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
REPORT OF GEOT~CHNICAL EXPLORATION
THE PONDS Alr LAFAYETTE (LAFAYETTE BUS,NESS PARK - PARCEL 2) Fairf.. Counly, VirgiDi~
APRIL 2005
Prepared For:
MOORE & ASSOCIAliES, INC. 8484 Georgia Avenue. S~ite 720 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Attn: Mr. Jeffery M. Grijfin
Prepared By:
GEO-TECHNOLOG~SSOCIATES'INC. Geotechnical and Enviro menial Consultants 45064-A Underwood L Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 478-0055
GTA Job No: 041370
I (~;" ~
April 27, 2005
Moore & Associates, Inc. 8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 720 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Attn: Mr. Jeffel)' M. Griffin
Re: Report of Geotechnical E~ploration (Revised) The Ponds at Lafayette (fa/ayelte Business Park - Parcell) Fairfax COWlty, Virginia,
Gentlemen:
In aceordance with yourl request" Geo-Teclmology Associates, Ineorporated (OTA) has completed a geotechnical expl0tfltion for the above refereneed project. Transmitted herein is a revised report of our findings *,d conclusions regarding foundation support, slab support, site grading, pavement subgrade pre aration, and utility eonstruction. The work was completed in accordance with GTA's proposa dated December 3, 2004.
I
Thank you for the opporpunty to be of assistance on this project. Should you have any questions or require additional i~formation, please do not hesitate to eontact our office.
!
Vel}' truly yours, GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.
filJ' Naseer Nayeem, P.E. ,,::Eo. Proj t Engineer
Am an, P.E.
, Viee President ,
Cc: Mr. David Dwomik, RinkerlDesign Associates
NN(L:\Docs\Report\2004\041370_Lafayetle BusfneSYl Plllk\lAf:tyetle Buisness Part Geok:ch Report'rev,doc) ].0. #041J70,V ,
The borings in the parking areas indicate that medium-plasticity soils may be encoWltered
near the surface in the proposed paved areas. In addition, existing fill materials within the filled-in
pond may be encoWltered on the western portion of the site. The medium-plastieity soils and
existing fill materials typically are not suitable to directly support the proposed driveways and
parking. If these materials are encoWltered in the paved areas, at least 2 feet of these materials
should be overexcavated. The excavated areas should be proof-rolled and soft, yielding subgrade
will require additional overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill.
A CBR (VTM-8) test was performed on the bulk sample obtained from Boring P-l to
evaluate the on-site material. The results of this testing indieates a CBR value of 3.6 for the bulk
sample. This value is considered to be poor with respect to support of pavements, referencing the
Handbook ofHighway Engineering, edited by Robert P. Baker. The occurrence oflow-strength soils
will require a thicker pavement section, Wldercut and replacement, or improvement by chemical
stabilization. A CBR value less than 6 is considered to be poor with respect to support ofpavements
referencing the same source.
GTA recommends that the upper 12 inches ofpavement subgrade bc constructed with soils
mccting the following characteristics:
Liquid Limit (AASHTO T-89) 3S or less Plastic Index (AASHTO T-89, T-90) 6 or less California Bearing Ratio (ASTM D-1883) 6 or greater
16
Report ofGeotechnical Exploration The Ponds at Lafayette April 2005 GTAProiectNo.041370
GTA recommends that materials in cut areas not meeting these guidelines be removed from
the top 12 inches of pavemcnt subgrade and replaced with suitable materials compacted in
accordance with the carthwork recommendations. Alternatively, the materials can be improved by
chemical stabilization.
Grain size, plasticity testing, and CBR tcsting should be performed on subgrade material
before placement ofgraded aggregate base. Additional testing will be required on subgrade material
ifchcmical stabilization is performed.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
We recommcnded that during construction ofthe subject project, a geotechnical engineer be
retained to provide observation and testing services for the foLLowing items.
• Review final site and architectural plans to evaluate if they conform with the intent of this report.
• Provide testing observation and services during fill placement to evaluate if the work is being performed in accordance with the project specifications and intent of this report,
• Observe the proof~roUing of fill and roadway subgrades prior to placing fill or base course to evaluate stability.
• Review excavatcd footings for compliance with the project drawings and thc intent of this geotechnical report.
• Others as necessary.
LIMITATIONS
This report. including all supporting boring logs, field da~ field notes, laboratory test data,
calculations, estimates and other documents prepared by GTA in connection with this Project have
been prepared for the exclusive use of Moore & Associates, Inc. pursuant to agreements between
GTA and Moore & Associates, Inc. in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. All
17
Report ofGeoreclinkal Exploration Tile Ponds al LafayetJe ADril2005 GTAProi«tNo.041370
terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement and thc General Provisions attached thereto are
incorporated herein by reference. No warranty. express or implied, is made herein. Use and
reproduction ofthis report by any other person without the expressed written pennission ofGTAand
Moore & Associates, Inc. is unauthorized and such use is at the sole risk of the user.
The analysis and recommendations contained in this report are based on the data obtained
from limited observation and testing of the encountered materials. Test borings indicate soil
conditions only at specific locations and times, and only at the depths penetrated. They do not
necessarily reflect strata or variations that may exist bctween test boring Locations. Consequently,
the analysis and recommendations must be considered preliminary until the subsurface conditions
can be verified by direct observation at the time of construction. If variations of subsurface
conditions from those described in this report are noted dwing construction, recommendations in this
report may need to be re~evaluated.
In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location ofthe facilities are planned. the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the
changes arc reviewed and conclusions of this report are verified in writing. Geo-Technology
Associates, Inc. is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation
of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analysis without the expressed
written authorization of Geo-Technology Associates, Inc.
The scope ofOur services for this geotechnical exploration did not include anyenviromnental
assessment or investigation for the presence or absence ofwetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials
in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. Any statements in this
report or on the logs regarding odors or unusual or suspicious items or conditions ohserved are
strictly for the information ofour Client. An environmental site assessment was conducted for this
site, which addresses environmental eoncems, and is trWlSmitted under separate cover.
18
Report of Geotechnical Exploration The Ponds at Lafayette AorU2005 GTA ProjectNo. 041370
This report and the attached logs are instruments ofservice. The subject matter ofthis report
is limited to the facts and matters stated herein. Absence of a reference to any other conditions or
subject matter shall not be construed by the reader to imply approval hy the writer.
041370 GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.
19
lmportant Information About Your
GlIOl8dInIl:alllorvlcea Arl PIII'IlImI" I... Bpdc .......011•• P8I'8IInB.... PI'lIIIet8 Geotechnical engineers structure their servioos to meet the specific needs 01 111eir clienls. Ageotechnical engineering sludy conducted for acivil enginoer may nollullill the needs 01 aconstruction contractor or even another civil engineer Becaus5" each geotechnical engineering study is unique. each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared so/e/ylor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report wilhout IIrsl corJlerring with [he geotechnical engineel who prepared il. And no one - (/01 even you - should apply the report for any purpose or ~roiecl
except the one originally contemplaled.
RBlId 1hI Full RIIPOl'I Serious problems have occurred because those relying on ageolechnical engineering repO!! did not read it all. Do nol rely on an executive summary Do not read selected elements only.
AGllIlIc:IInIcaI fQmItII'hIllllllPBl'lll B••ed .n AlInIqu. BIt 01 ProJect-BplclllC FactIll'S Geotechnical engineers consider anumber of unique. project-specific factors when eslablishing Ihe scope of a study, Typical factors include lhe client's goals, objectives, and risk managemenl preferences: the general nature of the struc!uro Involved. its size, and configuration: the location of ltle struclure on the site: and olher planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicales otherwise, do nOI rely on ageolechnical engineering reporttha\ was' • nol prepared for you, • nol prepared lor your project. • not prepared lor the specific sile explored. or • compleled l.lefure Inlporlant projecl changes were madE
Typicol cllallges lIlal call erode IIle reiiability o! all 8xisling gootedmical engineering reporl include lhose Ihal affect: • the function 01 lhe proposed struclure, as when it's cllanged Irom a
parking garage to an office building, or from alight induslrial plan( 10 arefrigerated warehouse,
• elevation. configuration, localion, orientation, or weighl of Ihe proposed slruclure,
• composition o( lhe design learn, or • project ownership
As ageneral rU,le, J!ways inlorm your geoteChnical engineer of project changes---even mirlOr ones-----i3.nd request an assessment of their impact. GfJolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems Ihal occur because their reports do no! consider developments of which IIley were noi inlol/ned.
Sub8llrlace C.nd/llOlls Can Change Ageotechnical engineering report is based on conditions {nat exisleu al the lime the study was performed. 00 not rely on ageotechnical engineering reporl whose adequacy may have been a!fected by: Ihe passage of lime; by man-made events. such as conslrllction on or adjacenlto the sile: or by natural events, such as floods. earlhquakes, or qroundwaler fluclua" tions. Always contact lhs geotechnical englfleer before applying Ihe report 10 determine if it is still reliable. Aminer am'Junl 01 addilional tesling or analysis could prevenl major problems,
MoB! Geotechnical fmdIntIB Are PrBfessional Opinion. Site exploration identi1ies subsurface conditions only allhose poinls where subsurface tesls are conducted or samples are laken, Geotechnical engineefS review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgmenllo render an orinlonabout subsurface conditions IhroughOul the sile Actuaf subsurlace conditions may differ-sometimes significanllyfrom those indicaled in your report, Relaining the geotechnical engineer who developed YOLir report 10 provide construction observation is the most eflecti...-e method 01 managing the risks assoclaled wilh unantiCipated condilio.'1s.
AKepol'l's Recommendaliun. Ar. NIIt Rnal Do nol overrely on lhe conslruction recommendations included ill your report. Those recommenda/lons are not final, because geotechnical engineers devefop them pr,incipally trom Judgmenl and opinion Geotechnical engineers can linalize their recommendations oilly by observing actual
'-I
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
---
..M:
, D LLE~
I I
\ ,1/l
I/
I
V' ER AllO
i <I
1/""--<---<'
.~ ~=---
Gatll 2'>
I,
" ,I ;"11 !II
,.....•IIII
AirUp~ St_FUdlo
, • YDOTN<lV lUndlfCDn\_~'-''A DistHdq <jI..~
-~ ." . "~~.w';;;~ .,; '4:J.. OJ "~!S!!T ~':~503~F~IG~U::,:R:::E:";1~f ,~U1~P~~~~~:~~T~~@~~~~~:~:::";:"r·-~~T:he~pondS at Lafayette GA SITE LOCATION MAP
GE().TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES,INC. The Ponds at Lafayette GEOTE<;;HNICAI.. A"'O EHVIRON~ENTALCONSULTANT:S
SUBSURFACE PROFILE DIAGRAM 45064 UNOERWOOD LANE, SUITE A
STERUNG. VIRGINIA 20166 SECTION F-F (703}-478-0055
l HORZ: l' '" 80' VERT: 1" = 10'
SCAlE
FAX (703}-<171Hl137
REVIEWED BY
AR
Fairtax County, Virginia
PROJECT~ DATE ~~U=R=E---11
041370.v I April 2005 I 9
APPENDIXB
SOIL BORING LOGS
NOTES FOR EXPLORATICN LOGS
KEY TO USCS TERMINOLOGY AND GRAPH'C SYMBOLS SYMBOLS
MAJOR DIVISIONS (BASED UPON ASTM 02.487.QO] GRAPHIC LmER
GRAVEL GWAND
GRAVELYCOARSE SOILS GP GRAINED
MORE THAN 50%SOILS O'COARSE GRAVELS WITH GM FRACTION
FINESRETAINED ON NO, 4 SIEVE
(MORE THAN 15% PASSING THE NO, 200 SIEVE) GC
SAND CLEAN SANDS SWAND
t.lClRC THAN 50% SANDY OF MATERIAL IS (LESS THAN 15% PASSING THE NO, 200 SIEVE) .' .•. '.< . SPSOILS .. ' .'.' ,lARGER THAN NO, 200 SIEVE
,'-' >.MORE THAN 50%51'" SANDS WITH SMOF COARSE ;' " .'. .FINESFRACTION
PASSING ON NO. (MORE THAN 15% PASSING THE NO, 200 SIEVE) SC4 SIEVE
SILT OReLAY ML«15% RETAINEO THE NO. 200 SIEVE)SILTS FINE AND SILT OR CLAY WITH SAND OR GRAVEL
GRAINED CLAYS 115% TO 30% RETAINED THE NO, 200 SIEVE) CL SOilS
LIQUID Ut.lIT SANOY OR GRAVELY SilTOR CLAY LESSll-IAN 50 (>30% RETAINED ll-IE NO. 200 SlEII'E) OL
SilT OR CLAYSilTS MH«15% RETAINED THE 1010.200 SIE....E)'-lORE THAN 50% ANDOF tMTERI.IL IS SILT OR CLAY WITH SAND OR GRAVELSMAlLER "THAN CLAYS
(1&% TO 30'110 RETAINED THE NO. 200 SIEVE) CHNO. 200 SIEVE SIZE L1aUID L1t.lIT SANDY OR GRAVELY SilT OR CLAY
GREATER THAN 50 (>30'110 RtTAI"lEOTl-lE "l0. 200 SIEVE) OH
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOilS PT
toOTE: DUAL SYlIIBOLS ME USED TO l"lDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY AND GRAPHIC SYMBOlS
GRAPHICDESCRIPTION SYMBOLS
TOPSOil
ADDITIONAL I-------:-:~=::-:~------~~~ggj DESIGNATION MAN MADE Fill
GLACIAL Till
COBBLES AND BOULDERS
DESCRIPTION "N"VAlUE RESIDUAL
SOil DESIGNATION HIGHLY WEATHERED ROCK 50 TO 5011"
lESS THAN 5011"ARTIAllY WEATHERED ROCK AUGER PENETRABLE
COARSE GRAINfn ;'j(}, (GRA....EL AND SAND)
BLOWS PERDESIGNATiON FOOT (BPF!
"N"
VERY lOOSE 0·'
lOOSE 5-10
MEDIUM DENSE 11·30
DENSE 31 - 50
VERY DENSE >50
..NOTE: "I ....ALUE DETERMINED AS PER ASTM 01586
FINE GRAINED SOilS (SllT..,.O CLAY)
CONSISTENCY BP'
VERY SOFT <2
SOFT 2· ,
MEDIUM STlFF 5·8
STIFF 9 - 15
VERY STIFF 16·30
HARD >30
NOTE: AOOITIONAL DESIGNATIONS TO AOVANCE SAMPLER INOICATED IN BLOW COUNT COLUMN: WOH = WEIGHT OF HAMMER WOR =WEIGHT OR RODlS)
SAMPL.E TYPE
DESIGNATION SYMBOL
SPUT-SPOON S.
SHElBY TUBE u·
ROCK CORE R·
WATER DESIGr-;,t..TION
DESCRIPTION SYMBOl
ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING ~ UPON COMPlEnON Of DRilLING Z 24liOURS AFTER COMPlETION ~
NOTE: WATER OBSERVATIONS WERE MACE AT THE TIME INDICATED. POROSITY OF SOIL STRATA, WEATHER CONDITIONS, SITE TOPOGRAPHY, ETC. MAyeAUSE WATER LE ....EL CHANGES.
Table B-1 Summary of Auger Refusal and Weathered Rock
Approximate Approximate
Approximate Approximate Depth to Elevation of
Boring Existing Depth to Auger Elevation of Weathered Rock Weathered Roek
The Ponds at Lafayette 041370.V Fairfax County, Virginia
December 21,2004 December 21, 2004 Free State Drrlllng, Inc. Free State Drilling, Inc. HSA S lit SDoan
g
" g
~ ~
u.i'i -0~ "mI ~~ w ~~ z •w 0 ~~
0 CHJ~'5
, l,s
.::::~
,
263.5 5CL
50/4"
260,5
WATER lEVEL: Yl Dry :t. 6.3 Z'----__ DATE 12/211200412/22/2004 _
CAVED (n): 6.1 6.0
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 268.5 OAruM: MSL
EaUIPMENT: CME 55 LOGGED BY: JS
CHECKED BY: NN
DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
Tannish brown. moist, medium stiff, fat CLAY, Uttle lend. (CH) Topsoil: 7 in.
I
Gr&:iish brown, moist, hard, lean CLAY, some sand. (race rock fragments. (eL)
Auger Refusal @8.0ft. Water nol encountemdEnd of Boring @ 8.0 ft. during drilling.
~ ;; NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation Interpolated from Site Plan provided by RDA
I'.GEO-TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-2ASSOCIATES, INC.
45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A Sheet 1 of 1Sterling, Virginia 20166
"
Sheet 1 of 1 LOG OF BORING NO. B-3
PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED;
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER: DRILLING METHOD:
SAMPLING METHOD:
•;[ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~> ~ .~~ ~m
~~ ~~ ~~ ~§~~ ~o ~ ~
~
I
., 10 " 20-27-30
The Ponds at Lafayette WATER LEVEL: 2 Dry .!. Dry 7.'---__ 041370.V DATE,12!21/200412/2212004 _ Fairfax County, Virginia CAVED (fl.): 3.7 3A
December 21,2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 285.9 December 21, 2004 DATUM: MSl Free State Drilling, Inc. eQUIPMENT: CME 55 Free State Drilling. Inc. LOGGED BY: JS HSA CHECKED BY: NN S III Spoon
g I u~z g
I ~
t -00 ~
~ ~m ~ l;l
z ~ ~~ ~~
~
DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
265.9 0 CL Reddish brown, moist, hard, lean CLAY, lIome sand, Iraoe rock Topso~: 6 in.
fragments. (el)
"
5 260.4
Auger ReMal @ 5.5 fl.. Water not encountel'lclEnd of Boring @ 5.5 ft, during drilling.
~I ~ NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation Intarpolated from Site Plan provided by RDA
GEO-TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 ;§IP. ASSOCIATES, INC.
45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A Sheet 1 ot 1Stef1ing, Virginia 20166
"
Sheet 1 of 1LOG OF BORING NO. B-4
PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: DRILLER:
DRILLING METI-lOO: SAMPLING METHOD:
= w~ .W~
~~ w€ " w~
~w
~m ~;: ~
~. ~~ !~ :Ji~ :Ji8 ~~ w
•z ~
S, 1.0 7-13-25"
S, 3.' ,.. 50/C.6"
, 5010"S, '.0
The Ponds at Lafayette WATER LEVEl: £. Dry :t. Dry ~'-:::== 041370.V DATE: 12/21120041212212004 _ FaIrfax County, Virginia CAVEC (ft): 3.1 3.0
December 21, 2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 265.5 December21,2004 DATUM: MSL Free Slam Drflllng, Inc. EQUIPMENT: CME 55 Free st.-t. Drtlllng, Inc. LOGGED BY: JS HSA CHECKED BY: NN Spilt SDOon
fg z g u~
0 00 I-0 I U mI;: 00 e
z
~
!!i " ~~ ~ w DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
265.5 0 CL Reddish brtMIo, moist, hard, lean CLAY, some sand, trace rock Topsoi!: 7 in.
fragments. (el)
"
262.5 Ml Reddish brown, moist, hard, Sandy SILT, little rock fragments.
(ML)0/0.5'
• 259.5 ~ .
SOlO" Auger Refusal @ 6.0 ft. Water nol encounteredEnd of [email protected].. durtng drilling.
,
§ ~ NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation Interpolated from Site Plan provIded by RCA§IIJ~ GEO-TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-4 ~ If';' ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROJECT: The Ponds at Lafayette WATER LEVEL: ~ Dry ~ Dry ::t'---__ PROJECT NO: 041370.V DATE: 121211200412122/2004 __
PROJECT LOCATION: Fairfax County, Virginia CAVED (It): 3.1 3.0
DATE STARTED: December 21,2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 285.8 DATE COMPLETED: December 21, 2004 DATUftlI: MSl
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Free State Drilling, Inc. EQUIPMENT: CME 65 DRILLER: Free State Drtlllng, Inc. LOGGED BY: JS
DRILLING METHOD: HSA CHECKED BY: NN SAMPLING METHOD: Split SnitOh
I, '" €~ ~ ,,~ w~
~w ~€ ~~ ~.5 € -0w~ • "",~'" ~~" ~~ ~ "I;:
~ ~~ Ii ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~8 ~o z w ~ "",w•
~ ~ ~ w
DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
265,5 0 CL Reddish brown, moist, hard, lean CLAY. some sand, trace rock Topsoil: 6 in.
fragments. (eLl
51 1.0 5-13<11 .."
5 260.0
Auger Refusal @ 5.5 fl. Waler not
End of Boring@ 5.5 fl. encountered during drilling.
I ~
"NOTES: Ground Surface Ekwatlon Interpolated from Site Plen provided by ROA "
GEO-TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-5 ASSOCIATES, INC. ! . 45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A°IP Sheet 1 of 1 Sterlmg, Virginia 20166
I
9
Sheel1 of 1LOG OF BORING NO. B-6
PROJECT: The Pond. at Lafayette WATER lEVEL: 5l Dry ,J. Dry :1- _ PROJECT NO: 041370.V DATE,12121/20041212aa004 ===
PROJECT LOCATION: Fairfax County, Virginia CAVED (tt): 3.0 2.5
OI'TE STARTED; December 21. 2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 265.5 DATE COMPLETED: December 21, 2004 DATUM: MSL
DRIlliNG COtfTRACTOR: Free State Drilling, Inc. EQUIPMENT: CME 55 DRILLER: Free State Orlll109,lnc. LOGGED BY: JS
DRILLING METHOD: HSA CHECKED BY: NN SAMPLING METHOD: S lit Spoon
;g • g u~w~ wE: w, z g
~w ~~ "~ u ~~ ~~ I t ~
<~ ~~ e ~ ~ n~z ;);~ ~8 ;);0 z w ~ ",,,,
w ~ w~ m " DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
265.5 0 CL Reddish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY, Borne sand, trace rock Topsoil: 6 in.
fragments. (el)
51 1.0 I 16 H< "
.
5
259.5 ,53 6.0 5010" 5010" Auger Refusal @ 6.0 ft. Water nol encounleradEnd 01 Boring @: 6.0 ft. during drilling.
I
~ ~ NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation interpolated from Site Plan provided by RCA
§~ GEO~ECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-6 !:! ~ ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ 45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A Sheel1 of 1 g Sterling, Virginia 20166
Sheel1 011LOG OF BORING NO. B-7
PROJECT; The Ponds at Lafayette WATER LEVEL: SI- Dry ,J. D~ -1.'----__ PROJECT NO: 041370.V CATE: 12/21/20041212212004 ===
PROJECT LOCATION: FaIrfax County, VIrginia CAVED (ft): 5.1 4.5
DATE STARTED: December 21,2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 264.5 DATE COMPLETED: December 21, 2004 DATUM: MSl
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Free State Drilling, Inc. EaUIPMENT: CME 55 DRILLER: Free State Drilling, Inc. LOGGED BY: JS
DRILLING METI-iOD: HSA CHECKED BY: NN SAMPLING METHOD: Spilt SDOan
~~ w" w> ~
z ~~ q ~~
~
~i €€ ~g
~w
.~ I ~ t w ~ ~> "wz ~i'l ~f z w 0
~ ~,
~~ ~ ~ w "'''' m DESCRIPTION REMARKS
264.5 0 CL Reddish brown, moilt, stiff. lean CLAY, some sand, trace rock Topsoil: 8 in.
fragments. (CL)
51 10 2.04·7" "
52 3.5 6-~30• " 259.5
5 ML Reddish brown, dry, hard, Sandy SILT, some rock fragments.
(ML)
53 6.0 4 21-5014.5" 014.5
256.5 Jill Auger Refusal @ 8,0 ft Wst8r nol
encounteredEnd of Boring @ 8.0 ft. during drilling.
~ ~ p Surfac. EI.v.tlon Interpol.ted from Site Plen provided by RDA
g GEO-TECHNOlOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-7 ~ 'ASSOCIATES, INC. ll: 45064 Underwood Lane, SLllte A
Sheel1 of 1 Sterling, Virginia 20166 9
53
Sheel1 of 1LOG OF BORING NO. B-8
PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: DRILLER:
DRIlLING METHOD: SAMPLING METHOD"
~~.IM ~~
~~
S,
S2
gwe w, ~~~~
.~ .~
~~ ~~
10 H
,3.'
6.0 0
•• w~ ~-
~~ ~o ~ ~
2-3-8
50/5.5"
SOIa"
The Ponds at Lafayette 041370.V Fairfax County, VIrginia
December 22. 2004 December 22, 2004 Free State Drilling, Inc. Free State Drilling, Inc. HSA Split Spoon
i € z
~ g
~ ~
~ ~
u~-0 ~~
~~ z w ~ ~~
~ w
261.7 a CH
"
256.7 SM
0/5.5
5
255.7 5010'
I
WATER LEVEL: £. Dry.t: '1-'----__ DATE: 1212212004 ===
CAVED (tI): 2.8
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 261.7 DATUM: MSL
EQUIPMENT: CME 55 LOGGED BY: JS
CHECKED BY: NN
DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
Tannish brown, moist, stiff, fat CLAY, little Band. (CH) Topsoil: 7 in.
Greyish brown, dry. very dense, Silty SAND. some rod! fragments. (8M)
Auger Refusal @6.0 fl. Water not encounteredEnd of Boring @ 6.0 fl. during drilling.
~ ~ NOlES: Ground Surface Elevation interpolated from Site Plan provided by RDA
0 GEO·TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-8 ASSOCIATES. INC. i~.. 45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A
Sheel 1 of 1 Sterling, Virginia 20166 "
Sheet 1 DI' 1LOG OF BORING NO. B-9
PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD: SAMPLING METHOD:
w~ .w wi!: ~ ~
w~ .~
•• ~~
~'" ~~ ~~ !;~ ~i! ~~ ~8 ~~ w ~
~ '"
,51 1.0 3-16"32
still"1.2 I '.5
The Ponds at Lafayette WATER LEVEL: ~ DrY.t: 7"----__ 041370.V DATE,1212212004 === Fairfax County, Virginia CAVED (ft.): 3.0
December 22,2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 262.0 December 22,2004 DATUM: MSl Free State Drilling, Inc. EQUIPMENT: CME 55 Free State Drilling, Inc. LOGGED BY: JS HSA CHECKED BY: NN S I~Sipoon
u~€ ~ -0
~ u~ ~'" ~
wI €
t ~ ~~ z ~ 0 ~ w
DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
262.0 0 CL Reddish brown, moist, hartl, lean CLAY, some land, crace rock Topsoil: 6 in.
fragments. (eLl
"
259,0
5M Reddish brown, dry, very dense, Silty SAND, some rock fragments, (5M)'M
5 256.5
Auger Refusal @ 5.5 ft. Water not encountered
End of Boring @ 5.5 ft. during drilling.
~ ~ NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation Interpolated from Site Plan provided by RCA
GEO·TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-9 ASSOCIATES, INC.!m:ar~ 45064 Underwood Lime, Suite A
Sheet 1 of 1Sterling, Virginia 20166"
Sheet 1 of 1 LOG OF BORING NO. B·10
PROJECT: The Ponds at L.afayette WATER LEVEL: 'Q pry ,f.~== 'l"----__PROJECT NO: 041370.V DATE: 12/2212004
PROJECT LOCATION: Fairfax: County, Virginia CAVED (tt): 2.8
DATE STARTED: December 22, 2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 281.9 DATE COMPLETED: December 22, 2004 DATUM: MSL
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Free State Drilling, Inc.. eQUIPMENT: CME 55 DRILLER: Free State Drilling, Inc. LOGGED BY: JS
DRILLING METHOD: HSA CHECKED BY: NN SAMPLING METHOD: S lit Spoon
CL Reddish brown, moist, hard, lean CLAY, some sand, trace rock /mfld- 1 • fragments. (el)
51 1.0 " 1<).8-5013" 50/3"
8' ,., , 50/0,5" 0(0,5'
5 262.5
Auger Refusal @ 5.5 ft. Waler nOt
End of Boring @ 5.5 fl. encountered during drilling.
• ~ ';j NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation Interpolated from Site Plan provided by RDA
!I"GEO-TECHNOLOGY lOG OF BORING NO. B·20ASSOCIATES, INC.
45064 UnderwoOd Lane, Suite A Sneet 1 of 1 Sterling, Virginia 20166 9
Sl'leal 1 011 LOG OF BORING NO. B-21
PROJECT: PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DATE STARTED: DATE COMPLETED:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: DRILLER:
DRILLING METHOD: SAMPLING METHOD:
.. ~
•• w~ ~g w~ w~ ~w ~~ ~.-
"~
~~ ~~ <~ oo~
~~ ;:;g w
~~ ;:;0 ~
~ ~
81 1.0 , 10-5014"
82 3.5 1 SOIO,5"
The Ponds at lafayette WATER LEVEL: 5l Dry.l. .1-'-__ 041370.V DATE: 1212212004 === Felrfax County, Virginia CAVED (II): 2.0
December 22,2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 285.5 December 22, 2004 DATUM: MSl Free State Drilling, Inc. EQUIPMENT: CME 55 Free State Drllllng, Inc. LOGGED BY: JS HSA CHECKED BY: NN S litSnnon
z € € !Jg000 , I ~ ill ~~
e w ~ ~~" ~ooz 0 ~ w
DESCRIPTION i REMARKS
2655 0 CL Reddish brown, moist, hard,lean CLAy, some sand, Iraoe rock Topsoil: 7 in.
fragments. (ell
5llI'4"
262.5 8M Reddish brown, dry, very dense, Silty SAND, some rock
fragments. (5M)0105'
, 260.0
Auger Refusal@ 5.5 ft, Wstetnol ftncounteredEnd af BOrlng@ 5,5 ft. during drilling.
~ ~ NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation interpolated from SIte Plan provided by RDA
~ GEO-TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. B-21 ASSOCIATES, INC.
4!r064 UndelWood lane, Suite A Sheet 1 of 1 liP Sterling, Virginia 20166
~
Sheel1 or 1 LOG OF BORING NO. P-i
PROJECT: The Ponde at Lafayette WATER. LEVEL::!l Dry:t. 7-'--__ PROJECT NO: 041370.V DATE: 1212212OO4 _
PROJECT lOCATION: Fairfax County, Virginia CAVED 1ft) 1.8
DATE STARTED: December 22, 2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 263.0 DATE COMPLETED: December 22, 2004 CATUM: MSl
DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Free Stlte Drilling, Inc. EQUIPMENT: CME 55 DRilLER: Free Stete Drilling, Inc. lOGGED BY: Js
DRilLING METHOD: HSA CHECKED BY: NN SAMPLING METHOD: S lit Spoon
I z
DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
263.0 o CL Reddish brown, moist, very aliff, lean CLAY, SOme sand, trace Topsoil: 7 in.
rock fragments. (Cl)
51 1.0 1~ 3-6-16
260.0
8M Reddish brown, dry, \/ery dense, Silty SAND, some rock fragments. (SM) 52 3.5 1 5010.5" 010.5
258.0 ';+--+-''-'1 ------;:--;-;=--===-----1End of [email protected].
Water not am;;ountered during drilling
lif----l--.---l---L_---L-L-----L.-L-l-l -'-__-I ~ NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation interpolated from Site Plan provided by RDA
GEO-TECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. P-lASSOCIATES, INC.
45064 UndelWOod lane, Suite A Sheet 1 of 1S\eJling, Virginia 20156
ReddJah brown, mo~t, IIUff, lean CLAY, some sand, trace roc« Topsoil: e in. fragments. (Cl)
Tannish brown, moist, medium stiff, fat CLAY. little sand. (CH)
End of Boring @ 5.0 ft. Water nol encountered during drilling.
i NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation Interpolated from Sit. ptan provided by RDA
~/-;::===~-=G-=Eo-=TE:::C:;H::-NO=LO:::G:::Y~------~--~----L-O-G-O-F-B-O-R-I-N-G-N-O-.-P-.-S---l ~ ASSOCIArES, INC. " 45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A 9L..:: -"s:::,.:::''':::'''''...:V:::''',,':::,':..::'':.:'.::''::..... s_...._'_'_"_'...J
Sheet 1 of 1LOG OF BORING NO. P-6
PROJECT: The Ponds at lafayette WATER LEVEL: ¥. Dry .s: Dry Z,--::==PROJECT NO: 041370.V DATE' 121211200412122/2004 _
PROJECl LOCATION: Fairfax. County, Virginia CAveD (fl.): 4.0 3.6
DATE STARTED: December 21, 2004 GROUND SURFACE ELEVAl1ON: 264.0 DATE COMPLETED: December 21, 2004 DA'T\JM: MSL
ORILLING CONTRACTOR: Free state Drilling, Inc. EQUIPMENT: CME 55 DRILLER: Free State Dnlllng, Inc. LOGGED BY: JS
DRILLING METHOD: HSA CHECKED BY: NN SAMPLING METHOD: S lit Snoon
g • g w« ~g w~ w~ z g !,26~w ~« ~ .-
Z w zm~m ~z Ii~~ ~ ~2~~~ ~!5 ,,~Q U ~o I ~ ~Z ~~ m
~ w
DESCRIPTION I REMARKS
254.0 o Cl Reddish brown, moist. soft., lean CLAY, some sand, trace ro<x Topsoil: 71n.
fragments. (ell
51 1.0 1 2-1-2 ,
I Ml Grayish brown, moist, hard, Sandy SILT, little rock fragments. (FlAL)S2 3,5 15 9-15-23
1-----1--+---+-----\--+ 259.0 s-l---\llllj -----:o-'7'"-;::-c-c~_:___---_____j End of [email protected]. Water not
encolJntered dUring drilling.
~!I--l-l---'-------L---L-l-L-L--L------------...l--------1 ;a: NOTES: Ground Surface Elevation Interpolated from Site Plan provided by RDA
~I. GEO~ECHNOLOGY LOG OF BORING NO. p~ ~~ • ASSOCIATES, INC. v
...J
45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A Sterling. Virginia 20166 Sheet 1 of 1
~ 45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A Project: Lafayette Business Park _ir··'--~'oc"" • Sterflng, Virginia ~ Telephone: 7()3-478-Q()55 Location: Fairfax County, Virginia eo Fax: 703-478-0137
Number: 041370.V 3
135
P-1 1.0Source of Material
130 Description of Material Reddish Brown. Lesn CLAY wi Some Sand
VTM"~·,,-1 _Test Method
125 TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density 112.3 PCF Optimum Moisture Content 16.9 %
~ Geo-Technolo9Y Associales. Inc. MOISTURE·DENSITY RELATIONSHIP S: 45064 Underwood Lane, Suite A Project: Lafayette Business Park ~ Sterling, Virginia !!i! Telephone: 703-478-0055 Location: Fairfax County, Virginia ~ Fax: 703478-0137'L- ---l=;;;;..:;.;.:,:;,,;:,;,:,..,.-Number: 041370.v ...J
GEO-TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC. STERLING, VIRGINIA CBR (VTM-8) TEST RESULTS
Project Name: Lafayette Business Park Project Number: 041370 Report Dale: 1/12/05
Sample Number: P·1 (Bulk) Depth, ft.: 1.0 USCS Classification: el Condition: SOAKED SU!'l:harge WI., Ibs. 10 Soil + Mold + Basa Plate, gm. 13057 Mold + Base Plate, gm. 7195 Compaction MC, % 17.8 Wet Density of Soli, pet 131.6 Dry Density of Soli, pcf 111.7
Initial Swelling Reading, in. 0.109 Final Swelling Reading, in. 0.123 Swell, % 0.233
Final Moisture, % 18.7 Final Moislure, top 1", % 21.9
Proctor MDD, pcf 112.3
Before Soaking After Soaking Penetration Load Load Load Load (in.) ib. psi. lb. psi.