Geotechnical Report Fauquier County Cedar Lee Middle …€¦ · · 2018-02-08plan, logs of test...

Geotechnical Report

Fauquier County Cedar Lee Middle School Safety Routes to School

Bealeton, Virginia

Project Number: GEO 121913.08

April 30, 2015

Prepared for

McCormick Taylor, Inc. 113 Mill Place Parkway, Unit 103

Verona, VA 24482

14241 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 230 Midlothian, VA 23113

April 30, 2015 McCormick Taylor, Inc. 113 Mill Place Parkway, Unit 103 Verona, VA 24482 Attention: Mr. Gregory E. Krystyniak, P.E.

Senior Transportation Engineer

Re: Geotechnical Report

Fauquier County Cedar Lee Middle School Safe Routes to School Bealeton, Virginia

DMY Project Number: GEO 121913.08 Dear Mr. Krystyniak: DMY Inc. is pleased to submit this geotechnical report for the proposed Fauquier County Cedar Lee Middle School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) located in Bealeton, Virginia. We are pleased to transmit herewith an electronic copy of our report. This report describes the exploratory procedures, field and laboratory findings, engineering analyses, and presents our engineering recommendations and comments related to the design and construction of the project. The appendices contain a site location map, a boring location plan, logs of test borings, laboratory test results, and results of engineering analyses of stability of the dam slopes. Representative soil samples obtained during the course of this exploration will be held at this office for a period of three (3) months and will then be discarded unless otherwise notified. We appreciate the opportunity to offer these services. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance to you, please contact our office at (804)-381-4800. Respectfully yours, DMY Inc. John Z. Ding, P.E. Richard M. Simon, P.E., Ph.D., D.GE Principal Engineer Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Fauquier County Cedar Lee Middle School SRTS Bealeton, Virginia

DMYGEO 121913.08 1

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

2.1 Field Explorations ............................................................................. 4 2.2 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................ 4 3.0 Subsurface Conditions 3.1 Regional Geology……………………………………………………… .. 6 3.2 Soil Stratification…………………………………… ............................. 6 3.3 Groundwater ………………………………………… ....................... …7 3.4 Site Seismic Classification ................................................................ 7 4.0 Engineering Recommendations 4.1 Foundation… ............................................................................. ……8

4.2 Retaining Wall…………………………… ........................................... 8

5.0 Construction Considerations

5.1 General……………………………………………………… ................... 10

5.2 Wet Weather Earthwork………………………………………… ........... 11 6.0 Limitations of Liability……………………………………………………… 12


DMYGEO 121913.08 2

List of Tables 2-1 Boring Designations 2-2 Laboratory Test Items and Related Standards 2-3 Atterberg Limits Test Results 5-1 Fill Material Requirements List of Figures A-1 Site Vicinity Map A-2 Boring Location Plan List of Appendices A Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and Boring Logs B Laboratory Test Results


DMYGEO 121913.08 3

Section 1

Introduction

1.1 Project Information Fauquier County Government and Public Schools has established a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) project for Cedar Lee Middle School located in Bealeton, VA. The major component of this project includes a trail along School House Road, sidewalk improvements along School House Road, and a trail under Rt. 17 and along Remington Road that connects to existing sidewalks and associated safety measures to improve the safety of patrons traveling to and from the school. As a major component of the project, there will be a 70’ x 14’ continental connector bridge crossing Bowens Run Creek under School House Road. The design of the bridge requires a geotechnical exploration and recommendations for the bridge foundation. 1.2 Purpose and Scope This report describes the results of the geotechnical field and laboratory exploration and office analysis and study used to develop geotechnical recommendations related to the design and construction of the proposed bridge. The scope of the geotechnical study included a review of the available geotechnical related information and site geological literature, field and laboratory testing, and an engineering evaluation of the materials and conditions encountered at the site. The engineering recommendations regarding the design and construction of the project are discussed in the following sections of this report.


DMYGEO 121913.08 4

Section 2

Subsurface Explorations

2.1 Field Explorations

Two (2) borings were initially planned for the project. Three soil borings were actually conducted in the field to identify the subsurface soil and bedrock conditions. The borings were drilled at the project site employing split spoon sampling techniques per ASTM D1586 using conventional hollow stem augers powered by an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) mounted drill rig. The sampling and penetration testing procedures were performed by driving a standard 1⅜-inch-inside-diameter, 2-inch-outside-diameter split spoon sampler with a 140-lb. automatic hammer falling from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler 6 inches was recorded for a total of 18 inches. The penetration resistance value (N value) is the summation of the last two 6-inch increments. The N values are recorded on the boring logs. The results of the standard penetration tests indicate the comparative consistency of the cohesive soils and relative density of the cohesionless soils, and are used as an index to derive soil parameters from various empirical correlations. The soil samples obtained were visually classified using terms and descriptions in the Appendices. Selected samples were transported to a geotechnical laboratory for index testing.

TABLE 2-1 Boring Designations

Boring Number Maximum

Boring Depth (ft.)

Boring Coordinates

Latitude (N) Longitude (W)

B-1 8.2 38°34'29.28” -77°46'16.97"

B-2 11.5 37°34'28.94" -77°46'16.01"

B-3 14.0 37°34'29.30" -77°46'16.55"

2.2 Laboratory Testing

The soil samples obtained during the drilling and auger operations were placed in labeled sample containers that were sealed to limit moisture change. The DMY geotechnical engineer performed visual classification of the samples in accordance with ASTM D2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Representative samples were tested for the purpose of classification and index


DMYGEO 121913.08 5

properties. The types of tests and related standards are listed in Table 2-2. The test results are summarized in Table 2-3. A log of each boring, including laboratory test results, visual classification of the samples, and driller observations are provided in the Appendix of this report.

TABLE 2-2 Laboratory Test Items and Related Standards

Type of Test Standard

Soil Natural Moisture Contents ASTM D2216

Soil Visual Classification ASTM D2488

Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318

TABLE 2-3 Atterberg Limit Test Results

Boring No. Sample & Depth Atterberg Limits

USCS LL PL PI

B-1 S-2/S-3 (2.0’-6.0’) 39 23 16 GC

B-2 S-3/S-4 (4.0’ – 8.0’) 53 22 31 CH

B-3 S-2/S-3 (2.0’-6.0’) 45 20 25 CL


DMYGEO 121913.08 6

Section 3

Subsurface Conditions

3.1 Regional Geology Fauquier County, located approximately 40 miles west of the Nation's Capital in northern Virginia, is roughly rectangular in shape and covers approximately 660 square miles. The County is bounded to the west by Culpeper and Rappahannock counties, to the south by Stafford County, to the north by Loudoun, Warren, and Clarke counties, and to the east by Prince William County. The County spans three geological provinces- the Blue Ridge, the Culpeper (Triassic Basin), and the Piedmont. The northwestern half of the County, which is dominated by the Blue Ridge, is characterized by mountainous and rolling terrain, while the central portion, which is dominated by the Culpeper Basin, is nearly level to gently rolling. The extreme southeastern portion, which is dominated by the Piedmont, is gently rolling to rolling in nature. Forest vegetation covers approximately one-third of the County's land area, while the remainder is largely open land utilized for a variety of agricultural purposes.

The project site lies within the Culpeper Basin Physiographic Province of Virginia. The Triassic Basins lie in a band of dispersed, non-contiguous units spread throughout the general Appalachian and Piedmont regions of the eastern United States. These basins were formed in the geologic time known as the Triassic period. The basins are not extensive nor are they sufficiently contiguous to be considered a separate physiographic province, but where they do appear they are distinctive from the surrounding bedrock geology and other physiographic attributes. The Culpeper Basin is characterized by a nearly flat sediment-filled basin interspersed by a system of intrusions consisting of weather-resistant dikes. Specifically, the bedrock in the project site area consisted of Siltstone and Shale of Midland Formation.

3.2 Soil Stratification The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown on the test boring records in the appendices. These test boring records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on visual examination of field samples by a geotechnical engineer and laboratory test results of the field samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata on the test boring records represent the approximate interface locations. The actual transitions between strata may be gradual, abrupt or slightly different depths. In general, the subgrade soils consisted of 2 inches of topsoil underlain by a layer of clay overlaying siltstone bedrock except for Boring B-1, where sand and gravel was encountered below the topsoil. Specifically, four (4) idealized strata can be classified at the project site:


DMYGEO 121913.08 7

Stratum I: Brown Lean Clay (CL) This stratum was encountered below the top soil in B-2 and B-3. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances ranged from 5 to greater than 7 blows per foot (bpf). The moisture content was approximately 25 percent. Stratum II: Gray High Plasticity Clay (CH) This stratum was encountered below the Stratum I soil to the bedrock. The SPT resistances ranged from 8 to over 50 blows of 5-inch penetration. The moisture content was approximately 31percent. Stratum III: Brown Clayey Gravel (GC) This stratum was encountered in B-1 below the topsoil. The SPT resistances ranged from 3 to over 50 blows of 4-inch penetration. The moisture content was approximately 16 percent. Stratum IV: Midland Siltstone Bedrock (SLS) Top elevation of the bedrock varied between 7.5 feet in B-1 and 12.5 feet in B-3.

3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at approximately 6 feet below the ground surface in B-1 and B-3. The groundwater conditions observed, or lack thereof, reflect the conditions at the time of our exploration only. The highest groundwater levels are normally encountered in late winter and early spring. Fluctuations of the groundwater table should be expected to occur both seasonally and annually due to variations in rainfall, evaporation, transpiration, construction activity, and other site-specific factors.

3.4 Seismic Site Classification Based on the soil information obtained during our explorations, in reference to International Building Code (IBC) Section 1613 (2012), we recommend Site Class C be used for seismic design.


DMYGEO 121913.08 8

Section 4 Engineering Recommendations

4.1 Bridge Foundation The proposed bridge will be a 70-foot long by 14-foot wide Continental Connector Bridge with WX Steel Finish. It is estimated that a uniform load of 90 psf (LRFD) and a live load of 10,000 lbs. will be supported by the bridge foundation. In general, the existing rock is suitable to support the proposed bridge structure. Based on our understanding of the project, we recommend two options for the bridge foundation. Option 1 Shallow Foundation We do not have the details of the bridge design information. Assuming the earth excavation is applicable, the bridge can be supported by spread footing bearing on the slightly weathered bedrock. A maximum bearing pressure of 20 ksf is recommended for the foundation design (LRFD). If overturning forces are large, drilled-in rock anchors should be considered to control uplift of the heel of the shallow foundation rather than increasing foundation dimensions. Option 2 Drilled Shafts Drilled Shafts could provide flexible layout choice for the structural design. Assuming a 30-inch-diameter drilled shaft is considered for each pier, an allowable bearing capacity of 50 tons is recommended for design. The drilled shaft should have a minimum of 3 feet of rock socket embedment to reach sound, unweathered bedrock. The requirement for the rock socket is to provide axial compression, uplift, and overturning capacities.

4.2 Retaining Wall The project could include retaining walls of variable heights for the bridge abutment. The following recommendations are presented for general information about the design and construction of the retaining wall. The amount of pressure exerted by backfill on the retaining wall depends upon the height of the wall, drainage provisions, type of backfill, and method of placing the backfill. To avoid buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall, the wall should be backfilled with free draining materials such as No. 57 stone or sand & gravel containing less than five (5) percent fines by weight passing the No. 8 sieve. Surface water infiltration should also be restricted by compacting a layer of cohesive material (at least 6 inches thick) above the granular material behind the top of the wall. A layer of non-woven fabric should be installed between the aggregate/gravel or sand backfill and the cohesive material above it.


DMYGEO 121913.08 9

At the option of the design engineer, perforated PVC pipe drains should be incorporated along the base of the wall footing below grade to restrict the accumulation of water that would increase the lateral loads on the walls. The drains may be connected directly to catch basins or surface drains nearby. It is also recommended that the granular backfill be placed with a minimal amount of tamping and compacting. In placing the backfill material, no heavy vibratory roller should pass within five (5) feet of back of the wall. Excessive tamping or compacting the granular backfill in thin layers will increase the lateral earth pressure. Within five (5) feet of the wall, hand operated equipment such as a vibratory plate or walk behind roller should be used to compact the fill. In general, the loosely placed lift thickness for a granular backfill may be no greater than eight (8) inches. However, lift thickness for the hand-operated equipment should not exceed six (6) inches to promote suitable compaction. Lateral earth pressure coefficients for active, at rest and passive conditions and equivalent fluid pressure for active condition were estimated for recommended backfill materials. For granular backfill materials, the following earth pressure coefficients have been estimated:

Friction angle φ = 35° Total unit weight γ = 135 pcf Active condition: Ka = 0.27 Equivalent fluid pressure: Gh = 36 pcf (active condition) At-rest condition: Ko = 0.43 Passive condition: Kp = 3.69

The crushed stone backfill materials should occupy a zone between the wall and a line extending upward and away from the base of the wall at a 45o angle. These parameters do not include local or uniform surcharge loads that should be applied along portions of the retaining wall that support sidewalks, pavements, or other loading conditions not typically included in earth support wall design calculations. Since the bedrock is shallow, we recommend that the retaining wall foundation be supported by the bedrock or by compacted crushed stone over bedrock.


DMYGEO 121913.08 10

Section 5 Construction Considerations

5.1 General The construction of the proposed bridge may require significant fill operations. In the area for the proposed fill, once the existing topsoil and other unsuitable materials are removed, the exposed subgrade soils should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record (GER). The exposed soils should be compared with those encountered in the soil test borings. Significant differences should be brought to the attention of the GER for the appropriate recommendations. Prior to the placement of engineered fill, the exposed subgrade soil should be proof-rolled. Proof-rolling should be done to determine if soft zones or unsuitable soils are present that must be removed before preparing a suitable base for placement of fill. We recommend a rubber-tired, fully loaded, tandem-axle dump truck with a fully-loaded weight greater than 25 tons be used for performing proof-rolling operations. In case of local soft, loose, or unsuitable soils, such as high organic content materials are encountered, they should be completely removed or stabilized with a layer of geotextile (filter cloth) placed on the unstable foundation may be effective as a separating membrane to help support the subsequent fill construction. Fill material obtained on- or off-site should meet the requirements indicated in Table 6-1 below. When practical, requests to use soils that do not precisely meet requirements may be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer.

TABLE 5-1 Fill Material Requirements

Fill Material Use Recommended USCS Material Classifications

Index Property Limitations

Under Structures, Foundations, and Under Paved Sections, or as Backfill

GW, GP, GC, GM, SW, SP, SC, SM, CL, & ML

LL ≤ 40 & PI ≤ 25

General Site Grading GW, GP, GC, GM, SW, SP, SC, SM, CL, ML, CH, & MH

None

The maximum particle size of fill material should be less than three inches largest dimension, except in the uppermost lift of fill, where the maximum particle size should be less than two inches largest dimension. Maximum sized particles should not be in excess of 20 percent of the volume of the fill material and such particles shall be well distributed throughout the mass. Fill material shall not contain frozen masses of soil and shall not be placed on over-saturated, frozen, or frost-covered


DMYGEO 121913.08 11

subgrade. Fill material should be placed in such a way to provide positive drainage from the fill area. Fill materials should be free of organics and debris. Soil fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch-thick loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of its respective maximum dry unit weight and within ±2 percentage points of its optimum moisture content as determined by a standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698). Where fill materials will be placed to widen existing fills, or placed up against sloping ground, the soil subgrade should be scarified and the new fill benched or keyed into the existing material (see VDOT Road and Bridge Specification Section 303.04(h)). In confined areas such as utility trenches, portable compaction equipment and thin lifts of 3 to 4 inches will likely be required to achieve the specified degrees of compaction

5.2 Wet Weather Earthwork Note that DMY observed groundwater levels in two of the borings above the elevation of the top of weathered siltstone. Groundwater levels may fluctuate due to factors such a season, temperature, and rainfall and the like that are different from those prevailing at the time to boring observations were made. The contractor must develop a dewatering plan to control the subsurface water to permit preparation of all foundation and abutment subgrades in the dry. The engineering properties of the fill soils could be severely impacted by excessive moisture in the form of precipitation. Based on the time of year that construction takes place and the local meteorological conditions, it is anticipated that the above prescribed proof-rolling operation will cause the subgrade soils to pump and fail if construction takes place during the wetter portion of the year from April to September. Site work activities undertaken during the wetter portion of the year will require soil modification to establish a proper subgrade for additional fill placement. Depending on the construction schedule, lime, cement, or other forms of soil modification or stabilization should be considered. In general, the benefits of soil stabilization include: Increases in resilient modulus values (by a factor of 10 or more in many cases) Improvements in shear strength (by a factor of 20 or more in some cases) Continued strength gain with time, even after periods of environmental or load

damage Long-term durability over decades of service even under severe environmental

conditions. For a typical lime/cement stabilized soil, the unconfined compressive strength of the mixed product has been considered as the key performance factor. Typically, the lime/cement stabilized soils can have unconfined compressive strength from 100 psi to 1000 psi.


DMYGEO 121913.08 12

Section 6

Limitations of Liability

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

Fauquier County Cedar Lane Middle School SRTS

Bealeton, Virginia Figure 1

Project Site Vicinity Map

DMY Project No. GEO 0121913.08

Project Site

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Soil Boring

John-PC

Typewritten Text

B-2

John-PC

Typewritten Text

B-1

GROUP SYMBO

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

MH

CL

CH

Cobbles

Gravel

Coarse gravel

Fine gravel

Sand

Coarse

Medium

Fine gravelFines (silt & clay)

ClayColloid

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.

Soils are visually classified by the United Soil Classification System (USCS) on the boring logs presented in this report. Grain size analysis and Atterberg limits tests are often performed on selected samples to aid in classification. The classification system in briefly outline on this chart. For a more detailed description of the system, see the "The Unified Soil Classification System" Corps of Engineers, US Army Technical Memorandum No. 3-357 (Revised April 1960) or ASTM Designation: D2487-66T

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES

CLEAN GRAVELS(Less than 5% passes No. 200 sieve)

CO

ARSE

- G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

(Les

s th

an 5

0% p

asse

s N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

)

GR

AVEL

S (5

0% o

r les

s of

coa

rse

fract

ion

pass

es

No.

4 s

ieve

)

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands.

Well graded sands, gravelly sands.

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures.

Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, or sand-gravel-cobble mixtures.

Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, or sand-gravel-cobble mixtures.

GRAVELS WITH FINES (More than

12% passes No. 200 sieve)

Limits plot below the "A" line & hatched zone on plasticity chart

Limits plot below the "A" line & hatched zone on plasticity chart

SANDS WITH FINES (More than

12% passes No. 200 sieve)

CLEAN SANDS(Less than 5% passes No. 200 sieve)

Limits plot below the "A" line & hatched zone on plasticity chartLimits plot below the "A" line & hatched zone on plasticity chart

FIN

E - G

RAI

NED

SO

ILS

(50%

or

mor

e pa

sses

No.

20

0 si

eve)

NOTE:Coarse grained soils with between 5% & 12 % passing the No. 200 sieve and fine grained soils with Atterberg limits plotting in the hatched zone on the plasticity chart shall have dual symbol. In Arizona, local streams contain sand, gravel & cobble type material, which are locally known as SGC or riverrun material. THe USCS is not used to divide and symbolize the material.

Belo

w "A

" (L

imits

Plo

tSI

LTS

CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY(Liquid Limit more than 50)

CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY(Liquid Limit less than 50)

SILTS OF HIGH PLASTICITY(Liquid Limit more than 50)

SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY(Liquid Limit less than 50)

Cha

rt)C

hart)

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays, sandy clays of high plasticity.

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.

Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous silty soils, elastic silts.

Inorganic silts, non-plastic or slightly plastic.

SAN

DS

(Mor

e th

an 5

0%

of c

oars

e fra

ctio

n pa

sses

N

o. 4

sie

ve)

Plas

ticity

Zone

on

& ha

tche

dAb

ove

"A"

(Lim

its P

lot

CLA

YS

Plas

ticity

Zone

on

& ha

tche

d

DEFINITIONS OF SOIL FRACTIONS

Smaller than 2 microns

No. 40 to No. 200

No. 10 to No. 40

3 in. to No. 4 sieve

Above 3 in.

SOIL COMPONENT PARTICLE SIZE RANGE

Below No. 200 sieve

Smaller than 5 microns

3 in. to 3/4 in.

No. 4 to No. 10

No. 4 to No. 200

3/4 in. to No. 4 sieve

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

PLAS

TICI

TY IN

DEX

(PI)

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PLASTICITY CHART

CH or OH

MH or OH

CL or OL

ML or OLCL-ML

DMY Inc.14241 Midlothian Turnpike, Suite 230Midlothian, VA 23113

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION RELATIVE PROPORTIONSDescription Percent by Weight (%)

Description Size Trace 0-5Boulders · Diameter: 12 inches or larger Few 5-10Cobbles · Diameter: 3 to 12 inches Little 10-20Gravel · Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches Some 20-35

· Fine - 3/4 to No. 4 And 35-50Sand · Coarse - No. 10 to No. 4

(Diameter of pencil lead) MOISTURE CONDITIONS· Medium - No. 40 to No. 10(Diameter of broom straw) Description Criteria· Fine - No. 200 to No. 40 Dry Absence of moisture,(Diameter of human hair) dusty, dry to the touch

Silt and Clay · Passing No. 200 Moist Damp but no visible(Cannot see particles) water

Wet Visible free water,usually soil is belowwater table

COHESIVE SOILS (Silt and Clay)CONSISTENCY PLASTICITYDescription Blows/ft Degree of Plasticity Plasticity IndexVery Soft 2 None 0-4Soft 3-5 Slight 5-7Medium Stiff 6-9 Medium 8-22Stiff 10-16 High to Very High Over 22Very Stiff 17-30Hard >31

COHESIONLESS SOIL (Sand, Gravel, and larger)RELATIVE DENSITY

Description Blows/ft Description Blows/ftVery Loose <4 Dense 31-50Loose 4-10 Very Dense >50Medium Dense 11-30

Descriptions of Soil(Unified Soil Classification System)

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

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

LL PI0

39 16 16

REMARKS:

Boring Terminated 8.2 Feet

Brown Clayey GRAVEL (GC) with Sand, Loose, Dry

Weathered SILTSTONE

DIP*

4

7

2

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

DEP

TH (f

t)

STR

ATA

LEG

END

9

1 2-2-2

2-2-2

1-2-1

4-50/4

6

5

3

10

PAGE 1 OF 1

LAB DATA2.25" HAS

FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling

14241 Midlothian Turenpike Suite 300Midlothian, VA 23113(804)-381-4800 www.dmy-inc.com

ROCK

Cedar Lee Middle School SRTSFauquier County, VirginiaBridge

3/19/2015

11

12

13

Boring Backfilled upon completion

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

STR

ATA

JOIN

TS

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

PAGE 1 OF 1

B-1

B-1

38°34'29.28"NCOORD.DATUM:

15

8

14

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

2" TOPSOIL

JeremyGROUND WATER

Groundwater Encountered at 6.0 Feet

Automatic Hammer

No Long Term Measurements TakenFIELD DESCRIPTION OF STRATA

OFFSET:-77°46'16.98"W

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

SURFACE ELEVATION: 84 feet



LL PI0

25 53 31

REMARKS:

DIP*

4

7

2

9

1 2-2-3

3-3-3

3-3-5

7-9-10

50-50/3

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

6

PAGE 1 OF 1

LAB DATA2.25" HAS

FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling


ROCK


3/19/2015

11

12

13

STR

ATA

LEG

END

5

3

Brown CALY (CL) with Sand, Trace of Gravel, Medium Stiff, Dry

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

STR

ATA

JOIN

TS

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

DEP

TH (f

t)


10

Grayish-Brown High- Plasticity CLAY (CH), Trace of Sand and Gravel, Moist

Weathered SILTSTONE

Boring Terminated at 11.50 Feet

PAGE 1 OF 1

B-2

B-2


15

8

14

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

2" TOPSOIL

JeremyGROUND WATER

No Groundwater Encountered

Automatic Hammer


OFFSET:-77°46'16.01"W

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

SURFACE ELEVATION:



LL PI0

45 25 25

REMARKS:

DIP*

4

7

2

9

1 2-4-4

3-3-4

2-3-5

8-11-11

50-50/5

SOIL

REC

OVE

RR

Y (%

)

6

PAGE 1 OF 1

LAB DATA2.25" HAS

FIELD DATA

ELEV

ATIO

N (f

t)

SOIL

Fishburne Drilling


ROCK


3/19/2015

11

12

13Weathered SILTSTONE

Boring Terminated at 14.0 Feet


10

Grayish-Brown High- Plasticity CLAY (CH), Trace of Sand and Gravel, Dry

STR

ATA

LEG

END

5

3

Brown CALY (CL) with Sand, Trace of Gravel, Medium Stiff, Moist

SAM

PLE

LEG

END

STR

ATA

JOIN

TS

CO

RE

REC

OVE

RTY

(%)

RO

CK

QU

ALIT

Y D

ESIG

NAT

ION

SAM

PLE

INTE

RVA

L

DEP

TH (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

B-3

B-3


15

8

14

STAN

DAR

D

PEN

ETR

ATIO

N H

AMM

ER

BLO

WS

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

PLAS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

2" TOPSOIL

JeremyGROUND WATER

Groundwater Encountered at 6.4 Feet

Automatic Hammer


OFFSET:-77°46'16.55"W

MO

ISTU

RE

CO

NTE

NT

(%)

SURFACE ELEVATION:

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

ML

CL

LIQUID LIMIT

B-1

B-2

B-3

FinesPIPL TestingLab

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC), contains rockfragments, dark brown (Visual)

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

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown and gray (Visual)

LLSpecimen

PLOTTED DATA REPRESENTS SOIL PASSING NO. 40 SIEVE

39

53

45

23

22

20

16

31

25

CL-ML

2.0 ft

4.0 ft

2.0 ft

MH

CH

Description

RICH

RICH

RICH

PLA

ST

ICIT

Y IN

DE

X

ATTERBERG LIMITSProject: Cedar Lee Middle School SRTS

Fauquier County, VAGEO 121913.08

Contract: 12613036 Task 15AT

TE

RB

ER

G_L

IMIT

S 1

261

303

6 T

AS

K 1

5 L

AB

DA

TA

.GP

J S

CH

NA

BE

L D

AT

A T

EM

PLA

TE

200

8_0

4_2

2.G

DT

3/2

7/1

5

B-1

2.0 - 6.0

Jar

CLAYEY GRAVEL WITH SAND (GC),contains rock fragments, dark brown (Visual) RICH 15.9 39 23 16

B-2

4.0 - 8.0

Jar

SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), brown and gray(Visual) RICH 25.4 53 22 31

B-3

2.0 - 6.0

Jar

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), brown and gray(Visual) RICH 24.7 45 20 25

Sheet 1 of 1

BoringNo.

Summary Of Laboratory TestsAppendix A

Description of SoilSpecimen

Project Number: 12613036 Task 15

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

Project:

SampleDepth

ft

Elevationft

Cedar Lee Middle School SRTSFauquier County, VAGEO 121913.08

SampleType

DY

NA

MIC

LA

B S

UM

MA

RY

12

613

036

TA

SK

15

LA

B D

AT

A.G

PJ

SC

HN

AB

EL

DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E 2

010

_02_

25.

GD

T 3

/27

/15

Pla

stic

Lim

it

Liq

uid

Lim

it

Nat

ura

lM

ois

ture

(%

)

Pla

stic

ity

Ind

ex

Tes

tin

g L

abo

rato

ry

Geotechnical Report Fauquier County Cedar Lee Middle …€¦ · · 2018-02-08plan, logs of test...

Documents

Transcript of Geotechnical Report Fauquier County Cedar Lee Middle …€¦ · · 2018-02-08plan, logs of test...