Attachment 5 - For Information Only - Geotechnical Investigation for Judicial Trail.pdf

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

AND GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

JUDICIAL DRIVE TRIAL

CITY OG FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA

August 26, 2023

PREPARED FOR:

Public Works Department, City of Fairfax Suite #201, 10455 Armstrong Street

Fairfax, VA 22030-3630

PREPARED BY:

PROFESSIONAL DESING GROUP, INC.

4124 Walney Road, Suite M Chantilly, Va. 20151 in Collaboration With

GEO DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.

14301 Sullyfield Circle, Suite I

Chantilly, Virginia 20151

Mohamad Abu-Kassem, P.E., Principal Hamid Matin, PE, Principal Email: mak@geodesigneng.com Email: h.matin@pdg-eng.com Phone: 703-817-0299 Phone: 703-378-2101 hamid.matin HM Stamp hamid.matin Typewritten Text 09/01/2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Proposal and Project Authorization

1.2 Project Location and Description

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work

1.4 Subsurface Exploration

1.5 Laboratory Testing

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Description

2.2 Geology

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork

3.2 Groundwater

3.3 Demolition of Existing Structures

3.4 Excavations

3.5 Foundations

3.5.2 Helical Piles

3.5.3 Anticipated Settlements

3.6 Trail Pavement

4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Construction Quality Control

4.2 Responsibility of Developer

4.3 Other Requirements

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

City of Fairfax August 26, 2023 Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056 Project: Geotechnical Study- Judicial Drive Trail-Fairfax

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Proposal and Project Authorization

This geotechnical study was planned and performed in accordance with the scope of services stated in the PDG proposal dated July 25, 2023. The client, Mr. Sunny Sarna PE, authorized the study on July 27, 2023.

1.2 Project Location and Description

Judicial Trail Drive Fairlawn Drive is located/planned along the north side of the parking lot of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in the City of Fairfax, Virginia. The Presbyterian Church is located at 10723 Main Street served. The site location is indicated on the Vicinity Map in Appendix A.

The site is currently an embankment of Accotink Creek with a seasonal creek running in west to east direction, occupied with trees and underbrush. The trail will extend approximately 500 feet parallel to the Church parking lot until it connects with the existing trail located northeast of the eastern end of the Church parking lot.

The client provided PDG/PDG/GDE with a site grading plan showing the current site topography as well as the planned grades along the trail. The site plan dated January 20, 2023, was prepared by Timmons Group, the project civil engineer. A pedestrian bridge is planned along the first 70 feet of the trail, starting from the trail intersection with Presbyterian Way on the west side of the trail and extending approximately five hundred feet parallel to the existing Church parking lot.

It should be noted that an existing sanitary line runs along the north side of the trail, and it is in the immediate vicinity of the planned trail. Based on the information provided on the site plans and our interpolation of the invert elevations of the sanitary line, we have concluded that the invert elevation of the sanitary line at the west end of the trail/bridge is located about 17 feet below the existing surface elevation, and at about 10 feet below the existing surface grade at the eastern end of the bridge.

The bridge will be a prefabricated steel truss, Continental Pedestrian Bridge, by Contech Engineered Solutions or approved equivalents. The bridge deck will be supported on steel beams. PDG/GDE will provide the foundation design for the bridge abutment under a separate cover.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

If any noted information is incorrect or has changed, please inform PDG/GDE so we can review the geotechnical data and amend the recommendations presented in this report if necessary.

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Work

The purpose of our study is to develop design and construction recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development in accordance with The City of Fairfax requirements. This study's scope of service consisted generally of the following:

1. Review available geologic information at or in the vicinity of the site.

2. Develop data relative to subsurface soil/rock and groundwater conditions to appropriate depths at selected locations on the site.

3. Address potential construction issues, if any, such as the presence of highly plastic soils, ground/perched water and rock conditions, uncontrolled fill, etc.

4. Evaluate the soil conditions along the trail and provide recommendations for the placement and compaction of controlled fill.

5. Provide recommendations for the design of the trail pavement.

6. Evaluate the conditions encountered and provide recommendations for the design and construction of the bridge foundations.

The scope of services for this study did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, groundwater, or air on or below or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odors, colors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions are strictly for our client's information.

1.4 Subsurface Exploration

PDG/GDE engineers were planning to perform two test borings, B-1 & B-2, at the western and eastern ends of the planned bridge in accordance with our proposal to The City of Fairfax. Our proposal was presented to The City of Fairfax to provide recommendations for the design and construction of the bridge foundations only and designing the bridge foundations. However, The City of Fairfax requested later that PDG/GDE provide an evaluation of the existing soil conditions along the remainder of the trail and recommendations for the construction of the trail and the trail pavement.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

Therefore, PDG/GDE performed three (3) additional test borings, B-3, B-4 & B-5, at selected locations along the trail. The five test boring locations are shown in "The Test Boring Location Plan" in Appendix B.

The test borings were advanced by PDG/GDE engineers utilizing hand augers. Test boring B-1 was extended to refusal at a depth of 9.25 feet below the existing surface grade. Test boring B-2 was extended to 12 feet below the existing surface grade, where it was terminated without encountering refusal. Test borings B-3, B-4 & B-5 were extended to

4.5 feet below the existing surface grades.

PDG/GDE engineers conducted Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing was conducted at different elevations/depths within the test borings. DCP blow counts were recorded as the number of blows for each 1.75 inches of penetration.

PDG/GDE selected the test boring locations based on the planned construction and site reconnaissance and marked the locations in the field by measuring distances from the existing street, intersections, and surrounding features. The surface elevations at the test boring locations were estimated from the grading plan. Therefore, the test boring locations and their elevations are accurate to the degree implied by the methods used.

Subsurface explorations and soil sampling were conducted in accordance with the procedures generally recognized and accepted as standard methods of exploration of subsurface conditions related to earthwork and foundation engineering projects. Soil Exploration Records (test boring logs) at the test locations are included in Appendix C.

Selected representative soil samples were obtained from the test borings at the depths noted.

The soil samples were placed into moisture-tight plastic bags and were delivered to our laboratory for further analysis. Information pertaining to sample depths and classifications is included in the test boring logs in Appendix C.

1.5 Laboratory Testing

PDG/GDE geotechnical engineer visually classified the soil samples in the laboratory.

Tests for Atterberg limits, grain-size distribution, and moisture content were conducted on two representative samples. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix D.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Description

As stated before, the site is located along a drainage divide on the northern side of the existing parking lot of Fairfax Presbyterian Church in the City of Fairfax, Virginia. The site is occupied by small to established trees and underbrush.

2.2 Geology

The site is geologically located in the Appalachian Piedmont Physiographic Province. A study of the area geology from the available literature (Geologic Map of the Washington West 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC, 2017) and field observation shows that the site is underlain by the Old Mill Branch Metasiltstone Member of the Popes Head Formation of the Ordovician and Cambrian age.

The soils of this formation are described as light greenish gray, thin- to medium-bedded, medium- to very fine-grained, very mature, micaceous metasiltstone. The metasiltstone contains interbedded pelitic phyllite as well as felsic and mafic metatuff. This formation has been interpreted as derived from weak turbidity flows during the filling of a back-arc basin. These rocks are at biotite grade and have experienced only one metamorphic event.

The typical mineral assemblage of the rocks of the Popes Head Formation is quartz-muscovite-biotite-plagioclase-chlorite.

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

PDG/GDE engineers encountered man-made fill at test boring locations B-1 & B-2, extending to 4.75 feet and 2 feet below the existing surface grades, respectively. Four to five inches (4-5 in) of topsoil were encountered at the other three test boring locations.

Naturally occurring residual soils of the Old Mill Branch metasiltstone were encountered below the topsoil or man-made fill at all the test boring locations extending to the boring termination/refusal depths.

The man-made fill was described and classified as brown, light brown & gray sandy silt with occasional gravel and poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (USCS Classification:

ML & GM) with various percentages of mica. The fill soils & gravel were generally moist.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing within the man-made fill recorded blow counts ranging from 5 blows to 14 blows per 1.75 inches of penetration. Based on our observations of the fill and the erratic nature of the DCP blow counts, the fill is considered "uncontrolled."

The naturally residual soils were described as various shades of brown, gray, and white.

They were classified as silt with sand, sandy silt, and silty sand with various percentages of mica and occasional quartz gravel (USCS Classification: ML & SM). The soils were generally moist.

The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing within these soils recorded blow counts ranging from 4 blows per 1.75 inches of penetration to 48 blows with one inch (1 inch) of penetration. The soil exploration records are provided in Appendix C.

The description of subsurface conditions presented above is of a generalized nature, provided to highlight major soil strata encountered. The records of soil exploration included in Appendix C should be reviewed for specific information regarding conditions at the test boring locations. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual test boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected in other areas on the site. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between the subsurface materials, and the actual transition may be gradual.

2.4 Groundwater Observations

As indicated on the boring logs in Appendix C, all the borings were found dry during and at the completion of the field operations. The test borings were backfilled upon completion for safety reasons and, therefore 24-hour groundwater reading was not recorded.

It should be noted that the groundwater conditions presented in this report are based on the observations made at the time of our field activities. Fluctuations in groundwater levels are possible seasonally, especially in response to changes in precipitation. We recommend that the Contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of construction to evaluate groundwater impact on the proposed construction procedures.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork

The construction areas along the trail should be stripped of trees, vegetation topsoil, and any other unsuitable material. Following stripping operations, the subgrade(s) should be observed and evaluated by PDG/GDE engineers. Some soft/loose soils are present at localized areas along the trail and should be removed as directed by the PDG/GDE engineer or his/her qualified representative. The excavated soils should be replaced with approved controlled fill.

Controlled fill placement should extend laterally beyond the structure footprint a minimum distance of 2 feet at subgrade elevation or depth of fill, whichever is greater. If borrow soils from offsite sources are needed, PDG/GDE recommends importing granular soils classified as SM, SC, SP, SW, GP, GW, GM, & GC. On-site soils classified as silty sand (SM) are suitable for use as controlled fill subject to moisture adjustment at the time of construction. On-site soils, as well as borrow soils classified as silt and lean clay (ML & CL), can be used as controlled fill and backfill, provided that these soils are subject to the following restrictions:

Liquid Limit < 40 Plasticity Index < 15

Silts and clays (ML & CL) that do not meet the above conditions may be considered expansive soils. Generally, expansive soils, as stated in the International Building Code (IRC 2018 or later versions), could not be used as controlled fill. These soils are defined as soils meeting all four of the following provisions:

1. Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or greater as determined in accordance with ASTM D- 4318.

2. More than 10 percent of the soil particles pass a No. 200 sieve, determined in accordance with ASTM D-422.

3. More than 10 percent of the soil particles are less than 5 micrometers in size, determined in accordance with ASTM D-422.

4. Expansion index greater than 20 as determined in accordance with ASTM D-4829.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

Soil tests to show compliance with Items 1, 2 & 3 shall not be required if the test prescribed in item 4 is conducted. However, a corrected plasticity index (PI corrected) and corrected Expansion Index (EI corrected) can be used to substitute plasticity index (PI) and expansion index (EI) in the above requirements when the liquid limit and plasticity index (LL & PI) of the soils do not exceed 45 and 20, respectively. The corrected PI and corrected EI indices can be calculated as follows:

Plasticity Index Corrected

PIcor = PI x (% passing No. 40 sieve)/100

Expansion Index Corrected

EIcor = EI x (% passing No. 40 sieve)/100

All controlled fill soils should be free from topsoil, organics, and other unsuitable materials and should not contain rock fragments greater than 4 inches in their greatest dimension.

Controlled fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts of a maximum of 8 inches thick and compacted uniformly with proper equipment. Controlled fill should be compacted to at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the maximum dry density as established by ASTM D- 698, AASHTO T-99, or VTM-1 test methods. Moisture content of the fill soils should be maintained within plus or minus two (±2) percentage points of the optimum moisture content to facilitate efficient compaction.

An engineering technician working under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer should observe site preparation and earthwork and test the controlled fill compaction for bridge and trail construction.

3.2 Groundwater

Based on the amounts of cuts & fills along the trail and the depth of excavation anticipated, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered. Perched water, however, may be encountered in construction excavations especially if construction occurs during wet seasons or following prolonged periods of heavy precipitation, especially in areas in the east where maximum cuts are needed. It should be noted that groundwater table and/or perched water elevations fluctuate during the seasons.

It is our professional opinion that if perched water is encountered, conventional dewatering measures such as diversion ditches, interceptor drains, sump pits, and pumping will be adequate for controlling it, considering the limited depth of the basement excavation.

It should be noted, however, that the discussion here extends to the trail beyond the bridge area. The possibility of encountering groundwater/perched water during the construction

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056 of the bridge foundation is discussed later in the report under the foundation recommendations.

3.3 Demolition of Existing Structures

All existing structures, if any, including footings, slabs, basement walls, driveway, and utilities, should be removed from the planned construction areas, including 5-foot offsets.

All soils undercut below the planned grades should be replaced with controlled fill.

Any water well(s) should be abandoned and sealed as per the City of Fairfax and State Health Department regulations. The demolition of existing walls and other structures should be carried out under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

3.4 Excavations

Typical earth excavation and moving equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and excavators are sufficient to perform the required excavations.

Temporary excavations for basement and utilities should be made with 1H:1V or flatter side slopes in accordance with applicable local and OSHA excavation standards detailed in 29 CFR, Part 1926, and should be adequately protected against sudden cave-in or sloughing by using steel trench boxes or other measures. The project contractor is responsible for worker safety in and around excavations.

3.5 Foundations

In a perfect world, a pedestrian bridge would be supported on shallow foundations, and considering the soil conditions on this site, this would have been the case, except there is the issue of the sanitary line. The sanitary line runs parallel to the trail, and it is in the immediate vicinity of the trail with inverts that are as deep as 17 feet below the existing surface grade at the western end of the bridge and about 9 feet below the existing surface grade at the eastern end of the bridge.

Considering that the utility lines can be excavated in the future for various reasons, such as repairs or replacement, the bridge foundations have to be constructed and supported at an elevation at least 5 feet below the sanitary line invert elevation/depth. Therefore, GDE recommends that the bridge foundations be designed as drilled piers. Therefore, the caissons should be supported on minimum depths of approximately 23 feet at the bridge's western end and approximately 14 feet at the eastern end.

3.5.1 Drilled Pier Foundation System (Caissons)

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

Typically, drilled piers or caissons are designed so that the designer can use the end bearing of the caisson along with the shaft friction. However, considering that the soils can be excavated around the caissons if the sanitary line is excavated, the shaft friction will be ignored, and the design of the caissons should be based on end bearing only.

Even though GDE could not extend the test borings sufficiently to the anticipated depth of the caissons since they were advanced utilizing hand augers, PDG/GDE analysis of the encountered soils and DCP blow counts recorded, and their general knowledge of the site geology, and the anticipated depths of the caissons, PDG/GDE recommends that the caissons be designed based on maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 5,000 psf.

The caissons should have a minimum diameter of 36 inches. Based on the encountered soils that generally consist of cohesionless soils, casing would be needed to prevent the collapse of the sides into the caisson hole. Groundwater/perched water may be encountered, and drainage measures should be provided during caisson drilling and construction. Instead of casing, slurry can be used during this process. However, it is PDG/GDE professional opinion that the use of casing would be the better option in this case, which can more effectively control groundwater flow into the caisson hole.

Generally, while pouring the caisson concrete, the concrete should not be allowed to fall greater than 5 feet in order to avoid the separation of concrete elements. The casing can be pulled out of the hole as concrete is being poured, always keeping in mind to have the casing bottom lower a minimum of 3 feet than the top of the concrete in the caisson hole to avoid collapse of the soils into the hole. The concrete should be vibrated during the pour to prevent the formation of voids within the concrete.

It should be noted that PDG/GDE will provide the caisson designs along with the bridge abutments under separate cover.

3.5.2 Helical Piles

The City of Fairfax asked PDG/GDE to look into the possibility of supporting the bridge on helical piles. PDG/GDE does not recommend this option for the following three main reasons:

The first reason is the danger of buckling in the slender helical piles. If the sanitary line is excavated at any time in the future, it will strip the helical piles of the lateral support provided by the soils surrounding the piles and make it subject to possible buckling.

The second reason is that helical piles would loose its loading capacity if soils are excavated in the immediate vicinity of the pile.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

The third reason is that based on the recorded DCP blow counts, there is no guarantee that the helical piles can be driven to the required bearing depth of 5 feet below the invert elevations/depths of the sanitary line. It may require significant torque to drive to the required depths that the pile may encounter refusal or be broken before it can reach the required depths.

Therefore, PDG/GDE does not recommend the use of helical piles for the purpose of supporting the bridge.

3.5.3 Anticipated Settlements

We estimate that the caissons designed on the basis of recommended allowable end bearing pressures will experience a total settlement of less than 1 inch with differential settlement limited to ½-inch maximum.

3.6 Trail Pavement

The trail pavement for this project should be constructed on suitable bearing subgrade soils consisting of existing naturally occurring residual soils or approved controlled fill. The pavement should not be directly supported on fat clay/elastic silt (CH/MH) and/or on silts and clays with LL>40 or PI>20. If these soils are encountered at or below the subgrade elevation of the trial pavement, they should be removed to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the pavement subgrade and replaced with controlled fill approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.

It should be noted that soft/loose soils and man-made uncontrolled fill may be encountered in localized areas during the trail construction. If such soils are encountered, they should be excavated as directed by the PDG/GDE engineer or his/her qualified representative and replaced with approved controlled fill.

Considering that the trail is planned for pedestrian and light bike traffic, PDG/GDE recommends the trail pavement consist of the following:

VDOT SM-9.5A asphalt = 1.5 inch VDOT 21-A subbase = 4 inches

The VDOT 21A subbase should be placed and compacted to at least ninety-five percent (95%) of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-698, AASHTO T-99 or VTM-1 test methods as stated earlier in the report under Section 3.1 of this report.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Construction Quality Control

In order to evaluate in-situ soil conditions observed during this study and those developed during the construction stage versus the design plans and specifications, the following construction items should be observed/tested by a certified soil technician working under the supervision of the Geotechnical Engineer:

1. Controlled-fill placement and compaction

2. Caisson drilling and construction, including depth, diameter, and reinforcement

3. Construction of the abutments, including reinforcement

4. Concrete monitoring and testing for the caissons and abutments

5. Construction of the trial pavement, including subbase and asphalt

6. Other inspections/testing as required

4.2 Responsibility of Developer

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

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

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. PDG/GDE does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's or other parties' compliance with local, state, and federal safety or other regulations.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

4.3 Other Requirements

1. All construction activities, including the foundations and bridge elements, should be performed under the full-time observation of the Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

2. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record should furnish a written opinion to the City of Fairfax as to whether or not the work has been performed in accordance with the approved plans and his recommendations.

3. A copy of approved shop drawings and specifications should be provided to The Geotechnical Engineer of Record before any field inspection.

Attn.: Mr. Sunny Sarna PDG/GDE Project No: E23056

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The City of Fairfax, its other consultants, and contractors for the specific application to the project as described herein as Judicial Drive Trail in Fairfax, Virginia.

The recommendations submitted are based on the available subsurface information obtained by PDG/GDE and details concerning the proposed construction provided by the client. After the project plans and specifications are finalized, PDG/GDE should be retained and provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specifications to evaluate that our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into the project documents. If there are any revisions to the proposed construction for this project or if deviations from the subsurface conditions described in this report are encountered during construction, we should be notified immediately to determine if changes in our geotechnical engineering recommendations are required. If PDG/GDE is not retained to perform these functions, we will not be responsible for the impact of any change of conditions on the geotechnical recommendations for the project.

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

APPENDIX A

SITE VICINITY MAP

SITE VICINITY MAP

Judicial Drive Trail

Fairfax, Virginia GDE Project No.: E23056

Geo Design & Engineering, Inc.

GDE Knowledge is our Foundation

14301 Sullyfield Circle, Suite I Chantilly, Virginia 20151

Ph: 703-817-0299

N

Judicial Drive Trail

APPENDIX B

TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN

395D

D

D

E

S

S

S

S

In P l.

En d Se ct io n

" R C

P

IN

V=

2.

" R

CP

In P l.

G

TI

TO

P=

0.

T O

P

BO

X=

.5

"R C

P

IN

V.

O

U T=

7.

In P l.

D

I

TO

P=

3.

8" R

C P

IN

V.

O U

T=

8.

In P l.

H ea dw al l

TO

P=

4.

8"

R C

P

IN

V=

1.

In P l.

H ea dw al l

TO

P=

8.

" R C

P

IN

V=

5.

In Pl. Headwall

TOP=388.70

12" CMP INV=386.44

In P l.

D

I

TO

P=

3.

" R

C P

IN

V.

O U

T=

9.

8" R

C P

In P l.

D

I

TO

P=

3.

"C

M P

IN

V.

O U

T=

9.

8" P

VC

IN

V=

5.

8" P

VC

IN

V=

3.

8" P

VC

IN

V=

6.

8" P

VC

IN

V=

4.

GRAVEL

SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN

8'' SAN 8'' SAN

" R

C P

" C

M P

In Pl. SSWR MH

TOP=389.04

8"INV.IN=372.99(A)

27" INV.IN=372.14(B)

27" INV.OUT=372.09

SANSAN

8''

SAN

8''

SAN

(A

(B)

In P l.

SS

W R

M H

TO

P=

8.

IN

V.

O

U T=

4.

(F

U

LL

O F

D

EB

R

IS

In P l.

SS

W R

M H

TO

P=

0.

" I N

V.

O

U T=

8.

" I N

V.

O

U T=

8.

EL

EC

. M H

C

LE

AN

O

U T

(T

YP

EDGE OF PAVEMENT (TYP)

In P l.

SS

W R

M H

TO

P=

8.

RIP RAP

' S

TR

EE

T D

B.

PA

G

E

N/F CITY OF FAIRFAX

DB. 7158, PG. 115

PCL. ID. #57-1-29-B-001-A

NATIONAL CAPITAL PRESBYTERY, INC.

DB. 1228, PG. 486; DB.9373, PG. 400

PCL. ID. #57-1-02-123

5.239 Ac.

N/F HTA-FAIRFAX MEDICAL CENTER, LLC

C/O HEALTHCARE TRUST OF AMERICA, INC

DB. 9685, PG. 685

PCL. ID. #57-1-02-124

3.473 Ac.

N/F 10701 MAIN STREET LLC

DB. 2327, PG. 31

PCL. ID. #57-1-02-122

2.536 Ac.

NATIONAL CAPITAL PRESBYTERY, INC.

DB. 1968, PG.1641

PCL. ID. #57-1-02-122A

3.023 Ac.

N/F CITY OF FAIRFAX

DB. 19267, PG. 102

PCL. ID. #57-1-20-000A5

0.792 Ac.

N/F CITY OF FAIRFAX

DB. 22078, PG. 37

PCL. ID. #57-1-20-000A3

2.175 Ac.

N

AT

IO

N

AL

C

AP

IT

AL

P

R

ES

BY

TE

R Y, IN

C

D

B.

8, P G

. 4

D

B.

, P

G . 4

ID

-1 -0

2-

5.

Ac

APPROX. CL OF

ACCOTINK CREEK

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

PLPLPL

PL

PL

PL

PL

RPARPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA

RPA RPA

RPA

RPA

RESOURCE

PROTECTION AREA

RESOURCE

PROTECTION AREA

RESOURCE

PROTECTION AREA

PL

UTILITY OWNER INFORMATION

CITY OF FAIRFAX SANITARY SEWER

SATOSHI ETO - PROGRAM MANAGER, DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS

10455 ARMSTRONG STREET

FAIRFAX, VA 22030

C

IT

Y O

F

FA

IR

FA

X "L

O

VE

'S O

U

TL

ET

' C

IT

Y

R

IG

H T

O F

W

AY

x x

PROP. PERM.

TRAIL EASEMENT

FOR PUBLIC USE

NA

D

SCALE 1"=25'

50'25'

5 380 38038

2 382

379 37 9 380 377

12" H D

PE

3-1

3-2

SAFSAF

SAF

SA

F

SAF

SAF

SA

F

SF-BSF-B SF-B SF-B

SF-B

SAF

SAF

CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN SAFETY FENCE

AROUND STAIRS AND RAMP UNTIL

WORK TAKES PLACE IN THIS AREA. SAFETY

FENCE SHALL BE REPLACED ONCE WORK

IN THIS AREA IS COMPLETE.

NOTE: PERMANENT SEEDING SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL

DISTURBED AREAS ONCE FINAL GRADE IS REACHED. CONTRACTOR

SHALL IMPORT AND INSTALL TOPSOIL, SEEDING, FERTILIZER, AND

ANY OTHER MATERIAL REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH GRASS.

NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE EXIST. GRAVEL TRAIL TO THE

EAST OF THE PROJECT LIMITS AS THE PRIMARY SITE ACCESS

POINT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT AN ACCESS PLAN WITH

APPROPRIATE WORK AREA SIGNAGE ON JUDICIAL DR. FOR

APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE

RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE RESTORATION OF ALL PARTS OF

THE TRAIL THAT ARE USED FOR ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION,

INCLUDING ANY AREAS ON THE ADJACENT CITY PARCELS THAT

ARE UTILIZED FOR STOCKPILE PURPOSES.

LOD LOD

LOD

SAFSAF

SF-B

TEMPORARY SAFETY FENCE,

VESCH ST'D. 3.01

TEMPORARY SILT FENCE,

VDOT ST'D. EC-5, TYPE B

EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL LEGEND

LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE

NOTE: CITY OF FAIRFAX STANDARD TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE

PROVIDED AROUND THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TO PROTECT

EXIST. TREES FROM DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. ANY TREE

THAT IS DAMAGED SHALL UNDERGO CITY OF FAIRFAX STANDARD

TREE SURGERY AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.

SF-B

SAF

SF-B

CIP

OP

CIP CULVERT INLET PROTECTION

VDOT ST'D. EC-6 TY. C

OP OUTLET PROTECTION

VDOT ST'D. EC-1

BP EP

JOB NO.

SHEET NO.

SCALE

DESIGNED BY

CHECKED BY

D A

TE

DRAWN BY

DATE

R

EV

IS

IO

N D

ES

C R

IP

TI

O

N

Th es e pl an s an d as so ci at ed d oc um en ts a re th e ex cl us iv e pr op er ty o f T

IM

M O

N S

G R

O U

P an d m ay n ot b e re pr od uc ed in w ho le o r i n pa rt an d sh al l n ot b e us ed fo r a ny p ur po se w ha ts oe ve r, in cl us iv e, b ut n ot lim ite d to c on st ru ct io n, b id di ng

, a nd

/o r c on st ru ct io n st ak in g w ith ou t t he e xp re ss w rit te n co ns en t o f T

IM

M

O N

S G

R O

U P.

L:

\2

\4

-F ai rfa x_

O n-

C al l\0

-2

-J ud ic ia lD r_

Tr ai l\D W

G \S he et

\C D

\4

.0

-2

C

-0 2C

.d w g | P lo tte d on

/2

0/

:4

AM

by Ia n H og an

YO

UR

V

IS

IO

N

AC

HI

EV

ED

T

HR

OU

GH

O

UR

S.

Si te

D ev el op m en t R es id en tia l I nf ra st ru ct ur e

T ec hn ol og y

B ou ld er s Pa rk wa y, S ui te

R ich m on d, V A

TE

L

4.

0.

F

AX

.5

.1 w w w .ti m m on s.

co m

TH

IS

D

RA

W

IN

G

PR

EP

AR

ED

A

T

TH

E

CO

RP

O

RA

TE

O

FF

IC

E

Lic. No. 055782

NICHOLAS JOSEPH SOUCIE

1/20/2023

02C

ER

O

S

IO

N A

N D

S

ED

IM

EN

T C O

N

TR

O L

PL

A N

IJH

IJH

NJS

N.T.S.

1/20/2023

JU

D

IC

IA

L D

R

IV

E

TR

A

IL

C

IT

Y O

F

FA

IR

FA

X

V

IR

G

IN

IA

41013.006

B-1 Test Boring Location

B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5

LEGEND

TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN

http://www.timmons.com mabukassem New Stamp mabukassem New Stamp mabukassem New Stamp mabukassem New Stamp mabukassem New Stamp mabukassem New Stamp

APPENDIX C

SOIL EXPLORATION RECORDS (TEST BORING LOGS)

2.5

7.5

12.5

382.5

377.5

FILL-GM

FILL-ML

ML

Man-Made Fill Brown & gray gravel with silt and sand (GM), with mica - moist

- Top 4 inches classified as topsoil

- DCP @ 2 feet Man-Made Fill

- brown sandy silt (ML) with gravel & mica - moist

- Light brown & gray silt (ML) with sand & mica -moist

- Brown sandy silt (ML) with gravel & mica - moist

- DCP @ 4 feet

Natural Brown, olive brown, yelllowish brown, bluish gray & white sandy silt (ML) with mica - moist

- DCP @ 6 feet

- DCP @ 8 feet

- DCP @ 9 feet Auger refusal at 9.25 feet. Boring terminated and backfilled

14/1.75"

5/1.75"

9/1.75"

38/1.75"

48/1.0"

36.2

Geo Design & Engineering, Inc.

HAND AUGER LOG

HAND AUGER NO.: B-1

PROJECT

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

PROJECT NO.

E23056

CLIENT

PDG

DATE

8-22-2023

LOCATION

see Test Boring Location Plan

ELEV.

EXCAVATION METHOD

Hand Auger

LOGGED BY:

M. Abu-Kassem, PE

DEPTH TO WATER:

Dry

Notes:

Elevation/

DEPTH

GRAPHIC

SOIL SYMBOLS

AND SAMPLERS

B U

L K

USCS

DESCRIPTION

D C

P b lo w

C o u n t p e r

.7 p e n e tr a ti o n MOISTURE

7.5

12.5

377.5

372.5

ML

4 inches of topsoil Brown, light brown, & white sandy silt (ML) with mica and occasional quartz gravel - moist

- DCP @ 2 feet

- with quartz gravel 2-3.5 ft

- DCP @ 4 feet

- DCP @ 6 feet

- With quartz gravel 6-8 feet

- DCP @ 8 feet

- DCP @ 9.5 feet

- DCP @ 10.5

Boring terminated at 12 feeet and backfilled

15/1.75"

16/1.75"

19/1.75"

24/1.75"

25/1.75"

33/1.75"

15.9

Geo Design & Engineering, Inc.

HAND AUGER LOG

HAND AUGER NO.: B-2

PROJECT

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

PROJECT NO.

E23056

CLIENT

PDG

DATE

8-22-2023

LOCATION

see Test Boring Location Plan

ELEV.

381.5

EXCAVATION METHOD

Hand Auger

LOGGED BY:

M. Abu-Kassem, PE

DEPTH TO WATER:

Dry

Notes:

Elevation/

DEPTH

GRAPHIC

SOIL SYMBOLS

AND SAMPLERS

B U

L K

USCS

DESCRIPTION

D C

P b lo w

C o u n t p e r

.7 p e n e tr a ti o

7.5

12.5

377.5

372.5

367.5

SM

ML

4 inches of topsoil Brown silty sand (SM) - noist

- DCP @ 1 foot

Brown & gray brown sandy silt (ML) - moist

- DCP @ 2 feet

- DCP 3 feet

- DCP @ 4 feet

Boring terminated at 4.5 feeet and backfilled

10/1.75"

12/1.75"

9/1.75"

7/1.75"

Geo Design & Engineering, Inc.

HAND AUGER LOG

HAND AUGER NO.: B-3

PROJECT

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

PROJECT NO.

E23056

CLIENT

PDG

DATE

8-22-2023

LOCATION

see Test Boring Location Plan

ELEV.

EXCAVATION METHOD

Hand Auger

LOGGED BY:

M. Abu-Kassem, PE

DEPTH TO WATER:

Dry

Notes:

Elevation/

DEPTH

GRAPHIC

SOIL SYMBOLS

AND SAMPLERS

B U

L K

USCS

DESCRIPTION

D C

P b lo w

C o u n t p e r

.7 p e n e tr a ti o

7.5

12.5

377.5

372.5

367.5

ML

5 inches of topsoil Brown, light brown & gray brown sandy silt (ML) -moist

- DCP @ 1 foot

- DCP @ 2 feet

- Brown, red brown & gray silt (ML) with sand & mica - moist

- DCP 3 feet

- DCP @ 4 feet

Boring terminated at 4.5 feeet and backfilled

4/1.75"

5/1.75"

4/1.75"

4/1.75"

Geo Design & Engineering, Inc.

HAND AUGER LOG

HAND AUGER NO.: B-4

PROJECT

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

PROJECT NO.

E23056

CLIENT

PDG

DATE

8-22-2023

LOCATION

see Test Boring Location Plan

ELEV.

379.5

EXCAVATION METHOD

Hand Auger

LOGGED BY:

M. Abu-Kassem, PE

DEPTH TO WATER:

Dry

Notes:

Elevation/

DEPTH

GRAPHIC

SOIL SYMBOLS

AND SAMPLERS

B U

L K

USCS

DESCRIPTION

D C

P b lo w

C o u n t p e r

.7 p e n e tr a ti o

7.5

12.5

377.5

372.5

367.5

FILL-ML

ML

Man-Made Fill Brown sandy silt (ML) with mica - moist

- DCP @ 1 foot

- DCP @ 2 feet Natural Brown & light brown sandy silt (ML) with mica -moist

- DCP 3 feet

- DCP @ 4 feet

Boring terminated at 4.5 feeet and backfilled

9/1.75"

13/1.75"

9/1.75"

11/1.75"

Geo Design & Engineering, Inc.

HAND AUGER LOG

HAND AUGER NO.: B-5

PROJECT

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

PROJECT NO.

E23056

CLIENT

PDG

DATE

8-22-2023

LOCATION

see Test Boring Location Plan

ELEV.

378.5

EXCAVATION METHOD

Hand Auger

LOGGED BY:

M. Abu-Kassem, PE

DEPTH TO WATER:

Dry

Notes:

Elevation/

DEPTH

GRAPHIC

SOIL SYMBOLS

AND SAMPLERS

B U

L K

USCS

DESCRIPTION

D C

P b lo w

C o u n t p e r

.7 p e n e tr a ti o

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

h e s e r e s u lt s a re f o r th e e x c lu s iv e u s e o f th e c lie n t fo r w h o m t h e y w e re o b ta in e d

T h e y a p p ly o n ly t o t h e s a m p le s t e s te d a n d a re n o t in d ic it iv e o f a p p a re n tl y i d e n ti c a l s a m p le s

Tested By: E. Bachlane Checked By: M. Abu-Kassem, P.E.

GEO DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.

Ashburn, VA

8-24-2023

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Brown & yellowish brown sandy silt

1.5 0.75 0.375

#4 #10 #40 #100 #200

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.9 91.7 78.9 69.9

NP 48 NP

0.3553 0.2342

ML A-5(3)

PDG

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

E23056

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 6.5 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.2 21.8 69.9 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report e s e r e s u lt s a re f o r th e e x c lu s iv e u s e o f th e c lie n t fo r w h o m t h e y w e re o b ta in e d

T h e y a p p ly o n ly t o t h e s a m p le s t e s te d a n d a re n o t in d ic it iv e o f a p p a re n tl y i d e n ti c a l s a m p le s

Tested By: E. Bachlane Checked By: M. Abu-Kassem, P.E.

GEO DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.

Ashburn, VA

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PDG

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

E23056

SYMBOL 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

C L o r O L

C H 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

B-1 6.5 36.2 NP 48 NP ML

e s e r e s u lt s a re f o r th e e x c lu s iv e u s e o f th e c lie n t fo r w h o m t h e y w e re o b ta in e d

T h e y a p p ly o n ly t o t h e s a m p le s t e s te d a n d a re n o t in d ic it iv e o f a p p a re n tl y i d e n ti c a l s a m p le s

Tested By: E. Bachlane Checked By: M. Abu-Kassem, P.E.

GEO DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.

Ashburn, VA

8-24-2023

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

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

USCS= AASHTO=

Light brown sandy silt

1.5 0.75 0.375

#4 #10 #40 #100 #200

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 91.4 65.3 51.9

NP 26 NP

0.3939 0.3157 0.1177

ML A-4(0)

PDG

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

E23056

Soil Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 3 Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" Coarse

% Gravel

Fine Coarse Medium

% Sand

Fine Silt

% Fines

Clay

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 6.5 39.5 51.9 i n i n i n

½ i n i n

¾ i n

½ i n

/8 i n

Particle Size Distribution Report e s e r e s u lt s a re f o r th e e x c lu s iv e u s e o f th e c lie n t fo r w h o m t h e y w e re o b ta in e d

T h e y a p p ly o n ly t o t h e s a m p le s t e s te d a n d a re n o t in d ic it iv e o f a p p a re n tl y i d e n ti c a l s a m p le s

Tested By: E. Bachlane Checked By: M. Abu-Kassem, P.E.

GEO DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC.

Ashburn, VA

Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure

PDG

Judicial Drive Trail Bridge , Fairfax

E23056

SYMBOL 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

C L o r O L

C H 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

B-2 3 15.9 NP 26 NP ML