REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND ... - Geotechnical Report.pdfREPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES E.Ocean View Ave. Parcel Feasibility Study

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONANDGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

E. Ocean View Ave. Parcel

Feasibility Study Norfolk,

Virginia

G E T Project No: VB17-155G

April 25, 2017

PREPARED FOR:

204 Grayson Road • Virginia Beach, VA 23462

Phone: (757)-518-1703

www.getsolutionsinc.com

204 Grayson Road • Virginia Beach, VA 23462 • Phone: (757)-518-1703 • Fax: (757)[email protected]

April 25, 2017

TO:

RE:

Work Program Architects 208 E. Plume Street Monticello Arcade, Suite 2 Norfolk, VA 23510

Attn: Ms. Mel Price, AIA, LEED AP

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-155G

Dear Ms. Price:

In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Preliminary Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this study, together with our recommendations, are presented in this report.

Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions arise concerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its role as Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the information contained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we could be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully Submitted, G E T Solutions, Inc.

Ioanna Kladou Project Engineer

D. Mark Scholefield, P.E.Principal Project EngineerVA Reg. # 033932

Copies: (1) Client

E Ocean View Ave ParcelFeasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No:

VB17-155G

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 11.1 Project Authorization ...................................................................................................... 11.2 Project Site Location and Description ............................................................................. 11.3 Project Construction Description..................................................................................... 21.4 Purpose and Scope of Services...................................................................................... 2

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES ................................................................ 32.1 Field Exploration ............................................................................................................. 32.2 Laboratory Testing.......................................................................................................... 4

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 53.1 Site Geology ................................................................................................................... 53.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions ............................................................................................. 53.3 Groundwater Discussion ................................................................................................ 6

4.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 74.1 Clearing and Grading ..................................................................................................... 74.2 Subgrade Preparation .................................................................................................... 84.3 Structural Fill and Placement .......................................................................................... 84.4 Suitability of On-site Soils ............................................................................................... 94.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations .............................................................. 94.6 Settlements .................................................................................................................... 94.7 Foundation Excavations ................................................................................................104.8 Floor Slab Design ..........................................................................................................104.9 Pavement Design ..........................................................................................................114.10 Soil Permeability ............................................................................................................114.11 Seismic Evaluation ........................................................................................................12

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................125.1 Anticipated Excavation Characteristics ..........................................................................125.2 Excavation Stability .......................................................................................................125.3 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns ...........................................................................135.4 Site Utility Installation ....................................................................................................135.5 Additional Geotechnical Investigation ............................................................................145.6 Excavations 14

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................14

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLANAPPENDIX II SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATIONAPPENDIX III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTSAPPENDIX IV CBR TEST RESULTSAPPENDIX V BORING LOGSAPPENDIX VI GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILEAPPENDIX VII HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS

April 25, 2017

i

Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility StudyNorfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-155G

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The project site is located along Shore Drive and 22nd Bay Street in the City of Norfolk, Virginia.

Our field exploration program included fifteen (15) 15- to 60-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings and three (3) California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests. Descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the soil test boring locations are tabulated below:

AVERAGE DEPTH (Feet)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION RANGES OF

SPT(1)

N-VALUES

0 to

0.25 Surficial � 0” to 3” Topsoil -

0-0.25to

2-4FILL

� SAND (SC, SP-SM, SP, SM) with varying amounts of Clay, Silt, Gravel, demolition debris and fibrous organics.

This Stratum was not recovered at boring location D-02

4-25

0-4to60

I

� SAND (SC, SM, SP-SM, SP) with varying amounts of Silt and Clay

Deposits of very soft to medium stiff Clay (CL) were recovered at boring locations D-2, D-3 and B-2 at various

depths.

2-46

Notes: (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, Uncorrected N-Values in Blows-per-foot.

The initial groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below existing grades, corresponding to elevations ranging from 0 to 0.5 feet MSL. Seasonal

groundwater fluctuations of ± 2 feet are common in the project’s area; however, greater fluctuations have been documented.

The following preliminary evaluations and recommendations were developed based on our field exploration and laboratory-testing program:

� A field testing program during construction is recommended, which should include compaction testing, test pits, subgrade inspections and foundation excavation observations for bearing capacity verification.

� Estimated post-construction total and differential settlements may range up to 1 inch and ½-inch, respectively.

April 25, 2017 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility StudyNorfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-155G

ii

� The floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members.

� The pavements should be designed using a CBR value of 18.4. Typical pavementsections are provided in the report.

� Based on our experience within the vicinity of the project site and the recovered soils atthis location, it is our opinion that this site may be classified as a Site Class “D” inaccordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 as referenced by the 2012 International BuildingCode. A 100-foot deep CPT probe with soil shear wave velocity measurements will benecessary to substantiate the site classification.

This summary briefly discusses some of the major topics mentioned in the attached report. Accordingly, this report should be read in its entirety to thoroughly evaluate the contents.


1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our preliminary subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services for E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study projectlocated in Norfolk Virginia. The geotechnical engineering services were conducted in general accordance with G E T Proposal No. PVB17-243G, dated March 17, 2017. Authorization to proceed with our services was received from Ms. Mel Price, AIA, LEED AP., in the form of an electronic mail, dated March 21, 2017.

1.2 Project Site Location and Description

The project site is located along Shore Drive and 22nd Bay Street in Norfolk, Virginia. The project site includes four parcels southwest of Shore Drive and 22nd Bay Street. At the time of our site reconnaissance, the site generally consisted of open grass-covered areas with isolated trees. Portions of the parcel located southeast of Pretty Lake Ave and 21st Bay Street are currently used as a fenced-in construction laydown area. The parcels were previously developed with commercial buildings and infrastructure. The buildings have been demolished with the exception of the slabs. It is expected that the utilities have been abandoned and the foundations remain in place. Current site grades ranged approximately between 3.3 to 6.8 feet MSL (surface elevations identified from the site survey provided by the client). A site vicinity aerial map is presented below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Plan (Google Earth)


2

1.3 Project Construction Description

Not Applicable

If any of the noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform G E T Solutions, Inc. so that we may amend the recommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.

1.4 Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this feasibility study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at the project site as related to the preliminary design for the structures’ foundations as well the pavements. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering assessments for the following items were formulated:

1. General assessment of the soils and groundwater table elevations revealed bythe borings performed at the proposed development.

2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material encounteredin the borings that may interfere with construction progress or structureperformance, including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics.

3. Engineering criteria for placement and compaction of approved structural fillmaterial.

4. Construction considerations for fill placement, subgrade preparation, andfoundation excavations.

5. Evaluation of the on-site soils re-use as structural fill.

6. Feasibility of utilizing a shallow foundation system for support of the proposedstructures. Design parameters required for the foundation system, includingfoundation sizes, allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels, and expectedtotal and differential settlements.

7. Preliminary pavement design recommendations for the parking areas based onthe field exploration activities and our experience with similar soil conditions.

8. Seismic site class determination in accordance with the 2012 InternationalBuilding Code.


3

A comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the final design and the structural loads are determined to better ascertain the soil conditions within the vicinity of the proposed structure(s).

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to development

of this site, an environmental assessment is advisable.

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

2.1 Field Exploration

In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated foundation, pavement and stormwater design parameters, the following subsurface exploration program was performed:

� Three (3) 60-foot deep SPT borings (designed as D-1, D-2 and D-3) were drilled withinthe proposed 4-story buildings’ footprints.

� Six (6) 20-foot deep SPT borings (designated as B-1 through B-6) were drilled within theproposed structures’ footprints.

� Three (3) 15-foot deep SPT borings (designated as BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3) weredrilled within the proposed BMP areas.

� Three (3) 15-foot deep SPT borings (designated as CBR-1, CBR-2 and CBR-3) weredrilled within the proposed pavement areas.

Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to depths of 10 to 12 feet, and at 3- and 5-foot intervals thereafter. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30” long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches, using an automatic hammer. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer and overburden pressure). A representative portion of each disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar, sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.

A temporary groundwater monitoring well was installed at boring locations BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3. The monitoring wells were installed using 5.25 I.D. hollow stem auger and constructed of 2-inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC materials. A section of 0.010-inch slotted screen was placed in each borehole with casing threaded to the top. An appropriately graded sand/gravel pack was placed around each screen and extended one to two feet above the top of the screen. A one to two foot bentonite seal was then placed above each sand/gravel pack and hydrated with potable water. The remainder of each borehole annular space was pumped full of a neat cement grout. Groundwater level readings were collected at 24 hours after installation.


4

One (1) infiltration test was performed at boring location BMP-2 and BMP-3. The tests were performed at 2 and 4 feet respectively, below the existing site grades, within the vadose zone utilizing a Johnson Permeameter (as coordinated with the civil engineer). A support stand was assembled and placed adjacent to the borehole. This stand holds a calibrated reservoir (3200 mL) and a cable used to raise and lower the water control unit (WCU). The WCU establishes a constant water head within the borehole during testing by use of a precision valve and float assembly. The WCU was attached to the flow reservoir with a 2-meter (6.6 foot) braided PVC hose and then lowered by cable into the borehole to the test depth elevation. As required by the Glover solution, the WCU was suspended above the bottom of the borehole at an elevation of approximately 5 times the borehole diameter. The shut-off valve was then opened allowing water to pass through the WCU to fill the borehole to the constant water level elevation. The absorption rate slowed as the soil voids became filled and an equilibrium developed as a wetting bulb developed around the borehole. Water was continuously added until the flow rate stabilized. The reservoir was then re-filled in order to begin testing. During testing, as the water drained into the borehole and surrounding soils, the water level within the calibrated reservoir was recorded as well as the elapsed time during each interval. The test was continued until relatively consistent flow rates were documented. During testing the quick release connections and shutoff valve were monitored to ensure that no leakage occurred. The flow rate (Q), height of the constant water level (H), and borehole diameter (D) were used to calculate Ks utilizing the Glover Solution.

Three (3) bulk soil samples, designated as CBR-1, CBR-2 and CBR-3, were collected from the proposed pavement areas at their respective boring locations. The bulk subgrade soil samples were collected from depths ranging from 0.4 to 3 feet below existing site grades. The bulk soil samples were returned to our laboratory and subjected to CBR testing in accordance with VTM & ASTM standards.

The boring locations were established and staked in the field by a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. by measuring from identifiable features. These approximate locations are shown on the attached “Boring Location Plan” (Appendix I), which was reproduced based on a site plan provided by the client.

2.2 Laboratory Testing

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glass jars, labeled, and transferred to our laboratory for classification and analysis. A Project Engineer performed the soil classification in general accordance with ASTM Specification D 2487. A summary of the soil classification system is provided in Appendix II.

Representative split-spoon soil samples were selected and subjected to laboratory classification testing, which included natural moisture, -#200 sieve wash, and Atterberg Limit testing and analysis in order to corroborate the visual classification. These classification test results are provided in Appendix III.

The bulk subgrade soil samples were subjected to natural moisture content, -#200 sieve, Atterberg Limits, Standard Proctor, and CBR testing in accordance with ASTM and VTM standards. A summary of the CBR test results and the moisture density relationship curves (Proctor Curves) are presented in Appendix IV.


5

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine, lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, and generally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays. Based on our review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy encountered in our subsurface explorations generally consisted of marine deposited Sands, Silts and Clays.

In order to obtain more information regarding historical land use of the project site and its vicinity, we reviewed USGS geologic maps and google earth views. From this review, it appears that the project site was previously developed with numerous 1 to 2-story structures which were demolished between 2000 and 2010.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

Underlying the surficial materials and extending to the boring termination depths ranging from 15 to 60 feet below the existing site grades, the subsurface soils were generally consistent throughout the site. The results of our soil test borings are summarized in Table I.

Table I – Summary of Soil Test Borings

AVERAGE DEPTH (Feet)

STRATUM DESCRIPTION RANGES OF

SPT(1)

N-VALUES

0 to

0.25 Surficial � 0” to 3” Topsoil -

0-0.25to

2-4FILL

� SAND (SC, SP-SM, SP, SM) with varying amounts of Clay, Silt, Gravel, demolition debris and fibrous organics.

This Stratum was not recovered at boring location D-02

4-25

0-4to60

I

� SAND (SC, SM, SP-SM, SP) with varying amounts of Silt and Clay

Deposits of very soft to medium stiff Clay (CL) were recovered at boring locations D-2, D-3 and B-2 at various

depths.

2-46

Notes: (1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, Uncorrected N-Values in Blows-per-foot.

The subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix V (Boring Logs) and in Appendix VI (Generalized Soil Profile), which should be reviewed for specific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records of the subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual.


6

It is noted that the “Topsoil” designation references the presence of surficial organic laden soil, and does not represent any particular quality specification. It is recommended that this material be tested for approval prior to use as topsoil.

3.3 Groundwater Discussion

The initial groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations and as observed through the wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial groundwater table was measured to occur at depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below the existing site grades at the boring locations (corresponding to elevations of 0 to 0.5 feet, MSL). The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety considerations. As such, the reported groundwater levels may not be indicative of the static groundwater level.

In order to further corroborate the anticipated groundwater levels at the site, three (3) temporary groundwater monitoring wells were installed at boring locations BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3. These monitoring wells were installed to a depth of 15 feet below site grades. The initial and 24-hour groundwater table readings are presented in Table II.

Table II – Groundwater Table Readings

Boring No. Initial Groundwater

Reading-ft.*

24-hourGroundwater Reading-ft.*

24-hourGroundwater

Elevation, MSL (ft)

BMP-1 4.5 3.2 0

BMP-2 5.0 5.0 0.5

BMP-3 4.5 2.9 1.3

* feet below existing grade

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots,

sidewalks, etc.). Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of ± 2 feet are common in the project’s area; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures. These readings were obtained in March which is typically considered a higher groundwater month, generally within one foot of the seasonal high. Furthermore, this area is expected to be tidally influenced and water levels may be at the ground surface during extreme weather events.

April 25, 2017 Report of Preliminary Subsurface Exploration & Geotechnical Engineering Services E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study Norfolk, Virginia G E T Project No: VB17-155G

7

4.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our preliminary recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, our interpretation of our soil test borings and laboratory data and our observations during our site reconnaissance. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes. If the proposed construction should vary from what was described, we request the opportunity to review our recommendations and make any necessary changes.

The results of our subsurface exploration revealed that the FILL materials recovered at the boring locations extended to a maximum depth of 4 feet below existing site grades. The FILL materials were generally comprised of SAND with marine shell fragments, demolition related debris such as gravel, brick, glass, and other organic material such as partially decayed roots. These FILL soils were found to be in a stable condition at the time of our investigation; however, they are considered to be uncontrolled with variations in the quality and consistency of debris.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the FILL materials be removed completely from under the structures’ foundations. The FILL materials may potentially remain beneath slabs and the pavement areas provided successful proofrolling operations are accomplished during the subgrade preparation (see Section 4.2 for more detailed information) and additional test pits during construction are performed to verify the quality of the FILL material. Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be provided in the field following the testing procedures. However, in cases in which the FILL is left in place, there is an increased risk for slab cracking and more frequent pavement maintenance.

As previously mentioned, a comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the final design and the structural loads are determined to better ascertain the soil conditions within the vicinity of the proposed structures.

4.1 Clearing and Grading

The proposed construction areas should be cleared by means of removing the topsoil material and any other unsuitable FILL and organic laden materials. All old slabs, foundations and abandoned utilities should be removed from within the structures’ footprint. It is expected that a cut depth averaging 6 inches will be required to remove unsuitable surficial soils. This cut is expected to extend deeper in previous developed areas (existing concrete slabs, footings, utilities) to remove deeper deposits of unsuitable soils which become evident during the clearing. Removing any trees will also consist of stump and large root ball removal. These events will likely leave holes that may extend several feet in depth throughout the project site. Surface water may accumulate in these holes leading to subgrade deterioration if not properly addressed. These holes should be backfilled as recommended in Section 4.3. It is recommended that the clearing operations extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the lateral limits of the proposed construction areas. The excavation and backfill should be performed under the observation of a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils and perform compaction testing at all backfill. Recommendations concerning the subgrade improvements (as necessary) will be provided in the field following the testing procedures.


8

4.2 Subgrade Preparation

Following the clearing operation, the exposed subgrade soils should be densified with a large static drum roller. After the subgrade soils have been densified, they should be evaluated by G E T Solutions, Inc. for stability. Accordingly, the subgrade soils should be proofrolled to check for pockets of loose material hidden beneath a crust of better soil. Several passes should be made by a large rubber-tired roller or loaded dump truck over the construction areas. The number of passes will be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer depending on the soils conditions. Any pumping and unstable areas observed during proofrolling (beyond the initial cut) should be undercut and/or stabilized at the direction of the Geotechnical Engineer.

As previously mentioned in Section 3.2 of this report, uncontrolled FILL materials were encountered at the boring locations. These uncontrolled FILL materials could potentially contain deleterious construction debris that was not observed in the recovered soil samples. Therefore, in addition to the proofroll, a series of test pits should be excavated within the proposed construction areas following the subgrade proofroll. The test pits are considered necessary to determine the thickness and composition of the uncontrolled FILL materials, and thus the possible suitability for them to remain in-place beneath slab-on-grade members and pavements. The test pits should be performed under the observation of G E T Solutions, Inc, who will evaluate the composition of the recovered soils and provide recommendations for further improvements (as required).

The clearing operations necessary to remove unsuitable FILL materials, (existing concrete slabs, footings, utilities) will require cut depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet. As such, it is likely that proofrolling within a portion of the cut areas may not be appropriate. The suitability of evaluating the subgrade soils within the base of the deeper excavations should be determined in the field by G E T Solutions, Inc. For those areas that are not proofrolled, the base of the excavations should be observed by a representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. The project’s budget should include an allowance for subgrade improvements (potential undercut of uncontrolled FILL and backfill with structural fill).

4.3 Structural Fill and Placement

Following the approval of the natural subgrade soils by the Geotechnical Engineer, the placement of the fill required to establish the design grades may begin. Any material to be used for structural fill should be evaluated and tested by G E T Solutions, Inc. prior to placement to determine if they are suitable for the intended use. Suitable structural fill material should consist of sand or gravel containing less than 20% by weight of fines (SP, SM, SW, GP, GW), having a liquid limit less than 20 and plastic limit less than 6, and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable material.

All structural fill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 98 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698). In general, the compaction should be accomplished by placing the fill in maximum 10-inch loose lifts and mechanically compacting each lift to at least the specified minimum dry density. A representative of G E T Solutions, Inc. should perform field density tests on each lift as necessary to assure that adequate compaction is achieved.


9

Backfill material in utility trenches within the construction areas should consist of structural fill (as previously above), and should be compacted to at least 98 percent of ASTM D 698. This fill should be placed in 4 to 6 inch loose lifts when hand compaction equipment is used.

Care should be used when operating the compactors near existing structures to avoid transmission of the vibrations that could cause settlement damage or disturb occupants. In this regard, it is recommended that the vibratory roller remain at least 25 feet away from existing structures; these areas should be compacted with small, hand-operated compaction equipment.

4.4 Suitability of On-site Soils

The surficial and shallow subsurface FILL soils encountered at the boring locations do not appear to meet the criteria recommended in this report for reuse as structural fill. However; the granular soils (SP, SP-SM) recovered at the boring locations could be used as structural fill material. Since these soils are near or below the current groundwater level, some means of drying the soils will be required prior to their use. The drying can be accomplished by stockpiling or spreading in thin lifts and letting the material air-dry, which could prove time consuming and will be dependent on the weather conditions. Further classification testing (natural moisture content, gradation analysis, and Proctor testing) should be performed in the field during construction to evaluate the suitability of any excavated soils for reuse as fill within buildings and pavement areas.

4.5 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations

Provided that the previously recommended construction procedures are properly performed, the proposed structures can be supported by shallow foundations bearing upon firm natural soil or well compacted structural fill material. Foundation undercut will be required to penetrate unsuitable FILL soils (see Section 4.7 for further information concerning the foundation undercut). The footings or turn down edges can be designed using a net allowable soil pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). In using net pressures, the weight of the footings and backfill over the footings, including the weight of the floor slab, need not be considered. Hence, only loads applied at or above the finished floor need to be used for dimensioning the footings.

In order to develop the recommended bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf), the base of the footings should have an embedment of at least 18 inches beneath finished grades and wall footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches (20 inches in the case of a monolithic slab with turn down edges). The recommended 18-inch footing embedment is considered sufficient to provide adequate cover against frost penetration to the bearing soils.

4.6 Settlements

It is estimated that, with proper site preparation (removal of all uncontrolled FILL materials beneath the foundations), the maximum resulting total settlement of the proposed structures’ foundations should be less than 1.25 inch with about half of the elastic settlement occurring during construction. The maximum differential settlement magnitude is expected to be less than ½-inch between adjacent footings (wall footings and column footings of widely varying loading conditions). The settlements were estimated on the basis of the results of the field penetration and laboratory tests.


10

Careful field control will contribute substantially towards minimizing the settlements. GET Solutions Inc. should be notified if the foundations loads or fill heights exceed those noted in this report.

4.7 Foundation Excavations

In preparation for shallow foundation support, the footing excavations should extend into firm natural soil or well-compacted structural fill. Some foundation undercut should be expected to penetrate uncontrolled fill soils. The foundation bearing capacities should be verified in the field during construction by means of performing a footing inspection for each structure. At that time, the Geotechnical Engineer should also explore the extent of excessively loose, soft, or otherwise unsuitable material within the exposed excavations. Also, at the time of footing observations, the Geotechnical Engineer should advance hand auger borings or use a hand penetration device in the bases of the foundation excavations to verify that the bearing soils are consistent with those noted in this report. The necessary depth of penetration will be established during the subgrade observations. If pockets of unsuitable soils requiring undercut are encountered in the footing excavations, the proposed footing elevation should be re-established by means of backfilling with “flowable fill” or a suitable structural fill material compacted to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698), prior to concrete placement. This construction procedure will provide for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf.

Immediately prior to reinforcing steel placement, it is suggested that the bearing surfaces of all footing and floor slab areas be compacted using hand operated mechanical tampers, to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698) as tested to a depth of 12 inches, for bearing capacity considerations. In this manner, any localized areas, which have been loosened by excavation operations, should be adequately recompacted. The compaction testing in the base of the footings may be waived by the Geotechnical Engineer, where firm bearing soils are observed during the footing inspections.

Soils exposed in the bases of all satisfactory foundation excavations should be protected against any detrimental change in condition such as from physical disturbance, rain or frost. Surface run-off water should be drained away from the excavations and not be allowed to pond. If possible, all footing concrete should be placed the same day the excavation is made. If this is not possible, the footing excavations should be adequately protected.

4.8 Floor Slab Design

The floor slabs may be constructed as slab-on-grade members provided the previously recommended earthwork activities and evaluations are carried out properly. It is recommended that the ground floor slab be directly supported by at least a 4-inch layer of relatively clean, compacted, poorly graded sand (SP) or gravel (GP) with less than 5% passing the No. 200 Sieve (0.074 mm). The purpose of the 4-inch layer is to act as a capillary barrier and equalize moisture conditions beneath the slab.

It is recommended that all ground floor slabs be "floating" (not applicable if using a turn down system). That is, generally ground supported and not rigidly connected to walls or foundations. This is to minimize the possibility of cracking and displacement of the floor slabs because of differential movements between the slab and the foundation.


11

It is also recommended that the floor slab bearing soils be covered by a vapor barrier or retarder in order to minimize the potential for floor dampness, which can affect the performance of glued tile and carpet. Generally, use a vapor retarder for minimal vapor resistance protection below the slab on grade. When floor finishes, site conditions or other considerations require greater vapor resistance protection; consideration should be given to using a vapor barrier. Selection of a vapor retarder or barrier should be made by the Architect based on project requirements.

4.9 Pavement Design

Based on the results of the laboratory test program, the natural subgrade soils indicated an average soaked CBR value of 27.6. In accordance with VDOT standards the average soaked CBR value should be multiplied by a factor of two-thirds to determine a pavement design CBR value. The two-thirds factor provides the necessary safety margins to compensate for some non-uniformity of the soil. Therefore, the pavement design CBR value is 18.4.

Table III - Typical Pavement Sections

Section

Hot Mix Asphalt Aggregate

Base* Subgrade** Surface

(SM-12.5A) Base

(BM-25.0)

Flexible Heavy Duty

2” 3” 8’’ Stable

Standard Duty Asphalt

(Parking Bays) 2” 8” Stable

* VDOT Type 21-A or 21-B, compacted to a dry density of at least 100% of the Standard Proctormaximum dry density (ASTM D 698).

** Compacted to a dry density of at least 98% of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 698)and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.

All pavement material and construction procedures should conform to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements.

4.10 Soil Permeability

Based on the field testing, the hydraulic conductivity of the soils is tabulated below (Table IV) and is presented on the “Hydraulic Conductivity Worksheets” (Appendix VII), included with this report.

Table IV - Infiltration Test Results

Boring Boring Depth

(ft) (1)

Ksat Value (in/hr)

Ksat Class USCS

Classification

BMP-2 4 33.6 Very High SP

BMP-3 2 10.5 High SP

(1) Depth below existing site grades.


12

The infiltration tests result provided in this report is the result of infiltration testing at the location and depth indicated in Table IV. Varying site conditions, including soil composition, soil density, stratum depth, and stratum thickness should be expected throughout the site. As such, the infiltration test results indicated in Table IV should not be assumed for all locations and depths across the project site.

Considering the heterogeneous nature of the uncontrolled FILL soils, it was not feasible to perform in-situ soil permeability testing at boring location BMP-1. As such, an estimated permeability provided herein is based on published values and our experience with similar sites. Thus the hydraulic conductivity of shallow SAND (SP) soils is anticipated to be as follows:

• SAND (SP): 5 to 15.0 in/hr.

4.11 Seismic Evaluation

Based on our experience within the vicinity of the project site and the recovered soils at this location, it is our opinion that this site may be classified as a Site Class “D” in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 as referenced by the 2012 International Building Code. A 100-foot deep CPT probe with soil shear wave velocity measurements will be necessary to substantiate the site classification.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Anticipated Excavation Characteristics

Based on the results of this exploration, varying soil conditions and compositions are expected to be encountered throughout the project limits. Open-cut excavations will extend through granular uncontrolled FILL soils that contain debris (i.e. soil that may hinder excavation or installation). Debris typically considered unsuitable consist of wood, glass, organics, plastics, coal, brick or any other material larger than 2 inches in diameter. Based on these characteristics it is anticipated that the majority of the shallow subsurface materials encountered within the upper 2 to 4 feet throughout the project site cannot be reused as backfill. Soils containing appreciable amounts and/or deleterious debris should be discarded; however, an effort should be made during excavation to segregate potentially suitable in-situ fill soils for reuse. Information pertaining to backfill criteria was provided previously in Section 4.3

5.2 Excavation Stability

The shallow subsurface within the project limits is generally comprised of granular soils; with potential for caving. Additionally, water seepage at varying elevations should be expected within the side walls of the open cut areas, increasing the potential for caving. Based on these mentioned characteristics, it is recommended that all subsurface soils be considered Type C in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria.

Temporary Slopes

The Contractor should be aware that temporary slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths should in no case exceed those specified in local, state and/or federal safety regulations (e.g. OSHA Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations).


13

Where temporary slopes are not feasible, shoring by means of sheeting and/or trench shields may be appropriate. Where the stability of adjoining structures, pavements, or other improvements is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability. Shoring, bracing, or underpinning required for this project (if required) should be designed by a professional engineer.

Shoring

Shoring design and installation should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Shoring systems required for this project should be designed by a professional engineer. Shoring systems should be designed to provide positive restraint of trench walls in an effort to protect against lateral deformation that may result in ground cracks, settlement, and/or other ground movements that may affect adjacent underground utilities and pavements as well as surface improvements. The Contractor should be made aware of this potential condition in order that preventative measurers can be implemented or repair measures provided for.

Depending on the shoring system used, the removal process may create voids along the walls of the excavations. If these voids are left in place and are significant, backfill and/or the retained soil may shift laterally resulting in settlement of overlying structures/pavements. As such, care should be taken to remove the shoring systems and backfill the trenches in a manner as to not create these voids. In all cases, the Contractor should select an excavation and/or shoring scheme that will protect adjacent and overlying improvements, including below grade utilities.

5.3 Drainage and Groundwater Concerns

It is expected that dewatering may be required for excavations that extend near or below the existing groundwater table. Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be accomplished by pumping from sumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level will require well pointing.

It would be advantageous to construct all fills early in the construction. If this is not accomplished, disturbance of the existing site drainage could result in collection of surface water in some areas, thus rendering these areas wet and very loose. Temporary drainage ditches should be employed by the contractor to accentuate drainage during construction. Again, we recommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction to determine groundwater impact on this project.

5.4 Site Utility Installation

Based on the visual classification and the relative density (as determined by the Standard Penetration Test) of the soils encountered at the boring locations, it is our opinion that the proposed utility alignments can be supported by a suitable bedding surface bearing in native subgrade soils.

The base of the utility trenches should be observed by a qualified inspector prior to the pipe and structure placement to verify the suitability of the bearing soils. Based on the results of our field exploration program it is expected that the utilities and structures will, in some instances, bear in the wet cohesive and/or granular soils. In these instances the bearing soils may require some stabilization to provide suitable bedding.


14

This stabilization is commonly accomplished by adding 12 inches or more of bedding stone VDOT No. 57. It is expected that excavations penetrating the SAND soils of Strata I and II will experience varying degrees of cave-in. A combination of dewatering and shoring should be implemented to reduce the potential cave-ins. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 4.3 of this report. Imported structural fill material will be required to facilitate the utility installation.

5.5 Additional Geotechnical Investigation

A comprehensive geotechnical investigation is recommended once the project design is complete. The subsurface data documented during this subsurface investigation can be incorporated within the final geotechnical investigation. Specifically, it is recommended to perform additional SPT borings and dilatometer tests within the limits of the proposed structures and to perform a more refined laboratory testing program to further evaluate the underlying compressible soils and associated settlements.

5.6 Excavations

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P”. This document was issued to better ensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavation or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA) guidelines. It is our understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is not assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by G E T Solutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client and their consultants for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc. should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to perform these functions, G E T Solutions, Inc. can not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.


15

The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

After the plans and specifications are more complete the Geotechnical Engineer should be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to assure our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design documents, in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submit supplementary recommendations.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and their designated agents

for the specific application to the proposed E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study, inNorfolk, Virginia.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I BORING LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX II SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

APPENDIX III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

APPENDIX IV CBR TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX V BORING LOGS

APPENDIX VI GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

APPENDIX VII HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX I

BORING LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less Very Soft 2 blows/ft. or lessLoose 5 to 10 blows/ft. Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft.Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Stiff 5 to 8 blows/ft.Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft. Stiff 9 to 15 blows/ft.Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more Very Stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft.

Hard 31 blows/ft. or more

Boulders 8 inch diameter or moreCobbles 3 to 8 inch diameterGravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter

Medium 1/2 to 1 inch diameterFine 1/4 to 1/2 inch diameter

Sand Coarse 2.00 mm to 1/4 inch(diameter of pencil lead)

Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm(diameter of broom straw)

Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm(diameter of human hair)

Silt 0.002 to 0.074 mm(cannot see particles)

GW - Well-graded Gravel CL - Lean ClayGP - Poorly graded Gravel CL-ML - Silty ClayGW-GM - Well-graded Gravel w/Silt ML - SiltGW-GC - Well-graded Gravel w/Clay OL - Organic Clay/SiltGP-GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SPGP-GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay CH - Fat Clay More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SCGM - Silty Gravel MH - Elastic Silt 5 to 12 percentGC - Clayey Gravel OH - Organic Clay/SiltGC-GM - Silty, Clayey GravelSW - Well-graded SandSP - Poorly graded Sand PT - PeatSW-SM - Well-graded Sand w/SiltSW-SC - Well-graded Sand w/ClaySP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/SiltSP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/ClaySM - Silty SandSC - Clayey SandSC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand

Particle Size Identification

Consistency

Page 1 of 1

GET Revision 9/25/2008

Coarse Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils

Highly Organic Soils

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Liquid Limit 50% or greater

Trace

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value

Relative Density

NON COHESIVE SOILS(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained witha standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30” long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. Thenumber of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and isshown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.

(252) 335-9765

Williamsburg1592 Penniman Rd. Suite EWilliamsburg, Virginia 23185

0-55-10

Virginia Beach204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23462(757) 518-1703 (757) 564-6452

Elizabeth City504 East Elizabeth St. Suite 2

Elizabeth City, NC 27909

COHESIVE SOILS(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)

Relative ProportionsDescriptive Term Percent

15-2530-45

FewLittleSomeMostly 50-100

Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No.200 sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified asfollows:

Borderline cases requiring dualsymbols

Plasticity Chart

Strata ChangesIn the column “Description” on the boring log, the horizontallines represent approximate strata changes.

Groundwater Readings

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmentalvariations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequencyand magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidalinfluences and man-made influences, such as existingswales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of coveredsoil (paved parking lots, side walks, etc.).

APPENDIX III

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

B-02 19.0 46 18 28 0.075 77 CL 43.7

B-03 3.0 NP NP NP 4.75 1 SP 14.9

CBR-1 1.0 21 13 8 0.075 27 SC 5.2

CBR-2 1.0 NP NP NP 4.75 1 SP 3.9

CBR-3 1.0 NP NP NP 4.75 2 SP 2.9

D-01 5.0 NP NP NP 4.75 1 SP 22.0

D-01 34.0 NP NP NP 4.75 18 SM 21.7

D-01 54.0 28 15 13 0.075 24 SC 29.8

D-02 3.0 NP NP NP 4.75 1 SP 4.9

D-02 29.0 34 15 19 0.075 56 CL 33.2

D-02 44.0 38 20 18 0.075 55 CL 31.8

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTSPAGE 1 OF 1

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

MaximumSize(mm)

%<#200Sieve

LiquidLimit

Satur-ation(%)

VoidRatio

Class-ification

WaterContent

(%)

DryDensity

(pcf)DepthBorehole

PROJECT NUMBER VB17-155G

CLIENT Work Program Architects PROJECT NAME E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study

PROJECT LOCATION Norfolk, Virginia

(1)

GE

T -

LA

BO

RA

TO

RY

TE

ST

SU

MM

AR

Y -

GE

T_S

TA

ND

AR

D_D

AT

AT

EM

PLA

TE

(03-

17-1

4).G

DT

- 4

/12/

17 1

1:14

- G

:\GIN

T\P

RO

JEC

TS

\VB

17\V

B17

-155

G E

Oce

an V

iew

Ave

Par

cel F

EA

SIB

ILIT

Y S

TU

DY

.GP

J

GET Solutions, Inc.

APPENDIX IV

CBR TEST RESULTS

Project:

Client:

Sample

Number

Sample

Location

Sample Depth

(ft)

USCS

Symbol

Natural

Moisture

Content (%)

Atterberg

Limits

(LL/PL/PI)

Passing #200

Sieve

(%)

Maximum Dry

Density

(pcf)

Optimum

Moisture

(%)

Soaked CBR

Value

Resiliency

Factor

Swell

(%)

CBR-1 CBR-1 0-1.5 SC 5 21/13/8 26.8 124.1 9.0 25.2 3.0 0.1

CBR-2 CBR-2 0-2 SP 4 Non Plastic 1.3 99.3 15.8 27.1 3.0 0.0

CBR-3 CBR-3 0-2 SP 3 Non Plastic 2.2 104.3 15.4 30.6 3.0 0.0

page 1 of 1

204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462

Tel: 757-518-1703 Fax: 757-518-1704

Project Location:

Project Number:

SUMMARY OF CBR TEST RESULTS

VB17-155G

Norfolk, VirginiaE Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study

Work Program Architects

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP (PROCTOR CURVE)D

ry d

ensity,

pcf

114

116.5

119

121.5

124

126.5

Water content, %

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

9.0%, 124.1 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70

Test specification: ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard

1-18 in. SC A-2-4(0) 5 21 8 4.5 26.8

Brown, Clayey SAND

VB17-155G Work Program Architects

Sample Obtained 3/30/17

CBR-1

1

Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI

% > % <

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: CBR-1 Sample Number: CBR-1

GET SOLUTIONS, INC.Figure

Maximum dry density = 124.1 pcf

Optimum moisture = 9.0 %

E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility Study

GETSOLUTIONS, INC.

3/30/17

1A

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown, Clayey SAND

.75.375#4

#10#40#80

#100#200

100.098.795.592.373.243.740.026.8

13 21 8

1.1389 0.7098 0.29460.2238 0.0888

SC A-2-4(0)


CBR-1



VB17-155G

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: CBR-1Sample Number: CBR-1 Depth: 1-18 in. Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 4.5 3.2 19.1 46.4 26.8

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in

.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00

Particle Size Distribution Report

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORTVTM-008 (2005)

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

GET SOLUTIONS, INC.

Depth: 1-18 in.

Project No: VB17-155G Project:

E Ocean View Ave Parcel Feasibility

Study Location: CBR-1

Sample Number: CBR-1

Date: 3/30/17

Brown, Clayey SAND

Test Description/Remarks:

CBR-1

Resiliency Factor = 3.0

Figure 1B

124.1 9.0 21 8SC

Material DescriptionUSCS

Max.Dens.(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

Molded

Density(pcf)

Percent ofMax. Dens.

Moisture(%)

Soaked

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell(%)

1 122.9 99 8.7 122.8 99 9.2 25.2 34.4 0.029 10 0.1

2

3

Pen

etr

ati

on

Resis

tan

ce (

psi)

0

150

300

450

600

750

Penetration Depth (in.)0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5


ry d

ensity,

pcf

96

97

98

99

100

101

Water content, %

7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5

15.8%, 99.3 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70


1-24 in. SP A-3 4 NP NP 0.0 1.3

Gray, Poorly Graded SAND



CBR-2

2


% > % <




Project:






GETSOLUTIONS, INC.

3/30/17

2A


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*


.375#4

#10#40#80

#100#200

100.0100.0100.0

66.53.81.91.3

NP NP NP

0.9858 0.7885 0.39110.3480 0.2774 0.22830.2102 1.86 0.94

SP A-3


CBR-2



VB17-155G


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 65.2 1.3

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in

.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00




GET SOLUTIONS, INC.

Depth: 1-24 in.





Date: 3/30/17



CBR-2


Figure 2B

99.3 15.8 NP NPSP


Max.Dens.(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

Molded

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

Soaked

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell(%)

1 99.3 100 15.8 99.3 100 16.1 27.1 33.0 0.000 10 0

2

3

Pen

etr

ati

on

Resis

tan

ce (

psi)

0

150

300

450

600

750



ry d

ensity,

pcf

99

100.5

102

103.5

105

106.5

Water content, %

7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5

15.4%, 104.3 pcfZAV forSp.G. =2.70


1-24 in. SP A-3 3 NP NP 1.3 2.2

Tan, Poorly Graded SAND



CBR-3

3


% > % <




Project:






GETSOLUTIONS, INC.

3/29/17

3A


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*


.75.375#4

#10#40#80

#100#200

100.099.598.798.358.7

5.23.02.2

NP NP NP

0.8878 0.7379 0.43330.3750 0.2868 0.22840.2070 2.09 0.92

SP A-3


CBR-3



VB17-155G


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks


Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3"Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 39.6 56.5 2.2

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in

.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00




GET SOLUTIONS, INC.

Depth: 1-24 in.





Date: 3/29/17



CBR-3


Figure 3B

104.3 15.4 NP NPSP


Max.Dens.(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

Molded

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

Soaked

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell(%)

1 103.3 99 15.0 103.3 99 16.0 30.6 33.7 0.016 10 0

2

3

Pen

etr

ati

on

Resis

tan

ce (

psi)

0

150

300

450

600

750


APPENDIX V

BORING LOGS

1'' Topsoil

Tan mottled brown, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP), loose -FILL

Light tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with tracefibrous organics, medium dense

Light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP),very loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose tomedium dense

1

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2-6-3-5(9)

5-6-5-6(11)

4-5-7-7(12)

4-6-6-6(12)

3-2-3-3(5)

2-1-2-2(3)

7-8-8-9(16)

6-7-8-10(15)

6-6-5-5(11)

4-6-7-9(13)

3-4-5-5(9)

0.1

2.0

5.0

13.0

34.5

INITIAL () : 5 CAVE-IN () :

Notes: See attached boring location plan

AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

GROUNDWATER*:

DATE COMPLETED: 3/29/2017

SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 5.2

Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit


Virginia Beach, VA 23642757-518-1703

Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 2

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd

The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level.

Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.

DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc.

DATE STARTED: 3/29/2017

LOGGED BY: I. Kladou

PROJECT NUMBER: VB17-155G

Williamsburg1592-E Penniman RoadWilliamsburg, VA 23185

757-564-6452

Elizabeth City106 Capital Trace Unit EElizabeth City, NC 27909

252-335-9765

Jacksonville415-A Western Blvd

Jacksonville, NC 28546910-478-9915

TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon

PROJECT NAME: E Ocean View Ave Parcel

Feasibility Study CLIENT: Work Program

Architects PROJECT LOCATION: Norfolk,

Virginia BORING LOCATION:

DRILLING METHOD(S): Rotary wash "mud"

Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)

RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONBORING ID

D-01

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter

See attached boring location plan

Tan to gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose to medium dense(layer continued from previous page)

Gray, wet, Clayey fine SAND (SC), loose

Gray, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), very loose

Boring terminated at 60 feet below existing grade.

24

12

13

14

15

16

3-5-6-5(11)

3-5-6-7(11)

3-3-4-6(7)

2-4-3-3(7)

2-2-2-2(4)

51.5

56.5

60.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

-35

-40

-45

-50

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 2 OF 2

40

45

50

55

60

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


D-01

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


1" Topsoil

Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarseSAND (SP), very loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt,very loose to medium dense

Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), very looseto medium dense

Gray, wet, Sandy lean CLAY (CL), soft

Gray-tan, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), loose

1

56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2-4-4-6(8)

5-7-8-8(15)

6-5-6-6(11)

2-2-1-1(3)

1-1-1-1(2)

1-1-2-2(3)

6-9-13-18(22)

7-9-12-11(21)

7-9-10-11(19)

1-2-2-2(4)

3-3-5-5(8)

0.1

10.0

14.5

29.0

31.5



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

GROUNDWATER*:


SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (): 5

Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 2

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


D-02

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


Gray-tan, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), loose(layer continued from previous page)

Tan mottled gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM)with Silt, loose

Light gray, wet, Sandy lean CLAY (CL), stiff

Gray-tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM) with little Clay, very loose toloose

change to reddish tan at 58.5 feet below grades


55

12

13

14

15

16

3-5-4-3(9)

3-3-4-4(7)

3-2-3-3(5)

1-2-1-2(3)

3-3-4-5(7)

36.5

43.5

46.5

60.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 2 OF 2

40

45

50

55

60

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


D-02

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


1'' Topsoil

Gray-tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) withSilt, Clay lenses and trace glass fragments, loose -FILL

Light gray to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND(SP), very loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Sandy lean CLAY (CL) with trace Gravel, very soft tohard

Tan, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM), medium dense to dense

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2-5-5-5(10)

3-3-2-3(5)

3-4-7-7(11)

4-4-7-7(11)

2-2-1-1(3)

2-1-3-3(4)

4-2-2-2(4)

8-9-9-7(18)

4-6-8-8(14)

0-0-0-2(0)

10-16-25-29(41)

0.1

4.0

28.5

34.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 2

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


D-03

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


Tan, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM), medium dense to dense(layer continued from previous page)

Tan to gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose tomedium dense

Gray-tan, wet, Silty fine SAND (SM), loose


12

13

14

15

16

7-9-15-19(24)

8-12-12-12(24)

7-9-10-10(19)

5-4-4-3(8)

4-3-2-4(5)

39.5

54.0

60.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

-30

-35

-40

-45

-50

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 2 OF 2

40

45

50

55

60

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


D-03

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


1'' Topsoil

Brown mottled light tan, moist, Poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM)with Silt and trace fibrous organics, loose -FILL

Light tan, moist, Poorly graded fine SAND (SP), medium dense

Light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP-SM) with Silt and some organics, loose

Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP-SM) with Siltand trace organics, loose to dense

Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3-3-5-6(8)

6-8-9-8(17)

5-5-4-4(9)

2-3-4-5(7)

6-8-9-10(17)

6-6-7-13(13)

11-12-12-10(24)

16-25-21-25(46)

0.1

2.0

4.0

7.0

19.0

20.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-01

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


3'' Topsoil

Gray mottled tan, moist, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with littleClay and trace Gravel, loose to medium dense -FILL

Light tan, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP),very loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Lean CLAY (CL) with little Sand, very soft


77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4-5-5-6(10)

6-6-5-5(11)

3-4-6-6(10)

6-6-5-5(11)

3-4-5-6(9)

5-6-5-5(11)

3-2-2-2(4)

3-1-1-1(2)

0.1

2.5

19.0

20.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-02

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


3'' Topsoil

Light gray mottled tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP) with trace fibrous organics and trace Gravel, loose -FILL

Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to mediumSAND (SP), very loose to dense

Tan, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with trace Gravel, dense


1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4-4-5-5(9)

5-6-6-6(12)

4-4-6-7(10)

5-6-8-6(14)

4-3-4-6(7)

4-5-5-7(10)

3-2-2-2(4)

3-16-16-21(32)

0.1

2.0

18.5

20.0

INITIAL () : 4.5 CAVE-IN () :


AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-03

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


Light gray mottled gray, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP) with trace glass fragments, loose -FILL

Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to mediumSAND (SP), very loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt,medium dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2-3-3-6(6)

3-5-5-6(10)

4-5-4-3(9)

1-2-2-4(4)

4-4-6-7(10)

3-2-2-2(4)

2-5-11-14(16)

4-7-8-7(15)

2.0

18.5

20.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-04

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


1'' Topsoil

Tan mottled brown, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP)with trace fibrous organics, loose -FILL

Light gray to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND(SP), very loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with trace marine shellfragments, very loose to loose

Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP), loose tomedium dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3-3-3-5(6)

5-5-7-7(12)

5-6-6-7(12)

3-2-2-2(4)

1-2-2-1(4)

2-2-1-2(3)

1-1-4-7(5)

8-9-8-9(17)

0.1

2.0

11.0

14.0

20.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-05

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


3'' Topsoil

Light tan mottled brown, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with traceGravel, loose -FILL


Gray, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with trace marine shellfragments, very loose to medium dense

Light gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP) with tracegravel and trace marine shell fragments, medium dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3-5-5-6(10)

6-5-6-5(11)

4-5-5-5(10)

5-5-5-3(10)

1-1-1-1(2)

2-2-2-5(4)

6-9-15-15(24)

9-0-13-12(13)

0.1

2.0

11.0

19.0

20.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-06

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


2'' Topsoil

Light gray, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) withtrace marine shell fragments and trace wood fragments, medium

dense -FILL

Light gray to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP), loose to medium dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5-5-6-8(11)

5-6-8-7(14)

3-6-4-7(10)

4-5-6-3(11)

3-3-2-2(5)

2-4-4-4(8)

3-5-4-5(9)

0.2

4.0

15.0



AFTER HOURS () : 3.2

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


BMP-1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


1'' Topsoil

Tan mottled brown, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP)with trace glass fragments, loose -FILL

Light tan to gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND(SP), loose


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2-2-4-6(6)

4-5-5-5(10)

4-4-4-4(8)

2-4-6-7(10)

5-5-3-3(8)

4-6-3-4(9)

4-3-5-4(8)

0.1

2.0

15.0



AFTER HOURS () : 5

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

5

0

-5

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


BMP-2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


1.5'' Topsoil

Gray mottled tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP-SM) with Silt and trace glass fragments, very loose -FILL

Light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP),loose to medium dense

Light gray mottled gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP-SM) with Silt and trace fibrous organics, medium dense


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2-2-2-3(4)

2-3-3-5(6)

5-5-6-7(11)

5-5-6-5(11)

4-4-3-6(7)

5-7-7-9(14)

9-8-9-8(17)

0.1

2.0

10.0

15.0



AFTER HOURS () : 2.9

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


BMP-3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


Brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) with trace Graveland trace fibrous organics, medium dense -FILL

Light tan to light gray, moist to wet, Poorly graded fine to coarseSAND (SP), very loose to medium dense

Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine SAND (SP-SM) with Silt, very loose toloose


271

2

3

4

5

6

7

10-13-12-13(25)

12-9-8-8(17)

3-4-4-4(8)

4-5-6-5(11)

3-2-2-2(4)

3-2-4-5(6)

3-4-5-5(9)

1.5

9.0

15.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


CBR-1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


1'' Topsoil

Gray, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with tracemarine shell fragments, trace brick fragments and trace fibrous

organics, loose


Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt,medium dense


11

2

3

4

5

6

7

2-3-2-2(5)

2-4-5-4(9)

4-5-5-6(10)

3-2-2-2(4)

2-2-1-3(3)

5-6-8-12(14)

8-12-15-17(27)

0.1

3.0

11.0

15.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


CBR-2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


Tan, moist, Poorly graded fine to medium SAND (SP) with traceGravel and trace fibrous organics, loose


Gray, wet, Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND (SP-SM) with Silt,very loose to medium dense


21

2

3

4

5

6

7

2-4-4-5(8)

5-4-7-8(11)

7-7-7-7(14)

3-2-2-3(4)

2-1-1-2(2)

3-2-2-4(4)

5-8-13-16(21)

2.0

9.0

15.0



AFTER HOURS () :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

5

0

-5

GROUNDWATER*:



Dep

th (

)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n ()

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rtai

ns o

nly

to t

his

borin

g an

d s

houl

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as

bein

g in

dici

tive

of t

he s

ite.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SS - Split Spoon






Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


CBR-3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

ikladou

Typewriter


APPENDIX VI

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

(8)

(17)

(9)

(7)

(17)

(13)

(24)

(46)

(10)

(11)

(10)

(11)

(9)

(11)

(4)

(2)

(9)

(12)

(10)

(14)

(7)

(10)

(4)

(32)

(6)

(10)

(9)

(4)

(10)

(4)

(16)

(15)

(6)

(12)

(12)

(4)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(17)

(10)

(11)

(10)

(10)

(2)

(4)

(24)

(13)

(11)

(14)

(10)

(11)

(5)

(8)

(9)

(6)

(10)

(8)

(10)

(8)

(9)

(8)

(4)

(6)

(11)

(11)

(7)

(14)

(17)

(25)

(17)

(8)

(11)

(4)

(6)

(9)

(5)

(9)

(10)

(4)

(3)

(14)

(27)

(8)

(11)

(14)

(4)

(2)

(4)

(21)

(9)

(11)

(12)

(12)

(5)

(3)

(16)

(15)

(11)

(13)

(9)

(11)

(11)

(7)

(7)

(4)

(8)

(15)

(11)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(22)

(21)

(19)

(4)

(8)

(9)

(7)

(5)

(3)

(7)

(10)

(5)

(11)

(11)

(3)

(4)

(4)

(18)

(14)

(0)

(41)

(24)

(24)

(19)

(8)

(5)

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)


Feasibility Study PROJECT LOCATION: Norfolk, Virginia

(Numerical Value) = Sample N-Value

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

CLIENT: Work Program Architects


LEGEND

Topsoil

Fill (made ground)

USCS Poorly-gradedSand

USCS Poorly-gradedSand with Silt

USCS Low PlasticityClay

USCS Silty Sand

USCS Clayey Sand

B-01B-02B-03B-04B-05B-06 BMP-1BMP-2

BMP-3CBR-1 CBR-2CBR-3D-01 D-02

D-03

APPENDIX VI

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY WORKSHEETS

Project Name…...: Project No......:

Boring No…….....: Proj. Location…: 14

Investigators…....: Date………………:

Boring Depth…...: 4 (m, cm, ft, in) WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm

Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm

Boring Radius r...: 4.15 cm Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm

Soil/Water Tmp. T: 12 °°°°C H/r **

…….......……: 5.2

Dyn. Visc. @ T °°°°C.: 0.001236 kg/m·s Dyn. Visc. @ TB ºC.: 0.001170 kg/m·s

VOLUME Volume Out TIME Flow Rate Q

(ml) (ml) (h:mm:ss A/P) (hr:min:sec) (min) (ml/min) (cm/min) (cm/sec) (cm/day) (in/hr) (ft/day)

3,200 11:00:00 AM

3,000 200 11:00:04 AM 0:00:04 0.07 3,000.00 1.672 2.79E-02 2,407.569 39.494 78.988

2,800 200 11:00:09 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

2,600 200 11:00:13 AM 0:00:04 0.07 3,000.00 1.672 2.79E-02 2,407.569 39.494 78.988

2,400 200 11:00:18 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

2,200 200 11:00:23 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

2,000 200 11:00:27 AM 0:00:04 0.07 3,000.00 1.672 2.79E-02 2,407.569 39.494 78.988

1,800 200 11:00:32 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

1,600 200 11:00:36 AM 0:00:04 0.07 3,000.00 1.672 2.79E-02 2,407.569 39.494 78.988

1,400 200 11:00:41 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

1,200 200 11:00:46 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

1,000 200 11:00:51 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

800 200 11:00:56 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

600 200 11:01:01 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

400 200 11:01:06 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

200 200 11:01:11 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

0 200 11:01:16 AM 0:00:05 0.08 2,400.00 1.338 2.23E-02 1,926.056 31.595 63.191

Natural Moisture…...: NA Consistency…………...: loose 1.421 2.37E-02 2,046.434 33.570 67.140

USDA Txt./USCS Class: SP Water Table Depth...: 5.0

Struct./% Pass. #200.: NA Init. Saturation Time.: 10:30:00 AM

Ksat = Q[sinh-1

(H/r) - (r2/H

2+1)

.5 + r/H]/(2πH

2) [Basic Glover Solu.]

KsatB= QV[sinh-1

(H/r) - (r2/H

2+1)

.5 + r/H]/(2πH

2) [Tmp. Correction]

Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution)*

KsatB: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (ºC)

Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole

Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four

stabilized values and analyzing the graph.

Field-Estimated Ksat:

Analytical Method: Glover Solution

VB17-155G

Norfolk, VA

4/12/2017

Interval Elapsed Time

Constant-Head Borehole Permeameter Test

r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole


BMP-2

Ioanna Kladou

H: Constant height of water in the borehole

--------------------- KsatB Equivalent Values --------------------------

V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T °C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB

*Glover, R. E. l953. Flow from a test-hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-7l. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists

when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the well. **

H/r>5 to >10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Project Name…...: Project No......:

Boring No…….....: Proj. Location…: 14

Investigators…....: Date………………:

Boring Depth…...: 2 (m, cm, ft, in) WCU Base Ht. h: 15.0 cm

Boring Diameter..: 8.3 cm WCU Susp. Ht. S: 6.4 cm

Boring Radius r...: 4.15 cm Const. Wtr. Ht. H: 21.4 cm

Soil/Water Tmp. T: 13 °°°°C H/r **

…….......……: 5.2

Dyn. Visc. @ T °°°°C.: 0.001202 kg/m·s Dyn. Visc. @ TB ºC.: 0.001170 kg/m·s

VOLUME Volume Out TIME Flow Rate Q

(ml) (ml) (h:mm:ss A/P) (hr:min:sec) (min) (ml/min) (cm/min) (cm/sec) (cm/day) (in/hr) (ft/day)

3,200 12:00:00 AM

3,000 200 12:00:13 AM 0:00:13 0.22 923.08 0.500 8.34E-03 720.413 11.818 23.636

2,800 200 12:00:27 AM 0:00:14 0.23 857.14 0.465 7.74E-03 668.955 10.974 21.947

2,600 200 12:00:43 AM 0:00:16 0.27 750.00 0.406 6.77E-03 585.335 9.602 19.204

2,400 200 12:00:58 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

2,200 200 12:01:13 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

2,000 200 12:01:27 AM 0:00:14 0.23 857.14 0.465 7.74E-03 668.955 10.974 21.947

1,800 200 12:01:42 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

1,600 200 12:01:56 AM 0:00:14 0.23 857.14 0.465 7.74E-03 668.955 10.974 21.947

1,400 200 12:02:11 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

1,200 200 12:02:26 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

1,000 200 12:02:41 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

800 200 12:02:56 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

600 200 12:03:10 AM 0:00:14 0.23 857.14 0.465 7.74E-03 668.955 10.974 21.947

400 200 12:03:25 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

200 200 12:03:40 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

0 200 12:03:55 AM 0:00:15 0.25 800.00 0.434 7.23E-03 624.358 10.242 20.484

Natural Moisture…...: NA Consistency…………...: loose 0.444 7.40E-03 639.072 10.483 20.967

USDA Txt./USCS Class: SP Water Table Depth...: 3.0

Struct./% Pass. #200.: NA Init. Saturation Time.: 11:30:00 AM*Glover, R. E. l953. Flow from a test-hole located above groundwater level, pp. 69-7l. in: Theory and Problems of Water Percolation. (C. N. Zanger. ed.). USBR. The condition for this solution exists

when the distance from the bottom of the borehole to the water table or an impervious layer is at least twice the depth of the water in the well. **

H/r>5 to >10 Johnson Permeameter, LLC Revised 11/29/13

Notes: Estimated field Ksat is determined by averaging and/or rounding of test results for the final three or four

stabilized values and analyzing the graph.

Field-Estimated Ksat:

Analytical Method: Glover Solution

VB17-155G

Norfolk, VA

4/12/2017

Interval Elapsed Time

Constant-Head Borehole Permeameter Test

r: Radius of the cylindrical borehole


BMP-3

Ioanna Kladou

H: Constant height of water in the borehole

--------------------- KsatB Equivalent Values --------------------------

V: Dyn. Visc. of water @ Tmp. T °C/Dyn. Visc. of water @ TB

Ksat = Q[sinh-1

(H/r) - (r2/H

2+1)

.5 + r/H]/(2πH

2) [Basic Glover Solu.]

KsatB= QV[sinh-1

(H/r) - (r2/H

2+1)

.5 + r/H]/(2πH

2) [Tmp. Correction]

Terminology and Solution (R. E. Glover Solution)*

KsatB: (Coefficient of Permeability) @ Base Tmp. TB (ºC)

Q: Rate of flow of water from the borehole

Documents

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND ... - Geotechnical Report.pdfREPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES E.Ocean View Ave. Parcel Feasibility Study