2962 - Addendum No. 2 .pdf

8600 Staples Mill Road / P.O. Box 90775 / Henrico, VA 23273-0775

Phone: (804)501-5660 / Fax: (804)501-5693

Confidential

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Purchasing Division

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

County of Henrico

Addendum No. 2

Date: July 31, 2026

Invitation to Bid: 26-2962-5EAR – Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer

Receipt Date/Time: Aug. 6, 2026, at 3:00 PM

Opening Date/Time: Aug. 6, 2026, at 3:00 PM

Subject: Plan Revisions, and Questions & Answers

Prospective Bidder and Others Concerned, The following changes, corrections, deletions, clarifications, and/or additions constitute Addendum

No. 2:

Plan Revisions:

1. Modification: On Sheet C-1 Profile, DELETE the “(NW) INV IN: 179.56 (DROP)” associated with NEW MH SSMH-02 at STA 100+15.22/3+83.92. in its entirety and REPLACE with the following: “(NW) INV IN: 180.05 (DROP)”.

2. Modification: On Sheet C-1 Profile, DELETE the “(SE) INV IN: 179.96” for NEW MH SSMH-

02 at STA 100+15.22/3+83.92 in its entirety.

3. Modification: On Sheet C-2, DELETE Note 5 in its entirety and REPLACE with the following:

5. CONTRACTOR SHALL RECONSTRUCT THE MANHOLE BENCH TO

ACCOMMODATE NEW 12” CONNECTION AND REHABILITATE MANHOLE

WITH CEMENTITIOUS LINER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION

SECTION 02737.”

Questions and Answers:

4. Question: Please provide details for the concrete channel to be repaired at approximately Sta.

5+45.

Response: See field photograph below. See also plan and profile (Sheet C-1) for approximate dimensions.

8600 Staples Mill Road / P.O. Box 90775 / Henrico, VA 23273-0775

Phone: (804)501-5660 / Fax: (804)501-5693

Confidential

5. Question: With the blasting insurance requirements provided in Addendum No. 1, is rock anticipated for the sewer installation?

Response: Yes, rock is anticipated. See answer to item 6 below.

6. Question: Are there geotechnical reports that can be provided?

Response: The geotechnical report is provided as an attachment to this addendum for reference only.

All other general terms, conditions and specifications shall remain the same

Bidders must take due notice and be governed accordingly. Acknowledgement of the receipt of this addendum shall be made on your Bid Form.

Failure to acknowledge this addendum may result in your bid being declared non-responsive.

Sincerely, Eric Rosen, VCO

Procurement Analyst III ros074@henrico.gov mailto:ros074@henrico.gov

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, Virginia

Schnabel Reference 24130178 October 8, 2024

October 8, 2024

Ms. Maggie Hopkins Ramboll 4435 Waterfront Drive Suite 205 Glen Allen, VA 23060

Subject: Project 24130178, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, Virginia

Dear Ms. Hopkins:

SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC (Schnabel) is pleased to submit our geotechnical engineering report for this project. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated June 4, 2024, as authorized by our Subcontract Agreement executed on August 22, 2024.

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Site Description

The site is located along Fruehauf Road between Hungary Creek and Royerton Drive in Henrico County, Virginia. The site is bound by residential properties and wooded areas to the north, Woodman Road to the east, Hungary Creek and residential properties to the south, and Royerton Drive to the west. The site is asphalt paved along Fruehauf Road on the western extents, wooded on the eastern extents, and bisected by a concrete ditch and overhead electric utilities. Existing site grades range from about EL 194 to EL 184, sloping towards Hungary Creek.

We obtained the site information from the Henrico County GIS website and through our site visits. A Site Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1.

Proposed Construction

We understand existing 8-inch diameter sewer lines run east-west within Fruehauf Road and between residential properties and Hungary Creek, south of Fruehauf Road. The existing sewer line within Fruehauf Road has an invert elevation of about EL 181 to 186, sloping towards Royerton Drive. The existing sewer between the residential properties and Hungary Creek has an invert elevation of about EL 178 to 180, sloping towards Woodman Road.

October 8, 2024 Page 2 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

Proposed construction will consist of about 765 ft of new 12-inch diameter sewer line. The new sewer line will be used to relieve the existing sewer. The new sewer line alignment will extend from Manhole No. 331NW004 northeast for about 450 ft, parallel to the existing sewer. The new sewer line will continue about 90 ft northeast into the wooded area before turning southeast for about 230 ft and connecting to the existing sewer line at Manhole No. 331NW008. We assume the new sewer line will be installed using open cut techniques. Based on the invert elevations of the existing sewer infrastructure, we have assumed that the invert of the new sewer line will be at depths of less than 10 ft. A proposed sewer line profile was not available at the time of this report.

We obtained the project information from the Fruehauf Relief Sewer site plan dated April 10, 2024, and through communication with you.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM

We performed a subsurface exploration and field testing program to identify the subsurface stratigraphy underlying the site and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials encountered. Exploration methods used are discussed below. The appendices contain the results of our exploration.

Subsurface Exploration Methods

Our subcontractor, Fishburne Drilling, Inc., drilled three test borings and one offset test boring under our observation on September 6, 2024. Our original scope only included one boring; however, additional borings were added to help define the rock surface after shallow refusal was encountered in the original planned boring. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed at selected depths in the borings.

Appendix A includes specific observations, remarks, and logs for the borings; classification criteria; drilling methods; and sampling protocols. Figure 2, included at the end of this report, indicates the approximate test boring locations. We will retain soil samples up to 45 days beyond the issuance of this report, unless you request other disposition.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we correct SPT N values for the higher energy when using N values in our analyses.

Soil Laboratory Testing

Our laboratory performed tests on selected samples collected during the subsurface exploration. Our subconsultant, Enthalpy Analytical, performed ion chromatography analyses for chloride and sulfate content on a selected sample.

The testing aided in the classification of materials encountered in the subsurface exploration and provided data for use in the development of recommendations. The results of the laboratory tests are included in Appendix B and are summarized for each stratum in the Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions section of this report. Selected test results are also shown on the boring logs in Appendix A.

October 8, 2024 Page 3 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Site Geology

We reviewed existing geologic data and information in our files. Based on this review, the geologic stratigraphy consists of Pliocene Age upland terrace deposits over residual materials derived from the weathering of the Petersburg granite formation. The terrace deposits are alluvial soils that typically consist of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. These soils typically exhibit moderate to high strength and low to moderate compressibility. The residual soils are derived through the in-place physical and chemical weathering of the underlying parent material, the Petersburg granite rock.

Terrace deposits were not encountered during our subsurface exploration. These soils may have been previously eroded due to the proximity to Hungary Creek.

Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy

We characterized the following generalized subsurface stratigraphy based on the exploration and laboratory test data included in the appendices.

Ground Cover:

The borings were drilled in the wooded areas, and encountered about 2 to 3 inches of topsoil at the ground surface.

Stratum A: Residuum

Below the ground cover, residual soils of Stratum A were encountered to depths of about 2 to 6 ft below the ground surface. The soils of Stratum A classify as clayey sand (SC) and silty, clayey sand (SC-SM).

The soils of Stratum A are generally of low plasticity having liquid limits of 27 and 19, and plasticity indices of 10 and 4. The natural moisture contents measured ranged from about 5 to 8 percent. Based on the SPTs performed, the soils of Stratum A are loose to dense with N values ranging from 6 to 42.

Stratum B: Disintegrated Rock and Rock

Disintegrated rock is defined as residual material with SPT N values between 60 blows per foot and refusal. Sampler refusal is defined as an N value of 50 blows for a penetration of one inch or less. Auger refusal occurs when soil drilling equipment cannot reasonably continue to advance a boring. Sampler and auger refusal are generally indicative of rock. Disintegrated rock was encountered in the borings below Stratum A. A summary of the top of disintegrated rock and auger refusal depths and elevations is provided in Table 1.

October 8, 2024 Page 4 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

Table 1: Disintegrated Rock and Refusal Depths

Boring

Approximate Disintegrated Rock Depth

(ft)

Approximate Disintegrated

Rock Elevation (ft)

Approximate Auger Refusal

Depth (ft)

Approximate Auger Refusal

Elevation (ft)

B-01 4 182 5.3 181 B-01A 5 180 5.3 180 B-02 2 184 5.1 181 B-03 6 182 7.5 181

Groundwater

We did not observe groundwater in the test borings. The borings caved at depths of 5 to 7 ft. The test boring logs in Appendix A include groundwater observations obtained during our subsurface exploration.

These data include depths to groundwater encountered during drilling, upon drilling completion, and following completion of the boring.

Corrosion Potential

Laboratory tests including pH, resistivity, oxidation reduction potential, sulfides, sulfates, and chlorides were performed to evaluate the corrosion potential of soils expected. The results of the soil laboratory testing are summarized in Table 2 below and are also presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and laboratory data in Appendix B.

Table 2: Corrosion Potential Results

Boring Depth (ft)

Stratum /

USCS

Classification pH

Redox Potential

(mv)

Resistivity (Ohms-

cm) Sulfides

Sulfate Content (mg/kg)

Chloride Content (mg/kg)

B-03 4-6 A / SC-SM 5.1 395 15,000 Negative 17.3 <10.0

We used the results of the laboratory testing, groundwater levels, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C105 method, and the DIPRA Design Decision Model to evaluate the soil’s potential for corrosion.

The AWWA method uses a point system to indicate the potential for corrosion of buried metallic structures. A score of 10 or more points indicates potentially corrosive materials. Based on the AWWA method, the soils of Stratum A have a low potential for corrosion.

The DIPRA Design Decision Model uses a point system and two-dimensional matrix which considers a likelihood score and a consequence score to indicate corrosion potential. A likelihood score of 2 or more indicates potentially corrosive materials. Based on the DIPRA Design Decision Model, the soils of Stratum A have a level 1 (low) likelihood of corrosivity.

It should be noted that there are other factors that affect corrosion potential. We have not made our recommendations based on any factors other than soil testing. It is the responsibility of the design

October 8, 2024 Page 5 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved engineer to evaluate the corrosion protection required based on a complete evaluation of corrosion potential factors.

GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

We based our geotechnical engineering analysis on the information developed from our subsurface exploration and soil laboratory testing, along with the project concept sketch and approximate sewer line depth information furnished to our office. The following sections of the report provide our detailed recommendations.

Rock Excavation

Test boring data indicates that disintegrated rock (Stratum B) will be encountered during excavation for the proposed construction. Table 3 provides our estimate of elevations where rock excavation methods, such as hoe-ramming or blasting, should be expected at specific boring locations.

Table 3 – Estimated Rock Excavation Elevations

Boring

Estimated Elevation where Rock

Excavation Methods will Likely Be Required (ft)

B-01 182 B-01A 180 B-02 184 B-03 182

Variations in rock conditions should be expected since the rock surface can fluctuate across the site.

Also, the extent of rock excavation will depend on the Contractor’s methods, rock jointing, and rock foliation. The above elevations apply for excavation of rock in utility excavations.

Pipe Bedding

Pipe subgrades are generally expected to consist of the soils of disintegrated rock of Stratum B or rock based on our subsurface exploration. These materials are expected to be suitable for support of pipe and manhole structures. Subgrades should be evaluated in the field by a Geotechnical Engineer. Unsuitable subgrades should be undercut and backfilled with additional bedding material.

Pipe bedding should be in accordance with Henrico County requirements and/or the pipe manufacturer’s recommendations. In the absence of other requirements, pipe bedding material should consist of at least 6 inches of VDOT No. 25 or 26 stone in areas without flowing water in the excavation and VDOT No. 57 stone in areas with flowing water in the excavation. The pipe should be backfilled up to the spring line with VDOT Class I backfill. VDOT Class I backfill can include crusher run, flowable fill, or VDOT No. 25, 26, 21A, or 21B stone. If flowing water is encountered in the utility excavation, VDOT No. 57 stone should be used as backfill to the spring line of the pipe.

October 8, 2024 Page 6 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

Backfill

Backfill should be placed in loose layers not exceeding 6 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density per ASTM D-698 in structural areas (e.g. below pavements) and 90 percent per ASTM D-698 in non-structural areas. Backfill around the pipes should be placed in such a way as to prevent damage to the pipe. The use of heavy vibratory rollers should not be permitted until a minimum of 3 ft of backfill has been placed and compacted with the use of light compaction equipment.

Backfill should consist of non-organic on-site soils with a maximum particle size of 3 inches. If off-site borrow soils are needed, they should classify as SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW per ASTM D-2487.

Successful reuse of the excavated, on-site soils as compacted structural fill will depend on the natural moisture content of soils encountered during excavation. Based on the natural moisture contents obtained, we anticipate that some of the soils are wet of their optimum moisture content. However, depending on the time of year and recent precipitation, some moisture conditioning may be required in order to achieve the required compaction.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

Rock Excavation

Test boring data, when compared to our understanding of planned invert elevations, indicate that disintegrated rock will be encountered during excavation. We recommend project planning consider the top of disintegrated rock as the elevation at which rock excavation techniques will likely be required. We recommend the contract documents include unit prices for rock excavation.

A sample definition of rock for excavation specifications is provided below:

For mass excavation, rock is defined as any material that cannot be dislodged by a Caterpillar Model No. D-8 heavy duty tractor, or equivalent, equipped with a hydraulically operated, single-tooth power ripper without the use of hoe-ramming or blasting. For trench, footing and pit excavations, rock excavation shall be defined in terms of a Caterpillar Model No. 330 hydraulic excavator, or equivalent. This classification does not include material such as loose rock, concrete, cemented gravel, or other materials that can be removed by means other than hoe-ramming or blasting, but which for reasons of economy in excavating, the Contractor chooses to remove by hoe-ramming or blasting. Rock does not include boulders less than one cubic yard in volume. Boulders larger than one cubic yard in volume will be considered rock for payment purposes.

Where the rock cannot be removed with conventional excavation equipment, special means of excavation may be needed. Removal of rock may require the use of blasting, air-powered tools, rock splitters, or large hoe rams.

October 8, 2024 Page 7 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

Dewatering

Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface exploration. However, groundwater may be encountered during construction. If dewatering is required, we recommend that excavation be dewatered to at least 2 ft below the proposed subgrade elevations. Dewatering by pumping from sumps and/or well points will likely be effective in controlling groundwater infiltration in these portions of the site. Dewatering methods should be the responsibility of the Contractor.

Engineering Services During Construction

The engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. However, conditions on the site may vary between the discrete locations observed at the time of our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until during construction.

To account for this variability, we should provide professional observation and testing of subsurface conditions revealed during construction as an extension of our engineering services. These services will also help in evaluating the contractor's conformance with the plans and specifications in accordance with special inspection requirements. Because of our unique position to understand the intent of the geotechnical engineering recommendations, retaining Schnabel for these services will allow the owner to receive consistent service throughout the project construction.

General Specification Recommendations

An allowance should be established to account for possible additional costs that may be required to install the sewer line as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for a variety of reasons including variation of soil between borings, greater than anticipated rock excavation, greater than anticipated unsuitable soils, need for borrow fill material, wet on-site soils, obstructions, temporary dewatering, etc.

The project specifications should indicate the Contractor's responsibility for providing adequate site drainage during construction. Inadequate drainage will most likely lead to disturbance of soils by construction traffic and increased volume of undercut.

This report may be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes. We recommend that the project specifications contain the following statement:

Schnabel Engineering, LLC has prepared this geotechnical engineering report for this project.

This report is for informational purposes only and is not part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed represent the Geotechnical Engineer’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions, tests, and the results of analyses performed. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the Contractor's purposes, the Contractor may make, before bidding, independent exploration, tests and analyses. This report may be examined by bidders at the office of the Owner, or copies may be obtained from the Owner at nominal charge.

Additional data and reports prepared by others that could have an impact upon the Contractor's bid should also be made available to prospective bidders for informational purposes.

October 8, 2024 Page 8 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

LIMITATIONS

We based the analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information revealed by our exploration. We attempted to provide for normal contingencies, but the possibility remains that unexpected conditions may be encountered during construction.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to assist in the design of the project.

It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We based our recommendations on information on the site and proposed construction as described in this report. Substantial changes in proposed construction should be brought to our attention so we can modify our recommendations as needed. We would appreciate an opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they pertain to the recommendations contained in this report, and to submit our comments to you based on this review.

We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or other instrument of service.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this report.

Sincerely, SCHNABEL ENGINEERING, LLC

Nathan C. Dumas, PE Principal

CJI:NCD:lji

Figures Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Data

October 8, 2024 Schnabel Engineering, LLC Project 24130178 ©2024 All Rights Reserved

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Boring Location Plan

H a m il to n R d

J o rd a n D r

B lu eb el l D r

Lakewood Rd

Indale Rd

Terry Dr

Na vio n St

At te ms

Way

Mountain Rd

Mountain R d

P u rc e ll R d

W oo dm an R d

W o o d m a n R d

Glen Allen

Ed en br oo k D r2nd Ave

L y d e ll D r

Po ate s Dr

A c k le y A v e

B ro a d w a y A v e

E le c t r a L n

O l d

S ta p le s M il l R d

Lucas Rd

O a k v ie w A v e

O a k v ie w A v e

R o y e rto n D r

E d en

S t

Fruehauf Rd

W ood m an

R d

Hungary Rd

Hungary Rd

P u rc e ll R d

E Pa rha m Rd

E Parham Rd

S taples

M ill R d

Dumbarton Elementary

School

Hermitage High School

Laurel

SITE VICINITY

MAP

³

FIGURE 124130178.000PROJECT NO.

HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA

FRUEHAUF ROAD RELIEF SEWER

© Schnabel Engineering, 2024. All Rights Reserved.

/3

1/

S

Y S

T E

M

0 2,000 4,0001,000 ft

Scale: 1:24,000 1 in =2,000 ft

Source: Earthstar Geographics, County of Henrico, VGIN, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, NGA, USGS, NPS Spatial Reference PCS: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere

Brice Whitman Line

Brice Whitman Text Box Approximate Site Location

0+00

1+00

2+00

3+00

4+00

5+00

6+00

7+00

7+58

B-03

B-01 B-01A

B-02

LEGEND

APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION

N

00 50' 100'

SCALE: 1"=50'

FRUEHAUF ROAD RELIEF SEWER

HENRICO COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Base Plan Provided by Ramboll on September 10, 2024.

BORING LOCATION PLAN

24130178.000

C. IRIZARRY

N. DUMAS OCT 2024

Figure Name:

Project Number:

Done:

Reviewed:

Figure Number:

Date:

© Schnabel Engineering, 2024. All Rights Reserved.

APPENDIX A

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA

Subsurface Exploration Procedures General Notes for Subsurface Exploration Logs Identification of Soil Boring Logs, B-01 through B-03

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES

Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers

The borings are advanced by turning a continuous flight auger with a center opening of 2¼ or 3¼ inches.

A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights. Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger, by standard methods, after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.

Standard Penetration Test Results

The numbers in the Sampling Data column of the boring logs represent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) results. Each number represents the blows needed to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. split-spoon sampler 6 inches, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler is typically driven a total of 18 or 24 inches. The first 6 inches are considered a seating interval. The total of the number of blows for the second and third 6-inch intervals is the SPT “N value.” The SPT is performed according to ASTM D1586.

The SPT samples were obtained using a hydraulically driven automatic trip hammer (ATH). Most correlations with SPT data are based on N-values collected with a safety hammer. The energy applied to the split-spoon sampler using the ATH is about 33 percent greater than that applied using the safety hammer, resulting in lower N-values. The hammer blows shown on the boring logs are uncorrected for the higher energy. However, we correct SPT N values for the higher energy when using N values in our analyses.

Soil Classification Criteria

The group symbols on the logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbols (ASTM D2487) based on visual observation and limited laboratory testing of the samples. Criteria for visual identification of soil samples are included in this appendix. Some variation can be expected between samples visually classified, and samples classified in the laboratory.

Residual soils are derived through the in-place physical and chemical weathering of the underlying rock.

Disintegrated rock is defined as residual material with SPT N values between 60 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as an N value of 50 blows for a penetration of one inch or less.

Boring Locations and Elevations

The borings were located using sub-meter GPS equipment. Approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were obtained from the site topographic plan and are indicated on the boring logs. Locations and elevations should be considered no more accurate than the methods used to determine them.

GENERAL NOTES FOR

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS

1. Numbers in sampling data column next to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) symbols indicate blows required to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. sampling spoon 6 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N value is the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after a 6-inch seating interval. The Standard Penetration Test is performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586.

2. Visual classification of soil is in accordance with terminology set forth in “Identification of Soil.”

The ASTM D2487 group symbols (e.g., CL) shown in the classification column are based on visual observations.

3. Estimated water levels indicated on the logs are only estimates from available data and may vary with precipitation, porosity of the soil, site topography, and other factors.

4. Refusal at the surface of rock, boulder, or other obstruction is defined as an SPT resistance of 50 blows for 1 inch or less of penetration.

5. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled or excavated. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and water level conditions at the subsurface exploration location.

6. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types as obtained from the subsurface exploration. Some variation may also be expected vertically between samples taken. The soil profile, water level observations and penetration resistances presented on these logs have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

7. Key to symbols and abbreviations:

S-01, SPT Sample No., Standard Penetration Test 5+10+10 Number of blows in each 6-inch increment

LL Liquid Limit MC Moisture Content (percent) PL Plastic Limit PP Pocket Penetrometer Reading (tsf) %Passing#200 Percent by weight passing a No. 200 Sieve

IDENTIFICATION OF SOIL

I. DEFINITION OF SOIL GROUP NAMES (ASTM D2487) SYMBOL GROUP NAME

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels – More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Coarse, ¾” to 3” Fine, No. 4 to ¾”

Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines

GW WELL GRADED

GRAVEL

GP POORLY GRADED

GRAVEL

Gravels with fines More than 12% fines

GM SILTY GRAVEL

GC CLAYEY GRAVEL

Sands – 50% or more of coarse Fraction passes No. 4 sieve Coarse, No. 10 to No. 4 Medium, No. 40 to No. 10 Fine, No. 200 to No. 40

Clean Sands Less than 5% fines

SW WELL GRADED

SAND

SP POORLY GRADED

SAND

Sands with fines More than 12% fines

SM SILTY SAND

SC CLAYEY SAND

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit less than 50 Low to medium plasticity

Inorganic CL LEAN CLAY

ML SILT

Organic OL ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit 50 or more Medium to high plasticity

Inorganic CH FAT CLAY

MH ELASTIC SILT

Organic OH ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor PT PEAT

II. DEFINITION OF SOIL COMPONENT PROPORTIONS (ASTM D2487)

Examples

Adjective Form

GRAVELLY

SANDY

>30% to <50% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

GRAVELLY LEAN CLAY

CLAYEY

SILTY

>12% to <50% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

SILTY SAND

“With” WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <30% coarse grained component in a fine-grained soil

FAT CLAY WITH GRAVEL

WITH GRAVEL

WITH SAND

>15% to <50% coarse grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND

WITH SILT

WITH CLAY

>5% to <12% fine grained component in a coarse-grained soil

POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT

III. GLOSSARY OF MISCELLANEOUS TERMS

SYMBOLS ............................ Unified Soil Classification Symbols are shown above as group symbols. A dual symbol “-“ indicates the soil belongs to two groups. A borderline symbol “/” indicates the soil belongs to two possible groups.

FILL ........................................ Man-made deposit containing soil, rock and often foreign matter.

PROBABLE FILL................... Soils which contain no visually detected foreign matter but which are suspect with regard to origin.

DISINTEGRATED ROCK

(DR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 60 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as a SPT of 100 blows for 2” or less penetration.

PARTIALLY WEATHERED

ROCK (PWR)

Residual materials with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) between 100 blows per foot and refusal. Refusal is defined as a SPT of 100 blows for 2” or less penetration.

BOULDERS & COBBLES ..... Boulders are considered rounded pieces of rock larger than 12 inches, while cobbles range from 3 to 12 inch size.

LENSES ................................. 0 to ½ inch seam within a material in a test pit.

LAYERS ................................. ½ to 12 inch seam within a material in a test pit.

POCKET ................................ Discontinuous body within a material in a test pit.

MOISTURE CONDITIONS ..... Wet, moist or dry to indicate visual appearance of specimen.

COLOR .................................. Overall color, with modifiers such as light to dark or variation in coloration.

SC

DR

185.8

182.0

180.7

0.3

4.0

5.3

S-01, SPT

1+2+4+5

REC=7", 29%

S-02, SPT

8+10+15+24

REC=15", 63%

S-03, SPT

17+68+50/3"

REC=10", 67%

S-04, SPT

50/1"

REC=1", 100%

RESIDUUM

A

B

MC = 5.5%

LL = 27

PL = 17

MC = 7.5%

% Passing #200 = 49.7

Bottom of Boring at 5.3 ft.

Auger refusal at 5.3 ft.

Boring backfilled with cuttings and borehole plug upon completion.

Topsoil; 3 inches

CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, gray and light brown

DISINTEGRATED ROCK, sampled as silty sand, fine to coarse grained sand;

moist, gray and light brown

Encountered

Completion

Casing Pulled

9/6

9/6

9/6

Dry

Dry

Dry

5.0'

Schnabel Representative: E. Worthington

Total Depth: 5.3 ft

Method: 2-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: CME-45 (Track)

Ground Surface Elevation: 186± (ft)

Contractor: Fishburne Drilling, Inc.

Chesapeake, Virginia

Contractor Foreman: E. Hester

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/6/24 Finished: 9/6/24

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, VA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 24130178.000 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

Boring Number:

DATA

B-01

REMARKS

Project:

STRA

TUM TESTSMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

LO

G

S .G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

8_

_0

.G

D T

/7 /2

DR 180.0

179.7

5.0 5.3

AUGER

S-01, SPT

15+50/4"

REC=4", 100%

RESIDUUM

B

Bottom of Boring at 5.3 ft.

Auger refusal at 5.3 ft.

Boring backfilled with cuttings and borehole plug upon completion.

Auger probe to 5 ft. See Boring B-01 for stratigraphy details.

DISINTEGRATED ROCK, sampled as silty sand, fine to coarse grained sand;

moist, light brown

Encountered

Completion

Casing Pulled

9/6

9/6

9/6

Dry

Dry

Dry

5.0'

Schnabel Representative: E. Worthington

Total Depth: 5.3 ft

Method: 2-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: CME-45 (Track)

Ground Surface Elevation: 185± (ft)

Contractor: Fishburne Drilling, Inc.

Chesapeake, Virginia

Contractor Foreman: E. Hester

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/6/24 Finished: 9/6/24

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, VA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 24130178.000 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

Boring Number:

DATA

B-01A

REMARKS

Project:

STRA

TUM TESTSMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

LO

G

S .G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

8_

_0

.G

SC

185.8

184.0

180.9

0.2

2.0

5.1

S-01, SPT

4+7+13+17

REC=12", 50%

S-02, SPT

16+26+90+50/1"

REC=17", 89%

S-03, SPT

100/3"

REC=3", 100%

S-04, SPT

50/1"

REC=1", 100%

RESIDUUM

A

B

MC = 4.8%

Bottom of Boring at 5.1 ft.

Auger refusal at 5.0 ft.

Boring backfilled with cuttings and borehole plug upon completion.

Topsoil; 2 inches

CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, light brown and gray

DISINTEGRATED ROCK, sampled as silty sand, fine to coarse grained sand;

moist, light brown and gray

Encountered

Completion

Casing Pulled

9/6

9/6

9/6

Dry

Dry

Dry

5.0'

Schnabel Representative: E. Worthington

Total Depth: 5.1 ft

Method: 2-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: CME-45 (Track)

Ground Surface Elevation: 186± (ft)

Contractor: Fishburne Drilling, Inc.

Chesapeake, Virginia

Contractor Foreman: E. Hester

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/6/24 Finished: 9/6/24

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, VA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 24130178.000 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

Boring Number:

DATA

B-02

REMARKS

Project:

STRA

TUM TESTSMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

LO

G

S .G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

8_

_0

.G

SC-SM

187.8

182.0

180.5

0.3

6.0

7.5

S-01, SPT

2+5+9+19

REC=11", 46%

S-02, SPT

21+21+21+28

REC=12", 50%

S-03, SPT

29+22+18+16

REC=9", 38%

S-04, SPT

50/2"

REC=1", 50%

S-05, SPT

50/0"

REC=0"

RESIDUUM

A

B

MC = 5.1%

MC = 4.6%

LL = 19

PL = 15

MC = 4.9%

% Passing #200 = 41.3 Resistivity = 15000 Ohms-cm Redox = 395 mv Sulfides = Negative pH = 5.1

Bottom of Boring at 7.5 ft.

Auger refusal at 7.5 ft.

Boring backfilled with cuttings and borehole plug upon completion.

Topsoil; 3 inches

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained sand; moist, light brown

DISINTEGRATED ROCK, sampled as silty sand, fine to coarse grained sand;

moist, light brown

Encountered

Completion

Casing Pulled

9/6

9/6

9/6

Dry

Dry

Dry

7.0'

Schnabel Representative: E. Worthington

Total Depth: 7.5 ft

Method: 2-1/4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger

Equipment: CME-45 (Track)

Ground Surface Elevation: 188± (ft)

Contractor: Fishburne Drilling, Inc.

Chesapeake, Virginia

Contractor Foreman: E. Hester

Hammer Type: Auto Hammer (140 lb)

Dates Started: 9/6/24 Finished: 9/6/24

Location: See Location Plan

Date CavedDepthTime Casing Groundwater Observations

Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, VA

SYMBOL

Contract Number: 24130178.000 Sheet: 1 of 1

SAMPLING

DEPTH

DEPTH

(ft)

ELEV

(ft)

TEST

BORING

LOG

Boring Number:

DATA

B-03

REMARKS

Project:

STRA

TUM TESTSMATERIAL DESCRIPTION

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

LO

G

S .G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

8_

_0

.G

APPENDIX B

SOIL LABORATORY TEST DATA

Summary of Laboratory Tests Gradation Curves Atterberg Limits Sulfate and Chloride Content Test Results

B-01

2.0 - 4.0

184.0 - 182.0

Jar

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained sand, gray and light brown RICH A 7.5 27 17 10 0.0 82.4 49.7 -- -- -- --

B-03

4.0 - 6.0

184.0 - 182.0

Jar

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), fine to coarse grained sand, light brown RICH A 4.9 19 15 4 0.9 75.6 41.3 5.1 395 15000 Negative

Sheet 1 of 1

Boring No.

Summary Of Laboratory Tests Appendix B

Description of Soil Specimen

Project Number: 24130178.000

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 visual classification.

3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; -- indicates no test performed

Project:

Elevation ft

Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, VA

Sample Type

Sample Depth ft

D Y

N A

M

IC

L A

B S

U M

M A

R Y

L

O G

S .G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

0_

.G

/2

S tr at u m

O xi d at io n

R ed u ct io n

P o te n ti al m

V

P la st ic

L im it

S u lf id es

P as si n g

N o

S ie ve

L iq u id

L im it

P as si n g

N o

S ie ve

N at u ra l M o is tu re p H

P la st ic it y

In d ex

R et ai n ed

N o

S ie ve

R es is ti vi ty

(o h m -c m

T es ti n g L ab o ra to ry

0.0010.010.1110100

4 3

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

200100 1406040

0.0

0.9

23 3/41.5 6

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained sand, gray and light brown

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), fine to coarse grained sand, light brown

Specimen

LL

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

GRADATION CURVES

1/23/8

PL PI Cc Cu

B-01

B-03

%Clay

B-01

B-03

%Silt%GravelSpecimen

Sample Description

D30

16 2014

%Sand

ASTM D6913

ASTM D6913

50.3

57.8

81041

49.7

41.3

HYDROMETER

Test Method D10

D60

0.12

0.18

D100

4.75

9.5

RICH

RICH

Testing Lab

2.0 ft

4.0 ft

2.0 ft

4.0 ft

Project: Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, VA

Contract: 24130178.000S

IE

V E

S

H E

E T

L

O G

S .G

P J

S C

H N

A B

E L

D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E

0_

.G

9/

/2 fine coarse

COBBLES SILT OR CLAY

medium fine

SANDGRAVEL

coarse

0 20 40 60 80 100

ML

CL

LIQUID LIMIT

B-01

B-03

FinesPIPL Testing Lab

CLAYEY SAND (SC), fine to coarse grained sand, gray and light brown

SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), fine to coarse grained sand, light brown

LLSpecimen

PLOTTED DATA REPRESENTS SOIL PASSING NO. 40 SIEVE

CL-ML MH

CH

Description

RICH

RICH

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y I

N D

E X

ATTERBERG LIMITS

2.0 ft

4.0 ft

Project: Fruehauf Road Relief Sewer Henrico County, VA

Contract: 24130178.000A T

T E

R B

E R

G _L

IM

IT

S

L O

G S

.G P

J S

C H

N A

B E

L D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

8_

.G

9/