.0 0.1 0.8 0.5 10.7 28.8 - -


Plastic Limit 15 USCS CL

Plasticity Index 19

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Dark greenish brown sandy lean CLAY



pH - Other -


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

PER

CEN

T FI

NER

PER

CEN

T CO

AR

SER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

pla

stic

ity

ind

ex

liquid limit

Maximum Dry Unit Weight



STANDARD PROCTOR TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED CORRECTED *

TEST METHOD: VTM-1 119.4 PCF 123.2

*Corrected for 11.6% retained on #4 sieve 11.6 MC 10.5





13.0 35 15 20 SC A-6 43.0 Dark greenish brown clayey SAND


MC LL PL PI USCS AASHTO FINES SOIL DESCRIPTION

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

PC

F)

MOISTURE CONTENT (%)











16.7 36 16 20 CL A-6 61.7 Brown sandy lean CLAY



106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

PC

F)












15.2 34 15 19 CL A-6 59.1 Dark greenish brown sandy lean CLAY



107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

PC

F)



13.0 35 15 20 SC A-6 43.0 Dark greenish brown clayey SAND


METHOD: VTM-8, COMPACTION: VTM-1

After Soak 123.1 11.8 99.9 0.37 50

PCF % % % PSF

Dry Unit Weight Moisture Content Compaction Swell Surcharge

As Molded 123.5 10.9 100.2 - 50

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST RESULTS CBR AT 0.1" CBR AT 0.2"

10.7 11.6






0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

ST

RE

SS

(P

SI)

PENETRATION (IN.)


16.7 36 16 20 CL A-6 61.7 Brown sandy lean CLAY



After Soak 115.2 15.3 98.8 0.11 50

PCF % % % PSF


As Molded 115.2 14.1 98.8 - 50


14.4 13.5






0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

ST

RE

SS

(P

SI)

PENETRATION (IN.)


15.2 34 15 19 CL A-6 59.1 Dark greenish brown sandy lean CLAY



After Soak 115.3 15.2 98.1 0.61 50

PCF % % % PSF


As Molded 116.1 12.6 98.7 - 50


9.3 8.7






0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

ST

RE

SS

(P

SI)

PENETRATION (IN.)

Appendix C Engineering Calculations Flexible Pavement Design (1 page)

Mill and Overlay Design (2 pages)

Page 1

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWareComputer Software Product

Flexible Structural Design Module

Full Depth Flexible Pavement Design for Route 10

Flexible Structural Design

18-kip ESALs Over Initial Performance Period 3,488,068 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.9 Reliability Level 90 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus 10,500 psiStage Construction 1

Calculated Design Structural Number 4.09 in

Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 30 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 53,623 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 3 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 70 %Percent Trucks in Design Direction 53 %Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater 3 %Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) 0.46 Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate 0 %Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate 1 %Growth Compound

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 3,488,068

Specified Layer Design

Layer

Material Description

StructCoef.(Ai)

DrainCoef.(Mi)

Thickness(Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)1 SM-9.5D 0.44 1 1.5 - 0.662 IM-19.0A 0.44 1 2 - 0.883 BM-25.0A 0.44 1 4.5 - 1.984 Graded Aggregate Base 21A or 21B 0.12 1 6 - 0.72

Total - - - 14.00 - 4.24

*Note: This value is not represented by the inputs or an error occurred in calculation.

Page 1

1993 AASHTO Pavement Design

DARWin Pavement Design and Analysis System

A Proprietary AASHTOWareComputer Software Product

Overlay Design Module

Overlay Design for Route 10

AC Overlay of AC Pavement

Structural Number for Future Traffic 3.29 in

Design Method

Effective ExistingStructural Number (in)

OverlayStructural Number (in)*

Component Analysis 3.43 0.00Remaining Life - -

Non-Destructive Testing - -

Note: This value is not represented by the inputs or an error occurred in calculation.

Structural Number for Future Traffic

Future 18-kip ESALs Over Design Period 1,063,181 Initial Serviceability 4.2 Terminal Serviceability 2.9 Reliability Level 90 %Overall Standard Deviation 0.49 Subgrade Resilient Modulus 10,500 psi

Calculated Structural Number for Future Traffic 3.29 in

Effective Pavement Thickness - Component Analysis Method

Layer


StructuralCoefficient

DrainageCoefficient

Thickness(in)

1 Existinng Asphalt 0.35 1 92 Existing Crushed Stone 0.1 1 8

Milling Thickness 1.5 in

Calculated Results

Calculated Pavement Structural Number Before Milling 3.95 inCalculated Effective Pavement Structural Number 3.43 in

Future Simple ESAL Calculation

Performance Period (years) 12 Two-Way Traffic (ADT) 44,829 Number of Lanes in Design Direction 3 Percent of All Trucks in Design Lane 70 %

Page 2

Percent Trucks in Design Direction 53 %Percent Heavy Trucks (of ADT) FHWA Class 5 or Greater 3 %Average Initial Truck Factor (ESALs/truck) 0.46 Annual Truck Factor Growth Rate 0 %Annual Truck Volume Growth Rate 1 %Growth Compound

Total Calculated Cumulative ESALs 1,063,181

Specified Layer Design

Layer


StructCoef.(Ai)

DrainCoef.(Mi)

Thickness(Di)(in)

Width

(ft)

Calculated

SN (in)1 SM-9.5D 0.44 1 1.5 - 0.66

Total - - - 1.50 - 0.66

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report - fce-digs.com€¦ · Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Chesterfield County ... 3.4.2 Standard Proctor and California Bearing Ratio (CBR)