report of subsurface exploration and …

REPORT OFSUBSURFACEEXPLORATIONANDGEOTECHNICALENGINEERINGSERVICES

Coliseum Drive Extension – Signal Poles

Hampton, Virginia

G E T Project No: WM17-172G

March 6, 2019

PREPARED FOR:

701 Alexander Lee Parkway · Williamsburg, VA 23185Phone: (757)-564-6452

www.getsolutionsinc.com

701 Alexander Lee Parkway · Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 · Phone: (757)-564-6452 · Fax: (757)[email protected]

March 6, 2019

TO: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4525 Main Street, Suite 1000Virginia Beach, VA 23462

Attn: Ms. Angela Callan, P.E.

RE: Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering ServicesColiseum Drive Extension - Signal PolesHampton, VirginiaG E T Project No: WM17-172G

Dear Ms. Callan:

In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Exploration andGeotechnical Engineering Services for the above referenced project. The results of this study,together with our recommendations, are presented in this report.

Often, because of design and construction details that occur on a project, questions ariseconcerning subsurface conditions. G E T Solutions, Inc. would be pleased to continue its roleas Geotechnical Engineer during the project implementation.

We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. We trust that the informationcontained herein meets your immediate need, and should you have any questions or if we couldbe of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully Submitted,G E T Solutions, Inc.

James R. Wheeler, P.G.Senior Project Geologist

Philip A. Wunderly, P.E.Project EngineerVirginia Lic. No. 047135

Copies: (1) Client

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Coliseum Drive Extension – Signal PolesHampton, VirginiaG E T Project No: WM17-172G

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................11.1 Project Authorization .......................................................................................................11.2 Project Location and Description .....................................................................................11.3 Purpose and Scope of Services.......................................................................................2

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES .................................................................22.1 Subsurface Exploration ...................................................................................................22.2 Soil Classification and Testing .........................................................................................32.2.1 Soil Classification and Index Testing ...............................................................................3

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................43.1 Site Geology ....................................................................................................................43.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions ..............................................................................................43.3 Test Pit Excavation Results .............................................................................................53.4 Groundwater Information .................................................................................................5

4.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................64.1 Signal Pole Foundation Discussion .................................................................................6

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................................75.1 Anticipated Excavation Characteristics ............................................................................75.2 Excavation Stability .........................................................................................................85.3 Dewatering ......................................................................................................................95.4 Structure Protection and Monitoring ................................................................................9

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................10

APPENDIX I BORING AND TEST PIT LOCATION PLANAPPENDIX II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATIONAPPENDIX III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION RESULTSAPPENDIX IV BORING LOGSAPPENDIX V GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILEAPPENDIX VI PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXCAVATED TEST PITS

Report of Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services March 6, 2019Coliseum Drive Extension - Signal PolesHampton, VirginiaG E T Project No: WM17-172G

1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineeringservices for the proposed signal poles associated with the Coliseum Drive Extension projectlocated in the City of Hampton, Virginia. The geotechnical engineering services were conductedin general accordance with G E T Solutions, Inc. Proposal No. PVB14-658G (REV 03) datedDecember 14, 2016. Authorization to proceed with our services was received from the client inthe form of an executed subcontractor agreement. We previously issued a report on January30, 2018 for the roadway and storm water portion of the project and were notified on January14, 2019 to proceed with the signal poles portion.

1.2 Project Location and Description

The proposed development consists of extending the existing roadway, Coliseum Drive, from itscurrent termination at Hampton Road Center Parkway to the north to connect to the existingroadway, Butler Farm Road, located in the City of Hampton, Virginia. As part of this roadwayextension two (2) new mast arm type traffic signal poles will be installed at the intersection ofColiseum Drive and Hampton Roads Center Parkway. Specifically, one of the traffic signal poleswill be located within the grass covered median along Hampton Roads Center Parkway east ofColiseum Drive and the other traffic signal pole will be located within the grass median alongHampton Roads Center Parkway west of Coliseum Drive. The loading information associated withthese signal poles was unknown at the time of this reporting. Based on the plans provided by theclient, the site elevations within the medians and in the vicinity of the proposed signal poles rangefrom about 14 to 15 feet in elevation. Refer to the aerial imagery below that was obtained fromGoogle Earth for the general site location.

Figure 1 – Aerial Photograph of Site Vicinity

Project Area


2

This report pertains to the installation of the signal poles. A separate geotechnicalengineering report has already been submitted for the development of the roadway andstorm water management facilities. If any of the noted information is incorrect or haschanged, please inform G E T Solutions, Inc. so that we may amend therecommendations presented in this report, if appropriate.

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at theproposed project site. The subsurface conditions encountered were then evaluated with respectto the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering assessments for the followingitems were formulated:

1. General assessment of the soils revealed by the borings performed at theproposed development.

2. General location and description of potentially deleterious material encounteredin the borings that may interfere with construction progress or structureperformance, including existing fills or surficial/subsurface organics.

3. Manual excavation at the pole foundation locations for clearing existingunderground utilities.

4. Estimated soil parameters required for the foundation system design.

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining thepresence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock,surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Prior to developmentof this site, an environmental assessment is advisable.

2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

2.1 Subsurface Exploration

In order to explore the general subsurface soil types and to aid in developing associated projectdesign and construction criteria, the following subsurface exploration program was performed:

§ Two (2) 35-foot deep Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (designated as B-1 and B-2) were drilled within the vicinity of the proposed signal pole locations atthe noted intersection.


3

Standard Penetration Tests were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D1586. The tests were performed continuously from the existing ground surface to a depth of 12feet, and at 5-foot intervals thereafter, starting at a depth of 13 feet below grade. The soilsamples were obtained with a standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30” long split-spoon sampler. Thesampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches, using a safety hammer.The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment of penetration wasrecorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of the second and third penetrationincrements is termed the SPT N-value (uncorrected for automatic hammer and overburdenpressure). A representative portion of each disturbed split-spoon sample was collected witheach SPT, placed in a sealed glass jar, and returned to our laboratory for review.

In addition to the soil test borings, two approximate 5 feet by 5 feet (square) test pits(designated as TP-1 and TP-2) were excavated roughly four feet deep at the proposed signalpole locations in order to identify the location of any shallow underground utilities

The boring and test pit locations were established by the client and staked in the field by arepresentative of G E T Solutions, Inc. using easily identifiable landmarks. Upon completion ofthe soil borings and test pits, the holes were backfilled with the removed soils. The approximateboring and test pit locations are shown on the attached “Boring and Test Pit Location Plan”(Appendix I), which was developed based on a site plan provided by the client.

2.2 Soil Classification and Testing

Soil testing provided by G E T Solutions, Inc. was performed in accordance with AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. All soils and materials tests wereperformed in our AASHTO re:source (formally AMRL) and US Army Corps of Engineers certifiedWilliamsburg laboratory.

2.2.1 Soil Classification and Index Testing

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling operations were labeled,preserved and transferred to our laboratory in accordance with ASTM D4220 for classificationand analysis. Soil descriptions on the boring logs are provided using visual-manual methods ingeneral accordance with ASTM D2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).Soil samples that were selected for index testing were classified in general accordance withASTM D2487. It should be noted that some variation can be expected between samplesclassified using the visual-manual procedure (ASTM D2488) and the USCS (ASTM D2487). Asummary of the soil classification system is provided in Appendix II.

Representative split-spoon soil samples were selected and subjected to natural moisture, #200sieve wash, and Atterberg Limits testing in order to corroborate the visual classification. Thesetest results are presented in Appendix III and on the soil test boring logs provided in AppendixIV. A generalized subsurface soil profile is provided in Appendix V.


4

3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Site Geology

The project site lies within a major physiographic province called the Atlantic Coastal Plain.Numerous transgressions and regressions of the Atlantic Ocean have deposited marine,lagoonal, and fluvial (stream lain) sediments. The regional geology is very complex, andgenerally consists of interbedded layers of varying mixtures of sands, silts and clays. Based onour review of existing geologic and soil boring data, the geologic stratigraphy encountered in oursubsurface explorations generally consisted of marine deposited Sands, Silts and Clays.

3.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions

A summary of the recovered soils at the SPT borings is provided in Table I.

Table I – Subsurface Soil Conditions

AverageDepth (ft) Stratum Description Ranges of

SPT(1) N-Values

0to0.3

Topsoil Ø 3 inches Topsoil –

0.3to2.0

FILLØ Silty and Clayey SAND (SM and SC) with

varying amounts of Gravel, Silty, Clay, and/orfibrous organic material

8 - 18

2.0to

6.0 - 6.5I Ø Silty SAND (SM) with varying amounts of

Gravel and/or Clay 12 - 16

6.0 - 6.5to

8.0 - 11.0II Ø CLAY (CH and CL) with varying amounts of

Gravel and/or Sand and SILT (ML) with Sand 1 - 12

8.0to9.5

IIIØ Silty SAND (SM)

This stratum was not observed at boring location B-1.2

9.5 - 11.0to

35.0IV Ø Silty SAND (SM), contains marine shell

fragments “Yorktown Formation” 1 - 6

Note(s):(1) SPT = Standard Penetration Test, Uncorrected N-Values in Blows-per-foot


5

The subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soilstrata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix IV(Boring Log sheets) and in Appendix V (Generalized Soil Profile) which should be reviewed forspecific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records of thesubsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variationsmay occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratifications represent theapproximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition may be gradual. It isnoted that the “Topsoil” designation references the presence of surficial organic laden soil, anddoes not represent any particular quality specification. It is recommended that this material betested for approval prior to use as topsoil.

3.3 Test Pit Excavation Results

Upon completion of the test pit excavations, a 4-foot long piece of reinforcing steel (No. 4 bar)was placed in the approximate center of the test pit, photographs (included in Appendix VI) weretaken at the test pit locations, and four measurements were taken from the approximate centerof the test pits to existing features (curb, junction box, traffic lights, yellow paint stripping, etc.).These measurements are provided in Table II as well as on the Boring and Test Pit LocationPlan of Appendix I. No underground utilities or obstructions were observed within the test pitexcavations. Photographs of the test pits are provided in Appendix VI. The excavations werebackfilled with the excavated soils.

Table II – Test Pit Locations

Test Pit ID Center of Cleared Test Pit Location

TP-1 15.3’ from yellow linenorth of test pit

28.3’ from yellow linesouth of test pit

38.5’ from tip of medianto the east

29.1’ from the face ofexisting signal pole to

the southeast

TP-2 20.5’ from tip of medianto the west

11.3’ from edge ofexisting junction box

to the west

6.3’ from yellow line tothe south

13.5’ form face ofexisting signal pole to

the west

3.4 Groundwater Information

The groundwater level was recorded at the boring location and as observed through thewetness of the recovered soil samples during the drilling operations. The initial groundwaterlevel was measured to occur at depths ranging from 6 to 6.5 feet below the existing site grade atthe SPT boring locations. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safetyconsiderations. As such, the reported groundwater levels may not be indicative of the staticgroundwater level.


6

As subsurface soils begin to dry, moisture moves upwards through the soil profile by means ofcapillary action. Based on the subsurface soil composition (soils containing more than 30% offines by weight), the initial groundwater readings (based on the relative wetness of the soils)could be in part attributed to the capillary action of the soils. As such, if the static groundwaterelevation is critical to the design, it is recommended to install a temporary groundwatermonitoring well to substantiate this initial reading.

Groundwater conditions will vary with seasonal conditions, such as the frequency andmagnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as existing swales,drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, sidewalks, etc.).Seasonal groundwater fluctuations of ±2 feet or more are common in the project’s area;however, greater fluctuations have been documented. We recommend that the Contractordetermine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to determinegroundwater impact on the construction procedures.

4.0 EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our recommendations are based on the previously discussed project information, ourinterpretation of the soil test borings, and our observations during our site reconnaissance. If theproposed construction should vary from what was described, we request the opportunity toreview our recommendations and make any necessary changes.

4.1 Signal Pole Foundation Discussion

The proposed signal pole foundations should be designed to resist the overturning moments,uplift, torsion, and shear forces. As previously mentioned, the exact loading informationassociated with the signal pole was unknown at the time of this reporting. Based on ourexperience with similar projects, it is expected that the signal poles will be supported by a drilledshaft foundation designed by others.

We recommend that the estimated design parameters presented in Table III be used to designthe signal pole foundations (drilled shafts). These parameters were developed based on theunderstanding that the bearing soils will be clean and free of loose soils and the perimeter wallsof the excavation will be stable during the concrete placement. Additionally, the estimated soilparameters shown in Table III were developed based on the subsurface soil conditions and theN-values encountered at the SPT boring locations. Soil conditions as well as soil parameters atother locations than that encountered at the borings may be different. When the drillingoperations are complete, concrete should be placed inside the casings as soon as possible. It isrecommended that concrete in a drilled shaft be poured the same day that the hole is drilled.We recommend drilled shaft construction be completed in general accordance with FWHAPublication: FHWA-NHI-10-016 “Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD DesignMethods”. A qualified representative of G E T Solutions Inc. should verify that the drilled shaftsare bearing on competent materials and that the drilled shaft installation procedures comply withthe specifications.


7

Table III – Estimated Soil Parameters for Drilled Shaft Foundation Design

Soil Type SAND (SM) CLAY (CH & CL)and SILT (ML) SAND (SM)

SAND (SM)YorktownFormation

Stratum I II III IV

Average Depth(1) (ft)2.0 to

6.0-6.5

6.0-6.5to

8.0-11.0

8.0to9.5

9.5-11.0to

35.0Average SPT N-value 13 7 2 5Estimated Moist Unit

Weight (pcf) 120 115 120 120

Estimated Saturated UnitWeight (pcf) 125 120 125 125

Estimated Buoyant UnitWeight (pcf) 63 58 63 63

Friction Angle (f)(degrees) 32 5 30 30

Cohesion (c)(psf) 0 500 0 0

Active Coefficient ofLateral Earth Pressure, Ka

0.31 0.84 0.33 0.33

At-rest Coefficient ofLateral Earth Pressure, Ko

0.47 0.91 0.50 0.50

Passive Coefficient ofLateral Earth Pressure, Kp

3.25 1.2 3.0 3.0

Coefficient ofFriction/Adhesion to

Concrete0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Note(s): (1) Below existing grade at the time of site reconnaissance

The size and depth of the drilled shafts should be determined by the Structural Engineer or thesignal pole manufacturer.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Anticipated Excavation Characteristics

Based on the results of this exploration, varying soil conditions and compositions are expectedto be encountered throughout the project limits. Open-cut excavations will extend throughnatural soils that are considered to be relatively “clean” (i.e. soil that is relatively free ofdeleterious debris that may hinder excavation or installation). Debris typically consideredunsuitable consist of wood, glass, organics, plastics, coal, brick or any other material larger than2 inches in diameter. Based on these characteristics it is anticipated that some of the shallowsubsurface materials encountered within the project alignment may be reusable as backfill.Soils containing appreciable amounts of deleterious debris should be discarded; however, aneffort should be made during excavation to segregate potentially suitable in-situ soils for reuse.


8

5.2 Excavation Stability

The shallow subsurface within the project limits is comprised of clayey and granular soils;however, the Contractor should anticipate these soils to have relatively little cohesion and havea high potential for caving. Additionally, water seepage at varying elevations should be expectedwithin the side walls of the open cut areas, increasing the potential for caving. Based on thesementioned characteristics, it is recommended that all subsurface soils be considered Type C inaccordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) criteria.

Temporary Slopes

In Federal Register, Volume 54, No. 209 (October, 1989), the United States Department ofLabor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its “ConstructionStandards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, Subpart P”. This document was issued to betterensure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federalregulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches, basement excavations, orfooting excavations, be constructed in accordance with the new (OSHA) guidelines. It is ourunderstanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closelyfollowed, the owner and the Contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

Temporary slopes may not be a feasible option. The Contractor is solely responsible fordesigning and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench thesides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides andbottom. The Contractor’s responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluatethe soil exposed in the excavations as part of the Contractor’s safety procedures. In no caseshould slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavationdepth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

Where temporary slopes are not feasible, shoring by means of sheeting and/or trench shieldsmay be appropriate. Where the stability of adjoining structures, pavements, or otherimprovements is endangered by excavation operations, support systems such as shoring,bracing, or underpinning may be required to provide structural stability. Shoring, bracing, orunderpinning required for this project (if required) should be designed by a professionalengineer.

Shoring

Shoring design and installation should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Shoring systemsrequired for this project should be designed by a professional engineer. Shoring systems shouldbe designed to provide positive restraint of trench walls in an effort to protect against lateraldeformation that may result in ground cracks, settlement, and/or other ground movements thatmay affect adjacent underground utilities and pavements as well as surface improvements. TheContractor should be made aware of this potential condition in order that preventative measurescan be implemented or repair measures provided for.


9

Depending on the shoring system used, the removal process may create voids along the wallsof the excavations. If these voids are left in place and are significant, backfill and/or the retainedsoil may shift laterally resulting in settlement of overlying structures/pavements. As such, careshould be taken to remove the shoring systems and backfill the trenches in a manner as to notcreate these voids.

In all cases, the Contractor should select an excavation and/or shoring scheme that will protectadjacent and overlying improvements, including below grade utilities.

We are providing this information solely as a service to our client. G E T Solutions, Inc. is notassuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor’s activities; suchresponsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

5.3 Dewatering

It is expected that dewatering will be required for excavations that extend near or below theexisting groundwater table (approximate depth ranging from 6 to 6.5 feet or shallower).Dewatering above the groundwater level could probably be accomplished by pumping fromsumps. Dewatering at depths below the groundwater level will require well pointing and possiblyshoring. Since temporary dewatering will impact construction and be dependent on constructionmethods and scheduling, we recommend the Contractor be solely responsible for the design,installation, maintenance, and performance of all temporary dewatering systems. Where shoringis employed, the dewatering system should be compatible with the type of shoring to be used.We recommend the Contractor verify groundwater conditions and evaluate dewateringrequirements prior to construction.

Lowering the groundwater table during dewatering activities will result in an increase in effectivestresses and may induce settlements of the soils underlying adjacent structures/pavements.Additionally, hydraulic compaction of predominately granular soils (e.g. SP, SP-SM, SM soils)should be anticipated as a result of lowering the groundwater table. We recommend that thedewatering be performed such that the groundwater level is lowered no more thanapproximately 5 feet below the proposed excavation depth. It may be advantageous to installsettlement monuments in areas where dewatering by means of well pointing is required.

5.4 Structure Protection and Monitoring

Excavation for the proposed signal pole and utilities will be made within the zone of influence ofexisting roadways and utilities. The Contractor must take adequate measures to protect existingstructures and utilities from movement and must perform all work in such a way as to limitdamage to existing roadways and utilities. All roadways and utilities within 50 feet of theproposed construction should be monitored during construction.


10

6.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted are based on the available soil information obtained by G E TSolutions, Inc. and the information supplied by the client and their consultants for the proposedproject. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the subsurfaceconditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, G E T Solutions, Inc.should be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations arerequired. If G E T Solutions, Inc. is not retained to perform these functions, G E T Solutions,Inc. cannot be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the geotechnicalrecommendations for the project.

The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications orprofessional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally acceptedprofessional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties areimplied or expressed. After the plans and specifications are more complete the GeotechnicalEngineer should be provided the opportunity to review the final design plans and specificationsto make sure our engineering recommendations have been properly incorporated into thedesign documents, in order that the earthwork and foundation recommendations may beproperly interpreted and implemented. At that time, it may be necessary to submitsupplementary recommendations.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and their designated agents forthe specific application to the Coliseum Drive Extension – Signal Poles project in the City ofHampton, Virginia.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I BORING AND TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILEXPLORATION

APPENDIX III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CLASSIFICATIONRESULTS

APPENDIX IV BORING LOGS

APPENDIX V GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

APPENDIX VI PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXCAVATED TEST PITS

APPENDIX I

BORING AND TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN

Locations are approximate based on site visit sketch.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Boring and Test Pit Location Plan

Project: Coliseum Drive Extension – Signal PolesHampton, Virginia Scale: As Drawn

Project No: WM17-172G Date: 3/6/2019Client: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Plot By: JW

B-1/TP-1

B-2/TP-2

APPENDIX II

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Very Loose 4 blows/ft. or less Very Soft 2 blows/ft. or lessLoose 5 to 10 blows/ft. Soft 3 to 4 blows/ft.Medium Dense 11 to 30 blows/ft. Medium Stiff 5 to 8 blows/ft.Dense 31 to 50 blows/ft. Stiff 9 to 15 blows/ft.Very Dense 51 blows/ft. or more Very Stiff 16 to 30 blows/ft.

Hard 31 blows/ft. or more

Boulders 8 inch diameter or moreCobbles 3 to 8 inch diameterGravel Coarse 1 to 3 inch diameter

Medium 1/2 to 1 inch diameterFine 1/4 to

1/2 inch diameterSand Coarse 2.00 mm to 1/4 inch

(diameter of pencil lead)Medium 0.42 to 2.00 mm

(diameter of broom straw)Fine 0.074 to 0.42 mm

(diameter of human hair)Silt 0.002 to 0.074 mm

(cannot see particles)

GW - Well-graded Gravel CL - Lean ClayGP - Poorly graded Gravel CL-ML - Silty ClayGW-GM - Well-graded Gravel w/Silt ML - SiltGW-GC - Well-graded Gravel w/Clay OL - Organic Clay/SiltGP-GM - Poorly graded Gravel w/Silt Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW,SPGP-GC - Poorly graded Gravel w/Clay CH - Fat Clay More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SCGM - Silty Gravel MH - Elastic Silt 5 to 12 percentGC - Clayey Gravel OH - Organic Clay/SiltGC-GM - Silty, Clayey GravelSW - Well-graded SandSP - Poorly graded Sand PT - PeatSW-SM - Well-graded Sand w/SiltSW-SC - Well-graded Sand w/ClaySP-SM - Poorly graded Sand w/SiltSP-SC - Poorly graded Sand w/ClaySM - Silty SandSC - Clayey SandSC-SM - Silty, Clayey Sand

Consistency

Page 1 of 1

Form 18.03.01 Revision 2/11/2019

Coarse Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils

Highly Organic Soils

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Liquid Limit 50% or greater

Trace

Plasticity Chart

701 Alexander Lee ParkwayWilliamsburg, Virginia 23185

0-55-10

COHESIVE SOILS(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)

Relative ProportionsDescriptive Term

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value

Virginia Beach5465 Greenwich Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23462(757) 518-1703 (757) 564-6452

Elizabeth City504 East Elizabeth St. Suite 2

Elizabeth City, NC 27909(252) 335-9765

Williamsburg

Strata ChangesIn the column “Description” on the boring log, the horizontal linesrepresent approximate strata changes.

Groundwater Readings

Percent

15-2530-45

FewLittle

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variationsand seasonal conditions, such as the frequency and magnitude ofrainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences and man-madeinfluences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrainsand areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, side walks, etc.).

Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200sieve size), coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

Borderline cases requiring dualsymbols

SomeMostly 50-100

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with a standard1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30” long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required todrive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. The sum of thesecond and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Relative Density

NON COHESIVE SOILS(SILT, SAND, GRAVEL and Combinations)

Particle Size Identification

(910) 478-9915

Jacksonville415-A Western BoulevardJacksonville, NC 28546

APPENDIX III

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION RESULTS

B-1 7.0 54 29 25 0.075 92 CH 37.0

B-1 10.5 NP NP NP 0.075 74 ML 45.0

B-2 9.0 NP NP NP 0.075 31 SM 44.0

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTSPAGE 1 OF 1

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

MaximumSize(mm)

%<#200Sieve

LiquidLimit

Satur-ation(%)

VoidRatio

Class-ification

WaterContent

(%)

DryDensity

(pcf)DepthBorehole

PROJECT NUMBER WM17-172G

CLIENT Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.

PROJECT LOCATION Hampton, VA

PROJECT NAME Coliseum Drive Extension - Signal Poles

(1)

GE

T -

LA

BO

RA

TO

RY

TE

ST

SU

MM

AR

Y -

GE

T_

ST

AN

DA

RD

_DA

TA

TE

MP

LAT

E(0

3-1

7-1

4).G

DT

- 3

/1/1

9 12

:37

- G

:\DO

CU

ME

NT

S\G

ET

W\G

EO

TE

CH

\201

7 G

EO

\WM

17-1

72G

CO

LIS

EU

M D

RIV

E E

XT

EN

SIO

N\R

EP

OR

T\S

IGN

AL

PO

LE R

EP

OR

T\A

PP

EN

DIX

IV -

BO

RIN

G L

OG

S\T

ES

T P

IT L

OG

S.G

PJ

GET Solutions, Inc.

APPENDIX IV

BORING LOGS

3-in of Topsoil

Dark gray and brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC)with trace fine Gravel, contains fibrous organic material, loose,

"FILL"

Dark gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace fineGravel, medium dense

Dark gray, moist, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with trace fineGravel and trace Clay, medium dense

Mottled, light gray and orange-brown, wet, fat CLAY (CH), stiff

Dark gray, wet, fat CLAY (CH), medium stiff

Dark gray and orange-brown, wet, SILT (ML) with Sand, verysoft

Dark gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), containsmarine shell fragments, very loose to loose, "Yorktown

Formation"

Boring terminated at 35 feet below existing grade.

92

74

20

20

4

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2-3-5-5(8)

3-5-7-8(12)

4-5-7-8(12)

4-6-6-7(12)

1-3-2-2(5)

0-0-1-1(1)

1-3-3-3(6)

1-2-3-3(5)

2-2-3-3(5)

2-2-3-4(5)

2-2-3-4(5)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

11.0

35.0

INITIAL (ft) : 6 CAVE-IN (ft) :

Notes:

BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan

AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:

PROJECT LOCATION: Hampton, VA

CLIENT: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.

PROJECT NAME: Coliseum Drive Extension - Signal Poles

SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (ft):

Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd

The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level.

Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rta

ins

only

to th

is b

orin

g an

d sh

oul

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as b

eing

indi

citiv

e of

the

site

.

DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc.

DATE STARTED: 2/6/2019

LOGGED BY: T. Vaughn

PROJECT NUMBER: WM17-172G

Elizabeth City106 Capital Trace Unit EElizabeth City, NC 27909

252-335-9765

Jacksonville415-A Western Blvd

Jacksonville, NC 28546910-478-9915

TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SPT - StandardPenetration Test

DRILLING METHOD(S): Rotary wash "mud"

Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)

RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONBORING ID

B-1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

DATE COMPLETED: 2/6/2019


Virginia Beach, VA 23642757-518-1703

Williamsburg701 Alexander Lee Parkway

Williamsburg, VA 23185757-564-6452

3-in of Topsoil

Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace fine tocoarse Gravel, medium dense, "FILL"

Brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with lenses ofClay, medium dense

Brown and gray, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM),medium dense

Mottled, gray and orange-brown, wet, Sandy lean CLAY (CL)with trace fine Gravel, stiff

Orange-brown and light gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND(SM), very loose

Dark gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), containsmarine shell fragments, very loose to loose, "Yorktown

Formation"

Boring terminated at 35 feet below existing grade.

31

18

24

14

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

2-6-12-9(18)

6-8-8-8(16)

11-7-5-5(12)

4-4-6-6(10)

1-1-1-1(2)

0-0-1-1(1)

2-2-3-4(5)

2-2-4-4(6)

2-2-3-4(5)

2-2-3-4(5)

2-2-4-4(6)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.5

8.0

9.5

35.0

INITIAL (ft) : 6.5 CAVE-IN (ft) :

Notes:

BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan

AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

GROUNDWATER*:




SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (ft):

Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd

The initial groundwater readings are not intended to indicate the static groundwater level.

Thi

s in

form

atio

n pe

rta

ins

only

to th

is b

orin

g an

d sh

oul

d no

t be

inte

rpre

ted

as b

eing

indi

citiv

e of

the

site

.

DRILLER: GET Solutions, Inc.

DATE STARTED: 2/6/2019

LOGGED BY: T. Vaughn


Elizabeth City106 Capital Trace Unit EElizabeth City, NC 27909

252-335-9765

Jacksonville415-A Western Blvd

Jacksonville, NC 28546910-478-9915

TEST RESULTS

Penetration -

SPT - StandardPenetration Test

DRILLING METHOD(S): Rotary wash "mud"

Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)

RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONBORING ID

B-2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

DATE COMPLETED: 2/6/2019


Virginia Beach, VA 23642757-518-1703

Williamsburg701 Alexander Lee Parkway

Williamsburg, VA 23185757-564-6452

APPENDIX V

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(8)

(12)

(12)

(12)

(5)

(1)

(6)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(5)

(18)

(16)

(12)

(10)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(6)

(5)

(5)

(6)



(Numerical Value) = Sample N-Value

Topsoil

Fill (made ground) -Clayey Sand

USCS Silty Sand

USCS High PlasticityClay

USCS Silt

USCS Silty Sand -Yorktown

Fill (made ground) -Silty Sand

USCS Low PlasticityClay

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE



LEGEND

Dep

th B

elo

w G

rou

nd

Su

rfac

e (f

t)

B-1 B-2

APPENDIX VI

PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXCAVATED TEST PITS

TEST PIT PHOTOGRAPHS – TEST PIT #1 (TP-1)

TEST PIT PHOTOGRAPHS – TEST PIT #2 (TP-2)

report of subsurface exploration and …

Documents