REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY …

REPORT OFSUBSURFACEINVESTIGATIONANDLABORATORYTESTING SERVICES

Central Park Trail

Hampton, Virginia

G E T Project No: WM16-130G

October 19, 2016

PREPARED FOR:

1592-E Penniman Road · Williamsburg, VA 23185Phone: (757)-564-6452

www.getsolutionsinc.com

Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP11870 Merchants Walk, Suite 100Newport News, Virginia 23606

October 19, 2016

TO: Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP11870 Merchants Walk, Suite 100Newport News, Virginia 23606

Attn: Mr. Mel Hopkins, P.E.

RE: Report of Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing ServicesCentral Park TrailHampton, VirginiaG E T Project No: WM16-130G

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

In compliance with your instructions, we have completed our Subsurface Investigation andLaboratory Testing Services for the referenced project. The results of this study, togetherwith 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 itsrole as Geotechnical Engineer during the design phase and project implementation.

Thank you for 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 wecould be 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

Camille A. Kattan, P.E.Principal EngineerVirginia Lic No.: 018045

Copies: (1) Client

1592-E Penniman Road · Williamsburg, VA 23185 · Phone: (757)-564-6452 · Fax: (757)[email protected]

Report of Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing Services October 19, 2016Central Park TrailHampton, VirginiaG E T Project No: WM14-183G

1

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Authorization

G E T Solutions, Inc. has completed our subsurface investigation and laboratory testingservices for the proposed Central Park Trail project located in Hampton, Virginia. Thesubsurface investigation and laboratory testing services were conducted in generalaccordance with G E T Proposal No. PWM15-264G (Revision #3) dated June 1, 2016.Authorization to proceed with our services was received from Mr. Mel Hopkins, P.E. withWhitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP.

Project Site and Construction Description

The project is located in Hampton, Virginia and includes the design and construction of theproposed Central Park Trail, a multi-use trail. The trail will tie into an existing trail along theeast side of Hampton Coliseum and extend east and then south along the perimeter ofColiseum Lake. Towards the southeast corner of Coliseum Lake the trail will turn east andcontinue initially along the south side of Waterside Drive and then continue along the northside of Newmarket Creek to the property of 1 Greenhill Lane. Then the trail will continuethrough this property and terminate near Freeman Drive where this trail will tie into anadditional proposed trail to be constructed.

The trail will be a 10-foot wide multi-use trail and extend a total of 2,975 linear feet. Thewestern portion of the trail will have an asphalt surface, whereas the eastern portion of thetrail will have a liquid soil solidifier type surface. The trail will include two retaining walls(generally about 50 feet in length each) with unbalanced backfill estimated to be limited toabout 3 feet or less. There is also an existing concrete swale that the trail will need to spanover, near Hampton Coliseum. This will likely require the construction of shallowfoundations on either side of the existing concrete swale along the proposed trailalignment and the placement of a steel plate on top of the foundations to allow for theexisting concrete swale to remain in place and in service.

Cuts and fills required to establish finish grades along the on-grade portion of the trail willbe generally limited to about 2 feet or less, with the exception of a few isolated locationssuch as where the proposed retaining walls will be located, where fills up to 3 feet arepossible.


2

FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

Field Exploration

In order to explore the general subsurface soil types, ten (10) 10 to 20-foot deep StandardPenetration Test (SPT) borings (designated as B-1 through B-10) were drilled along theproposed trail alignment.

The SPT borings were performed with the use of hollow stem auger and rotary wash “mud”drilling procedures in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The tests were performedcontinuously from the existing ground surface to depths of 10 to 12-feet, and at 5-footintervals thereafter. The soil samples were obtained with a standard 1.4” I.D., 2” O.D., 30”long split-spoon sampler. The sampler was driven with blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling30 inches, using an automatic hammer. The number of blows required to drive the samplereach 6-inch increment of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boring logs. Thesum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value(uncorrected for automatic hammer and overburden pressures). A representative portion ofeach disturbed split-spoon sample was collected with each SPT, placed in a glass jar,sealed, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for review.

Three (3) bulk soil samples, designated as CBR-1, CBR-2, and CBR-3, were collectedfrom the locations of borings B-2, B-4, and B-9, respectively. The bulk subgrade soilsamples were collected from depths ranging from 0.25 to 2 feet below existing site grades.The bulk soil samples were returned to our laboratory and subjected to CBR testing inaccordance with ASTM standards.

In addition to the bulk soil samples collected for CBR testing, additional bulk soil sampleswere collect at boring locations B-8, B-9, and B-10 from depths ranging from 0.25 to 2 feetbelow existing site grades. These three bulk soil samples were then transported to ourlaboratory and blended together to obtain one overall composite bulk soil sample. Thecomposite sample (identified as Proctor #1) was subjected to Modified Proctor testing inaccordance with ASTM standards. The remaining portion of this composite sample wasused to mold samples for unconfined compression tests as further described in thelaboratory section of this report.

The SPT and CBR locations were established and located in the field by the client. Theapproximate boring locations are shown on the attached “Boring Location Plans”(Appendix I), which was reproduced based on plans provided by the client.

Laboratory Testing

Representative portions of all soil samples collected during drilling were sealed in glassjars, labeled, and transferred to our Williamsburg laboratory for classification and analysis.The soil classification was performed by a Geologist in accordance with ASTM D2487 andD2488. The classification system for soil exploration is included in Appendix II.


3

As requested by the client, four (4) representative soil samples were selected andsubjected to natural moisture, -#200 sieve wash, and/or Atterberg Limits testing andanalysis. These test results are tabulated below (Table I) and are also presented on the“Boring Log” sheets (Appendix III).

Table I - Laboratory Test Results

BoringNo.

Depth(Ft.)(1)

NaturalMoisture

(%)

PercentPassing

#200

AtterbergLimits

(LL/PL/PI)

USCSClassification(2)

B-1 2-4 6 9 Not Tested SP-SMB-6 8-10 20 36 Not Tested SMB-7 0-2 35 77 66/30/36 CHB-9 2-4 24 71 56/35/21 MH

Notes: (1) – Depth below existing grades.(2) – Visual classification in absence of specific laboratory tests.

The selected representative bulk subgrade soil samples were subjected to natural moisturecontent, -#200 sieve, Atterberg Limits, Standard Proctor and CBR testing in accordancewith AASHTO, ASTM, and VTM standards. A summary of the CBR test results, the CBRcurves and the moisture density relationship curves (Proctor Curves) are presented inAppendix V. It is noted that the bulk soil samples were comprised of FILL materialsconsisting of Silty SAND (SM) and GRAVEL (GP-GM).

A bulk soil sample was obtained from depths ranging from 0.25 to 2 feet below existing sitegrades at boring locations B-8, B-9, and B-10. These bulk soil samples were blendedtogether in our laboratory to obtain one overall composite sample. The idea is that thiscomposite soil sample will represent the overall subgrade that will be encountered alongthe portion of the trail where a liquid soil solidifier type surface is being considered. Theselected composite bulk subgrade soil sample (identified as PR #1) was subjected tonatural moisture content, -#200 sieve, Atterberg Limits, and Modified Proctor testing inaccordance with ASTM standards. These laboratory test results are included in AppendixVI of this report.

The remaining portion of the composite sample (PR #1) was used for testing theunconfined compression strength of the soil, including the unconfined compressionstrength when acrylic polymers are added to the soil. Two acrylic polymers were providedby the client from two separate manufacturers, Enviroseal and Midwest Industrial Supply.The procedures outlined by the client were followed in molding and testing portions of thecomposite sample with these two polymers. Two samples were molded with the addition of3.5% by weight of the polymer from Enviroseal and two samples were molded with theaddition of 4.0% by weight of the polymer from Midwest Industrial Supply. These sampleswere molded in a 4-inch diameter Proctor split mold and compacted in lifts in generalaccordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D 1557. In addition, a control samplewas molded following the same procedure, but no polymer was added. Once completed,the samples were removed from their molds and left undisturbed in a climate controlledroom during their curing period.


4

One sample from each manufacturer and the control sample were subjected to unconfinedcompression testing after 7 days of curing. In addition, one sample from each manufacturerwas subjected to unconfined compression testing after 28 days of curing. The results ofthese tests are summarized in Table II below and are also included in Appendix VI of thisreport.

Table II – Unconfined Compression Test Results

SampleNo. Polymer Manufacturer Curing Time

(days)Polymer Added

By Weight

UnconfinedCompression Test

Results (psi)1 N/A 7 0% 88.642 Enviroseal 7 3.5% 203.213 Enviroseal 28 3.5% 405.424 Midwest Industrial Supply 7 4.0% 128.335 Midwest Industrial Supply 28 4.0% 142.51

Subsurface Soil Conditions

The results of our field exploration program are indicated in a tabular form below:

Table III – Subsurface Soil Conditions

AVERAGEDEPTH(feet)

STRATUM DESCRIPTIONRANGES OF

SPT(1)

N-VALUES0to

0.3 - 0.5Topsoil 3 to 6 inches of Topsoil -

0.3 - 0.5to

2.0 - 8.0FILL

FILL materials generally comprised of GRAVEL (GP-GM), SAND (SMand SC), and Sandy Lean CLAY (CL). These FILL materials

contained varying amounts of Gravel, Sand, Silt, Clay, organics, andconstruction debris

FILL materials were not observed at boring locations B-1 and B-7.

GRAVEL/SAND3 - 38

CLAY6

0.3 - 8.0to

8.0 - 10.0

IASAND (SP, SP-SM, SM, and SC) with varying amounts of Gravel, Silt,

Clay, organics, and marine shell fragments

Borings B-1, B-2, B-4, and B-8 were terminated within this stratum.

2 - 22

IBCLAY (CL and CH) with varying amounts of Sand and organics and

Elastic SILT (MH) with Sand and trace organics

Borings B-3 and B-10 were terminated within this stratum.

2 - 20

8.0 - 9.0to

10.0 - 20.0II Silty SAND (SM) with trace Clay and marine shell fragments

“Yorktown Formation” 4 - 10

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


5

The topsoil designation references the presence of surfical organic laden soil, and doesnot represent any particular quality specification. This material should be tested forapproval prior to its use.

The subsurface description is of a generalized nature provided to highlight the major soilstrata encountered. The records of the subsurface exploration are included in Appendix III(Boring Logs) and in Appendix IV (Generalized Soil Profile), which should be reviewed forspecific information as to the individual borings. The stratifications shown on the records ofthe subsurface exploration represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations.Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratificationsrepresent the approximate boundary between subsurface materials and the transition maybe gradual or occur between sample intervals.

Groundwater Information

The groundwater level was recorded at the boring locations during drilling and asobserved through the relative wetness of the recovered soil samples during the drillingoperations. The groundwater table is estimated to occur at depths ranging from 2 to 6 feetbelow current grades at the boring locations (corresponding to approximate elevationsranging from 0 to 4 feet MSL). The boreholes were backfilled upon completion for safetyreasons. Therefore, these results may not be indicative of the static water level.

As subsurface soils begin to dry moisture moves upwards through the soil profile by meansof capillary action. Based on the subsurface soil composition (soils containing more than30% of fines by weight), these initial groundwater readings (based on the relative wetnessof the soils) could be in part attributed to the capillary action of the soils. As such, if thestatic groundwater elevation is critical to the design of the proposed structures and siteinfrastructure it is recommended to install temporary groundwater monitoring wells tosubstantiate these initial readings.

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions,such as the frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences,such as existing swales, drainage ponds, underdrains and areas of covered soil (pavedparking lots, sidewalks, etc.). In the project’s area, seasonal groundwater fluctuations of ±2 to 3 feet are common; however, greater fluctuations have been documented. Werecommend that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of theconstruction to determine groundwater impact on the construction procedures, ifnecessary.


6

REPORT LIMITATIONS

The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings contained herein have been made inaccordance with generally accepted professional Laboratory Testing practices in the localarea. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Whitman, Requardt & Associates,LLP and their consultants for the specific application to the proposed Central Trail Parkproject located in Hampton, Virginia.

APPENDICES

I BORING LOCATION PLANS

II CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

III BORING LOGS

IV GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

V CBR TEST RESULTS

VI POLYMER TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX I

BORING LOCATION PLANS

Locations are approximate based on site visit sketch.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Boring Location Plans (Page 1 of 6)

Project: Central Park TrailHampton, Virginia Scale: As Drawn

Project No: WM16-130G Date: 10/19/2016Client: Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP Plot By: JW

B-1


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




B-2/CBR-1


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




B-3

B-4/CBR-2


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




B-7B-6

B-5


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




B-9/CBR-3B-8


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




B-10

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

CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488)

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Groundwater conditions will vary with environmentalvariations and seasonal conditions, such as the frequency andmagnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as tidal influences andman-made influences, such as existing swales, drainage ponds,underdrains and areas of covered soil (paved parking lots, sidewalks, etc.).

LittleSome

Mostly 50-100

Borderline cases requiring dualsymbols

Plasticity Chart

Strata ChangesIn the column “Description” on the boring log, the horizontallines represent approximate strata changes.

Groundwater Readings

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

15-2530-45

Few

COHESIVE SOILS(CLAY, SILT and Combinations)

Relative ProportionsDescriptive Term Percent

0-55-10

Jacksonville Office415A Western BoulevardJacksonville, NC 28546

(910) 478-9915

Virginia Beach Office204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23462(757) 518-1703

Relative Density

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

Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The soil samples were obtained with astandard 1.4” 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 ofblows required to drive the sampler each 6-inch increment (4 increments for each soil sample) of penetration was recorded and is shown on the boringlogs. The sum of the second and third penetration increments is termed the SPT N-value.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOIL EXPLORATION

Standard Penetration Test (SPT), N-value

1592 Penniman Rd. Suite EWilliamsburg, VA 23185

Particle Size Identification

Consistency

Page 1 of 1GET Revision 12/12/07

Coarse Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils

Highly Organic Soils

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Liquid Limit 50% or greater

Trace

Williamsburg Office

(757) 564-6452

Elizabeth City Office106 Capital Trace, Suite EElizabeth City, NC 27909

(252) 335-9765

APPENDIX III

BORING LOGS

3-in Topsoil

Orange-brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), loose

Light brown, moist, poorly graded fine to medium SAND(SP-SM) with Silt, very loose

Light brown and brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM),very loose to loose

Boring terminated at 10 feet below existing grade.

9

24

14

18

18

24

1

2

3

4

5

2-2-3-4(5)

2-2-2-2(4)

2-2-1-2(3)

1-1-1-1(2)

2-2-5-6(7)

0.3

2.0

4.0

10.0

INITIAL (ft) : 4 CAVE-IN (ft) :

Notes:

BORING LOCATION: See Attached Boring Location Plan

AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

GROUNDWATER*:

PROJECT LOCATION: Hampton, Virginia

CLIENT: Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP

PROJECT NAME: Central Park Trail

DATE COMPLETED: 5/27/2016

SURFACE ELEVATION (MSL) (ft): 5

Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit

Virginia Beach204 Grayson Road

Virginia Beach, VA 23642757-518-1703

Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

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: 5/27/2016

LOGGED BY: P. Chambers

PROJECT NUMBER: WM16-130G

Williamsburg1592-E Penniman RoadWilliamsburg, VA 23185

757-564-6452

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

3-in Topsoil

Dark brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with fewGravel and trace organics, loose "FILL"

Dark gray, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) with traceGravel, loose

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

Wet below 5-ft


12

24

14

20

24

1

2

3

4

5

2-2-5-6(7)

3-5-5-6(10)

2-3-5-5(8)

4-7-9-8(16)

7-7-8-9(15)

0.3

2.0

4.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

5

0

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

3-in Topsoil

Dark brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with traceGravel and organics, very loose "FILL"

Orange-brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), mediumdense

Gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), loose

Gray and orange-brown, wet, fat CLAY (CH), very soft


18

24

24

16

24

1

2

3

4

5

1-2-1-1(3)

7-10-12-13(22)

8-7-5-5(12)

8-4-5-4(9)

1-1-1-1(2)

0.3

2.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

5

0

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

6-in Topsoil

Orange-brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with fewGravel and trace Clay, loose "FILL"

Red-brown, moist, Sandy lean CLAY (CL) with trace Gravel andorganics, medium stiff "FILL"


Orange-brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) withtrace Clay, loose

Orange-brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM), loose tomedium dense


16

16

16

20

24

1

2

3

4

5

2-3-3-5(6)

2-3-3-3(6)

3-3-3-3(6)

3-4-4-5(8)

3-5-6-6(11)

0.5

1.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

5

0

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-4

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

4-in Topsoil

Dark brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) withGravel and trace organics, very loose "FILL"


Orange-brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) withtrace Clay, loose

Brown, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), very loose

Gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace Clay,contains marine shell fragments, very loose to loose "Yorktown

Formation"


10

16

18

18

18

24

18

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2-2-2-3(4)

4-4-4-4(8)

3-3-3-4(6)

1-1-1-1(2)

2-2-2-2(4)

2-3-3-2(6)

1-2-2-3(4)

1-2-3-3(5)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

20.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

5

0

-5

-10

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-5

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

4-in Topsoil

Brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) with Graveland trace organics, loose "FILL"

Brown and orange-brown, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND(SC) with trace Gravel and organics, very loose "FILL"

Brown and orange-brown, moist to wet, Clayey fine to mediumSAND (SC) with trace Gravel, loose

Wet below 5-ft

Brown and gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with traceClay, loose

Gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace Clay,contains marine shell fragments, very loose to loose "Yorktown

Formation"


36

20

14

18

6

24

24

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1-1-5-6(6)

2-2-2-3(4)

1-2-3-3(5)

1-3-4-4(7)

1-2-3-3(5)

2-2-2-3(4)

2-3-4-5(7)

3-3-4-3(7)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

20.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

-10

-15

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

15

20

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-6

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

3-in Topsoil

Orange-brown and gray, moist, fat CLAY (CH) with Sand andtrace organics, very soft

Gray and orange-brown, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND(SC), contains marine shell fragments, very loose

Orange-brown and brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM)with trace Clay, contains marine shell fragments, very loose to

loose

Gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace Clay,contains marine shell fragments, loose "Yorktown Formation"


7724

22

22

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

1-1-1-3(2)

1-1-2-3(3)

1-2-2-2(4)

5-4-4-4(8)

4-4-6-6(10)

0.3

2.0

4.0

9.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-7

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

3-in Topsoil

Dark brown, moist, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with littleGravel and trace Clay and organics, very loose "FILL"

Red-brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with traceClay, loose

Red-brown, moist to wet, lean CLAY (CL) with Sand, soft

Wet below 5-ft

Brown, wet, poorly-graded fine to coarse SAND (SP) withGravel, very loose

Brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace Clay,contains marine shell fragments, loose


14

24

16

18

24

1

2

3

4

5

2-2-2-2(4)

2-2-3-2(5)

1-1-2-2(3)

1-1-1-1(2)

2-3-3-4(6)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-8

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

3-in Topsoil

Gray and brown, moist, poorly graded fine to coarse GRAVEL(GP-GM) with Silt and Sand, medium dense "FILL"

Brown and orange-brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND(SM) with trace Gravel, Clay and organics, medium dense

"FILL"

Red-brown, moist, Elastic SILT (MH) with Sand and traceorganics, very stiff

Brown, wet, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC), medium dense

Brown, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace Clay,contains marine shell fragments, very loose

Gray, wet, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with trace Clay,contains marine shell fragments, loose "Yorktown Formation"


71

24

22

24

24

24

1

2

3

4

5

6-7-6-6(13)

2-15-5-6(20)

6-8-3-3(11)

2-2-2-2(4)

2-3-3-4(6)

0.3

1.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-9

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

3-in Topsoil

Dark gray, moist, Clayey fine to medium SAND (SC) with traceorganics, very loose "FILL"

Black and brown, moist, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) withtrace Clay, contains asphalt fragments, medium dense "FILL"

Dark gray, wet, poorly-graded fine to coarse GRAVEL (GP-GM)with Silt, contains concrete fragments, dense "FILL"

Gray, wet, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM), contains concretefragments, medium dense "FILL"

Dark gray, wet, fat CLAY (CH) with Sand and trace organics,soft


18

22

16

12

18

1

2

3

4

5

1-1-2-6(3)

7-7-12-20(19)

12-27-11-16(38)

3-7-5-5(12)

4-2-1-1(3)

0.3

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0


Notes:


AFTER HOURS (ft) :

STRATA DESCRIPTION

%<

#200

Sam

ple

Rec

over

y (in

.)

0

-5

GROUNDWATER*:






Dep

th (

ft)

Water Content -

Sample Type(s):

Liquid Limit



Ele

vatio

n (f

t)

PAGE 1 OF 1

5

10

Sam

ple

Typ

e

Sam

ple

ID

Str

ata

Lege

nd


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

.






757-564-6452


252-335-9765



TEST RESULTS

Penetration -



Plastic Limit x x

Blo

wC

ount

s(N

-Val

ues)


B-10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

APPENDIX IV

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(7)

(7)

(10)

(8)

(16)

(15)

(3)

(22)

(12)

(9)

(2)

(6)

(6)

(6)

(8)

(11)

(4)

(8)

(6)

(2)

(4)

(6)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(4)

(5)

(7)

(5)

(4)

(7)

(7)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(8)

(10)

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(6)

(13)

(20)

(11)

(4)

(6)

(3)

(19)

(38)

(12)

(3)

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)



(Numerical Value) = Sample N-Value

Topsoil

USCS Silty Sand

USCS Poorly-gradedSand with Silt

Fill (made ground)

USCS Clayey Sand

USCS High PlasticityClay

USCS Low PlasticityClay

USCS Poorly-gradedSand

USCS Elastic Silt

GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE



LEGEND

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

APPENDIX V

CBR TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY OF CBR TEST RESULTS

Central Park TrailHampton, Virginia

G E T Project No: WM16-130G

Sample Number CBR-1 CBR-2 CBR-3

Sample Depth(ft.) 0.25-2 0.5-1.25 0.25-1.25

Unified SoilClassification

Symbol

SM“FILL”

SM“FILL”

GP-GM“FILL”

NaturalMoisture

Content (%)13 11 5

Atterberg LimitsLL/PL/PI Non Plastic Non Plastic Non Plastic

% Passing #200Sieve

24.5 24.3 11.9

Maximum DryDensity, pcf 121.7 114.4 138.9

OptimumMoisture % 11.5 10.5 6.6

Soaked CBRValue 19.1 16.9 32.3

ResiliencyFactor 3.0 3.0 3.0

Swell % 0.1 0.3 0.1

Tested By: T.Sabbah Checked By: J.Wheeler

MOISTURE DENSITY TEST REPORT (PROCTOR CURVE)

Dry

de

nsity, p

cf

114

116

118

120

122

124

Water content, %

- Rock Corrected - Uncorrected

7 9 11 13 15 17 19

11.5%, 121.7 pcf

11.5%, 119.1 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.80

Test specification:ASTM D 4718-87 Oversize Corr. Applied to Each Test Point

ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard

0.25-2 Ft. SM A-2-4(0) 13Estimated

2.6NV NP 7.2 24.5

Dark brown, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM)with few fine Gravel and trace organics

WM16-130G Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP

CBR #1Sample Obtained: 6/1/2016Sample Tested: 6/2/2016

1

Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI

% > % <

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. #4 No.200

ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Location: Boring B-2 Sample Number: CBR #1

GET Solutions, Inc.

Williamsburg, VA Figure

119.1 pcf Maximum dry density = 121.7 pcf

11.5 % Optimum moisture = 11.5 %

Central Park Trail

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORTASTM D 1883-07

BEARING RATIO TEST REPORT

GET Solutions, Inc.

Project No: WM16-130G

Project: Central Park Trail

Location: Boring B-2

Sample Number: CBR #1 Depth: 0.25-2 Ft.

Date: 6/1/2016

Dark brown, Silty fine to medium SAND (SM) with few fine Gravel and traceorganics

Test Description/Remarks:

CBR #1Sample Obtained: 6/1/2016Sample Tested: 6/2/2016Resiliency Factor = 3.0

Figure 1a

121.7 11.5 NVSM

Material DescriptionUSCS

Max.Dens.(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

Molded

Density(pcf)

Percent ofMax. Dens.

Moisture(%)

Soaked

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell(%)

1 121.7 100 11.0 121.6 99.9 11.7 19.1 17.8 0.011 10 0.1

2

3

Pen

etr

ati

on

Resis

tan

ce (

psi)

0

70

140

210

280

350

Penetration Depth (in.)0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5



Dry

de

nsity, p

cf

85

95

105

115

125

135

Water content, %


4 6 8 10 12 14 16

10.5%, 114.5 pcf

10.5%, 111.4 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.80


ASTM D 698-12 Method A Standard

0.5-1.25 Ft. SM A-2-4(0) 11Estimated

2.6NV NP 8.3 24.3

Orange-brown, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM)with few fine Gravel and trace Clay



2


% > % <




Project:


GET Solutions, Inc.




Central Park Trail



GET Solutions, Inc.




Sample Number: CBR #2 Depth: 0.5-1.25 Ft.

Date: 6/1/2016

Orange-brown, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM) with few fine Gravel and traceClay



Figure 2a

114.5 10.5 NV NPSM


Max.Dens.(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

Molded

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

Soaked

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell(%)

1 111.4 97.3 10.0 111.0 97 13.9 16.9 15.6 0.010 10 0.3

2

3

Pen

etr

ati

on

Resis

tan

ce (

psi)

0

70

140

210

280

350




Dry

de

nsity, p

cf

131

133

135

137

139

141

Water content, %


0 2 4 6 8 10 12

6.6%, 138.9 pcf

6.6%, 135.2 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.80


ASTM D 698-12 Method C Standard

0.25-1.25Ft.

GP-GM A-1-a 5Estimated

2.6NV NP 15.8 11.9

Gray and brown, Poorly graded fine to coarseGRAVEL (GP-GM) with Silt and Sand



3


% > % <

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200



Project:


GET Solutions, Inc.




Central Park Trail



GET Solutions, Inc.




Sample Number: CBR #3 Depth: 0.25-1.25 Ft.

Date: 6/1/2016

Gray and brown, Poorly graded fine to coarse GRAVEL (GP-GM) with Silt andSand



Figure 3a

138.9 6.6 NV NPGP-GM


Max.Dens.(pcf)

OptimumMoisture

(%)LL PI

Molded

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

Soaked

Density(pcf)


Moisture(%)

CBR (%)

0.10 in. 0.20 in.

LinearityCorrection

(in.)

Surcharge(lbs.)

Max.Swell(%)

1 138.9 100 6.1 138.7 99.9 9.9 32.3 30.3 0.004 10 0.1

2

3

Pen

etr

ati

on

Resis

tan

ce (

psi)

0

100

200

300

400

500


APPENDIX VI

POLYMER TEST RESULTS

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST


GET SOLUTIONS, INC.

Project No.: WM16-130G

Date Sampled:

Remarks:

Figure 1

Client: WRA, LLP


Location: No Polymer Added (7-Day)

Sample Number: Sample No. 1

Description: Silty SAND

LL = PL = PI = Assumed GS= 2.7 Type:

Sample No.

Unconfined strength, psi

Undrained shear strength, psi

Failure strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio

Specimen diameter, in.

Specimen height, in.

Height/diameter ratio

1

88.64

44.32

4.4

1.00

1.7

125.5

123.4

12.3

0.3656

4.03

4.59

1.14

Com

pre

ssiv

e S

tress,

psi

0

25

50

75

100

Axial Strain, %

0 1.5 3 4.5 6

1



GET SOLUTIONS, INC.


Date Sampled:

Remarks:

Figure 2

Client: WRA, LLP


Location: 3.5% Polymer (7-Day) Enviroseal Sample Number: Sample No. 2

Description: Silty SAND with 3.5% Polymer


Sample No.



Failure strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

203.21

101.61

5.4

1.00

2.1

123.1

120.5

14.5

0.3983

3.91

4.62

1.18

Com

pre

ssiv

e S

tress,

psi

0

100

200

300

400

Axial Strain, %

0 1.5 3 4.5 6

1



GET SOLUTIONS, INC.


Date Sampled: 8/22/16

Remarks:

Figure 3

Client: WRA, LLP


Location: 3.5% Polymer (28-Day) EnvirosealSample Number: Sample No. 3



Sample No.



Failure strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

405.42

202.71

8.5

1.00

1.3

124.2

122.6

9.2

0.3744

3.88

4.72

1.22

Com

pre

ssiv

e S

tress,

psi

0

150

300

450

600

Axial Strain, %

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

1



GET SOLUTIONS, INC.


Date Sampled:

Remarks:

Figure 4

Client: WRA, LLP


Location: 4.0% Polymer (7-Day) Midwest Industrial SupplySample Number: Sample No. 4



Sample No.



Failure strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

128.33

64.16

6.5

1.00

2.4

119.5

116.7

14.5

0.4438

3.96

4.60

1.16

Com

pre

ssiv

e S

tress,

psi

0

50

100

150

200

Axial Strain, %

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

1



GET SOLUTIONS, INC.


Date Sampled: 8/22/16

Remarks:

Figure 5

Client: WRA, LLP


Location: 4.0% Polymer (28-Day) Midwest Industrial SupplySample Number: Sample No. 5



Sample No.



Failure strain, %

Strain rate, %/min.

Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

142.51

71.26

4.9

1.00

1.5

119.9

118.1

9.5

0.4274

3.94

4.58

1.16

Com

pre

ssiv

e S

tress,

psi

0

50

100

150

200

Axial Strain, %

0 1.5 3 4.5 6

1

Tested By: A. Kotyk Checked By: J. Wheeler


Dry

de

nsity, p

cf

95

105

115

125

135

145

Water content, %


3 5 7 9 11 13 15

7.6%, 130.6 pcf 8.8%, 126.8 pcf

ZAV forSp.G. =2.80


ASTM D 1557-07 Method A Modified

0.25-2 ft. SM A-2-4(0) 9Estimated

2.6NV NP 15.2 31.6

Gray-brown, Silty fine to coarse SAND (SM)with little fine Gravel and trace Clay


Proctor #1Sample Obtained: 7/22/2016Sample Tested: 8/9/2016

1


% > % <




Project:

Loc.: Composite Sample from Borings B-8, B-9, and B-10 Sample No.: PR #1

GET Solutions, Inc.




Central Park Trail

Documents

REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY …