Geotechnical Report.pdf

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 01-19

PROJECT: NP-GWMP MVT (5)

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

BRIDGE #23 & #24

GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY

FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division 21400 Ridgetop Circle

Sterling, VA 20166

January 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

1.2 Project Description

2 GEOLOGIC SETTING

2.1 Regional Geology

2.2 Soil Survey

3 PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

3.1 General

3.2 Sampling

3.3 Field Tests and Measurements

3.4 Data Summary

3.5 Laboratory Testing

3.6 Findings

4 DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 General

4.2 Scour

4.3 Bridge Loading

4.4 Foundation Type

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

6 DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

7 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Figures APPENDIX B – Borings Location Map and Subsurface Profile APPENDIX C – Boring Logs APPENDIX D – Laboratory Testing Results APPENDIX E – Representative Photographs

Note: Design changes made subsequent to distribution of this report and prior to project advertisement will be documented in a memo inserted after the title page.

SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS REPORT

NO. 01-19

PROJECT NP-GWMP MVT (5)

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

BRIDGE #23 & #24

GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY

FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration and design analyses and presents our evaluations and recommendations for the replacement of two pedestrian bridges on the Mount Vernon Trail. The project is located on the Mount Vernon Trail near the south end of Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve in Fairfax County, Virginia. The general site location is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A.

1.2 Project Description

The project consists of replacement of a 1,070-foot-long pedestrian/bicyclist bridge #23 and another 20-foot-long bridge #24 located at Mount Vernon Trail of GW Parkway, in Fairfax County, VA. The 12-foot-wide bridge deck will be replaced in kind to include a 14-foot-wide (clear width between rails) deck with pedestrian safe railing.

GEOLOGIC SETTING

1.3 Regional Geology

The site is located within the Potomac River wetlands, which consist of tidal fresh water marshes, swamps, and river floodplains. According to United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) “Geologic map of the National Parks in the National Capital region, Washington, D.C.; Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia.” (2006), the project area consists of unconsolidated alluvium – poorly sorted organic material, clay, sand, pebbles, and cobbles. Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A for the Geological Map of the project area.

1.4 Soil Survey

According to United States Department of Agriculture “Web Soil Survey of Fairfax County, Virginia” (Survey Area Data: Version 14, August 28, 2018), the surficial soils at the sites consists of Honga Peat and Mattapex Loam surrounding Bridge #23 and Woodstown Sandy Loam surrounding Bridge #24. The area surrounding Bridge #23 is poorly to moderately well drained. These soils are in the upland tidal marshes of the Atlantic Coastal Plains. Bridge #24 is surrounded by Woodstown Sandy Loam which is moderately well drained in a fluvio-marine depression of the Atlantic Coastal Plains.

Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix A for the Soil Survey Map of the project area.

Project: NP- GWMP MVT (5) George Washington Memorial Parkway Fairfax County, VA

Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation

Report No. 01-19

2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

1.5 General

The Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division’s (EFLHD) Subsurface Exploration Team performed the drilling operations for this project in March 2016. A total of four (4) soil borings were drilled at the sites. Borings B-1and B-3 were drilled in the proximity of the North and South ends of Bridge #23, and were extended to depths of 27 and 57 feet below existing site grades, respectively. A third boring (B-2) was drilled adjacent to the shoulder of the Parkway in proximity to the midpoint of Bridge #23. The fourth boring location was at the South End of Bridge #24. The borings were advanced to the termination depths using a CME 750, rotary, ATV-mounted drill rig. A Boring Location Plan and generalized Subsurface Profiles are attached in Appendix B.

1.6 Sampling

Borings were advanced to the termination depths using 3¾-inch (ID) hollow stem augers.

Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) was performed using a 2¼-inch (OD) split-spoon sampler in accordance with AASHTO T206. SPT soil samples were typically recovered at 2.5 and 5-foot intervals. Samples were obtained by driving the split-spoon sampler a distance of 24-inches, or until auger refusal, into the undisturbed soil under the impact of a 140-lb automatic hammer free-falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to advance the split-spoon sampler the middle foot of the 24-inch sample interval is designated as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value. The number of blows required to advance the sampler through each 6-in. interval was recorded on field boring logs.

Water levels, if present, were measured at the time of completion of each boring and prior to backfilling the borehole. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings upon completion of the drilling.

Representative portions of split-spoon samples were preserved in glass jars. All samples were later transported to EFLHD’s Materials Testing Laboratory in Sevierville, Tennessee for laboratory testing and storage.

The sampling sequence and associated jar samples for each boring are presented on its appropriate boring log in Appendix C.

1.7 Field Tests and Measurements

The EFLHD team performed the following field tests and took measurements during the course of the subsurface exploration. A field description by color and texture was made for each recovered sample. The relative consistency of each cohesive sample, if encountered, was estimated using a calibrated pocket Penetrometer. Boring locations were determined by measuring distances from features present on-site and by a hand held

Fairfax County, VA

Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation

Report No. 01-19

3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

GPS. Boring elevations were determined by extrapolation of topographic lines from surveyed site topographic maps provided by EFLHD’s Survey Section. The approximate locations of borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan in Appendix B.

1.8 Data Summary

The results of field tests and measurements were recorded on the driller’s logs and appropriate data sheet in the field. These data sheets and logs contain information concerning the boring methods, samples attempted and recovered, indications of the presence of various material such as gravel, pebbles, organic matter, other non-soil materials and observations of groundwater. They also contain interpretations by the exploration foreman of the subsurface conditions based on the performance of the equipment and cuttings brought to the surface by the drilling tools. Therefore, the field data represents both factual and interpretative information.

The boring logs in Appendix C of this report represent a compilation of field laboratory data and description of the soil samples by a geotechnical engineer. These records occasionally do not include all data recorded on driller’s logs and field data sheets, but do include all information considered relevant to the design and preparation of this report.

Groundwater level readings were made in the boreholes at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

1.9 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was conducted on representative soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration to aid in classification and evaluation of the engineering properties of subsurface soils. Laboratory tests included

• Particle size distribution (AASHTO T 11& T 27)

• Natural moisture content (AASHTO T 265)

• Atterberg limits (AASHTO T 89 & T 90)

The results of the laboratory testing are summarized in Table 1 below and presented in Appendix D.

Fairfax County, VA

Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation

Report No. 01-19

4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 1 – Summary of Soil Laboratory Test Results Boring

No.

Sample

No.

Sample Depth (feet)

Gravel

Sand

Fines

Plastic Limit Moisture Content

B-1 J-3 5-7 0 84.0 16.0 - 13.0

B-1 J-8 18-20 1.4 93.7 7.3 NP 13.5

B-2 J-9 20-22 5.0 78.8 16.2 - 16.2

B-2 J-16 55-57 0.2 86.2 13.6 NP 11.1

B-3 J-6 13-15 0 95.5 4.5 - 11.8

B-3 J-14 45-47 28.6 64.2 7.2 NP 15.7

B-4 J-3 5-7 3.9 92.7 3.4 - 16.6

B-4 J-15 50-52 0 37.6 7.8 NP 7.8

NP: non-plastic soil

1.10 Findings

Boring logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered in each boring are located in Appendix C. The Subsurface Profiles in Appendix B represents generalized subsurface profile illustrating the general soil conditions that may be anticipated at the bridge abutments. Descriptions of the soil conditions encountered during the subsurface exploration conducted at the site are presented below. The stratification lines designating the interfaces between soil types on the boring logs in Appendix C represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. It should be noted that one or more of the units may be absent at specific locations.

In general, the borings encountered Silty SAND and SAND within the termination depths. These materials are briefly described below:

SAND and SILTY SAND

Tan to brown Silty SAND and SAND with various amounts of clay and gravel were encountered in all of the borings and extended to their termination depths. N-values ranged between 1 to 48 blows/ft (bpf) indicating very loose to dense relative densities.

Groundwater

The highest groundwater was encountered at depth of approximately 3 ft below existing site grades in Boring B-4. The average depth of groundwater in the areas of the existing bridges was noted to be at an approximate depth of 6 ft below existing site grades, with depths varying from 3 ft to 10 ft below existing site grades.

Fairfax County, VA

Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation

Report No. 01-19

5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Fluctuations in groundwater level due to seasonal variations, rainfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made should be expected.

DESIGN ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

1.11 General

Foundation design was performed in general accordance with AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2017).

1.12 Scour

No scour data were available at the time this report was being prepared.

1.13 Bridge Loading

Structural loads provided by EFLHD Bridge Division are listed in Table 2 below:

Table 2 - Structural Loads

Structure Max Axial Load (kips)/pile

Bridge 23 and Bridge 24 38

1.14 Foundation Type

Due to the presence of shallow groundwater and loose soils, shallow foundations would be supported on soils with low bearing capacity and will likely exhibit significant settlements (differential and total) over the life time of the structure. Also, dewatering will be a major issue during the construction process due to it being a protected habitat for wildlife.

We concluded that helical piles represent the most economic deep foundation system based on the soil profile and anticipated structural loads. Also, helical piles offer the advantage of replacing the existing timber piles and minimizing soil and wetland disturbance.

Design analyses were performed based on data obtained from our subsurface exploration program and laboratory test results, where available. The soil properties presented in Table 3 below were developed based on empirical correlations between available laboratory test results and SPT N-values. Design analyses were performed using the soil profile encountered in the borings using the material properties below and the subsurface profiles as presented in Appendix B.

Fairfax County, VA

Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation

Report No. 01-19

6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

Table 3 – Soil Parameters for Helical Piles Design Analysis

Material Type

Depth, below Existing Grade

(ft) Elevation

(ft)

Buoyant Unit Weight, γ

(pcf)

Friction Angle, Φ

(deg.)

Cohesion, c

(psf)

Sand 0-6 4 to -2 105 28 0

Sand 6-50 -2 to -46 43 28 0

Sand 50-60 -46 to -56 63 34 0

RECOMMENDATIONS

The nominal bearing capacity of a single pile was evaluated in accordance with Section 10 of AASHTO (2017), LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Helical Anchors Inc. (2014), Helical Anchors Design Manual.

Design analyses indicate that 4-inch O.D. Round Shaft (RS), 0.318-inch wall thickness, and 0.375-inch thick bearing plates would be adequate for providing support of the design structural loads. The analyses indicated that axial pile capacity is developed by the bearing area of two helices anchored in the dense stratum of sand located between 50 ft and 60 feet below existing grade with a minimum of 5 times the diameter of the largest helix in spacing between each pile.

A deep foundation system comprised of 4-inch O.D. Round Shaft (RS) Galvanized Helical piles is the recommended foundation system for the new bridge. Only two helix bearing plates sizes, 12-in and 10-in, were evaluated for support of the proposed bridge. Pile lengths should be verified using the capacity to torque load correlations in the field. Our analyses indicate that such a system will result in an ultimate pile capacity (Pu) of 90 kips per pile.

Applying a factor of safety of 2 results in an allowable pile capacity of approximately 45 kips, which will be adequate to support the maximum axial load indicated in Section 4.

We recommend that a torque/anchor capacity relationship analysis be performed by the successful bidder prior to mobilization of the equipment to the site. The proposed mounted torque motor(s) should have adequate energy to efficiently install the piles to the specified capacities without inducing excessive stresses on the helical piles.

Fairfax County, VA

Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation

Report No. 01-19

7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

DISCLAIMER/LIMITATIONS CLAUSE

The subsurface explorations and tests described in the section on Procedures and Results have been conducted in accordance with standard practices and procedures (except as specifically noted). The results of these explorations and tests represent conditions at the specific locations indicated. Subsurface conditions between these locations may vary.

The Design Analysis and Conclusions section and the Recommendations section in this report include interpretations and recommendations developed by the Government in the process of preparing the design. These interpretations are not intended as a substitute for the personal investigation, independent interpretation, and judgment of the Contractor.

Prepared by:

Majed Abdelhadi, P.E.

Geotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by:

Mounir Abouzakhm, P.E.

Division Geotechnical Engineer

Fairfax County, VA

Bridge Replacement Soils and Foundation

Report No. 01-19

8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VA

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2017). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Customary U.S. Units, 8th

Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO M 145 (1991), Standard Specification for Classification of Soils and Soil– Aggregate Mixtures for Highway Construction Purposes, AASHTO, Washington, D.C

AASHTO T 11 (2005), Standard Method of Test for Materials Finer Than 75-μm (No.

200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO T 27 (2014), Standard Method of Test for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO T 89 (2013), Standard Method of Test for Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO T 90 (2016), Standard Method of Test for Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils, AASHTO, Washington, D.C

AASHTO T 206 (2009), Standard Method of Test for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO T 265 (2015), Standard Method of Test for Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content of Soils, AASHTO, Washington, D.C.

Helical Anchors Inc. (2015), Helical Anchors Design Manual. Helical Anchors Inc.

Minneapolis, MN http://www.helicalanchorsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/HAI-Engineering-Manual.pdf

Southworth, S, and D. Denenny, 2006, Geologic map of the National Parks in the National Capital region, Washington, D.C.; Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:66,700. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-bin/pdp/zui_viewer.pl?id=14346

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed August 2018.

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

APPENDIX A

Figures

3VA

FIGURE 1

Site Location and Vicinity Map

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

STATEREG

GWMP MVT(5)

TOTAL

SHEETS

Source:

SHEET

NO. PROJECT

TOTAL

SHEETS

3GWMP MVT(5)

Southworth, Scott, and Denenny, Danielle, 2006, Geologic map of the National Parks in the National Capital region, Washington, D.C.; Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia.

U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:66,700

VA

FIGURE 2

GEOLOGIC MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

STATEREG

GWMP MVT(5)

48A—Gunston silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Parent material: Fluviomarine deposits.

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: silt loam H2 - 8 to 75 inches: clay

60A—Honga peat, 0 to 1 percent slopes, very frequently flooded, tidal Parent material: Organic material over loamy alluvium.

Typical profile Oi - 0 to 7 inches: peat Oe - 7 to 13 inches: mucky peat Oa - 13 to 22 inches: muck H1 - 22 to 36 inches: silt loam H2 - 36 to 60 inches: silty clay loam

77B—Mattapex loam, 2 to 7 percent slope Parent material: Fluviomarine deposits.

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: loam H2 - 15 to 36 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 36 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam H4 - 60 to 65 inches: loamy sand

109B—Woodstown sandy loam, 2 to 7 percent slope Parent material: Fluviomarine deposits.

Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: sandy loam H2 - 11 to 29 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 29 to 70 inches: sandy loam Source:

SHEET

NO. PROJECT TOTAL

SHEETS

STATE

GWMP MVT(5)VA

Available Soil Survey Data, Friday, August 31, 2018 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

FIGURE 3

SOIL SURVEY MAP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

REG

Project: GWMP MVT(5)

Available Soil Survey Data

APPENDIX B

Borings Location Map and Subsurface Profile

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.3

1.5

NR

1.9

1.4

1.4

1.7

0.8

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.4

1.5

1.5

1.2

0.6

1.4

1.5

1.9

1.9

1.4

1.2

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.6

0.8

1.3

1.4

0.6

1.6

1.5

1.2

1.8

1.6

2.0

LEGEND

N SUBSURFACE PROFILE

SHEET NO.

E le va tio n (f t)

Groundwater depth encountered during drilling.

Rec.

STATE PROJECT

Rock Quality Designation (%)

E le va tio n (f t)

Recovery (ft)

RQD

Standard Penetration Test Resistance in Blows per Foot

Groundwater depth at boring completion. TOP SOIL SILTY SAND TOPSOIL FILL SAND

SP SW

THE BORING LOGS ON THIS SHEET REPRESENT THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

AT THE BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY VARY BETWEEN THESE LOCATIONS.

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

GWMP MVT (5)

X

S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E P

R O

F

IL

E

1/

/1

:1

M

P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

0.4

Depth (ft) N B-1

Rec.

0.6

8.7

Depth (ft) N B-2

Rec.

11.7

Depth (ft) N B-3

Rec.

B-1

B-2

B-3

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

-55

-50

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

1.4

1.6

1.9

2.0

1.9

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.5

0.5

0.3

1.0

1.3

0.9

2.0

LEGEND

N SUBSURFACE PROFILE

SHEET NO.

E le va tio n (f t)

Groundwater depth encountered during drilling.

Rec.

STATE PROJECT

Rock Quality Designation (%)

E le va tio n (f t)

Recovery (ft)

RQD

Standard Penetration Test Resistance in Blows per Foot

Groundwater depth at boring completion. TOP SOIL SILTY SAND

THE BORING LOGS ON THIS SHEET REPRESENT THE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED

AT THE BORING LOCATIONS SHOWN. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY VARY BETWEEN THESE LOCATIONS.

Groundwater depth monitored after boring completion.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

STERLING, VIRGINIA

GWMP MVT (5)

X

S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E P

R O

F

IL

E

1/

/1

:1

M

P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

0.5

Depth (ft) N B-4

Rec.

B-4

APPENDIX C

Borings Logs

10/04/2018

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Name Using Laboratory TestsA Group

Symbol Group NameB

COARSE-GRAINED

SOILS

More than 50% retained on No. 200 Sieve

GRAVELS

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve

Clean GRAVELS Less than 5% fines E

Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3C GW Well-graded GRAVEL D

Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 C GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL D

GRAVELS with fines More than 12% fines E

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty GRAVEL D,F Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey GRAVEL D,F

SANDS

Less than 50% retained on No. 4 Sieve

Clean SANDS Less than 5% fines I

Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 C SW Well-graded SAND H

Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 C SP Poorly-graded SAND H

SANDS with fines More than 12% fines I

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty SAND F,H Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey SAND F,H

FINE-GRAINED

SOILS

50% or more passes the No. 200 Sieve

SILTS and CLAYS Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic PI > 7 and plots on or above the “A” line J CL Lean CLAY K,L,M PI < 4 or plots below “A” line J ML SILT K,L,M

Organic Liquid limit – oven dried Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 OL Organic CLAY K,L,M,N

Organic SILT K,L,M,O

SILTY and CLAYS Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat CLAY K,L,M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic SILT K,L,M

Organic Liquid limit – oven dried Liquid limit – not dried < 0.75 OH Organic CLAY K,L,M,P

Organic SILT K,L,M,Q

HIGHLY ORGANIC

SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT PEAT A Based on material passing the 3-inch sieve.

B If field sample contains cobbles or boulders, add “with cobbles” or “boulders” or both, to group name.

C Cu = D60/D10 Cc = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) D If soil contains ≥15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

E Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay GP-GM poorly-graded GRAVEL with silt GP-GC poorly-graded GRAVEL with clay

F If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM G If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

H If soil contains ≥15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

I Sand with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:

SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay SP-SM poorly-graded SAND with silt SP-SC poorly-graded SAND with clay J If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty

CLAY.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to beginning of group name.

M If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to beginning of group name.

N PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

APPARENT DENSITY OF COARSE-

GRAINED SOIL

SPT N-value (blows per foot) Apparent Density

0 to 4 Very Loose

5 to 10 Loose

11 to 30 Medium Dense

31 to 50 Dense

> 50 Very Dense

CONSISTENCY OF

FINE-GRAINED SOIL

SPT N-value (blows per foot) Consistency

0 to 1 Very Soft

2 to 4 Soft

5 to 8 Firm

9 to 15 Stiff

16 to 30 Very Stiff

> 30 Hard

SOIL STRUCTURE TERMS

Stratified Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers > 1/4 inch (6 mm), note thickness and inclination.

Laminated(1) Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers < 1/4 inch (6 mm), note thickness and inclination.

Fissured(1) Breaks along definite planes of fracture with little resistance to fracturing.

Slickensided(1) Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

Blocky(1) Cohesive soil that can be broken down into smaller angular lumps which resists further breakdown.

Disrupted Soil structure is broken and mixed. Infers that material has moved substantially -landslide debris.

Homogeneous Same color and appearance throughout.

Lensed Inclusion of small pockets of different soil, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; < 1/4 inch (6 mm) note thickness.

(1) Do not use laminated, fissured, slickensided, or blocky for coarse-grained soils.

Descriptive Terminology for Boring Logs

Field descriptions of borings are based on the FLH Soil and Rock Description and Identification Guidelines that generally follow the Visual-Manual Procedure (ASTM D 2488). The soil classifications shown on the boring logs are based on laboratory tests (ASTM D 2487) when the two-letter group symbol follows the group name in parenthesis.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT): the SPT consists of driving a 2 in (50 mm) O.D. split barrel sampler a depth of 18 in (450 mm) or 24 in (600 mm) using a 140 lb (63.6 kg) hammer with a 30 in (750 mm) drop. The blow count is the number of blows recorded for each 6 inch (50 mm) increment.

The N-value is the total number of blows for the second and third increments. Note that the N-values shown on the boring logs do not include any corrections for non-standard sampler size, hammers, drill rods, etc.

ANGULARITY OF

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Angular

Sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces

Subangular

Similar to angular description, but with rounded edges

Subrounded

Nearly plane sides, but will have well-rounded corners and edges.

Rounded

Smoothly curved sides and no edges

PARTICLE SIZE OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Component Grain Size Limits

Boulders > 12” (> 300 mm)

Cobbles 3 – 12” (75 – 300 mm)

Coarse Gravel 3/4 - 3" (19 - 75 mm)

Fine Gravel #4 Sieve - 3/4" (4.75 - 19 mm)

Coarse Sand #10 - #4 Sieve (2.00 - 4.75 mm)

Medium Sand #40 - #10 Sieve (0.425 - 2.00 mm)

Fine Sand #200 - #40 Sieve (0.075 - 0.425 mm)

10/04/2018

GRAIN/CRYSTAL SIZE FOR ROCKS (MODIFIED AFTER WENTWORTH, 1972)

Grain Size Description Criteria Less than 0.003 inches (<0.075 mm)

Very fine grained Cannot be distinguished by unaided eye. Few to no mineral grains are visible with a hand lens.

0.003 to 0.02 inches (0.075 to 0.425 mm) Fine grained

Few grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains can be distinguished with difficulty by the unaided eye but can be somewhat distinguished by hand lens.

0.02 to 0.08 inches (0.425 to 2 mm) Medium grained Most grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains distinguishable by eye and with the aid of a hand lens.

0.08 to 0.2 inches

(2 to 4.75 mm) Coarse grained Grain/crystal boundaries are visible; grains distinguishable with the naked eye and hand lens.

Greater than 0.2 inches

(>4.75 mm)

Very coarse grained

Grain/crystal boundaries are Clearly visible; grains are distinguishable with the naked eye.

GRAIN SHAPE (FOR SEDIMENTARY ROCKS)

Description Characteristic

Angular Showing very little evidence of wear. Grain edges and corners are sharp. Secondary corners are numerous and sharp.

Subangular

Showing definite effects of wear. Grain edges and corners are slightly rounded off. Secondary corners are slightly less numerous and slightly less sharp than in angular grains.

Subrounded Showing considerable wear. Grain edges and corners are rounded to smooth curves. Secondary corners are reduced greatly in number and highly rounded.

Rounded Showing extreme wear. Grain edges and corners are smoothed off the broad curves. Secondary corner are few in number and rounded.

Well-rounded Completely worn. Grain edges or corners are not present. No secondary edges or corners are present. DEGREE OF WEATHERING

Term Description Grade

Fresh No visible sign of rock material weathering; slight discoloration on major discontinuity surface is possible. I

Slightly Weathered

Discoloration indicates weathering of rock material and discontinuity surfaces. All rock material may be discolored by weathering and the external surface may be somewhat weaker than in its fresh condition.

II

Moderately Weathered

Less than half the rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to a soil.

Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones. A minimum 2-inch (50 mm) diameter sample cannot be broken readily by hand across the rock fabric.

III

Highly Weathered

More than half of the rock is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. Fresh or discolored rock is present either as a discontinuous framework or as corestones.

A minimum 2-inch (50 mm) diameter sample can be broken readily by hand across the rock fabric.

IV

Completely Weathered

All rock material is decomposed and/or disintegrated to soil. The original mass structure is still largely intact. Material can be granulated by hand. If rock is considered to be completely weathered, use FLH Soil Description and Identification Guidelines to describe the residual soil material.

V

Residual Soil

All rock material is converted to soil. The mass structure and material fabric are destroyed but the apparent structure remains intact. There may be a large change in volume, but the soil has not been significantly transported. Material can be easily broken-down by hand. If rock is considered to be completely weathered, use FLH Soil Description and Identification Guidelines to describe the residual soil material.

VI

RELATIVE STRENGTH OF SOIL INFILLING (ISRM, 1978 & 1981)

Grade Description Field Identification Approximate

Uniaxial Compressive

Strength

S1 Very Soft Easily penetrated several inches by fist

<3.5 psi (<25 kPa)

S2 Soft Easily penetrated severl inches by thumb

3.5 - 7 psi (25 - 50 kPa)

S3 Firm

Can be penetrated several inches by thumb with moderate effort

7 - 14.5 psi (50 - 100 kPa)

S4 Stiff

Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only with great effort

14.5 - 36 psi (100 - 250 kPa)

S5 Very Stiff Readily indented by thumbnail

36 - 72.5 psi (250 - 500 kPa)

S6 Hard Indented with difficulty by thumbnail

>72 psi (>500 kPa)

RELATIVE STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK SPECIMENS (ISRM, 1978 &1981)

Grade Description Field Indentificaiton Approximate Uniaxial Compressive Strength

R0 Extremely Weak Rock Specimen can be indented by thumbnail 35 - 150 psi

(250 - 1,000 kPa)

R1 Very Weak Rock

Specimen crumbles under sharp blow with point of geological hammer, and can be peeled with a pocket knife.

150 - 725 psi (1,000 - 5,000 kPa)

R2 Weak Rock Shallow cuts or scrapes can be made in a specimen with a pocket knife. A firm blow with a geological hammer point creates shallow indents.

725 - 3,500 psi (5,000 - 25,000 kPa)

R3 Medium Strong Rock

Specimen cannot be scraped or cut with a pocket knife.

Specimen can be fractured with a single firm blow with a geologic hammer point.

3,500 - 7,250 psi (25,000 - 50,000 kPa)

R4 Strong Rock Specimen requires more than one firm blow of the geologic hammer point to fracture.

7,250 - 14,500 psi (50,000 - 100,000 kPa)

R5 Very Strong Rock

Specimen requires many firm blows from the hammer end of the geologic hammer to fracture.

14,500 - 36,250 psi (100,000 - 250,000 kPa)

R6 Extremely Strong Rock

Specimen can only be chipped with firm blows from the hammer end of the geologic hammer.

>36,250 psi (>250,000 kPa)

JRC RANGES (ISRM, 1978 &1981)

DISCONTINUITY CONDITION (ISRM, 1978, 1981)

Condition Description

Excellent Condition

Very rough surfaces, no separation, hard discontinuity wall (>R2).

Good Condition

Slightly rough surfaces, separation less than ~0.04 inches (1 mm), hard discontinuity wall (>R2).

Fair Condition

Slightly rough surface, separation greater than ~0.04 inches (1 mm), soft discontinuity wall (<R3).

Poor Condition

Slickensided surfaces, or soft gouge less than ~0.2 inches (5 mm) thick, or open discontinuities between ~0.4 and 0.2 inches (1 to 5 mm).

Very Poor Condition

Soft gouge greater than ~0.2 inches (5 mm), or open discontinuities greater than ~0.2 inches (5 mm).

DISCONTINUITY SPACING (INCLUDES

JOINTS/FRACTURES, BEDDING, AND FAULTS

Description Spacing of Discontinuity Extremely Widely

Spaced >20 feet (>6 m)

Very Widely Spaced

~6 to 20 feet (2 to 6 m)

Widely Spaced ~2 to 6 feet (600 mm to 2 m)

Moderately Spaced

~8 inches to 2 feet (200 to 600 mm)

Closely Spaced ~2 to 8 inches (60 to 200 mm)

Very Closely Spaced

~3/4 to 2 inches (20 to 60 mm)

Extremely Closely Spaced

<3/4 inches (<20 mm)

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (%) =

𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 > 4 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (100 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

𝑥𝑥 100

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 =

𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓)

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (%) = �

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷

� ∗ 100

1.4

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.3

1.5

NR

1.9

1.4

1.4

0-1-0-0

1-5-5-5

0-4-3-5

4-8-7-11

6-6-7-4

1-1-5-6

2-2-4-4

3-3-3-6

2-3-4-4

Topsoil

Very loose to medium dense, tan to brown Silty SAND, trace clay and gravel.

(moist to wet)

A-3

Boring was terminated @ 27 ft

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

0.4

27.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6965515.563 Easting: 11895457.491

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

4.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

GWMP MVT (5)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/21/16 C. Afanador D. HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

4.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/21/16

R ec ft)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

Fairfax County, VA

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

B-1

Hammer Wt. & Type:

P.Cloudy 43 deg.

S. END OF BRIDGE #23

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1/

/1

3:

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

3.6

-23.0

Sheet: 1 of 1

1.7

0.8

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.4

1.5

1.5

2-5-10-10

4-3-2-1

0-2-1-3

0-10-12-3

0-6-7-2

0-0-0-0

0-1-1-1

2-6-3-4

1-3-2-3

5-5-2-2

Topsoil

Very loose to medium dense, brown SAND, trace silt and gravel.

(moist)

-FILL-

Very loose to medium dense, gray to dark gray SAND, trace silt and gravel.

(moist to wet)

Very loose to dense, tan and gray Silty SAND, trace clay and gravel.

(wet)

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

0.6

8.7

20.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6966259.429 Easting: 11895324.862

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

6.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

GWMP MVT (5)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/22/16 C. Afanador D. HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

4.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/22/16

R ec ft)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

Fairfax County, VA

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

B-2

Hammer Wt. & Type:

P.Cloudy 56 deg.

BY CULVERT FOR MIDDLE BRIDGE #23

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1/

/1

3:

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

3.4

-4.7

-16.0

Sheet: 1 of 2

1.2

0.6

1.4

1.5

1.9

1.9

4-6-7-8

5-2-4-8

1-1-1-2

0-2-3-5

7-19-27-33

8-17-20-26

Very loose to dense, tan and gray Silty SAND, trace clay and gravel.

(wet) (Continued)

A-2-4(0)

Boring was terminated @ 57 ft

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

J-16

57.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6966259.429 Easting: 11895324.862

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

6.5 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

GWMP MVT (5)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/22/16 C. Afanador D. HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

4.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/22/16

R ec ft)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

Fairfax County, VA

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

B-2

Hammer Wt. & Type:

P.Cloudy 56 deg.

BY CULVERT FOR MIDDLE BRIDGE #23

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1/

/1

3:

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

-53.0

Sheet: 2 of 2

1.2

1.9

1.9

1.8

1.6

0.8

1.3

1.4

0.6

2-4-5-3

2-3-4-6

2-4-7-8

2-4-5-5

2-3-4-5

0-1-3-4

0-1-2-4

3-3-4-7

3-3-5-4

4-6-6-10

Topsoil

Loose, tan to brown Silty SAND.

(moist)

Very loose to medium dense, tan to brown Poorly Graded SAND , trace silt.

(wet)

2.0

2.5

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

2.0

11.7

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6966594.344 Easting: 11895405.699

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

10.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

GWMP MVT (5)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/23/16 C. Afanador D. HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

4.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/23/16

R ec ft)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

Fairfax County, VA

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

B-3

Hammer Wt. & Type:

P.Cloudy 53 deg.

NORTH END OF BRIDGE #23

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1/

/1

3:

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

2.0

-7.7

1.5

1.2

1.8

1.6

2.0

1-2-4-4

2-8-5-10

1-2-4-8

3-20-28-18

13-16-21-5

6-18-23-32

Very loose to medium dense, tan to brown Poorly Graded SAND , trace silt.

(wet) (Continued)

Dense, tan to brown Well-Graded SAND with Silt and Gravel.

(wet)

A-1-b

Boring was terminated @ 57 ft

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

J-16

45.0

57.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6966594.344 Easting: 11895405.699

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

10.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

GWMP MVT (5)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/23/16 C. Afanador D. HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

4.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/23/16

R ec ft)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

Fairfax County, VA

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

B-3

Hammer Wt. & Type:

P.Cloudy 53 deg.

NORTH END OF BRIDGE #23

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1/

/1

3:

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

-41.0

-53.0

1.9

2.0

1.9

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.5

0.5

1-2-2-3

2-2-4-3

2-2-3-4

2-2-3-5

1-3-6-9

3-3-3-5

1-2-3-4

4-4-3-4

2-2-5-6

4-4-5-7

Topsoil

Very loose to dense, tan to brown Poorly Graded SAND with Silt, trace gravel (wet)

A-1-b

J-1

J-2

J-3

J-4

J-5

J-6

J-7

J-8

J-9

J-10

0.5

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6969181.613 Easting: 11895850.478

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

3.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

GWMP MVT (5)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/24/16 C. Afanador D. HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings NR: No recovery

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

3.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/24/16

R ec ft)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

Fairfax County, VA

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

B-4

Hammer Wt. & Type:

M. Sunny 58 deg.

SOTHERN END OF SMALL BRIDGE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1/

/1

3:

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

2.5

0.3

1.0

1.3

0.9

2.0

7-5-7-6

6-11-18-22

4-10-16-28

10-18-18-21

9-17

NR

Very loose to dense, tan to brown Poorly Graded SAND with Silt, trace gravel (wet)

A-1-b (Continued)

Running sand

Boring was terminated @ 57 ft

J-11

J-12

J-13

J-14

J-15

57.0

Project Location:

Encountered at:

After

Northing: 6969181.613 Easting: 11895850.478

Caved at:

Hammer Drop:

Rock Core (RQD in %) hrs

3.0 ft

Remarks:

Auger Cuttings

G ra ph ic

L og

GWMP MVT (5)

Density, Color, Plasticity, Size, Proportions, Moisture

D ep th S ca le ft)

Inspector:

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Boring No.:

Groundwater Depth:

Sample Types:

BORING LOG

3/24/16 C. Afanador D. HutchinsOperator:

T yp e

Weather:

SAMPLE

Plastic Limit

Boring was backfilled with auger cuttings NR: No recovery

Standard Penetration Test Data

Project Datum:

(Blows / ft)

3.0 ft

Undisturbed (UD)

3/24/16

R ec ft)

Project Name:

Surface Elevation:

Boring Location:

La ye r

D ep th ft)

Boring Began:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

Liquid Limit

SPT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At Completion:

Completed:

N o.

Fairfax County, VA

E le va tio n (f ee t)

3 3/4" Boring Method:

Rock Core Diam:

Vane Shear

30 in.

140 lbs/Automatic

Penetrometer (PP in tsf)

Water Content %

Hole Diameter:

HSA

B-4

Hammer Wt. & Type:

M. Sunny 58 deg.

SOTHERN END OF SMALL BRIDGE

S P

T B lo w s pe r in

P P

B O

R

IN

G L

O G

1/

/1

3:

M

:\P R

O

JE

C T

S \G

W M

P \M

V T

(5

T E

C H

S E

R V

\G E

O T

E C

H \S

U B

S U

R F

A C

E I

N V

E S

T

IG

A T

IO

N

\B O

R

IN

G L

O G

S \M

V T

(5

M A

.G P

J

-54.0

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Testing Results

Sample # Jar # Wet Wt (g) Dry Wt (g) Jat Wt (g) Total Sample

Wt (g)

T-265 MC

E-18-0685 B-1/J-3 1311.2 1209.6 426.8 782.8 13.0

0686 B-1/J-8 1259.4 1160.7 427.0 733.7 13.5 0687 B-2/J-9 1306.5 1184.3 428.2 756.1 16.2 0688 B-2/J-16 1603.5 1486.0 427.3 1058.7 11.1 0689 B-3/J-6 1326.3 1231.1 427.2 803.9 11.8 0690 B-3/J-16 1698.5 1525.8 426.7 1099.1 15.7 0691 B-4/J-3 1826.5 1626.8 426.9 1199.9 16.6 0692 B-4/J-15 1489.6 1332.2 427.3 904.9 17.4

GWMP MVT(5)

Moisture Content

SOIL DATA

INDEXLIMITLIMITCONTENTNO.

PLASTICITYLIQUIDPLASTICWATERDEPTHSAMPLE

NATURAL

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

(ft.)

AASHTO

GWMP MVT(5)

George Washington MP

FHWA/EFLHD

A-3NPNVNP13.518-20B-1/J-8Bridge 23

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

A-2-4(0)NPNVNP11.155-57B-2/J-16Bridge 23

A-1-bNPNVNP15.745-47B-3/J-14Bridge 23

A-1-bNPNVNP16.95-7B-4/J-3Bridge 23

10 30 50 70 90 110

LIQUID LIMIT

P

LA

S T

IC

IT

Y

IN

D E

X

PI

=L

L-

A-4 or A-2-4 A-5 or A-2-5

A-7-6

A-6 or A-2-6

A-7-5 or A-2-7

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% COBBLES

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 10.5 73.1 16.0

(ft.)

GWMP MVT(5)

George Washington MP

FHWA/EFLHD

Bridge 23 B-1/J-3 5-7 Silty sand SM

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 0.0 1.4 2.3 21.1 67.9 7.3

Bridge 23 B-1/J-8 18-20 Poorly graded sand with silt SP-SM

0.0 0.0 5.0 3.6 24.0 51.2 16.2

Bridge 23 B-2/J-9 20-22 Silty sand SM

0.0 0.0 0.2 4.6 8.3 73.3 13.6

Bridge 23 B-2/J-16 55-57 Silty sand SM

NO.

USCSDESCRIPTION

DEPTHSAMPLE

SOURCESYMBOL

Project No.:

Project:

Client:

Particle Size Distribution Report

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001200 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% COBBLES

% GRAVEL

CRS. FINE

% SAND

CRS. MEDIUM FINE

% FINES

SILT CLAY

in in in

1- 1/ in in

3/ in

1/ in

3/ in

#4 #1

#2

#3

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 29.1 65.0 4.5

(ft.)

GWMP MVT(5)

George Washington MP

FHWA/EFLHD

Bridge 23 B-3/J-6 13-15 Poorly graded sand SP

Particle Size Distribution Report

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION

0.0 10.2 18.4 11.4 34.1 18.7 7.2

Bridge 23 B-3/J-14 45-47 Well-graded sand with silt and gravel SW-SM

0.0 0.0 3.9 3.3 46.1 43.3 3.4

Bridge 23 B-4/J-3 5-7 Poorly graded sand SP

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 90.4 7.8

Bridge 23 B-4/J-15 50-52 Poorly graded sand with silt SP-SM

APPENDIX E

Representative Photographs

Photograph 1: Drill setup at boring B-1 – looking north

Photograph 2: Drill setup at boring B-3 – looking north

Photograph 3: Drill setup at boring B-4 – looking east