Attachment 9_Geotechnical Engineering Report 3 March 2015.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report

A.V Bryan Courthouse 401 Courthouse Square

Alexandria, VA

4910 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 206 Washington, DC 20016

(202) 375-7900●www.geocapeng.com

March 5, 2015

Attachment 1

4910 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Suite 206

Washington, DC 20016

(202) 375-7900 www.geocapeng.com

March 5, 2015

Mr. William H. Geier, AIA

Geier Brown Renfrow Architects, LLC

1029 North Royal Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314

Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report, AV Bryan Courthouse Perimeter Security, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia (GeoCapitol Project No. DC14026)

Dear Mr. Geier:

GeoCapitol Engineering LLC (GeoCapitol) is pleased to present the following geotechnical engineering report prepared for AV Bryan Courthouse Perimeter Security, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia.

We appreciate the opportunity to serve as your geotechnical consultant on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or want to meet to discuss the findings and recommendations contained in the report.

Sincerely, GEOCAPITOL ENGINEERING LLC

Daniel F. Gradishar, PE Principal dgradishar@geocapeng.com

Table of Contents

1.0 Scope of Services

2.0 Site Description and Proposed Construction

3.0 Subsurface Conditions

3.1 Geology

3.2 Published Soils

3.3 Stratification

3.4 Groundwater

3.5 Soil Laboratory Test Results

3.6 Seismic Site Classification

4.0 Engineering Analysis

4.1 Soil Design Parameters

4.2 Spread Footings

4.3 Subdrainage

4.4 Earthwork

5.0 General Limitations

Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

Appendix A: Subsurface Investigation Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Results

March 5, 2015 DC14026 Page 1

1.0 Scope of Services

This geotechnical engineering report presents the results of the field investigation, soil laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of the geotechnical data. This report specifically addresses the following:

An evaluation of subsurface conditions within the area of the proposed site development, including a seismic site classification per the International Building Code.

Foundation recommendations for the security fence.

Earthwork recommendations for construction of loadbearing fills, including an assessment of on-site soils to be excavated for re-use as fill.

Services not specifically identified in the contract for this project are not included in the scope of services.

2.0 Site Description and Proposed Construction

The site is located at 401 Courthouse Square in Alexandria, Virginia. A site vicinity map is presented as

Figure 1 at the end of this report. The site is the perimeter of the existing Albert V. Bryan Courthouse which consists of brick lined sidewalks and asphalt roads with temporary concrete jersey barriers.

Based on plans provided to us by GSA dated March 2012, the proposed construction consists of a bollard and metal security fence around the building perimeter.

3.0 Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions were investigated by drilling a total of three test borings in the proposed security fence area. Test boring logs and a boring location plan are presented in Appendix A of this report.

3.1 Geology

The site is located within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of Virginia. The Coastal Plain consists of a seaward thickening wedge of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sedimentary deposits from the Cretaceous Geologic Period to the Holocene Geologic Epoch. These deposits represent marginal-marine to

March 5, 2015 DC14026 Page 2 marine sediments consisting of interbedded sands and clays. The Coastal Plain is bordered to the east by the Atlantic Ocean and to the west by the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The dividing line between the

Coastal Plain and the Piedmont is locally referred to as the “Fall Line”. This name comes from the waterfalls that form as a result of the differential erosion that occurs as streams cross the Piedmont/Coastal Plain contact.

Image provided by USGS (Southworth et al Geologic Map of the National Parks in the National Capital Region)

Specifically, according to local geologic maps, the site is mapped in the fluvial and estuarine deposits of the Quaternary geologic period.

3.2 Published Soils

According to the Alexandria City web soil survey by the NRCS, the site is mapped as 95, urban land.

3.3 Stratification

The subsurface materials encountered have been stratified for purposes of our discussions herein. These stratum designations do not imply that the materials encountered are continuous across the site. Stratum designations have been established to characterize similar subsurface conditions based on material gradations and parent geology. The subsurface materials encountered in the test borings completed at the site have been assigned to the following strata:

Stratum A (Existing Fill) loose to dense, silty gravel with sand, silty sand, clayey sand, and soft to stiff, sandy lean clay and sandy lean clay with gravel, FILL, moist, brown, gray, dark brown

Stratum B

(Alluvial) soft to very stiff, LEAN CLAY with varying amounts of sand and quartz, moist, brown, gray, black

The two letter designations included in the strata descriptions presented above and on the test boring logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) group symbol and group name for the samples based on laboratory testing per ASTM D-2487 and visual classifications per ASTM D-2488. It should be noted that visual classifications per ASTM D-2488 may not match classifications determined by laboratory testing per ASTM D-2487.

3.4 Groundwater

Groundwater level observations were made in the field during drilling and after the completion of the test borings. We did not make 24-hour water level observations as boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safety and security concerns. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test borings.

March 5, 2015 DC14026 Page 3

The groundwater observations presented herein are considered to be an indication of the groundwater levels at the dates and times indicated. Where more impervious Stratum B clay soils are encountered, the amount of water seepage into the borings is limited, and it is generally not possible to establish the location of the groundwater table through short term water level observations. Accordingly, the groundwater information presented herein should be used with caution. Also, fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected with seasons of the year, construction activity, changes to surface grades, precipitation, or other similar factors.

3.5 Soil Laboratory Test Results

Selected soil samples obtained from the field investigation were tested for grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, and natural moisture contents. A summary of soil laboratory test results is presented below, and the results of natural moisture content tests are presented on the test boring logs in Appendix A.

Test Boring

No.

Depth (ft)

Sample Type

Stratum Description of Soil Specimen

Sieve Results

Atterberg Limits Natural

Moisture Content

Percent Retained #4 Sieve

Percent Passing #200 Sieve

LL PL PI

B-1 2.5-4.0 Jar A sandy LEAN

CLAY (CL)

0.5 60.7 33 21 12 40.6

B-1 8.5-10 Jar A sandy LEAN

CLAY (CL)

9.9 50.4 40 24 16 21.9

B-2 8.5-10 Jar B sandy LEAN

CLAY (CL)

0.7 69.3 39 18 21 23.2

B-3 5.0-6.5 Jar A sandy LEAN

CLAY (CL)

0.0 57.7 26 16 10 16.2

Notes:

1. Soil tests are in accordance with applicable ASTM standards

2. Soil classification symbols are in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System

3. Visual identification of samples is in accordance with ASTM D-2488

4. Key to abbreviations: LL = liquid limit; PL = plastic limit; PI = plasticity index; NP = nonplastic; N/T = not tested

3.6 Seismic Site Classification

Based on the results of the subsurface investigation and our knowledge of local geologic conditions, the site soils have been assigned to a site class D per the International Building Code.

4.0 Engineering Analysis

Recommendations regarding foundations and earthwork are presented herein.

4.1 Soil Design Parameters

We recommend the following soil design parameters be used for this project:

Stratum

Total

Unit

Weight

(pcf)

Angle of

Internal

Friction

(deg)

Lateral Earth Pressure

Coefficients Coefficient of Sliding

Friction

Horizontal

Soil Modulus

(pci) Active

(Ka)

At-Rest

(Ko)

Passive

(Kp)

Existing Fill

(Stratum A) 120 28 0.36 0.53 2.77 0.35 35

Alluvial

(Stratum B) 110 25 0.40 0.58 2.46 0.30 25

March 5, 2015 DC14026 Page 4

4.2 Spread Footings

Based on the planned bottom elevation for the security bollard system and drawings prepared by Ameristar or similar system, the bottom elevation of the continuous strip footing which encompasses the bollards is located up to 6 feet below existing grades. Firm existing fill soils should be encountered at footing depths with N values ranging from 8 to 15 were encountered at a depth of 6 to 6.5 feet below existing grades.

Continuous strip footings founded in these materials are considered suitable for support of the proposed bollard system, and may be designed with a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Additional recommended soil parameter values are presented in Section 4.1 above. In order to achieve the design bearing pressure, lowering or undercutting of specific footings may be required. It is critical that all footing subgrades be observed and approved for the appropriate bearing pressure by the geotechnical engineer, prior to placement of steel reinforcement or concrete. Footing subgrades should be located at least 2.0 feet below final exterior grades for frost considerations.

Footing subgrades should be observed and approved prior to placement of concrete, to ascertain that footings are placed on suitable bearing soils as recommended herein. Footings should be excavated and concrete placed the same day in order to avoid disturbance from water or weather. Disturbance of footing subgrades by exposure to water seepage or weather conditions should be avoided. Any existing fill, disturbed, frozen, or soft subgrade soils should be removed prior to placing footing concrete. It may be desirable to place a 3 to 4-inch thick “mud mat” of lean concrete immediately on the approved footing subgrade to avoid softening of the exposed subgrade. Forms may be used if necessary, but less subgrade disturbance is anticipated if excavations are made to the required dimensions and concrete placed against the soil. If footings are formed, the forms should be removed and the excavation backfilled as soon as possible. Water should not be allowed to pond along the outside of footings for long periods of time.

4.3 Subdrainage

Groundwater was not encountered in any of borings. Based on the groundwater observations and proposed security bollard system plans, temporary construction dewatering is not anticipated.

4.4 Earthwork

Fill may be required for site grading pavement areas. Unsuitable existing fill, soft or loose natural soils, organic material, and rubble should be stripped to approved subgrades as determined by the geotechnical engineer. Asphalt and crushed stone depths presented on the boring logs should not be considered as stripping depths, as asphalt and crushed stone depths may vary widely across the site. In addition, seasonal soil moisture variations can affect stripping depths. In general, less stripping may occur during summer months when drier weather conditions can be expected. The depth of required stripping should be determined prior to construction by the excavation contractor using test pits, probes, or other means that the contractor wishes to employ, and this determination should be the responsibility of the excavation contractor. All subgrades should be proofrolled with a minimum 20 ton, loaded dump truck or suitable rubber tire construction equipment approved by the geotechnical engineer, prior to the placement of new fill.

Fill material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose thickness, with fill materials compacted by hand operated tampers or light compaction equipment placed in maximum 4-inch thick loose lifts. Fill should be compacted at +/- 2% of the optimum moisture content to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per VTM-1. The upper 6 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the maximum dry density per the same standard.

March 5, 2015 DC14026 Page 5

Fill placed along slopes steeper than 5H:1V should be benched into the existing slope. Benches should consist of minimum 8 feet wide level cut, and at least one such bench should be used for each 3 feet of vertical rise of fill placed.

Materials used for compacted fill for support of footings, and pavements should consist of soils classifying CL, ML, SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP, or GW per ASTM D-2487, with a maximum dry density greater than

105 pcf. It is expected that the majority of soils excavated from Stratum A and B will be suitable for re-use as fill based on classification. However, the Stratum A existing fill may not be suitable for re-use as new compacted fill due to deleterious man-made materials in the fill. In addition, drying of excavated soils by spreading and aerating may be necessary to obtain proper compaction. This may not be practical during the wet period of the year. Accordingly, earthwork operations should be planned for early Spring through late Fall, when drier weather conditions can be expected.

Fill materials should not be placed on frozen or frost-heaved soils, and/or soils that have been recently subjected to precipitation. All frozen or frost-heaved soils should be removed prior to continuation of fill operations. Borrow fill materials should not contain frozen materials at the time of placement.

Compaction equipment that is compatible with the soil type used for fill should be selected. Theoretically, any equipment type can be used as long as the required density is achieved; however, sheepsfoot roller equipment are best suited for fine-grained soils and vibratory smooth drum rollers are best suited for granular soils. Ideally, a smooth drum roller should be used for sealing the surface soils at the end of the day or prior to upcoming rain events. In addition, compaction equipment used adjacent to walls below grade should be selected so as to not impose undesirable surcharge on walls. All areas receiving fill should be graded to facilitate positive drainage of any water associated with precipitation and surface run-off.

After completion of compacted fill operations in pavement areas, construction of asphalt should begin immediately, or the finished subgrade should be protected from exposure to inclement weather conditions.

Exposure to precipitation and freeze/thaw cycles will cause the finished subgrade to soften and become excessively disturbed. If development plans require that finished subgrades remain exposed to weather conditions after completion of fill operations, additional fill should be placed above finished grades to protect the newly placed fill. Alternatively, a budget should be established for reworking of the upper 1 to 2 feet of previously placed compacted fill.

5.0 General Limitations

Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the data obtained from the relatively limited number of test borings. This report does not reflect conditions that may occur between the points investigated, or between sampling intervals in test borings. The nature and extent of variations between test borings and sampling intervals may not become evident until the course of construction. Therefore, it is essential that on-site observations of subgrade conditions be performed during the construction period to determine if re-evaluation of the recommendations in this report must be made. It is critical to the successful completion of this project that GeoCapitol be retained during construction to observe the implementation of the recommendations provided herein.

This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of the site and to assist your office and the design professionals in the design of this project. It is intended for use with regard to the specific project as described herein. Changes in proposed construction, grading plans, structural loads, etc. should be brought to our attention so that we may determine any effect on the recommendations presented herein.

An allowance should be established for additional costs that may be required for foundation and earthwork construction as recommended in this report. Additional costs may be incurred for various reasons including wet fill materials, soft subgrade conditions, unexpected groundwater problems, rock excavation, etc.

March 5, 2015 DC14026 Page 6

This report should be made available to bidders prior to submitting their proposals to supply them with facts relative to the subsurface conditions revealed by our investigation and the results of analyses and studies that have been performed for this project. In addition, this report should be given to the successful contractor and subcontractors for their information only.

We recommend the project specifications contain the following statement: “A geotechnical engineering report has been prepared for this project by GeoCapitol Engineering LLC This report is for informational purposes only and should not be considered part of the contract documents. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the geotechnical engineer and represent their interpretation of the subsoil conditions, tests and results of analyses that they performed. Should the data contained in this report not be adequate for the contractor’s purposes, the contractor may make their own investigations, tests and analyses prior to bidding.”

This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, expressed or implied, are made as to the professional services included in this report.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please contact the undersigned if you require clarification of any aspect of this report.

Sincerely, GEOCAPITOL ENGINEERING LLC

Ashley Hogan, PG Senior Geologist

Daniel F. Gradishar, PE Principal

Copy: Mr. Saranath Weerakoon McMullan & Associates

KT/AH/DG

G:\PROJECTS\DC 14026, A.V Bryan Courthouse Perimeter Security Design\Final\GER, A. V Bryan Courthouse-Draft.docx

Appendix A Subsurface Investigation Subsurface Investigation Procedures (1 page)

Identification of Soil (1 page)

Test Boring Notes (1 page)

Test Boring Logs (3 pages)

Boring Location Plan, Figure 2 (1 page)

Subsurface Investigation Procedures

1. Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers

The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 3¼ inches. A plug device blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the auger flights.

Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger, by standard methods, after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.

2. Standard Penetration Tests

Standard penetration tests are performed by driving a 2 inch O.D., 1-⅜ inch I.D. sampling spoon with a

140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, according to ASTM D-1586. After an initial 6 inches penetration to assure the sampling spoon is in undisturbed material, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches is generally taken as the N value. In the event 30 or more blows are required to drive the sampling spoon the initial 6 inch interval, the sampling spoon is driven to a total penetration resistance of 100 blows or 18 inches, whichever occurs first. The sampling operation is terminated after a total of 100 hammer blows and the depth of penetration is recorded.

3. Test Boring Stakeout The test boring stakeout was provided by GeoCapitol personnel using available site plans. Ground surface elevations were estimated from topographic information contained on the site plan provided to us and should be considered approximate. If the risk related to using approximate boring locations and elevations is unacceptable, we recommend an as-drilled survey of boring locations and elevations be completed by a licensed surveyor.

Identification of Soil I. DEFINITION OF SOIL GROUP NAMES ASTM D-2487 Symbol Group Name

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

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

Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines

GW WELL GRADED GRAVEL

GP POORLY GRADED GRAVEL

Gravels with Fines More than 12% fines

GM silty GRAVEL

GC clayey GRAVEL

Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands Less than 5% fines

SW WELL GRADED SAND

SP POORLY GRADED SAND

Sands with fines More than 12% fines

SM silty SAND

SC clayey SAND

Fine-Grained Soils

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit less than

Inorganic CL LEAN CLAY

ML SILT

Organic OL ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or more

Inorganic CH FAT CLAY

MH ELASTIC SILT

Organic OH ORGANIC CLAY

ORGANIC SILT

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

II. DEFINITION OF MINOR COMPONENT PROPORTIONS

Minor Component Approximate Percentage of Fraction by Weight Gravelly, Sandy (adjective) 30% or more coarse grained Sand, Gravel (with) 15% to 29% coarse grained Silt, Clay (with) 5% to 12% fine grained

III. GLOSSARY OF MISCELLANEOUS TERMS

SYMBOLS Unified Soil Classification Symbols are shown above as group symbols. Use “A” Line Chart for laboratory identification. Dual symbols are used for borderline classification.

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

DISINTEGRATED ROCK Residual rock material with a standard penetration test (SPT) resistance between 60 blows per foot and refusal.

ROCK Rock material with a standard penetration test (SPT) resistance of 100 blows for 2 inches or 50 blows for 0 inches, or less penetration DECOMPOSED ROCK Residual rock material exhibiting rock-like properties that can be excavated by backhoe equipment.

Similar to Disintegrated Rock, but cannot be classified as such because SPT N-Values were not obtained.

ROCK FRAGMENTS Angular pieces of rock, distinguished from rounded transported gravel, which have separated from original vein or strata and are present in a soil matrix.

QUARTZ A hard silicate mineral often found in residual soils. Only used when describing residual soils.

CEMENTED SAND Usually localized rock-like deposits within a soil stratum composed of sand grains cemented by calcium carbonate, iron oxide, or other minerals. Commonly encountered in Coastal Plain sediments, primarily in the Potomac Group sands (Kps).

MICA A plate-like phyllosilicate mineral found in many rocks, and in residual or transported soil derived there from.

ORGANIC MATERIALS

(Excluding Peat)

Topsoil - Surface soils that support plant life and contain organic matter.

Lignite - Hard, brittle decomposed organic matter with low fixed carbon content (a low grade of coal).

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

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

LAYERS ½ to 12 inch seam of minor soil component.

COLOR Two most predominant colors present should be described.

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

Test Boring Notes

1. Classification of soil is by visual inspection and is in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification

System.

2. Estimated groundwater levels are indicated on the logs. These are only estimates from available data and may vary with precipitation, porosity of soil, site topography, etc.

3. Sampling data presents standard penetrations for 6-inch intervals or as indicated with graphic representations adjacent to the sampling data.

4. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular time when drilled. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at the test locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface conditions at the test locations.

5. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types as determined in the sampling operation. Some variation may be expected vertically between samples taken. The soil profile, groundwater level observations and penetration resistances presented on the logs have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

1+1+0

5+2+1

4+4+4

6+5+5

5+6+5

6+4+4

A

B

Mulch = 0.67ft.

Fill, dark brown, silty SAND, contains roots, loose, moist, SM

Fill, brown, sandy LEAN CLAY, contains roots, soft, moist, contains quartz, CL Geofabric

Firm

Stiff

Fill, dark brown, silty SAND, medium dense, moist, SM

Alluvial, gray, LEAN CLAY with sand, firm, moist, CL

Bottom of Boring at 20.0 ft

40.6

52.1

21.9

15.0

DRILLING METHOD: OFFSET NOTES:

3.25" I.D. HSA

PROJECT NUMBER:

Geier Brown, Renfrow Architects, LLC

DC14026

Lewis

NOT SURVEYED

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft):

DRILLER:

10/16/14 - 10/16/14

AV Bryan Courthouse Perimeter Security

401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

SAMPLE TYPES:

Split Spoon

Connelly and Associates, Inc.

W. Richards

202-375-7900 www.geocapeng.com fax

4910 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20016

B-1DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 1

LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:PROJECT:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

REMARKS:

SOIL

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

NOT ENCOUNTERED UPON COMPLETION

NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

D

C

6.

G P

J T

R A

IN

IN

G

_1 4A

.G P

J

0/

7/

SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E

C (in

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

DEPTH

(ft)

S T

R A

T U

M

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

G R

A P

H

IC

11.5 ftCAVED:

M C

4+7+7

4+7+6

4+7+8

1+1+2

1+1+2

1+1+1

3+6+8

A

B

Asphalt = 0.5ft.

Crushed stone = 0.25ft.

Fill, gray and brown, silty GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist, GM

Fill, brown, sandy LEAN CLAY with gravel, stiff, moist, CL

Fill, brown, clayey SAND, medium dense, moist, SC

Alluvial, black and gray, sandy LEAN CLAY, soft, moist, CL With organics

Dark brown and gray, without organics

Very soft, with organics

Stiff

Bottom of Boring at 25.0 ft

23.2

DRILLING METHOD: OFFSET NOTES:

3.25" I.D. HSA

PROJECT NUMBER:

Geier Brown, Renfrow Architects, LLC

DC14026

Lewis

NOT SURVEYED

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft):

DRILLER:

10/16/14 - 10/16/14

AV Bryan Courthouse Perimeter Security

401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

SAMPLE TYPES:

Split Spoon

Connelly and Associates, Inc.

W. Richards

202-375-7900 www.geocapeng.com fax

4910 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20016

B-2DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 1

LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:PROJECT:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

REMARKS:

SOIL

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

NOT ENCOUNTERED UPON COMPLETION

NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

D

C

6.

G P

J T

R A

IN

IN

G

_1 4A

.G P

J

0/

7/

SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E

C (in

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

DEPTH

(ft)

S T

R A

T U

M

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

G R

A P

H

IC

19.6 ftCAVED:

M C

4+23+20

13+6+5

4+4+5

7+9+9

6+5+8

5+6+7

A

B

Asphalt = 0.58ft.

Crushed stone = 0.34ft.

Fill, gray and brown, silty GRAVEL with sand, dense, moist, GM Fill, brown and gray, sandy LEAN CLAY with gravel, stiff, moist, CL

Fill, brown, sandy LEAN CLAY, stiff, moist, CL

Alluvial, brown and gray, LEAN CLAY with sand, stiff, moist, contains quartz, CL

Bottom of Boring at 20.0 ft

16.2

23.0

DRILLING METHOD: OFFSET NOTES:

3.25" I.D. HSA

PROJECT NUMBER:

Geier Brown, Renfrow Architects, LLC

DC14026

Lewis

NOT SURVEYED

DATES DRILLED:OWNER/CLIENT:

GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION (ft):

DRILLER:

10/16/14 - 10/16/14

AV Bryan Courthouse Perimeter Security

401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia

THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL.

SAMPLE TYPES:

Split Spoon

Connelly and Associates, Inc.

W. Richards

202-375-7900 www.geocapeng.com fax

4910 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20016

B-3DRILLING CONTRACTOR:

BORING NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 1

LOCATION:

LOGGED BY:PROJECT:

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

REMARKS:

SOIL

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

NOT ENCOUNTERED UPON COMPLETION

NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

B O

R E

H O

LE

/T

E S

T P

IT

D

C

6.

G P

J T

R A

IN

IN

G

_1 4A

.G P

J

0/

7/

SPT

BLOW

COUNTS R

E

C (in

20 40 60 80

STANDARD

PENETRATION

TEST RESISTANCE

(BPF)

DEPTH

(ft)

S T

R A

T U

M

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

G R

A P

H

IC

12.5 ftCAVED:

M C

Appendix B Soil Laboratory Test Results Gradation Test Data (4 pages)

Project No.

Test Boring No.

Lab Order No.

SIEVE % Passing 1 ½ " 100 3/4" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #10 96 #20 92 #40 86 #60 78 #100 70 #200 61 Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Tested by: Reviewed by:

3406-4

2.5'-4.0'

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project Name

Depth (Feet)

10/23/2014Date

AV Bryan CourthouseDC14026

B-1

USCS Group Name CLUSCS Group Symbol

LL

PI

Color Grayish Brown/Organic

Cc

60.7 sandy Lean Clay

0.5 38.8

A-6

Gravel Sand Fines AASHTO Classification

Cu

0.010.1110100 Grain Size Diameter (mm)

N o.

N o.

N o.

¾ in

P er ce nt

F in er

19955 Highland Vista Dr., Suite 170 Ashburn, Virginia 20147

(703) 726-8030 www.geoconcepts-eng.com

Lab Order No.

SIEVE % Passing 1 ½ " 100 3/4" 100 3/8" 97 #4 90 #10 85 #20 80 #40 71 #60 64 #100 56 #200 50 Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Tested by: Reviewed by:

A-6

Gravel Sand Fines AASHTO Classification

Cu

50.4 sandy Lean Clay

9.9 39.7

USCS Group Name CLUSCS Group Symbol

LL

PI

Color Gray

Cc

AV Bryan CourthouseDC14026

B-1

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project Name

Depth (Feet)

10/23/2014Date3406-4

8.5'-10.0'

0.010.1110100 Grain Size Diameter (mm)

N o.

N o.

N o.

¾ in

P er ce nt

F

Lab Order No.

SIEVE % Passing 1 ½ " 100 3/4" 100 3/8" 100 #4 99 #10 99 #20 99 #40 96 #60 91 #100 81 #200 69 Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Tested by: Reviewed by:

A-6

Gravel Sand Fines AASHTO Classification

Cu

69.3 sandy Lean Clay

0.7 30.0

USCS Group Name CLUSCS Group Symbol

LL

PI

Color Grayish Brown

Cc

AV Bryan CourthouseDC14026

B-2

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project Name

Depth (Feet)

10/23/2014Date3406-2

8.5'-10.0'

0.010.1110100 Grain Size Diameter (mm)

N o.

N o.

N o.

¾ in

P er ce nt

F

Lab Order No.

SIEVE % Passing 1 ½ " 100 3/4" 100 3/8" 100 #4 100 #10 100 #20 99 #40 97 #60 87 #100 70 #200 58 Pan -- Test Method: ASTM D 422

Soil Classification by ASTM D2487 and AASHTO M 145

Tested by: Reviewed by:

A-4

Gravel Sand Fines AASHTO Classification

Cu

57.7 sandy Lean Clay

0.0 42.3

USCS Group Name CLUSCS Group Symbol

LL

PI

Color Brown

Cc

AV Bryan CourthouseDC14026

B-3

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D422

Project Name

Depth (Feet)

10/23/2014Date3406-3

5.0'-6.5'

0.010.1110100 Grain Size Diameter (mm)

N o.

N o.

N o.

¾ in

P er ce nt

F