36C24618R0669-0003002.pdf

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project McGuire VA Medical Center

Richmond, Virginia GER Project No. 110-7261 prepared for Bowman, Foster & Associates, PC

Norfolk, Virginia

August 9, 2017

REPORT OF

GEOTECHNICAL

EXPLORATION

2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452

757-463-3200 Fax 757-463-3080 www.geronline.com

August 9, 2017

Bowman, Foster & Associates, PC 6379 Center Drive Norfolk, VA 23502

Attention: Blair Fisher, EIT, LEED AP

Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration Upgrade Generator Capacity Project McGuire VA Medical Center Richmond, Virginia GER Project No. 110-7261

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. is pleased to present this report of geotechnical exploration for the above referenced project. Our services were performed in accordance with our proposal P17-110-6716 dated June 27, 2017 and authorized by Blair Fisher of Bowman, Foster & Associates.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant on this project and trust that you will contact us at your convenience with any questions concerning this report or the project in general.

Sincerely, GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Charles F. P. Crawley, III, P.E.

Assistant Vice President

Scott A. Barhnill, P.E.

Executive Vice President

C O

M M

ONWEALTH OF VIRG

IN

IA

PROFESSIONAL ENGIN

EER

CHARLES F.P. CRAWLEY, III

Lic. No. 028607

Southern Professional Center I 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23452 Tel (757) 463-3200 Fax (757) 463-3080 www.geronline.com

The subsurface conditions were explored by 3 standard penetration test (SPT) soil borings conducted to depths of 25 feet below existing grades within the potential generator compound. Two of the soil borings were performed on the existing earth berm. Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples recovered from the borings.

The general subsurface stratigraphy interpreted from the soil borings is comprised of 1 manmade and 2 native soil layers. Stratum A consists of uncontrolled FILL as sandy and silty clay to clayey sand mixed with crushed stone, gravel and brick fragments to depths of about 6 to 12 feet below the current ground/ top of berm surface. Stratum 1 consists of very soft to very stiff, lean and fat CLAY (CL, CH) with sand and silt to depths of about 17 to 22 feet below current top of ground/berm surface. Stratum 2 consists of firm to very dense, fine to coarse SAND (SM, SP-SM) with gravel to the boring termination depths of 25 feet.

Groundwater was observed or was estimated to be present in the borings at depths ranging from about 17 to 24 feet below the ground surface during the exploration. We estimate the seasonal high water table may be located near the top of Stratum 1 at depths of about 6 to 12 feet. Additionally, perched water may accumulate locally within the Stratum A fill materials following periods of heavy precipitation.

Based on our assessment of the subsurface data collected and the structural information provided, we expect shallow foundation systems using reinforced concrete pad/slab/mat foundations are suitable for supporting the proposed generator equipment. However, we recommend improving the bearing conditions by performing partial or complete over excavation and replacement of the Stratum A uncontrolled fill material so that foundations bear upon a minimum of 3 feet of controlled structural fill.

A maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for designing the equipment foundations for the dimensions provided. Service contact pressures are expected to be approximately 500 psf for the equipment weights provided and allowance for the foundation weight. Total and differential settlements of one inch or less are estimated for improved and properly supported foundations at the service contact pressures.

The majority of the existing site soils are unsuitable for reuse as structural fill and backfill on the project based on the field and laboratory test results. Existing soils should be removed from the site or used as fill and backfill in nonstructural applications.

Site Class D is recommended for seismic design of the project based on the results of this exploration and review of local geologic and historical geotechnical information for the VAMC campus.

The upper soils will be sensitive to wet weather and construction traffic and the contractor should employ reasonable measures to protect and promote drying of the subgrade. The owner and contractor should anticipate the possibility of encountering obstructions and disposing of large debris within Stratum A. The construction budget should include allowances for debris removal and additional remediation of unsuitable subgrade.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GER

APPENDIX E - Procedures APPENDIX D - Calculations APPENDIX C - Laboratory Test Data APPENDIX B - Field Test Data APPENDIX A - Drawings

APPENDICES

7LIMITATIONS

7Seismic Parameters

6Site Retaining Walls

5Fill and Backfill

5Site and Subgrade Preparation

4Equipment Foundations

4RECOMMENDATIONS

4SUBSURFACE EVALUATION

4Surface Materials

3Groundwater

2Soil Stratigraphy

2EXPLORATION RESULTS

2EXPLORATION PROGRAM

1SITE GEOLOGY

1SITE DESCRIPTION

1PROJECT INFORMATION

1PURPOSE OF EXPLORATION

iEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose of Exploration The purpose of this exploration was to obtain geotechnical data from the project site and provide recommendations associated with the project foundations based on analysis of the field and laboratory data obtained.

Project Information The proposed project will design and construct emergency power generators at the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center (VAMC) campus in Richmond, Virginia. A site location plan is shown in Figure 1 and on Drawing 1 in Appendix A.

The site planned for the generator equipment is located in existing greenspace on the northeast side of the VAMC property. We understand there will likely be multiple generator units and possibly constructed in phases. The specific footprint locations for the equipment have not been determined at this time. Plan dimensions for each equipment unit were provided as 45’-4” long by 13’-4” wide. Equipment gravity weights were provided as approximately 98 kips without fuel and 189 kips at full fuel capacity. We have not received information for wind, ice and other external loads, if any. We anticipate the bases for the equipment will be set at an elevation that is approximately 1 foot above existing grades along the southwest edge of the site, with minimal fills along the southwest edge and cuts on the order of 5 feet into the existing earth berm along the center of the site.

Site Description The project site is located in existing greenspace bound by the VAMC property line fence to the north, a paved delivery road and oxygen storage tanks to the south, a fence to the east, and an electrical substation to the west. The site mostly consists of grass turf and a gently sloping earth berm that is approximately 6 to 8 feet tall and oriented along the center of the site. Several moderately sized trees are located on and around the berm. Several cargo container boxes were present at the southwest corner of the site during our investigation. Based on the topographic survey plan provided, existing ground surface elevations at the site mostly range from about 176 to 184 feet (NAVD88). Existing underground utilities noted within and around the site include electric, natural gas, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and communications.

Site Geology The project site lies within Virginia’s Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Coastal Plain is characterized by an eastward thickening wedge of marine, estuarine and fluvial sediments that were deposited in a series of marine transgressive-regressive cycles, or high and low stands of sea level, during the Holocene to Miocene epochs of the late Cenozoic era.

According to the Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-2033, Geologic Map and Generalized Cross Sections of the Coastal Plain and Adjacent Parts of the Piedmont, Virginia, US Geological Survey, 1989, the upper geologic units at the site appear to be upper Pliocene age deposits of the Bacons Castle formation and Pliocene sand and gravel terrace deposits. These units are described as thick-bedded pebble and cobble gravels and poorly to well-sorted, fine to coarse sands and gravels that grade upward into cross-bedded pebbly sand and sandy clayey silt. Undifferentiated Miocene epoch deposits underlie the upper units.

Weathered to fresh basement bedrock of igneous origin (granite) is estimated to be located at depths ranging from about 40 to 70 feet below ground based on historical geotechnical data provided by

VAMC.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, VAMC Richmond, VA August 9, 2017 GER Project No. 110-7261 Page 1

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Exploration Program The subsurface exploration program consisted of soil test borings at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2 and on Drawing 2 in Appendix A along with laboratory testing of samples.

Borings consisted of 3 standard penetration test (SPT) soil borings, designated GB-1, GB-2 and GB-3, to depths of 25 feet below the ground surface. The borings were oriented along the general center of the site with borings GB-2 and GB-3 performed on top of the existing earth berm.

Geotechnical laboratory testing for natural moisture content, grain size and plasticity was conducted on selected soil samples recovered from the site.

The testing locations and depths were selected by GER. It should be noted that the testing program was determined and conducted prior to conceptual and final site layouts and grading.

The test borings were advanced by a CME-45 ATV mounted drill rig using nominal 2¼-inch ID hollow stem auger drilling techniques. SPT sampling was conducted in the borings at discreet intervals in general accordance with ASTM D1586. An automatic hammer was used to drive the sampler.

Small disturbed samples obtained during the test were visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D2487 and selected representative samples were saved for laboratory testing.

Observations of water table depth were made during drilling and in the open boreholes upon completion of each boring. Boreholes were backfilled with extracted materials upon completion for safety reasons.

Drawings showing site information and interpreted subsurface data are provided in Appendix A. Field exploration test results are provided in Appendix B.

Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix C.

Supporting calculations are provided in Appendix D.

Exploration procedures are provided in Appendix E.

Exploration Results The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown on the test boring records in Appendix B. The test boring records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions based on visual examination of field samples obtained and laboratory classification testing on selected samples. The lines designating the interface between various strata on the boring records represent the approximate interface location. In addition, the transition between strata may be more gradual than implied. The material types and strata depths shown on the boring records are not necessarily representative of all materials that will be encountered during construction. Water levels shown on the boring records only represent the conditions present or estimated at the time frame of the exploration.

Elevations shown on the boring records were estimated using the topographic site plan and shall be considered approximate.

Soil Stratigraphy The general subsurface profile interpreted from the findings at the testing locations is composed of 1 manmade and 2 native stratigraphic layers. Figure 3 and Drawing 3 in Appendix A show an estimated subsurface profile based on the test borings performed at the site. Variations between the estimated profile and actual subsurface conditions should be expected.

STRATUM A is composed of uncontrolled FILL that was sampled as sandy and silty clay to clayey sand mixed with gravel, crushed stone, brick fragments, etc. Stratum A was encountered below surface materials and extended to a depth of about 6 feet below the ground surface at location GB-1 and to

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, VAMC Richmond, VA August 9, 2017 GER Project No. 110-7261 Page 2

Figure 2. Testing Location Plan depths of about 12 feet below the top of berm at locations GB-2 and GB-3.

These Stratum A bottom depths correspond to an elevation of about 171 feet. SPT resistances in this layer ranged from 10 to 23 blows per foot (bpf) and averaged about 15 bpf. Moisture content from samples collected in Stratum A ranged from about 10 to 15 percent.

Uncontrolled fills are often highly variable in composition, strength and density.

STRATUM 1 was encountered beneath Stratum A and extended to depths of about 17 to 22 feet below the current ground surface, or to approximate elevations of about 161 to 160 feet.

Stratum 1 is composed of very soft to very stiff, lean and fat CLAY (CL, CH) with sand and silt. SPT resistances in Stratum 1 ranged from 2 to 18 bpf and averaged about 8 bpf. Moisture content from samples collected in Stratum 1 ranged from about 19 to 35 percent.

STRATUM 2 is composed of firm to very dense, fine to coarse, silty and poorly-graded SAND (SM, SP-SM) with gravel. It was encountered below Stratum 1 and extended to the termination depths of each boring of 25 feet. SPT resistances in Stratum 2 ranged from 16 to 58 bpf and averaged about 37 bpf. Moisture content from one sample collected in Stratum 2 was about 9 percent.

Figure 4 and Drawing 4 in Appendix A show a plot of the uncorrected SPT resistances vs. elevation for the soil borings. SPT resistances can provide a general indication of strength and compressibility.

Groundwater Groundwater was observed or was estimated to be present in the borings at depths ranging from about 17 to 24 feet below the ground surface during the exploration. We estimate the seasonal high water table (SHWT) may be located near the top of Stratum 1 at depths of about 6 to 12 feet.

Additionally, although not specifically observed, we estimate perched water may accumulate locally within the Stratum A fill materials following periods of heavy precipitation.

The water levels shown on the boring records represent the conditions encountered at the time frame of the exploration and do not necessarily represent the water conditions that will be encountered during construction. Fluctuation in the water levels may occur due to variations in precipitation, evaporation, construction activity, surface runoff, tides and other local factors.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, VAMC Richmond, VA August 9, 2017 GER Project No. 110-7261 Page 3

GER

Stratum 2

Stratum 1

Stratum A

Topsoil

EL

E

VA

T

IO

N fe et

GB-1

GB-2

GB-3

Figure 3. Estimated Subsurface Profile

Figure 4. SPT Resistance Profile

Surface Materials A nominal 2 to 3-inch veneer of turf and topsoil like material was encountered at the testing locations.

Topsoil is a generic description meaning the surface soil horizon and does not necessarily imply the material is suitable for reuse on the project.

Surface material thickness and composition can be expected to vary across the project site limits. Also, the reported surface material thickness does not account for the quantity of excavation that may be required to adequately remove tree stumps, roots, etc.

Subsurface Evaluation We have evaluated the project information, site conditions and subsurface data described in the preceding sections with regard to design and construction of foundations to support the proposed generator equipment.

The provided equipment gravity weights over the plan dimensions of the equipment result in contact pressures on the order of 310 psf. This loading is considered light and appears capable of being supported by the existing soils using shallow foundations. External loads such as wind, seismic, ice, dynamic, etc. are unknown at this time.

Planned site grading is also currently unknown, although we would estimate the equipment bases would be set at an elevation on the order of 178 feet requiring nominal filling and about 5 feet of cut at the north end. Based on our analysis of the gravity loading conditions and above assumptions, we estimate that shallow reinforced concrete pad/slab/mat foundations can be used to support the equipment. However, we recommend making subgrade improvements using removal and replacement to help reduce risks associated with the uncontrolled fill behavior and to provide a more uniform foundation bearing material.

Recommendations Based on the subsurface data obtained from the site and our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided.

Equipment Foundations Shallow foundation systems using reinforced concrete pad/slab/mat foundations bearing on improved subgrade material are expected to be suitable for supporting the proposed equipment.

Foundations should be designed such that a single foundation supports the individual anchor points of the equipment to the extent possible.

The recommended subgrade improvements include performing partial or complete over excavation and replacement of the Stratum A uncontrolled fill material so that foundations bear upon a minimum of 3 feet of controlled structural fill. The excavation should be widened 6 inches total for each 12 inches of over excavation depth, including fractions thereof, as shown in Figure 5 and on Drawing 5 in Appendix A.

Controlled structural fill should consist of (a) borrow material placed and compacted in thin layers and meeting the criteria specified in the Fill and Backfill section of this report; (b) open graded crushed stone aggregate conforming to VDOT gradation #57; or (c) dense graded crushed stone aggregate conforming to VDOT gradation #21A compacted in thin layers.

A maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for designing the equipment foundations for the dimensions provided. Service contact pressures are expected to be approximately 500 psf for the equipment weights provided, including an allowance for the foundation weight. Total and differential settlements of one inch or less are estimated for improved and properly supported foundations at the service contact pressures.

Structural foundations should bear at least 24 inches below final exterior/site grades for bearing capacity considerations and for protective embedment. The minimum

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, VAMC Richmond, VA August 9, 2017 GER Project No. 110-7261 Page 4

GER

BEARING

DEPTH

24” MIN.

OVER

EXCAVATION

DEPTH - SEE

NOTES

UNCONTROLLED

FILLS & SOFT OR

OTHERWISE

UNSUITABLE

SOILS

FIRM APPROVED

SOILS

WIDEN EXCAVATION 6 INCHES

TOTAL FOR EVERY 12 INCHES OF

OVER EXCAVATION DEPTH

CONTROLLED

STRUCTURAL FILL

FOUNDATION

FORMWORK

AS NEEDED

1 1

4 4

Figure 5. Foundation Over Excavation Detail recommended width for turn-down or thickened edge footings is 18 inches.

Over excavation work should be monitored by a qualified field inspector. The bottom of the excavation at the specified elevation should be probed and assessed by the inspector to ensure relatively firm, satisfactory material exists to allow placement and compaction of the backfill.

Compacting the base of the excavations using jumping jack or plate tampers may be necessary. Additional over excavation may be warranted in some locations at the inspector’s judgment. The construction budget should include allowances for additional excavation and backfill.

Prior to installing reinforcing steel and concrete, foundation bearing surfaces should be firm and dry, and free of debris, highly plastic, organic and loose material. These conditions should be verified by the field inspector. Unsuitable subgrade conditions should be reported to the owner‘s representative with recommended corrective action. Foundation soil conditions encountered which differ materially from those described in this report should be reported to the geotechnical engineer of record.

Site and Subgrade Preparation The ground surface in the proposed equipment locations should be cleared, grubbed and stripped of all topsoil, vegetation, tree stumps, roots greater than 2 inches in diameter and debris. This work should be performed during an extended period of dry weather to avoid excessive deterioration of the exposed subgrade. Positive surface drainage should be maintained at all times during construction to prevent water accumulation on the subgrade.

We recommend the contract documents identify the following:

Base bids on an average topsoil stripping depth of 3 inches. Completely excavate and backfill tree stumps with approved compacted material.

Stratum A uncontrolled fill material may contain debris larger than that identified on the boring logs. Base bids on having to remove and dispose of buried structures and debris up to 12 inches in diameter.

The subgrade soils are sensitive to wet weather and construction traffic. The contractor will be responsible for taking reasonable measures to protect the subgrade and promote workable conditions over the course of construction. Means and methods to achieve this objective will be selected by the contractor.

The contractor should be prepared to encounter and manage localized perched water conditions within the upper 4 feet of current site grades.

The construction budget should include allowances for additional removal and replacement of unsuitable subgrade and for removal and disposal of large unknown objects such as boulder size debris, old foundations, etc.

Existing underground utilities in the proposed foundation areas should be removed and rerouted to well outside of foundation lines and backfilled with structural fill material in accordance with the project specifications.

The exposed subgrade in new construction areas which are not over excavated and replaced and in all pavement areas should be compacted using a non-vibrating drum roller and inspected by proofrolling to check for pockets of soft soils prior to grading and foundation and pavement construction.

Proofrolling should be conducted after a suitable period of dry weather to avoid degrading an otherwise acceptable subgrade. A loaded dump truck or similar heavy rubber tired construction equipment should be used for proofrolling.

Site stripping, grading and proofrolling should be observed by a qualified field inspector.

Unsuitable soil conditions observed during this process should be brought to the attention of the owner‘s representative.

Fill and Backfill Representative samples of each proposed fill material should be collected before filling operations begin and tested to determine maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, natural moisture content, gradation, plasticity and CBR. These tests are needed for quality control during construction and to determine if the fill material is acceptable.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, VAMC Richmond, VA August 9, 2017 GER Project No. 110-7261 Page 5

Structural fill and backfill should be used for all building and pavement areas and should consist of locally available granular or low plasticity material that is free of debris and deleterious materials, and which has a maximum Liquid Limit (LL) of 40 and maximum Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 by ASTM D4318, and maximum fines content (-#200 sieve) of 60% by ASTM D1140.

Soil classification symbols of GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, SC, ML and CL in accordance with ASTM D2487 are candidates for meeting the above criteria. Soils which classify as CH, MH, OL and OH are not acceptable for use as structural fill.

The Stratum A fill materials and Stratum 1 clays are not recommended for reuse as structural fill and backfill based on the laboratory results and visual observation of the boring samples. These materials may be reused in nonstructural applications as applicable. Base bids should assume that fill imported from off-site sources will be required for this project.

Fill and backfill soils should be spread in thin, even layers not exceeding 8 inches loose thickness prior to compaction. Each layer of soil in building and pavement areas should be compacted to achieve not less than 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698.

The moisture content of fill soils should be maintained within ±3 percentage points of the optimum moisture content determined from the laboratory Proctor density test.

Granular, non-expansive, low plasticity material such as sand, gravel or crushed stone screenings having a maximum of 25% fines by ASTM D1140 should be used for backfilling the active wedge behind retaining walls. Clay and other poorly draining soils should not be permitted.

Wall drainage layers should consist of free-draining material such as VDOT gradation #57, #68 or #8 aggregate.

Open graded crushed stone can be used for ease of construction in certain structure backfilling applications when approved by the owner’s representative. Material should consist of washed crushed aggregate conforming to VDOT gradation #57. This aggregate does not exhibit moisture-density characteristics but should be tamped and seated in place using an excavator bucket or plate tamper.

The fill surface must be adequately maintained during fill construction. The fill surface should be compacted smooth and properly graded to improve surface runoff while construction is temporarily halted. Excavations to receive backfill should not be left open for extended periods.

Fill should not be placed on wet or frozen ground. Fill which becomes softened from precipitation or construction activity should be aerated and recompacted to acceptable levels, removed and replaced with new compacted fill, treated with lime or cement, or corrected as directed by the owner’s representative.

Site Retaining Walls Retaining walls are anticipated to be needed for retaining the berm at the north end of the proposed equipment The following properties may be assumed for compact existing soils and approved fill and backfill soils described in this report in lateral earth pressure applications:

3.002.46Passive Pressure Coefficient, KP* 0.500.58At-Rest Pressure Coefficient, KO* . . .

0.330.41Active Pressure Coefficient, KA* 120120Moist Unit Weight, (pcf) 00Cohesion / Adhesion, ca (psf) 0.350.3Coefficient of Friction (tan ) 3025Internal Friction Angle, (deg.)

New Fill

Exist.

FillParameter

*Assumes a level backslope and neglects wall friction.

Foundations for the retaining walls may be designed for a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. We anticipate retaining walls can accommodate more movement than the equipment and thus there can be more tolerance of risk associated with the Stratum A uncontrolled fill. Therefore, we believe it is permissible for retaining wall footings to be constructed in or above the existing site soils provided that existing subgrades are field verified to be firm and stable.

Retaining walls should be designed to satisfy sliding, overturning, bearing capacity and global stability with appropriate factors of safety. We recommend neglecting passive earth pressure contributions for shallow embedded retaining

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, VAMC Richmond, VA August 9, 2017 GER Project No. 110-7261 Page 6 walls and where drainage at the wall bottom may cause soil erosion.

Retaining walls that are permitted to tilt at the top may be designed for the active state lateral earth pressures. Typical minimum movement required for the active pressure condition is approximately 0.005H for granular soils and 0.01H for cohesive soils, where H is the height of the wall.

An equivalent fluid pressure of 45 psf per vertical foot of wall height plus any uniform surcharge pressure (Ka x q) acting above the active zone may be used for active pressure design. This assumes a level backslope and drainage is provided behind the wall. Additional lateral pressures should be included in the design for inclined backslopes and concentrated loads present on the retained side.

Near corners and at other areas where retaining walls are restrained at the top and these minimum movements do not occur, such retaining walls should be designed for the at-rest earth pressure condition. An equivalent fluid pressure of 60 psf per vertical foot of wall height plus any uniform surcharge pressure (Ko x q) may be used for at-rest earth pressure conditions, again assuming a level backslope and wall drainage is provided. All foundations and other rigid structures to be backfilled should be designed for at-rest pressures.

Retaining walls should be designed with internal drainage such as a free-draining backfill layer connected to weep holes near the bottom of the walls or to a foundation drain to relieve hydrostatic pressure. The drainage system should be wrapped in nonwoven filter fabric and ultimately outlet to daylight or into the project storm drain system. Surface drainage should be provided on the active side to divert water away from the top of the walls.

Seismic Parameters Site Class D for seismic design appears appropriate for the site based on the results of the soil borings and review of local geologic and historical geotechnical information for the VAMC campus.

The following seismic design parameters for 5% critical damping and a 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years were determined from mapped values for the geographic site location using ASCE 7-10 and the 2015 International Building Code (2008 hazard data), and USGS seismic hazard mapping software:

0.15g1.0s MCE Acceleration SM1 0.30g0.2s MCE Acceleration SMS 0.10g1.0s Design Acceleration SD1 0.20g0.2s Design Acceleration SDS 0.10gDesign Peak Ground Acceleration

Limitations The analyses and recommendations provided are based in part on project information provided to us.

They only apply to the specific project and site discussed in this report. If the project information section in this report contains incorrect information or if additional information is available, you should convey the correct or additional information to us and retain us to review our recommendations.

Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions between test locations will be different from those encountered at the specific locations and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process may itself alter the soil conditions described in this report. Unanticipated conditions should be reported to the design team along with timely recommendations to solve the problems encountered or created.

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. has performed its services expressly for our client and its client using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Third parties that rely on this report recognize that environmental and geologic conditions can vary from those encountered at the times and locations where data are obtained, and that the limitation on available data may result in some level of uncertainty with respect to the interpretation of those conditions, despite due professional care.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, VAMC Richmond, VA August 9, 2017 GER Project No. 110-7261 Page 7

DRAWINGS

APPENDIX A

2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

DRAWING NUMBERPROJECT NUMBER

VICINITY

MAP

PROJECT

LOCATION

SITE LOCATION PLAN

GERGeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Consulting Engineers

Environmental Groundwater

Hazardous Materials Geotechnical

Industrial Hygiene

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

SOURCE:

Drewry’s Bluff, VA USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic

Quadrangle, 2010

SCALE:

1:24,000

110-7261

SITE�

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project

Richmond, VA

��� 0’ 50’ 100’

LEGEND:

Approximate Soil Test Boring Location

SCALE:

Graphic Scale

NOTES:

Field testing locations were not surveyed and may be several feet from the locations indicated. Testing loca t ions sha l l be cons idered approximate.

Site plan underlay courtesy of Hoggard EureAssociates.

2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

DRAWING NUMBERPROJECT NUMBER

TESTING LOCATION PLAN

GERGeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Consulting Engineers

Environmental Groundwater

Hazardous Materials Geotechnical

Industrial Hygiene

110-7261

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project

McGuire VA Medical Center Richmond, VA

GB-1 GB-2

GB-3

A A’

Stratum 2

Stratum 1

Stratum A

2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

DRAWING NUMBERPROJECT NUMBER

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

GERGeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Consulting Engineers

Environmental Groundwater

Hazardous Materials Geotechnical

Industrial Hygiene

LITHOLOGY GRAPHICS

SITE MAP

Borehole Number

B-1

Borehole Lithology

Water level reading after drilling

Denotes additional uncertainty

Water level reading during drilling

9 SPT Blows

CPT Tip Resistance

Explanation

NOTES

The subsurface conditions presented are interpreted based on the data collected at specific test locations only.

Actual subsurface conditions will likely vary from those indicated.

Elevations are estimated and not obtained by topographic survey.

Elevations and strata depths shown shall be considered approximate.

Topsoil

INTERPRETED STRATIGRAPHY

Stratum A: FILL as sandy and silty clay and clayey sand mixed with crushed stone, gravel, sand and brick fragments

Stratum 1: Very soft to very stiff, lean and fat CLAY (CL, CH) with sand and silt

Stratum 2: Firm to very dense, fine to coarse, silty and poorly-graded SAND (SM, SP-SM) with gravel 110-7261

A

A’

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project McGuire VA Medical Center

Richmond, VA

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280

Topsoil Fill CL, Low Plasticity Clay CH, High Plasticity Clay

SP-SM, Poorly-graded Sand With Silt

SM, Silty Sand

E L

E V

A T

IO

N fe e t)

GB-1

GB-2

GB-3

DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (feet)

GB-1

GB-2

GB-3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

E le v a ti o n fe e t)

SPT Resistance, NSPT (bpf)

Avg.

Test Data

Min.

Max.

2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

DRAWING NUMBERPROJECT NUMBER

GERGeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Consulting Engineers

Environmental Groundwater

Hazardous Materials Geotechnical

Industrial Hygiene

SPT resistances shown are uncorrected and measured using an automatic hammer. The resistances can provide a general indication of soil strength and compressibility.

Elevations shown shall be considered approximate.

PENETRATION RESISTANCE

110-7261

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project

NOTES:

Base bid over excavation depth is 3 feet. Refer to geotechnical report for details. Depth of over excavation is minimum and final depth shall be determined based on actual field conditions unless otherwise stated on the plans.

Over excavation is to be performed under supervision by a qualified field inspector.

Controlled structural backfill material is specified in the geotechnical report.

Substitution of alternate backfill material is not allowed without prior approval from the designer of record.

Foundations shall be formed and poured to the original design dimensions shown on the plans unless otherwise approved by the designer of record.

2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

DRAWING NUMBERPROJECT NUMBER

BEARING

DEPTH

24” MIN.

OVER

EXCAVATION

DEPTH - SEE

NOTES

UNCONTROLLED

FILLS & SOFT OR

OTHERWISE

UNSUITABLE

SOILS

FIRM APPROVED

SOILS

WIDEN EXCAVATION 6 INCHES

TOTAL FOR EVERY 12 INCHES OF

OVER EXCAVATION DEPTH

CONTROLLED

STRUCTURAL FILL

FOUNDATION

FORMWORK

AS NEEDED

PLAN

(NOT TO SCALE)

SECTION

(NOT TO SCALE)

STRUCTURAL BACKFILL

WIDENED EXCAVATION

LINE

FOUNDATION

FORMWORK

5110-7261

OVER EXCAVATION DETAIL

GERGeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Consulting Engineers

Environmental Groundwater

Hazardous Materials Geotechnical

Industrial Hygiene

1 1

4 4

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project

FIELD TEST DATA

APPENDIX B

SOIL BORING RECORDS

The enclosed soil boring records represent our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the specific boring locations at the time explorations were made based on visual examination of the field samples obtained and laboratory classification testing on selected samples if performed. The lines designating the interface between various strata on the boring records represent the approximate interface location. In addition, the transition between strata may be more gradual than indicated. Water levels shown represent the conditions only at the time of the field exploration. It is possible that soil and groundwater conditions between the individual boring locations will be different from those indicated. Boring surface elevations and horizontal position, if shown, shall be considered approximate and referenced to the project datum shown on the plans or described in the geotechnical report unless noted otherwise.

BORING LOG LEGEND

after Terzaghi and Peck, 1968 after D. U. Deere, 1963, 1967

Resistance of a standard 2-inch O.D., 1.375-inch I.D. split spoon sampler driven by a 140 pound hammer free-falling 30 inches.

HARDNESS WEATHERING

Very Hard - Breaking specimens requires several hard hammer blows

- Hard hammer blow required to detach specimensHard

- Light hammer blow required to detachModerately Hard specimens

- May be scratched 1/16" deep by a knife or nail, breaksMedium into several pieces by light hammer blow

- Can be gouged readily by knife or nail, corners and edgesSoft broken by finger pressure

- May be carved with a knife and readily broken by fingerVery Soft pressure

Fresh - Fresh rock, bright crystals, no staining

- Minimum stainaing and discoloration, open joints containSlight clay

- Significant portions of rock shows staining andModerate discoloration, strong rock fragments

- All rock shows staining, rock fabric evident but reducedSevere strength

- All rock shows staining, rock mass effectivelyVery Severe reduced to soil with strong rock fragments remaining

- Rock reduced to soil with rock fabric not discernableComplete

DIAGNOSTIC

DESCRIPTION

Very Poor Poor Fair

Good Excellent

ROCK PARAMETER

FIELD/LAB RATIO

0.15 0.20 0.25

0.30 to 0.70

0.70 to 1.00

SPACING

Less than 2" 2" to 1' 1' to 3'

3' to 10' More than 10'

ROCK QUALITY

FRACTURES, JOINT SPACING AND BEDDING

RQD (%)

0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 75 75 - 90 90 - 100

JOINTS

Very Close Close Moderately Close Wide Very Wide

BEDDING

Very Thin Thin Medium Thick Very Thick

CORRELATION OF RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY

WITH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) RESISTANCE (ASTM D1586)

FIELD MEASURED SPT RESISTANCE (N) IN BLOWS PER FOOT OR PER 0.3 m

0 - 4 5 - 10 11 - 30 31 - 50

51 +

RELATIVE DENSITY

SAND & GRAVEL

Very Loose Loose Firm

Dense Very Dense

0 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 8

9 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 50

51 +

CONSISTENCY

SILT & CLAY

Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

Very Hard

SPT

N

SPT

N

KEY TO DRILLING SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Undisturbed Sample (ASTM D1587)

Split Spoon Sample(ASTM D1586)

Water Table after Stabilization Period

Water Table at Time of Drilling

PP Pocket Penetrometer (tsf)

M.R. Mud Rotary Wash Drilling

H.S.A. Hollow Stem Auger Drilling

Loss of Drilling Fluid

Boring Cave In

Seepage into Borehole Rock Coring (ASTM D2113)

Core Recovery (%)REC

Rock Quality Designator (%)RQD

Weight of Hammer (N = 0)SPTW.O.H.Approximate Strata Change Depth Different Soil Classification Type

Approximate Strata Change Depth Similar Soil Classification Type

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART (ASTM D2487)

COARSE

GRAINED

SOILS

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL

IS LARGER

THAN NO. 200

SIEVE SIZE

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

OTHER

SOILS

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL

IS SMALLER

THAN NO. 200

SIEVE SIZE

GRAVEL

AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

RETAINED ON

NO. 4 SIEVE

SAND

AND

SANDY

SOILS

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

PASSING ON

NO. 4 SIEVE

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

UNCONTROLLED FILLS

DECOMPOSED OR PARTIALLY

WEATHERED ROCK

CLEAN

GRAVELS

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

GRAVELS

WITH FINES

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO

FINES)

SANDS WITH

FINES

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

LOW PLASTICITY

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN

HIGH PLASTICITY

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES,

LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND - SILT MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR

NO FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS, CLAYEY SILTS,

SILT-VERY FINE SAND MIXTURES,

ROCK FLOUR

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY,

GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTY, &

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS AND MICACEOUS,

DIATOMACEOUS AND ELASTIC

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC

SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, MUCK, SWAMP SOILS

WITH VERY HIGH ORGANIC

CONTENTS

TRANSITIONAL MATERIAL BETWEEN SOIL AND

ROCK WHICH MAY RETAIN THE RELICT

STRUCTURE OF THE PARENT ROCK

DISTURBED SOILS WITH POSSIBLE DEBRIS

AND RUBBLE, OLD CONSTRUCTION

WASTES, NON-ENGINEERED BACKFILLS

MAJOR DIVISIONS

SYMBOLS

GRAPH LETTER

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) RELATIVE TO SWELL POTENTIAL

0 - 4 4 - 15

15 - 30 31+

None Slight or Low

Medium to High High to Very High

ADDITIONAL RELATIVE DESCRIPTIVE VALUES

Trace < 10% Little 10 - 20%

Some 20 - 30% Modifier > 30%

4.75 mm to 19.0 mm (#4 - 0.75 in.)

PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATIONPLASTICITY CHART (ATTERBERG LIMITS)

BOULDERS:

COBBLES:

GRAVEL: Coarse -

Fine -

SANDS: Coarse -

Medium -

Fine -

SILTS & CLAYS:

Greater than 300 mm (12 in.)

75 mm to 300 mm (3 - 12 in.)

19.0 mm to 75 mm (0.75 - 3 in.)

2.00 mm to 4.75 mm

0.425 mm to 2.00 mm

0.075 mm to 0.425 mm

Less than 0.075 mm

Topsoil like material

FILL

Sampled as sandy clay, brown, orange and grey, mixed with crushed stone, gravel and brick fragments, dry to moist

Sandy Lean CLAY (CL) Stiff, grey to mottled grey with brown, moist

Fat CLAY with Silt (CH) Very stiff, mottled grey with brown, trace sand, moist

Poorly-graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM) Dense to firm, orange and tan, fine to coarse, with some to trace gravel, moist to wet

Boring terminated at 25 feet.

TEST BORING RECORD

Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) S P T

Comments Elevation m

Geotechnical, Environmental, Hazardous Materials, Groundwater & Industrial Consultants

Northing (ft):

Ground WaterMaterial DescriptionLith-ology Depth ft m ft 0 25 50

GER Project Number: 110-7261

Client: Bowman, Foster & Associates

Uncorrected

Boring #:

Project: Upgrade Generator Capacity Project

Location: McGuire VAMC, Richmond, VA

Date Drilled: 7/18/2017

Driller: Fishburne Drilling

Logged By: Sam McKay

Drill Method: 2-1/4" H.S.A.

Hammer: Automatic Rig: CME 45C

Datum:

Datum: WGS84

Surface Elev. (ft): 177.0

Vertical Datum: NAVD88

GB-1 (Page 1 of 1)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N A

N D

C O

O R

D

IN

A T

E S

S H

A

LL

B E

C O

N S

ID

E

R E

D A

P P

R O

X

IM

A T

E . B

O R

IN

G

R E

C O

R D

IS

IN

V A

LI

D

W

IT

H O

U T

A C

C O

M P

A N

Y

IN

G N

O T

E S

IN

T

H E

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L R

E P

O R

T O

R S

H O

W N

O N

T H

E P

LA

N

S

Easting (ft):

Latitude: 37.49792 Longitude: -77.46451

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 www.geronline.com

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D

1.

G P

J G

E R

.G D

T

/9 /1

Topsoil like material

FILL

Sampled as silty and sandy clay, brown and orange to grey, mixed with crushed stone, gravel, sand lenses and brick fragments, dry to moist

Fat CLAY with Silt (CH) Soft to stiff, mottled grey with brown, trace sand, moist

Silty SAND (SM) Very dense, orange, fine to coarse, with some gravel, moist to wet

Boring terminated at 25 feet.

TEST BORING RECORD

Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) S P T

Comments Elevation m

Geotechnical, Environmental, Hazardous Materials, Groundwater & Industrial Consultants

Northing (ft):

Ground WaterMaterial DescriptionLith-ology Depth ft m ft 0 25 50

GER Project Number: 110-7261

Client: Bowman, Foster & Associates

Uncorrected

Boring #:

Project: Upgrade Generator Capacity Project

Location: McGuire VAMC, Richmond, VA

Date Drilled: 7/18/2017

Driller: Fishburne Drilling

Logged By: Sam McKay

Drill Method: 2-1/4" H.S.A.

Hammer: Automatic Rig: CME 45C

Datum:

Datum: WGS84

Surface Elev. (ft): 183.0

Vertical Datum: NAVD88

GB-2 (Page 1 of 1)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N A

N D

C O

O R

D

IN

A T

E S

S H

A

LL

B E

C O

N S

ID

E

R E

D A

P P

R O

X

IM

A T

E . B

O R

IN

G

R E

C O

R D

IS

IN

V A

LI

D

W

IT

H O

U T

A C

C O

M P

A N

Y

IN

G N

O T

E S

IN

T

H E

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L R

E P

O R

T O

R S

H O

W N

O N

T H

E P

LA

N

S

Easting (ft):

Latitude: 37.49770 Longitude: -77.46407

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 www.geronline.com

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D

1.

G P

J G

E R

.G D

T

/9 /1

Topsoil like material

FILL

Sampled as sandy clay, brown, mixed with crushed stone, gravel and brick fragments, dry to moist

FILL

Sampled as clayey sand, brown to grey, mixed with gravel and brick fragments, moist

Lean CLAY with Silt (CL) Soft to very soft, mottled grey with brown, little to trace sand, moist to wet

Silty SAND (SM) Dense, orange, fine to coarse, with trace gravel, wet

Boring terminated at 25 feet.

TEST BORING RECORD

Penetration Resistance (blows/foot) S P T

Comments Elevation m

Geotechnical, Environmental, Hazardous Materials, Groundwater & Industrial Consultants

Northing (ft):

Ground WaterMaterial DescriptionLith-ology Depth ft m ft 0 25 50

GER Project Number: 110-7261

Client: Bowman, Foster & Associates

Uncorrected

Boring #:

Project: Upgrade Generator Capacity Project

Location: McGuire VAMC, Richmond, VA

Date Drilled: 7/18/2017

Driller: Fishburne Drilling

Logged By: Sam McKay

Drill Method: 2-1/4" H.S.A.

Hammer: Automatic Rig: CME 45C

Datum:

Datum: WGS84

Surface Elev. (ft): 183.0

Vertical Datum: NAVD88

GB-3 (Page 1 of 1)

E

LE

V A

T

IO

N A

N D

C O

O R

D

IN

A T

E S

S H

A

LL

B E

C O

N S

ID

E

R E

D A

P P

R O

X

IM

A T

E . B

O R

IN

G

R E

C O

R D

IS

IN

V A

LI

D

W

IT

H O

U T

A C

C O

M P

A N

Y

IN

G N

O T

E S

IN

T

H E

G E

O T

E C

H N

IC

A

L R

E P

O R

T O

R S

H O

W N

O N

T H

E P

LA

N

S

Easting (ft):

Latitude: 37.49744 Longitude: -77.46380

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc. 2712 Southern Boulevard, Suite 101 Virginia Beach, VA 23452 757-463-3200 www.geronline.com

T E

S T

B O

R

IN

G R

E C

O R

D

1.

G P

J G

E R

.G D

T

/9 /1

LABORATORY TEST DATA

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TESTING

The enclosed laboratory results represent the subsurface soil properties encountered at the specific boring locations based on the laboratory testing performed. It is possible that soil properties and conditions between the individual boring locations and depths will be different from those indicated.

Tests performed in accordance with applicable ASTM Standards.

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SUMMARY

Project: Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, McGuire VAMC

GER Project Number: 110-7261

Number: 7199-110 Date: 07/26/17

SAMPLE

NUMBER

DEPTH

(FEET)

SAMPLE

TYPE

USCS

CLASS.

SYMBOL

MOISTURE

CONTENT

FINES

LL PL PI

OTHER

TESTS

GB-1 3 SS CL 12.4 60.2 26 13 13 SIEVE

GB-1 9 SS CL 19.4 - 48 20 28 -

GB-1 19 SS SP-SM 8.7 10.9 - - - SIEVE

GB-2 3 SS CL-ML 11.9 55.6 - - - SIEVE

GB-2 9 SS CL 11.9 63.4 25 15 10 -

GB-2 14 SS CH 27.1 - 66 29 37 -

GB-3 3 SS CL 10.4 62.0 30 15 15 -

GB-3 7 SS SC 15.4 49.2 - - - SIEVE

GB-3 19 SS CL 34.5 - 46 24 22 -

etc.

Tested By: Karen Perry Checked By: Deborah Cacace

ENGINEERING AND TESTING CONSULTANTS, INC.

Virginia Beach, VA

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

GeoEnvironmental Resources, Inc.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, McGuire VAMC

Richmond, VA

110-7261/7199-110 1

SOURCE

NATURAL

USCS

SAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY

NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX

SOIL DATA

P L

A S

T

IC

IT

Y

I N

D E

X

LIQUID LIMIT

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

CL-ML

CL o r O

L

CH o r O

H

ML or OL MH or OH

Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

Richmond GB-1 3 feet 12.4 13 26 13 CL

Richmond GB-1 9 feet 19.4 20 48 28 CL

Richmond GB-2 9 feet 11.9 15 25 10 CL

Richmond GB-2 14 feet 27.1 29 66 37 CH

Richmond GB-3 3 feet 10.4 15 30 15 CL

Richmond GB-3 19 feet 34.5 24 46 22 CL

Project Name:

GER Project Number:

Project Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth: 3 feet Sample Description: Sandy CLAY (CL), Dark Tan, Gray and Orange, with Silt, Trace Fine Gravel and Brick Fragments Test Method: ASTM D 422

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

97.9 95.7 93.8 88.0 78.5 69.6 60.2200

3/8 Inch

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, McGuire VAMC

7199-110

GB-1

PERCENT

Sieve Analysis Data

SIEVE

110-7261

1/2 Inch

2 Inch

3/4 Inch

SIEVE ANALYSIS

1 1/2 Inch

PASSING

1 Inch

NO.

Richmond, VA

0.0000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

P er ce n t F in er b y

W ei g h t

Grain Size (mm)

Clay

Medium

Silt

FineCoFineCoarse

GRAVEL SAND

Project Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth: 19 feet Sample Description: SAND (SP-SM), Tan-Orange, Fine to Coarse, with Silt, with Fine Gravel Test Method: ASTM D 422

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

74.1 72.2 57.1 46.0 35.5 26.5 21.2 16.0 10.9200

3/8 Inch

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, McGuire VAMC

7199-110

GB-1

PERCENT

Sieve Analysis Data

SIEVE

110-7261

1/2 Inch

2 Inch

3/4 Inch

SIEVE ANALYSIS

1 1/2 Inch

PASSING

1 Inch

NO.

Richmond, VA

0.0000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

P er ce n t F in er b y

W ei g h t

Grain Size (mm)

Clay

Medium

Silt

Project Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth: 3 feet Sample Description: Sandy, Silty CLAY (CL-ML), Tan and Orange, Trace Fine Gravel Test Method: ASTM D 422

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

98.5 97.4 95.2 88.0 76.4 65.8 55.6200

3/8 Inch

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, McGuire VAMC

7199-110

GB-2

PERCENT

Sieve Analysis Data

SIEVE

110-7261

1/2 Inch

2 Inch

3/4 Inch

SIEVE ANALYSIS

1 1/2 Inch

PASSING

1 Inch

NO.

Richmond, VA

0.0000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

P er ce n t F in er b y

W ei g h t

Grain Size (mm)

Clay

Medium

Silt

Project Number:

Sample Number:

Sample Depth: 7 feet Sample Description: Clayey SAND (SC), Gray and Dark Tan, Fine to Coarse, with Silt, with Fine Gravel and Brick Fragments Test Method: ASTM D 422

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

95.0 95.0 87.2 84.5 81.5 74.8 65.3 57.3 49.2200

3/8 Inch

Engineering and Testing Consultants, Inc.

Upgrade Generator Capacity Project, McGuire VAMC

7199-110

GB-3

PERCENT

Sieve Analysis Data

SIEVE

110-7261

1/2 Inch

2 Inch

3/4 Inch

SIEVE ANALYSIS

1 1/2 Inch

PASSING

1 Inch

NO.

Richmond, VA

0.0000.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000

P er ce n t F in er b y

W ei g h t

Grain Size (mm)

Clay

Medium

Silt

CALCULATIONS

APPENDIX D

PROJECT: VAMC Generators FOOTING CASE: Rectangular Equipment Pad

PROJECT#: 110-7261 BEARING CONDITION: Clay Profile

ENGINEER: CFC TEST LOCATION: GB-1

DATE: 8/4/2017

Average NSPT Below Footing: 10

Friction Angle in Sand…