Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A Minority-Owned Business Report of Geotechnical Study Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, Maryland F&R Project No. 75V0084 Prepared For: Bohler Engineering 901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 801 Towson, MD 21204 Prepared By: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. 10626 York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland 21030 October 20, 2017
51
Embed
Report of Geotechnical Study - Port Covington...2017/10/20 · techniques outlined in the visual-manual identification procedure (ASTM D 2488). The soil descriptions and classifications
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Corporate HQ: 3015 Dumbarton Road Richmond, Virginia 23228 T 804.264.2701 F 804.264.1202 www.fandr.com
VIRGINIA • NORTH CAROLINA • SOUTH CAROLINA • MARYLAND • DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A Minority-Owned Business
Report of Geotechnical Study
Baltimore Sun Consolidation Baltimore, Maryland
F&R Project No. 75V0084
Prepared For:
Bohler Engineering 901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 801
Towson, MD 21204
Prepared By: Froehling & Robertson, Inc. 10626 York Road, Suites C-D
Cockeysville, Maryland 21030
October 20, 2017
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES ..............................................................................................2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..........................................................................................................3
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................3 2.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................3
4.2.1 General........................................................................................................................6 4.2.2 Surficial Materials ........................................................................................................6 4.2.3 Fill Material .................................................................................................................7 4.2.4 Coastal Plain Soils .......................................................................................................7
4.3 SUBSURFACE WATER ................................................................................................................7 4.4 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .......................................................................................................8
5.1 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................9 5.2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATION ELEMENTS ...............................................................9 5.3 SUPPORTING ON EXISTING FILL ................................................................................................ 10 5.4 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................................... 10 5.5 INFILTRATION PRACTICES ......................................................................................................... 10 5.6 CONCRETE SLAB AND SIDEWALK CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................ 11 5.7 PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION ..................................................................................................... 12 5.8 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 14
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 15
6.1 SITE PREPARATION ................................................................................................................ 15 6.2 STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ......................................................................... 16 6.3 FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 17 6.4 SURFACE/ GROUNDWATER CONTROL ......................................................................................... 17 6.5 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 18
7.0 CONTINUATION OF SERVICES ................................................................................................ 19
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - ii -
APPENDICES APPENDIX I
Site Location Plan Boring Location Plan
APPENDIX II Key to Soil Classification Unified Soil Classification Chart Boring Logs USDA Textural Triangles
APPENDIX III GBA Document “Important Information about Your Geotechnical Engineering Report”
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 1 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary is provided as a brief overview of our geotechnical engineering
evaluation for the project and is not intended to replace more detailed information contained
elsewhere in this report. As an overview, this summary inherently omits details that could be
very important to the proper application of the provided geotechnical design recommendations.
This report should be read in its entirety prior to implementation into design and construction.
The subsurface exploration program was performed between the dates of August 13,
2017, and October 3, 2017, and consisted of thirteen test borings designated B-1 through
B-8, and SWM-1 through SWM-5. Borings were drilled to the planned termination depths
of 10 feet or 15 feet. Below the existing ground surface, the borings generally
encountered surficial asphalt materials or organic soils, fill materials, and coastal plain
soils.
We note that existing fill materials were present well below the anticipated foundation
bearing levels for the proposed fuel center support structures. Considering the nature of
the proposed structures and the anticipated loads, we envision that the proposed
structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on approved existing
fill materials, provided that the risks regarding construction on existing fill materials are
understood and accepted. We recommend that foundations be designed for a net
allowable bearing pressure not to exceed 1,500 pounds per square feet (psf).
The field infiltration test rates at SWM-1, SWM-2, and SWM-3, and the overall average
infiltration rate shown above does not meet or exceed the minimum acceptable rate for
infiltration. Based on the foregoing, infiltration practices are not considered feasible at
the locations and elevations tested. We note that only the infiltration rates recorded at
SWM-4 and SWM-5 exceeded the minimum infiltration rate of 0.52 inches per hour;
however, it should also be understood that the infiltration testing is believed to have been
performed in existing fill materials.
The following Seismic Site Class Definition was established per Section 1613.5.2 of the
2012 International Building Code (IBC). Based on our experience in this area and the data
from our testing and subsurface exploration, a Site Classification “D” should be used for
further evaluations relative to earthquake load design regarding the water storage tank.
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 2 -
1.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation was to explore the subsurface conditions in the areas of the proposed Baltimore Sun facility improvements, to conduct infiltration testing for the proposed stormwater management practices and provide geotechnical engineering design and construction recommendations that can be used during the design and construction of the proposed improvements.
F&R’s scope of services included the following:
Coordination utility clearance with Miss Utility, and coordination with a private utility locator for utility clearance;
Review and summarize readily available geologic and subsurface information relative to the project site;
Completion of thirteen (13) standard penetration test borings up to the predetermined depths, ranging from 10 feet to 15 feet, for foundation considerations;
Completion of five (5) standard infiltration tests at a depths ranging from 2 feet to 5.5 feet below existing grades for stormwater management considerations;
Preparation of typed Boring Logs;
Perform laboratory testing consisting of 19 Natural Moisture Content, 5 USDA classification tests, 3 USCS classification tests, 3 standard Proctors, and 3 CBR’s;
Performing a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the subsurface conditions with regard to their suitability for the proposed construction;
Provided recommendations for slab on grade and flexible pavement design and construction;
Provided a seismic site class definition. The seismic site class definition was assigned based on the test boring Standard Penetration Test data and correlations provided in the 2012 IBC;
Evaluate the findings of the infiltration test relative to suitable stormwater management practices;
Provided recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of fill materials required to achieve building pad or site subgrades, including an assessment of the suitability of the on-site soil for re-use as structural fill, and recommendations regarding rock excavation;
Preparation of this geotechnical report by professional engineers.
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 3 -
Our scope of services did not include survey services, quantity estimates, remedial designs,
preparation of plans or specifications, evaluation or monitoring for environmental contaminants,
slope stability analyses, stormwater management design, evaluations of earthquake motions, the
identification and evaluation of wetlands, or any other scope element not specifically listed above.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Description
The site is located on the grounds of the existing Baltimore Sun facility at 300 E. Cromwell Street in
Baltimore, Maryland, as shown on the Site Location Plan included in Appendix I of this report. The
project site currently consists of the northern and western portion of the facility grounds which are
primarily grass covered lawns and asphalt paved drive lanes and parking areas. The site sits close to
sea level as it is located in close proximity to the open waters of Winans Cove. Topographically, the
site is generally level with grades sloping very slightly from El 20 in the north down to El 12 in the
southwest. A drainage swale runs the perimeter of the Baltimore Sun facility property which was
observed to have standing water during F&R’s site visits.
2.2 Proposed Construction
Our understanding of the project was developed on the basis of telephone and email
correspondence with you, which included the document entitled “Baltimore-Sun Revised SWM
Facilities.pdf” dated September 25, 2017. We understand that the purpose of the site
reorganization is to consolidate the Baltimore Sun’s operations for the initial phases of the Master
Plan for Port Covington. This will include the construction of new drive lanes and parking areas
around the facility located at 300 East Cromwell Street. Additional site improvements will include
the construction of up to five new storm water management facilities that are planned to implement
infiltration practices and a new fueling station consisting of a canopy structure. Based on our review
of the provided grading plan, relatively minor cuts and fills of up to 5 feet are anticipated.
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 4 -
3.0 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
3.1 Subsurface Exploration
The subsurface exploration program was performed between the dates of August 13, 2017, and
October 3, 2017, and consisted of thirteen test borings designated B-1 through B-8, and SWM-1
through SWM-5. Borings were drilled to the planned termination depths of 10 feet or 15 feet. The
locations of the borings are shown on the attached Boring Location Plan (Drawing No. 2). The
planned boring locations were determined and staked in the field by F&R by measuring from existing
site features such as building corners, edges of pavement, etc. Surface elevations at the boring
locations were estimated from the topography indicated on the provided site plans. In
consideration of the methods used in their determination, the test boring locations shown on the
attached boring location plan should be considered approximate.
The test borings were performed in accordance with generally accepted drilling practice using a
truck-mounted CME-55 rotary drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. Hollow-stem augers
were advanced to pre-determined depths, the center plug was removed, and representative soil
samples were recovered with a standard split-spoon sampler (1 3/8 in. ID, 2 in. OD) in general
accordance with ASTM D 1586, the Standard Penetration Test. The split-spoon sampler was driven
into the soil by freely dropping a weight of 140 pounds from a height of 30 inches. The number of
blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler three consecutive 6-inch increments is recorded,
and the blows of the last two increments are summed to obtain the Standard Penetration Resistance
(N-value). The N-value provides a general indication of in-situ soil conditions and has been correlated
with certain engineering properties of soils.
The test borings were advanced through the soil overburden by soil drilling procedures until the
planned termination depth. Subsurface water level readings were taken in all of the borings
immediately upon completion of the drilling process, upon removal of the augers, and again after
24 hours at some locations. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with auger
cuttings (soil) and capped with asphalt cold patch, as necessry. Periodic observation of the
boreholes should be performed to monitor subsidence at the ground surface, as the borehole
backfill could settle over time.
Representative portions of the split-spoon soil samples obtained throughout the exploration
program were placed in glass jars and transported to our laboratory. In the laboratory, the soil
samples were evaluated by a member of our engineering staff in general accordance with
techniques outlined in the visual-manual identification procedure (ASTM D 2488). The soil
descriptions and classifications discussed in this report and shown on the attached Boring Logs are
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 5 -
based on visual observation and should be considered approximate. A copy of the boring logs are
provided and classification procedures are further explained in Appendix II.
Split-spoon soil samples recovered on this project will be stored at F&R’s office for a period of 60
days. After 60 days, the samples will be discarded unless prior notification is provided to us in
writing.
3.2 Infiltration Testing
Infiltration testing was conducted adjacent to boring locations SWM-1 through SWM-5, at depths
ranging from 2 feet to 5.5 feet below existing grades. Infiltration testing was performed in general
compliance with the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) Stormwater Design Manual. The
cased boreholes were soaked with water to a depth of 2 feet for 24 hours. After this presoaking
period water was added as necessary to the cased borehole to re-establish a depth of 2 feet. Water
level readings were taken every 30 minutes for 4 hours, and the infiltration rate is reported as the
average rate of water drop over the period of the test (inches per hour).
3.3 Laboratory Testing
Representative soil samples were subjected to Water Content (ASTM D 2216), #200 Sieve Wash
(ASTM D 1140), Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318), Hydrometer Analysis (ASTM D 422), standard
Proctor (ASTM D698) and CBR (ASTM D1883) to substantiate the visual classifications and assist
with the estimation of the soils’ pertinent engineering properties. The results are shown in
Section 4.4.
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 6 -
4.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY & SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Regional Geology
Information obtained from the Geologic Map of Maryland (1968) indicates that this area is underlain
by Lowland Deposits of the Pleistocene Epoch, which is composed of gravel, sand, silt and clay soils.
These coastal plain deposits are typically medium-to coarse-grained sand and gravel; cobbles and
boulders near the base; commonly contains reworked Eocene glauconite; varicolored silts and clays,
brown to dark gray lignitic Silty Clay.
4.2 Subsurface Conditions
4.2.1 General
The subsurface conditions discussed in the following paragraphs and those shown on the attached
Boring Logs represent an estimate of the subsurface conditions based on interpretation of the
boring data using normally accepted geotechnical engineering judgments. The transitions between
different soil strata are usually less distinct than those shown on the boring logs. Sometimes the
relatively small sample obtained in the field is insufficient to definitively describe the origin of the
subsurface material. In these cases, we qualify our origin descriptions with “possible” before the
word describing the material’s origin (i.e. possible alluvium, etc.). Although individual soil test
borings are representative of the subsurface conditions at the boring locations on the dates shown,
they are not necessarily indicative of subsurface conditions at other locations or at other times. Data
from the specific soil test borings are shown on the attached Boring Logs in Appendix II.
Below the existing ground surface, the borings generally encountered surficial materials, fill, and
coastal plain soils. These materials are generally discussed in the following paragraphs.
4.2.2 Surficial Materials
Surficial organic soils were encountered in each of the borings, except B-3 and B-8, and extended to
depths of 2 to 3 inches. Surficial organic soil is typically a dark-colored soil material containing roots,
fibrous matter, and/or other organic components, and is generally unsuitable for engineering
purposes. F&R has not performed any laboratory testing to determine the organic content or other
horticultural properties of the observed surficial organic soil materials. Therefore, the term surficial
organic soil is not intended to indicate a suitability for landscaping and/or other purposes. The
surficial organic soil depths provided in this report are based on driller observations and should be
considered approximate. We note that the transition from surficial organic soil to underlying
materials may be gradual, and therefore the observation and measurement of surficial organic soil
depths is subjective. Actual surficial organic soil depths should be expected to vary. Borings B-3 and
B-8 encountered approximately 6 inches of surficial asphalt pavement underlain by 6 inches of
subbase gravel.
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 7 -
4.2.3 Fill Material
Soils considered to be Fill Material were encountered underlying the surficial materials described
above in each of the soil borings, to depths ranging from 2.5 feet to 13.5 feet. Fill may be any
material that has been transported and deposited by man. Possible fill materials, not clearly
distinguishable from possible coastal plain soils, were encountered at depths of 8.5 feet to 13.5 feet
in borings B-4 and B-5, 2.5 feet to 8.5 feet in boring SWM-5, and 8.5 feet to the boring termination
depth of 15 feet in boring SWM-1.
Fill materials were described sandy SILT (ML), lean CLAY (CL), and fat CLAY (CH), with varying
amounts of sand and gravel, clayey SAND (SC), silty SAND (SM), clayey GRAVEL (GC), and silty
GRAVEL (GM). Many specimens of the sampled fill appeared to contain a varying amounts of fine
black material that was described as likely cinders. The sampled fill materials were brown, light
brown, dark brown, reddish brown, tan, black, and gray, in color, with a moisture content visually
characterized as moist to wet. The Standard Penetration Test values (N-Values) in the fill ranged
from 4 bpf to 100+ bpf.
4.2.4 Coastal Plain Soils
Alluvial deposited soils of the coastal plain were found to underlie the fill material described above,
and were present until the boring termination depth; expect for as mentioned above in SWM-1.
These naturally occurring deposits were found to consist of sandy Lean CLAY (CL), with varying
amounts of sand, clayey SAND (SC), silty SAND (SM), and poorly graded SAND (SP) soils. Coastal plain
materials were dark brown, light brown, brown, gray and black in color, with moisture contents
visually characterized as very moist to saturated. SPT values in the coastal plain soils ranged from 2
bpf to 13 bpf.
4.3 Subsurface Water
The test borings were monitored during and after drilling operations to obtain short-term
subsurface water information, and again after a 24 hour interval in borings B-5, B-6, B-7, and
SWM-1 through SWM-5. Subsurface water was encountered at depths ranging from 2.5 feet to
9.5 feet below existing site grades. It should be noted that the location of the subsurface water
table could vary by several feet because of seasonal fluctuations in precipitation, evaporation,
surface water runoff, local topography, and other factors not immediately apparent at the time
of this exploration. Normally, the highest subsurface water levels occur in the late winter and
spring and lowest levels occur in the late summer and fall.
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 8 -
4.4 Laboratory Test Results
As discussed in Section 3.2, laboratory testing was performed on a representative soil samples
collected during our subsurface exploration. The results from the laboratory testing are included
in the following table.
Boring No.
Sample Depth (Feet)
Natural Water
Content (%)
Liquid Limit/
Plasticity Index
% Passing No. 200
Sieve
USCS Class.
Optimum moisture*
(%)
Maximum Dry
Density* (pcf)
Soaked CBR (%)
B-1 2-3.5 6.5 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-1 0-10 6.1 Non-Plastic 54.5 ML 11.9 132.3 --
B-1 0-10 13.6 34/18 51.1 CL 12.9 116.4 1.9
B-2 2.5-4 6.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-2 8.5-10 31.9 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-3 2.5-4 10.9 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-3 8.5-10 23.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-4 0-10 8.4 25/11 42.9 SC 10.3 126.5 3.8
B-5 8.5-10 13.1 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-6 2.5-4 19.5 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-6 5-6.5 33.1 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-6 8.5-10 24.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-7 2.5-4 27.7 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-7 5-6.5 17.8 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-7 8.5-10 22.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
B-8 0-10 13.5 26/10 40.4 SC 9.0 124.4 5.2
SWM-1 2.5-4 18.4 28/9 50.0 CL -- -- --
SWM-2 2.5-4 26.1 Non-plastic 13.5 SM -- -- --
SWM-3 2.5-4 16.1 Non-plastic 21.0 SM -- -- --
SWM-4 8.5-10 35.2 Non-plastic 31.4 SM -- -- --
SWM-5 5-6.5 27.2 29/12 83.8 CL -- -- --
*as per the standard Proctor method B (ASTM 698)
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 9 -
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General The following evaluations and recommendations are based on our observations at the site,
interpretation of the field data obtained during this exploration and our experience with similar
subsurface conditions and projects. Soil penetration data has been used to estimate an allowable
bearing pressure and associated settlement using established correlations. Subsurface conditions in
unexplored locations may vary from those encountered. If the structure locations, loadings, or
elevations are changed, we should be notified and requested to confirm and, if necessary,
re-evaluate our recommendations.
Determination of an appropriate foundation system for a given structure is dependent on the
proposed structural loads, soil conditions, and construction constraints such as proximity to other
structures, etc. The subsurface exploration aids the geotechnical engineer in determining the soil
stratum appropriate for structural support. This determination includes considerations with regard
to both allowable bearing capacity and compressibility of the soil strata. In addition, since the
method of construction greatly affects the soils intended for structural support, consideration must
be given to the implementation of suitable methods of site preparation, fill compaction, and other
aspects of construction, where applicable.
5.2 Design Recommendations for Foundation Elements We note that existing fill materials were present well below the anticipated foundation bearing
levels for the proposed fuel center support structures. Based on F&R’s soil boring data and site
observation it appears that the existing fill materials may have been placed in a controlled method;
however, records of compaction testing were not provided. We note that that the fill materials
encountered in the borings generally did not include excessive amounts of organics or deleterious
debris; however, the composition of the sampled fill varied significantly and the presence of cinders
was common.
Considering the nature of the proposed structures and the anticipated loads, we envision that the
proposed structures can be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on approved existing
fill materials, provided that the risks regarding construction on existing fill materials are understood
and accepted. We recommend that foundations be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure
not to exceed 1,500 pounds per square feet (psf).
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 10 -
To reduce the possibility of localized shear failures, column and strip footings should be a minimum
of 3 feet and 2 feet wide, respectively. We recommend that all exterior footings be placed a
minimum of 2.5 feet below finished exterior grades, which should also be adequate to protect
exterior footings against the effects of frost.
5.3 Supporting on Existing Fill
In order to eliminate the risks associated with structural support on existing fill materials, the
existing materials could be completely removed and replaced with new controlled structural fill, or
deep foundation support could be considered. However, considering the site conditions, we
anticipate that neither complete removal of the fill nor deep foundations will be cost effective for
this project. Furthermore, based on the boring data, and given the relatively light load of the
anticipated structures, it appears that light structural support on the existing fill materials may be
possible provided that the recommended engineering evaluations (as described in Section 6.3 of
this report) are performed and the owner is willing to accept some risk. The risks associated with
structural support on the existing fills in the short term include additional support related cost (i.e.
undercutting, stabilization, etc.) should unforeseen conditions be encountered during construction.
Long-term risk (i.e. excessive settlement) can be reduced by requesting an F&R engineer to perform
the recommended subgrade evaluations during construction.
5.4 Foundation Settlement
Based on the boring data, proposed grading, and assumed structural information, we estimate that
foundation settlements will be less than 1 inch with differential settlement of up to one-half the
estimated total settlement. The magnitude of differential settlements will be influenced by the
variation in excavation requirements across the foundation footprint, the distribution of loads, and
the variability of underlying soils.
Our settlement analysis was performed on the basis of the assumed structural loading and provided
grading information discussed above. Actual settlements experienced by the structure and the time
required for these soils to settle will be influenced by undetected variations in subsurface conditions,
final grading plans, and the quality of fill placement and foundation construction.
5.5 Infiltration Practices
According to the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual requirements, infiltration is only permissible
where infiltration rates exceed 0.52 inches per hour, and groundwater or an impermeable layer is
not located within 2 to 4 feet of the planned bottom of the facility. The infiltration rate can be
determined from field testing and estimated empirically from USDA soil classification.
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 11 -
Infiltration testing was conducted at locations offset approximately 10 to 20 feet from
corresponding boring locations at the depths of between 2 and 5.5 feet below existing grades.
Inititial infiltration testing was scheduled to be performed at 8 feet below existing grades at all
locations; however, field adjustment were made due to the 24 hour water readings recorded in the
corresponding soil test boring. The results of the infiltration testing, along with the USDA soil
classification and the empirical infiltration rate, are included in the table below:
Infiltration Test Results
Corresponding
Boring No.
24 Hour
Subsurface
Water
Depth
Test Depth
Below Grade
Approx.
Test
Elevation
Infiltration
Test Result
(inches/hr)
Site Average
Rate
(inches/hr)
USDA Soil
Class.
Empirical
Rate
(inches/hr)
SWM-1 5.5ft 3.5ft 13.5 0.24 Loam 0.52
SWM-2 3ft 2ft 17.0 0.36 loamy Sand 2.41
SWM-3 3.5ft 2ft 17.0 0.48 sandy Loam 1.02
SWM-4 7.5ft 5.5ft 13.5 0.60 sandy Loam 1.02
SWM-5 6ft 4ft 11.0 0.60silty clay
Loam0.06
0.46
The field infiltration test rates at SWM-1, SWM-2, and SWM-3, and the overall average infiltration
rate shown above does not meet or exceed the minimum acceptable rate for infiltration. Based
on the foregoing, infiltration practices are not considered feasible at the locations and elevations
tested. We note that only the infiltration rates recorded at SWM-4 and SWM-5 exceeded the
minimum infiltration rate of 0.52 inches per hour; however, it should also be understood that the
infiltration testing is believed to have been performed in existing fill materials. Furthermore, we
note that the field infiltration rates vary slightly from the empirical rates established by USDA
based on soil classifications. It is our opinion that the field test provides a more accurate
representation of the soils infiltration capacity. However, we note that seasonal weather
conditions may also influence the rates recorded in the field. Additionally, we note that
subsurface water levels were found to be relatively shallow and low permeability clayey soils (i.e.
CL, CH, and SC) were commonly encountered in the test borings.
5.6 Concrete Slab and Sidewalk Considerations
Concrete slabs and sidewalks may be designed as a slab-on-grade supported by newly placed
controlled fill, and/or approved existing fill. Any loose/soft or otherwise unsuitable materials
encountered should be remediated by either additional undercuts, with grades restored with
properly compacted acceptable fill materials, or stabilized through other methods as judged
necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Considering the extent and varying nature of the onsite
fills, some partial undercutting of the existing fill materials should be expected to stabilize the
subgrades for slab support. For planning purposes we recommend that the slab subgrades be
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD
F&R Project No. 75V0084 October 20, 2017
Page - 12 -
undercut at least 12 inches below planned subgrade levels, followed by placement of a woven
geotextile such as Mirafi HP 270 and compacted with a well-graded gravel material such as CR-6
or RC-6. Additional recommendations regarding undercutting for slab support are provided in
Section 6.1 of this report.
We recommend that all slab-on-grades and sidewalks be underlain by 6-inches of well-
compacted granular materials, which should conform to an open graded aggregate (such as No.
57 Stone). This granular material provides a capillary break between the subgrade and slab-on-
grade; while also providing a uniform bearing surface. A vapor retarder should be used beneath
ground floor slabs that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coatings, and/or
if other moisture-sensitive equipment or materials will be in contact with the floor. However, the
use of vapor retarders may result in excessive curling of concrete slabs and sidewalks during
curing. We refer the concrete slab and sidewalk designer to ACI 302.1R-96, Sections 4.1.5 and
11.11, for further discussion on vapor retarders, curling, and the means to minimize concrete
shrinkage and curling.
Proper jointing of the ground concrete slab and sidewalk is also essential to minimize cracking.
ACI suggests that unreinforced, plain concrete slabs may be jointed at spacings of 24 to 36 times
the slab thickness, up to a maximum spacing of 18 feet. Slab construction should incorporate
isolation joints along bearing walls and around column locations to allow minor movements to
occur without damage. Utility or other construction excavations in the prepared slab subgrade
should be backfilled to a controlled fill criteria to provide uniform floor support.
Structural analyses and design of floor slab foundation may require the use of a vertical modulus
of subgrade reaction (k). Based on published correlations, we estimate that a design modulus of
subgrade reaction (k) = 100 pci is appropriate for floor slab design calculations, provided that the
recommended 4-inch subbase is utilized. Note that this modulus value should not be confused
with the k value which was provided for the preliminary design of mat foundations in Section 5.4
of this report.
5.7 Pavement Construction
We understand that asphaltic concrete pavement is planned for new at grade parking lots and
driveways on the site. We anticipate that the parking areas will service primarily automobile
traffic, while the driveways will have delivery truck, trailers, and trash truck traffic, along with
automobile traffic. Therefore, two pavement sections have been designed based on different
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 10.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-1 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 10.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-2 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/3/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
8-13-15
5-6-9
4-4-3
1-1-3
6 inches of Asphalt underlain by 6 inches ofSubbase GravelBrown, Tan, and Black, Moist, Medium Dense,Silty GRAVEL (GM), Some Sand, Fine Cinders
FILLTan and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, ClayeyGRAVEL (GC), Some Sand, Fine Cinders
FILLBrown, Tan, and Black, Very Moist, Loose, ClayeySAND (SC), Little Gravel, Fine Cinders
FILLLight Brown, Wet, Soft Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILSBoring Terminated at 10 Feet
17.0
15.5
13.0
9.5
8.0
1.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
10.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
Subsurface water was notencountered duringdrilling or upon removal ofaugers
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 10.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-3 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 9/13/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
9.2
15.0
9-16-22
10-14-14
10-18-20
20-50/2
3-2-2
Surficial Organic SoilBrown and Reddish Brown, Moist, Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Some Gravel
FILLTan and Brown, Moist, Medium Dense, ClayeySAND (SC), Trace Gravel
FILLReddish Brown and Gray, Very Moist, Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Some Gravel
FILL
Brown and Gray, Moist, Very Dense, Silty GRAVEL(GM), Some Sand
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 15.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-4 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/3/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
15.0
8-10-9
8-14-17
21-27-28
15-8-5
1-3-2
Surficial Organic SoilBrown, Reddish Brown, and Black, Moist,Medium Dense to Dense, Silty SAND (SM), SomeGravel, Little Cinders
FILL
Brown and Black, Moist, Very Dense, Silty SAND(SM) and Cinders
FILL
Dark Brown and Gray, Wet, Medium Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Some Gravel
POSSIBLE FILL
Dark Brown and Black, Saturated, Loose, PoorlyGraded SAND (SP)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILSBoring Terminated at 15 Feet
17.7
13.0
9.5
4.5
3.0
0.3
5.0
8.5
13.5
15.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
13.5
Subsurface water wasrecorded at a depth of8.5ft upon removal ofaugers. After 24 hours thesubsurface water levelwas recorded at 7ft.
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 15.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-5 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
11-9-10
9-9-6
3-2-1
2-3-4
Surficial Organic SoilBrown and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Trace Gravel, Trace Cinders
FILLBrown, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Fine SiltySAND (SM)
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 10.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-6 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
4-9-5
1-1-3
2-4-6
1-1-3
Surficial Organic SoilBrown and Black, Moist, Stiff, Sandy SILT (ML),Trace Gravel, Some Cinders
FILLDark Brown and Black, Moist, Soft, Sandy LeanCLAY (CL), Trace Cinders
FILLDark Gray, Very Moist, Loose, Poorly GradedSAND (SP)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
Dark Brown, Very Moist, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY(CL)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILSBoring Terminated at 10 Feet
16.7
14.5
12.0
8.5
7.0
0.3
2.5
5.0
8.5
10.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
Subsurface water was notencountered duringdrilling or upon removal ofaugers. After 24 hours thesubsurface water levelwas recorded at 6ft.
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 10.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-7 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
2-4-10
8-7-7
1-1-1
1-2-2
6 inches of Asphalt underlain by 6 inches ofSubbase GravelReddish Brown, Moist, Stiff, Gravelly Fat CLAY(CH)
FILLLight Brown, Very Moist, Medium Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Some Gravel
FILLDark Brown, Very Moist to Wet, Very Soft to Soft,Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
Boring Terminated at 10 Feet
19.0
17.5
15.0
10.0
1.0
2.5
5.0
10.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
Subsurface water was notencountered duringdrilling or upon removal ofaugers
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 10.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: B-8 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
15.0
9-21-16
2-3-6
2-5-6
3-3-6
1-3-4
Surficial Organic SoilBrown and Black, Moist, Dense, Silty SAND (SM),Some Gravel, Some Cinders
FILLDark Brown and Black, Very Moist, Stiff, SandyLean CLAY (CL)
FILLBrown, Wet, Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM)
FILL
Dark Brown, Dark Gray, and Black, Very Moist,Stiff to Medium Stiff, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)
POSSIBLE FILL
Boring Terminated at 15 Feet
16.7
14.5
12.0
8.5
2.0
0.3
2.5
5.0
8.5
15.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
13.5
Subsurface water wasrecorded at a depth of11.5ft upon removal ofaugers. After 24 hours thesubsurface water levelwas recorded at 5.5ft.
Field infiltration testingwas performed at a depthof 3.5ft and recorded aninfiltration rate of 0.24inches/hour.
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 15.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: SWM-1 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
15.0
2-4-8
5-5-5
3-3-3
1-1-1
3-2-3
Surficial Organic SoilBrown and Black, Moist, Medium Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Trace Gravel, Trace Cinders
FILLLight Brown, Very Moist to Wet, Medium Dense,Fine Silty SAND (SM)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILSDark Brown, Wet, Medium Stiff to Soft, SandyLean CLAY (CL)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
Dark Brown, Wet, Loose, Clayey SAND (SC)COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
18.7
16.5
14.0
5.5
4.0
0.3
2.5
5.0
13.5
15.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
13.5
Subsurface water wasrecorded at a depth of4.5ft upon removal ofaugers. After 24 hours thesubsurface water levelwas recorded at 3ft.
Field infiltration testingwas performed at a depthof 2ft and recorded aninfiltration rate of 0.36inches/hour.
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 15.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: SWM-2 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
15.0
3-8-8
3-6-5
3-5-2
3-3-6
4-6-7
Surficial Organic SoilBrown and Gray, Moist, Medium Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Some Gravel
FILLBrown, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND(SM)
FILLBrown and Black, Very Moist, Loose, ClayeySAND (SC), Some Cinders
FILL
Brown and Dark Brown, Wet to Saturated, Looseto Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM)
COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
Boring Terminated at 15 Feet
18.7
16.5
14.0
10.5
4.0
0.3
2.5
5.0
8.5
15.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
13.5
Subsurface water wasrecorded at a depth of10.5ft upon removal ofaugers. After 24 hours thesubsurface water levelwas recorded at 3.5ft.
Field infiltration testingwas performed at a depthof 2ft and recorded aninfiltration rate of 0.48inches/hour.
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 15.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: SWM-3 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
15.0
10-19-20
9-15-6
7-9-12
5-2-11
1-2-2
Surficial Organic SoilBrown, Reddish Brown, and Black, Moist, Denseto Medium Dense, Silty SAND (SM), Some Gravel
FILL
Tan, Very Moist, Medium Dense, Silty SAND(SM), Some Gravel
FILL
Brown and Black, Very Moist, Medium Dense,Silty SAND (SM), Some Cinders
FILL
Dark Gray, Wet, Soft, Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)COASTAL PLAIN SOILS
Boring Terminated at 15 Feet
18.7
14.0
10.5
5.5
4.0
0.3
5.0
8.5
13.5
15.0
0.0
2.5
5.0
8.5
13.5
Subsurface water wasrecorded at a depth of 8ftupon removal of augers.After 24 hours thesubsurface water levelwas recorded at 7.5ft.
Field infiltration testingwas performed at a depthof 5.5ft and recorded aninfiltration rate of 0.6inches/hour.
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 15.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: SWM-4 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
1.5
4.0
6.5
10.0
15.0
4-8-7
1-1-3
1-1-2
3-5-5
1-2-2
Surficial Organic SoilBrown and Gray, Moist, Medium Dense, SiltySAND (SM), Some Gravel
FILLDark Gray, Very Moist to Wet, Soft, Sandy LeanCLAY (CL)
City/State: Baltimore, MDProject: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments.The sum of the second and third increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N-Value.
Project No: 75V0084Total Depth: 15.0'Boring Location: See Boring Location Plan
BORING LOGBoring: SWM-5 (1 of 1)
N-Value(blows/ft)
Driller: W. Rodas
SampleDepth(feet)
Depth
R
* SampleBlowsElevation RemarksDescription of Materials
(Classification)
Date Drilled: 10/2/17
BORI
NG
_LO
G 7
5V00
87.G
PJ F
&R.
GD
T 1
0/20
/17
Boring No.Sample
Depth
Natural
Moisture % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification
SWM-1 2.5-4ft 18.4 50 35.7 14.3 LOAM
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
10626 York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland 21030
T 410.825.4131 I F 410.321.7384
USDA Textural Triangle
Client: Bohler Engineering
Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
F&R Project No. 75V0084
Date: Oct., 2017
Boring No.Sample
Depth
Natural
Moisture % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification
SWM-2 2.5-4ft 26.1 86.5 8.1 5.4 Loamy SAND
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
10626 York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland 21030
T 410.825.4131 I F 410.321.7384
USDA Textural Triangle
Client: Bohler Engineering
Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
F&R Project No. 75V0084
Date: Oct., 2017
Boring No.Sample
Depth
Natural
Moisture % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification
SWM-3 2.5-4ft 16.1 79 7.3 13.7 Sandy LOAM
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
10626 York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland 21030
T 410.825.4131 I F 410.321.7384
USDA Textural Triangle
Client: Bohler Engineering
Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
F&R Project No. 75V0084
Date: Oct., 2017
Boring No.Sample
Depth
Natural
Moisture % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification
SWM-4 8.5-10ft 35.2 68.5 24.5 6.9 Sandy LOAM
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
10626 York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland 21030
T 410.825.4131 I F 410.321.7384
USDA Textural Triangle
Client: Bohler Engineering
Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
F&R Project No. 75V0084
Date: Oct., 2017
Boring No.Sample
Depth
Natural
Moisture % Sand %Silt % Clay USDA Classification
SWM-5 5-6.5ft 27.2 16.2 52.5 31.3 Silty Clay LOAM
FROEHLING & ROBERTSON, INC.
Engineering Stability Since 1881
10626 York Road, Suites C-D Cockeysville, Maryland 21030
T 410.825.4131 I F 410.321.7384
USDA Textural Triangle
Client: Bohler Engineering
Project: Baltimore Sun Consolidation
F&R Project No. 75V0084
Date: Oct., 2017
Bohler Engineering Baltimore Sun Consolidation – Baltimore, MD