GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project

GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project
Geotechnical and Pavement Modifications Report

Version 3.0 – July 23, 2015
Revision Record
Revision Issue Date Pages Affected Description of Revisions
Changes in station locations, station design, roadway

Version 2.0 May 20, 2015 1-2, 7, 13-19
typical sections, and cost estimates.
Changes in station locations, roadway typical sections,
Version 3.0 July 23, 2015 1, 10-11, 13-20 cost estimates, and transitway pavement marking
options.
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 i

Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Overall Corridor Station Locations Plan .................................................................................................................. 1
2. Corridor Geotechnical Report Summary......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Preliminary BRT Station Foundation and Floor Slab Recommendations ................................................................ 5
2.2. Preliminary Signal Pole Drilled Shaft Foundation Recommendations .................................................................... 6
2.3. Dedicated Transitway Pavement Marking Options ................................................................................................ 7
2.3.1. Bus Only Lanes Marked With Standard Pavement Marking Text and Symbols.............................................. 7
2.3.2. Bus Only Lanes Painted with Typical Roadway Paint (Red) ............................................................................ 8
2.3.3. Bus Only Lanes Mill / Overlay with Red Pigment in Asphalt Material ............................................................ 8
2.3.4. Bus Only Lanes with Red High Friction Colorized Coating / Overlay .............................................................. 9
3. Summary of Pavement Modifications Per Route Segment .......................................................................................... 12
4. BRT Pavement Modification Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................. 17
Figures
Figure 1. BRT Corridor and Stations ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2. Uplift Resistance Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Signal Pole Foundation (VDOT PF-1 detail) .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4. TrafficGrip Application Photos (I-66, Northern Virginia) ......................................................................................... 9
Figure 5. TrafficGrip Application Photos (Downtown Urban Location) ................................................................................ 10
Figure 6. W. Broad Street – Willow Lawn Drive to Lafayette Street..................................................................................... 13
Figure 7. W. Broad Street – Lafayette Street to N. Mulberry Street .................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. W. Broad Street - N. Mulberry Street to N. Harrison Street .................................................................................. 14
Figure 9. W. Broad Street – N. Harrison Street to E. Broad Street and N. 7th Street ............................................................ 14
Figure 10. E. Broad Street – N. 7th Street to N. 14th Street and N. 14th Street to E. Main Street and 18th Street ................. 15
Figure 11. E. Main Street – N. 18th Street to Future Stone Brewery Location ...................................................................... 15
Figure 12. E. Main Street to Rocketts Landing ...................................................................................................................... 16
Tables
Table 1A. Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane – Section with Stone Base ................................................................. 3
Table 1B. Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane – Full Depth Asphalt .......................................................................... 3
Table 2. Preliminary Mixed Traffic Operations – Flexible Pavement Sections ....................................................................... 3
Table 3A. Structural Mill and Overlay for Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lanes ........................................................................... 4
Table 3B. BRT Stations and Transition Pads – Rigid Pavement Sections ................................................................................ 4
Table 4. Preliminary Recommended Soil Parameters............................................................................................................. 5
Table 5. Preliminary Recommended Drilled Shaft Soil Parameters........................................................................................ 6
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 ii

Table 6. BRT Pavement Modifications Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................... 18

Table 7. BRT Cost Estimate Comparison of Specialty Pavement Surfaces for Dedicated Transitway Lanes ........................ 20
Appendices
A- Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report – Revision 03, dated February 23, 2015
B- Dedicated Transitway Marking References
C- 11”x17” Pavement Modification Maps
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 iii

1. Introduction
The Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) intends to construct a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route along a 7.6 mile
highly urbanized corridor crossing the City of Richmond from northwest to southeast. The proposed route is shown in
Figure 1. Predominantly, the route follows West and East Broad Street and East Main Street; utilizing 14th Street as a
connector between Broad Street and Main Street. Broad Street and 14th Street are six-lane, median-divided roadways.
East Main Street is a four-lane undivided street from 14th Street to Williamsburg Avenue. Main Street, east of
Williamsburg Avenue to Orleans Street, and Orleans Street at Rocketts Landing are two-lane undivided streets.
The Kimley-Horn Team performed a preliminary geotechnical study to determine the bearing capacity of the in-situ soils
for the proposed BRT station sites and new traffic signal pole locations. The geotechnical study included an analysis of
existing pavement sections along the route to determine the adequacy of the pavement to support BRT operations.
Results of the pavement analysis include identification of pavement sections that are found during design that may
require replacement or structural overlay of existing pavement. The report also provides alternative designs for new
pavement where relocated segments of median are necessary to support the median-running portions of the BRT route
from Thompson Street to Foushee Street.
In addition to lane and pavement modifications, distinctive pavement coloring or pavement markings will be required
for the dedicated median-running and curb-running BRT lanes. These dedicated transitway lanes will be used to restrict
lane use to BRT buses only. This report describes the positives and negatives of multiple pavement coloring / marking
options including: bus only lane pavement markings on standard asphalt surface, bus only lanes painted with typical
roadway paint, a colored / pigmented asphalt, and a high friction epoxy surfacing treatment.
1.1. Overall Corridor Station Locations Plan

The acquisition of the subsurface geotechnical bore samples and pavement samples was based on the BRT stations show
in Figure 1.
Figure 1. BRT Corridor and Stations
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 1

2. Corridor Geotechnical Report Summary

Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Schnabel) was contracted to complete 39 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
borings along the BRT corridor route. Ten bores were conducted for Standard Proctor compaction and California
Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing to evaluate the existing soil characteristics for use in determining alternative pavement
design recommendations. The Schnabel report also considers spread footings, floor slab, and uplift resistance for the
BRT stations and the suitable soil bearing capacity along the BRT corridor. A preliminary drilled shaft recommendation is
included for traffic signal pole foundations, as needed. See Appendix A for the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering
Report – Revision 03, dated February 23, 2015 as prepared by Schnabel.
The bores span the 7.6 mile BRT route and were obtained in the travel lanes of Broad Street; in the curb-running lanes
and the median-running lanes corresponding to the proposed BRT lane use of each route segment. The remaining bores
were obtained along East Main Street to Orleans Street near the proposed Rocketts Landing station. All but one of the
bores were in the existing roadway pavement to determine the existing pavement section in the streets and the sub-
surface bearing capacity supporting the existing pavement. Bore #B-33 was placed back of the curb in the sidewalk near
Richmond City Hall, near the intersection of East Broad Street and North 9th Street.
The depth of asphalt and / or Portland cement concrete for each bore is shown in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 of the Schnabel
geotechnical report (see Appendix A). Generally, the field measurements show most of the existing pavement consists of
two (2) layers with 5 inches or more of asphalt surface course and 5 inches or more of Portland cement concrete under
the asphalt. In some cases, the asphalt is 11 inches or more thick but no sub layer of concrete appeared to be present.
In the 12th Street station area of East Broad Street, an existing layer of 4 to 4.5 inches of concrete was recovered with no
asphalt surface course.
The sub grade soils appear to be suitable for support of the intended BRT use of the existing roadway. The results of the
CBR testing determined a design CBR of 7.4. In approximately 20% of the bores, generally between Adams Street to 12th
Street, the tests and borings indicated “high plasticity” or “loose” sub grade. It should be noted that excavation in any
areas may require as much as 1 foot depth of undercut and placement of compacted material. See Section 7.1 in
Appendix A for the Schnabel geotechnical report for the discussion on compacted fill.
Pavement recommendations are provided in the report using the soils testing results and the traffic data for the Broad
Street, 14th Street, and Main Street corridors. Schnabel was asked to provide flexible and rigid pavement design
recommendations for dedicated BRT transitway use, mixed traffic use, and BRT station bus landing pad area.
Schnabel’s pavement recommendations and alternatives are summarized in Tables 1A, 1B, 2, 3A and 3B, which
correspond to Tables 9.1, 9.1a, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 from the Schnabel report included in Appendix A.
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 2

Schnabel’s preliminary geotechnical report considers two (2) pavement section options: 1) for pavement installation in
areas where existing raised medians are removed, and 2) for median-running transitways dedicated for BRT use only.
The standard pavement section provides a stone sub grade base layer and three (3) layered asphalt courses. In addition,
an alternative full-depth asphalt option is provided, which eliminates the stone sub base and increases the depths of
each of the 3 layered asphalt base courses. The full-depth asphalt application should improve constructability for the
installation operations in the median area of Broad Street, and correspondingly may provide an overall cost savings and
shortened construction schedule.
Table 1A. Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane – Section with Stone Base
Pavement Section Material Layer Thickness (inches)

Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, VDOT SM-9.5E 1.5
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Base Course, IM-19.0D 2.0
Asphalt Concrete Base Course, VDOT BM-25.0D 3.0
Dense-Graded Aggregate Base Course, VDOT 21B 7.0
Source: Schnabel Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report (February 23, 2015)
Table 1B. Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane – Full Depth Asphalt

Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Base Course, IM-19.0D 3.0
Schnabel’s preliminary geotechnical report provides flexible pavement sections for two mixed use portions of the BRT
route. See Table 2 for additional details.
Table 2. Preliminary Mixed Traffic Operations – Flexible Pavement Sections
Roadways from Horsepen Road to 25th Street

Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Base Course, VDOT IM-19.0D 3.0
Asphalt Concrete Base Course, VDOT BM-25.0A 4.0
Roadways from 25th Street to Rocketts Landing

Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, VDOT SM-9.5D 1.5
Asphalt Concrete intermediate Base Course, VDOT IM-19.0A 2.5
Dense-Graded Aggregate base Course, VDOT 21B 8.0
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 3

Segments of the existing roadway corridor indicate signs of stressed pavement. Although the majority of the corridor
was recently milled and overlaid as part of routine surface maintenance, the older sub base asphalt will have reduced
structural characteristics.
The geotechnical report considers a “structural” mill and overlay (see section 9.1.3 of the Schnabel report in Appendix A)
that provides a 4-inch deep mill and in-kind asphalt replacement overlay in segments indicating stressed asphalt
conditions. This structural mill and overlay could also be considered as an alternative to rigid pavement (concrete)
placement for bus approach and landing pad areas in front of BRT stations. See Table 3A for details regarding the
structural mill and overlay. Table 3B describes pavement section materials for a rigid concrete pavement at BRT stations
and transition pads.
Table 3A. Structural Mill and Overlay for Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lanes
Type Section Layer Thickness (inches)

Milling Depth 4.0
Table 3B. BRT Stations and Transition Pads – Rigid Pavement Sections

Rigid Pavements
Concrete-Jointed Plain Concrete 10.0
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 4

2.1. Preliminary BRT Station Foundation and Floor Slab Recommendations

Schnabel’s report provides discussion of projected BRT station footings and floor slab foundation design
recommendations (See section 8.0 of the geotechnical report in Appendix A). The discussion provides soil parameters
for shallow, spread footer bearing capacity and foundation uplift resistance for the above ground BRT station
improvements. See Table 4 and Figure 2 below for additional details.
Table 4. Preliminary Recommended Soil Parameters
Stratum Unit Weight (pcf)

Total Buoyant
A: Existing Fill 115 52.6
AL: Alluvium 110 47.6
B1: Fine-Grained 105 42.6
B2: Coarse-Grained 120 57.6
Figure 2. Uplift Resistance Recommendations
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 5

2.2. Preliminary Signal Pole Drilled Shaft Foundation Recommendations

The preliminary geotechnical report anticipates a straight-sided, drilled shaft foundation for new or relocated traffic
signal poles along the BRT corridor (see section 8.2 of the Schnabel report in Appendix A).
Table 5. Preliminary Recommended Drilled Shaft Soil Parameters
Stratum Unit Weight (pcf) Effective Angle of Cohesion (psf) Earth Pressure Coefficients
Internal Friction
Total Buoyant Active (Ka) Passive (Kp)
(degrees)
A: Existing Fill 115 52.6 30 -- 0.33 3.0
AL: Alluvium 110 47.6 28 -- 0.36 2.7
B1: Fine-Grained 105 42.6 -- 1,500 1.00 1.0
B2: Coarse-Grained 120 57.6 32 -- 0.31 3.2
Figure 3. Signal Pole Foundation (VDOT PF-1 detail)
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 6

2.3. Dedicated Transitway Pavement Marking Options

Consideration of using lane coatings to indicate restricted use may be an option for the BRT. The color red has been
requested to be introduced as a new MUTCD traffic control device for experimental use for transit-only lanes. See
Appendix B for “Red Colored Transit Only Lanes Request to Experiment” report and “VDOT Special Provision” for High
Friction Surface Coating specifications. Use of lane markings will be determined in the pending preliminary design phase.
This report section describes multiple pavement marking / surface coloring treatment options for the dedicated
transitway lanes of the BRT project. The dedicated BRT lanes include median-running on Broad Street from Thompson
Street to Foushee Street, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles, and curb-running on Broad Street from 4th Street to Old
14th Street, a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. The remaining segments of the BRT route are mixed traffic.
The options evaluated are only applicable to the median-running and curb-running segments and include the following:
 Bus only lanes marked with BUS ONLY and transit symbol pavement markings on a black asphalt surface,
 Bus only lanes painted (full lane width) with typical roadway paint in a red color,
 Bus only lanes milled and overlaid with a colored / pigmented red color within the asphalt aggregate and
bonding material, and
 Bus only lanes with a standard asphalt surface treated with a thin layer, high friction colorized coating (red).
RK&K conducted research and contacted industry experts to evaluate the various pavement marking options and discuss
the characteristics, cost, and pros / cons of each. Information was obtained from Kenny Horak (City of Richmond
Manager of Street Maintenance), Greg Miller (Pro Marking Inc. Representative), Tripp Bishop (American Paving Fabrics,
Inc. Representative), Traffic Management USA, and Branscome, Inc.
2.3.1. BUS ONLY LANES MARKED WITH STANDARD PAVEMENT MARKING TEXT AND SYMBOLS
This option is the most basic and cost effective solution for the BRT project. It can be applied to new or existing
pavement surfaces where the lane is dedicated as median-running or curb-running. In conversations with industry
experts, it was recommended that this option be highly considered due to the advantages discussed below.
Restrictive lane use markings follow guidance from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). For
restricted transitways, these restriction markings are surface applied symbols such as a “diamond” and longitudinal
striping with message text “BUS” followed by “ONLY”. In terms of application, these symbols are similar to other
roadway markings (lane lines, turn lane arrows, etc.) and include application by paint and thermoplastic.
Advantages of this option include:
 Lowest installation cost of options investigated,

 Ease of installation,
 Low maintenance,
 Minimal wear,
 No impact to surface friction, and
 MUTCD-compliant messages are deemed sufficient to convey the proper information to the general public that
the lanes are restricted to bus use only.
Disadvantages of this option are:
 BRT lanes are not marked as prominently with a designated color as the other options; and
 Re-application of pavement markings would be required if transit lanes are resurfaced.
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 7

For the purposes of this report and cost estimation purposes, it was assumed that two “BUS ONLY” message groups and
two diamond symbols would be installed per City block (or every 300 feet +/-). Installation cost is estimated at $150 per
symbol ($300 for each BUS ONLY application, $150 for each transit symbol) equating to roughly $900 per block with
application in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The median-running and curb-running segments equal a
distance of 55 blocks (3.1 miles). Total cost for this option is estimated at $50,000 (per application). It should be noted
that the other pavement surface options would also require installation of the BUS ONLY text and transit symbols, so the
installation cost of this option is applicable to all options as well.
2.3.2. BUS ONLY LANES PAINTED WITH TYPICAL ROADWAY PAINT (RED)
This option can be applied to new or existing pavement surfaces where the lane is dedicated as median-running or curb-
running. In conversations with industry experts, it was recommended that this option be discouraged from use due to
the disadvantages listed below. Application of this option would entail painting the full width (11-foot wide) transit only
lane in each direction with red colored roadway paint on standard black asphalt.
This option does not require a company specializing in a unique application method and therefore GRTC could select
from a wider range of contractors that install pavement markings. Other advantages of this option include:
 BRT lanes would be marked with a highly visible red surface color,
 A lower initial cost compared to the other colored roadway surface options, and
 Less installation time is required compared to other available colored roadway surface options.
Offsetting the advantages of lower upfront cost and ease of installation, pavement painting has the following
disadvantages:
 The application is intended more for guide ways and not intended for the high wear of continuous vehicular
traffic lanes;
 Due to traffic intensity, re-application of the painted surface can be anticipated as frequently as every six
months or less;
 Surface friction will most likely be reduced due to the slicker nature of the paint; and
 Ensuring color uniformity across an entire painted lane is difficult, which is also an issue when repainting
patched pavement.
A typical unit cost of $9.17 per linear foot ($7.50 per square yard) for painting an 11-foot travel lane is used for cost
estimating. The total distance is 6.2 miles (3.1 miles each in the eastbound and westbound directions). Total cost for
this option is estimated at $243,000 (per application), plus an additional $50,000 for pavement marking text and
symbols.
2.3.3. BUS ONLY LANES MILL / OVERLAY WITH RED PIGMENT IN ASPHALT MATERIAL
This option requires milling and overlay of all transit lanes where BRT operations are median-running and curb-running.
In conversations with industry experts, this option was mentioned as a possibility to investigate further but detailed
information was somewhat difficult to acquire due to limited installations within the United States. Application of this
option would entail milling and overlay with an asphalt aggregate and asphalt binder that is colored red.
 BRT lanes would be marked with a red surface color,

 Low surface wear and low discoloration due to color treatment being imbedded in the asphalt material, and
 No impacts to surface friction.
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 8

The disadvantages of this option include:
 Higher installation cost,

 Limited use in the United States,
 Utility cuts and resurfacing will require re-application, and
 This option requires a company specializing in acquiring the material and knowledge of this application method
and therefore GRTC may only be able to select from a few contractors.
In the United States, the asphalt cement (AC) binder is normally black. Colored binders, such as “Bituclair” must be
imported from outside of the contiguous 48 states, from Alaska or from France. Importation and / or delivery of this
product is expensive. In order to achieve a colored pavement, limestone aggregate must be used in place of the granite
from local Virginia quarries that is normally used throughout the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania is the closest source for
the limestone aggregate.
Prior to producing a colored pavement batch, the asphalt plant must be cleaned out to purge the black AC from the
normal production line, which adds additional cost to the colored paving process. Considering all of the above, the
estimated total product price for the colored asphalt is $21.15 per square yard per inch of asphalt depth.
A typical unit cost of $42.30 per square yard (2-inch depth) for application of red pigmented asphalt within an 11-foot
travel lane is used for cost estimating. Total cost for this option is estimated at $1,366,000 (per application), plus an
additional $50,000 for pavement marking text and symbols.
2.3.4. BUS ONLY LANES WITH RED HIGH FRICTION COLORIZED COATING / OVERLAY
This option applies a colored overlay or coating on top of the asphalt surface course where BRT operations are median-
running or curb-running. At a thickness of 1/8-inch +/-, the coating provides a high friction surface and can be colorized
upon application. Traffic Management USA, LLC based in Acworth, Georgia applied such a coating, TrafficGrip, to
designate the shoulder lanes on Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia. See Figure 4 below.
Figure 4. TrafficGrip Application Photos (I-66, Northern Virginia)
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 9

This linear application on I-66 was applied on top of the existing base asphalt. The unit price cost associated with this
particular application was $35 per square yard. Installed in 2012, it appears to provide the expected result with a
designation of shoulder lanes for roadway travel.
Figure 5 shows additional examples of application of TrafficGrip in an urban, downtown street.

Figure 5. TrafficGrip Application Photos (Downtown Urban Location)
The warranty for the material specifically excludes “damage to the TrafficGrip as a result of failure of the materials to
which the TrafficGrip product is installed upon. Structural cracking of the surface beneath the TrafficGrip will or can
cause reflective cracking in the TrafficGrip….” In an urban environment, with multiple utilities within the road surface,
pavement cracking as well as eventual cutting through the coating to effect utility repairs is an expected outcome. As
such, patching of the high friction coating will result in potential color variations in the surface and challenge to the
maintenance crews in application consistency with the original application. Also noted in the warranty exclusions are
“impact, indentations caused by abnormal loadings, snow plough gouging, chemicals, fire, and other substances that
would be deemed and considered unusual.” Construction improvements along the BRT route may create instances as
noted above which would void any warranty. See Appendix B for the TrafficGrip product warranty data sheet.
The product has had wide application in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. The major contributor to successful
utilization is the integrity of the pavement and sub-grade. Once the pavement begins to fail, so will the coating. Design
life has been reported as still good after 10 years in locations with as high as 100,000 vehicles per day and solid
pavement.
It is reported to be easy to patch but subject to color differential. When “natural red” has been utilized, the older vs.
newer coating comparison are negligible. Natural red is reliant on the use of colored stone to maintain the consistency
of the color and is readily matched following patching operations.
 BRT lanes marked with a red surface color,

 Low surface wear,
 Low discoloration,
 Minimal impacts to surface friction, and
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 10

 A reported long service life.
The disadvantages of this option include:
 Higher installation cost;

 Utility cuts and resurfacing will require re-application; and
 This option requires a company specializing in acquiring of the material and knowledge of this application
method and therefore GRTC could only select from a few select contractors.
For the purposes of this report and cost estimation purposes, the installation cost is based upon conversations with two
contractors and review of the installed price (2012) for the I-66 project in northern Virginia and yielded a range of $20-
$35 per square yard.
The Kimley Horn team estimated costs for two application options of the colorized coating / overlay:
A) Application of the high friction colorized coating for full block lengths of the dedicated transitway in the median-
running and curb-running segments, or
B) Application of the high friction colorized coating for the first 100 feet in the direction of travel at the start of each
intersection block in the median-running and curb-running portions of the BRT route.
Each cost is described below.
OPTION A: HIGH FRICTION COLORIZED COATING / OVERLAY (FULL BLOCK APPLICATION)
Total cost for this option is estimated to be $921,000 (per application) based on a unit price of $28.50 per square yard,
plus an additional $50,000 for pavement marking text and symbols.
OPTION B: HIGH FRICTION COLORIZED COATING / OVERLAY (100-FOOT APPLICATION AT START OF BLOCK)
Total cost for this option is estimated to be $223,000 (per application) based on a unit price of $28.50 per square yard,
plus an additional $50,000 for pavement marking text and symbols.
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 11

3. Summary of Pavement Modifications Per Route Segment

The recommended flexible pavement section for both the dedicated and mixed traffic lanes appear to be substantially
exceeded by the existing pavement sections found during the field bore investigations; however, some segments of
existing pavement appear to be stressed. Stressed segments of existing pavement may require a structural mill and
overlay. Where the BRT will operate on existing pavement, only limited pavement improvements are anticipated to be
necessary. It should also be noted that this primary corridor, in the last several years, has received asphalt mill and
overlay resurfacing as part of the City and VDOT routine maintenance operations. Kenny Horak, City of Richmond
Manager of Street Maintenance, expects at least seven (7) years of wear before this corridor would require resurfacing
again.
Further investigation during the pending design phase may determine more segments of the travel way in need of mill
and overlay of distressed pavement surface. In addition, further investigation at some BRT station locations may
determine the necessity of a mill and structural overlay of existing pavement or placement of rigid concrete landing pad
at the bus docking platform due to specific conditions of the transitway immediately adjoining a station. Also, some
areas along the corridor may encounter shallow sub-surface utilities that may require placement of a structural overlay
of pavement section to protect the line or conduit “in-place” rather than relocating the conflicting facility to outside of
the transitway.
In the BRT segments of dedicated median running, transitway pavement improvements should utilize the minimum
recommended pavement section or alternative (see Tables 1A and 1B). In the mixed traffic and curb-running segments
of the corridor, flexible pavement improvements should be provided as needed based on corridor location (see Table 2).
It should be anticipated that the existing pavement section should generally be matched where the median is removed
in the mixed traffic and curb-running segments of the route.
The following Figures 6 through 12 contain sections of the City of Richmond’s GIS mapping along the BRT route. The
map sections are included to allow the recommended pavement modifications to be shown in the locations that they
are expected to be applicable. Larger 11”x17” versions of these Pavement Modification Maps are included in Appendix
C.
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 12

Figure 6. W. Broad Street – Willow Lawn Drive to Lafayette Street
Figure 7. W. Broad Street – Lafayette Street to N. Mulberry Street
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 13

Figure 8. W. Broad Street - N. Mulberry Street to N. Harrison Street
Figure 9. W. Broad Street – N. Harrison Street to E. Broad Street and N. 7th Street
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 14

Figure 10. E. Broad Street – N. 7th Street to N. 14th Street and N. 14th Street to E. Main Street and 18th Street
Figure 11. E. Main Street – N. 18th Street to Future Stone Brewery Location
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 15

Figure 12. E. Main Street to Rocketts Landing
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 16

4. BRT Pavement Modification Cost Estimate

The potential cost of the pavement modifications necessary to accommodate the BRT is significant at an estimated $2.5
million for the base cost plus an estimated range of $223,000 to $1.37 million for dedicated transitway surface coatings,
depending on option pursued by GRTC. Refer to Table 6 for the detailed pavement modifications cost estimate. Most of
the cost is associated with relocating and / or reducing the existing raised median to accommodate new median running
and curb-running dedicated transitways from Thompson Street to Old 14th Street. Several blocks, from Foushee to 2nd
Street and from 5th Street to 6th Street, appear to adequately accommodate the proposed transitways and through
traffic lanes with only restriping of existing pavement sections. See the BRT Roadway Modifications Basis of Design
Report dated July 23, 2015, for corridor roadway modification details and transitway pavement cross-sections. Where
an existing raised median is removed, it is assumed that heavy duty asphalt pavement and sub-base stone will be
required in the median running and through lanes, or a full-depth asphalt pavement section. A 10-foot wide mill and
overlay strip is assumed along both sides of pavement in-fill to properly transition grades in the transitway.
The new raised medians, relocated to provide necessary travel lane width cross-section, are assumed to be MS-1 cut
into the existing pavement of Broad Street. Several existing raised medians are landscaped (2nd Street to 8th Street). In
general, these were estimated to have the existing curb removed and new curb installed in a new alignment. Landscape
and hardscape elements, such as segmented masonry block landscaping paver units, were not included in this estimate.
Raised grass medians may also require underdrains that are not included in this cost estimate.
At this time, the final details of BRT stations are not fully defined. For this estimate, it was assumed that as many as
twenty stations would need a structural mill and pavement overlay or rigid pavement (heavy duty concrete) approach
and departure aprons with a landing pad adjacent to the station platform. These landings may be needed to replace
localized, stressed pavement at some of the observed station locations or to facilitate protection of existing utilities.
The Table 6 cost estimates include the costs for the eradication of existing lane striping and a mill and overlay of the
dedicated 11-11.5 foot wide, median and curb running, BRT only, restricted transitways. Tables 6.A.1 and 6.A.2 provide
cost using rigid pavement (concrete) in the roadway at BRT stations. This estimate also uses the standard pavement
section with stone sub-base for in fill of removed medians. Tables 6.B.1 and 6.B.2 offer an alternative to the rigid
pavement on an asphalt structural overlay and includes an option to standard stone base by using a full depth
application of base asphalt.
Table 7 provides cost estimates for alternative surface treatments for the dedicated BRT transitway lanes.
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 17

Table 6. BRT Pavement Modifications Cost Estimate
6.A.1 Demolition for rigid pavement areas.

Demolition
Unit Cost Quantity Amount
Item
Saw cut for mill / overlay 3.00 / LF 34,798 LF + 14,969 LF $149,301.00
(PVMT TRANS) (MS-1 Plcmt)
Saw cut for full depth pavement 14.00 / LF 1,680 LF $23,520.00
4’ median removal 20.22 / LF 2,547 LF $51,500.34
2.5’ median removal 30.62 / LF 375 LF $11,482.50
Median curb removal 16.00 / LF 2,850 LF $45,600.00
Running curb removal 20.00 / LF 1,050 LF $21,000.00
Heavy duty pavement removal 14.00 / SY 1,600 SY $22,400.00
Pavement milling (2”) 7.00 / SY 38,544 SY + 5,307 SY $306,957.00
(PVMT TRANS) (MS-1Plcmt)
Material Demolition Sub Total $933,908.30
6.A.2 Provides standard pavement with stone base and areas of rigid pavement.
New Pavement
Item
Heavy Duty Pavement
(9”/4”/3”/1.5”)
4’ wide 26.56 / LF 5,007 LF $132,985.92
6’ wide 39.83 / LF 9,962 LF $396,786.46
2” overlay 9.50 / SY 38,544 SY $366,168.00
Rigid Concrete Heavy Duty 85.00 / SY 1,600 SY $136,000.00
Median (MS-1)
4’ wide 26.67 / LF 11,664 LF $311,078.88
8-10’ wide 50.00 / LF 610 LF $30,500.00
Curb (CG-2) 24.00 / LF 2,850 LF $68,400.00
New Pavement Sub Total $1,441,919.26
Pavement Markings
Item
Eradicate Stripe 1.00 / LF 26,105 LF $26,105.00
Eradicate Marking / Symbol 50.00 / EA 80 EA $4,000.00
Re-Stripe Lanes 1.00 / LF 26,105 LF + 27,928 LF $54,033.00
Marking / Symbol / Message 150.00 / EA 320 EA $48,000.00
Pavement Markings Sub Total $132,138.00
Demolition (6.A.1) and Pavement (6.A.2) Total Estimate $2,507,965.56
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 18

6.B.1 Alternative 1 Structural Overlay (no rigid pavement area).

Demolition
Item
Saw cut for mill / overlay 3.00 / LF 34,798 LF + 14,969 LF $149,301.00
(PVMT TRANS) (MS-1 Plcmt)
Saw cut for structural overlay 6.00 / LF 1,680 LF $10,080.00
2.5’ median removal 30.62 / LF 375 LF $11,482.50
Median curb removal 16.00 / LF 2,850 LF $45,600.00
Running curb removal 20.00 / LF 1,050 LF $21,000.00
Pavement milling (4”) 12.00 / SY 1,600 SY $19,200.00
Pavement milling (2”) 7.00 / SY 38,544 SY + 5,307 SY $306,957.00
(PVMT TRANS) (MS-1 Plant)
Material Demolition Sub Total $917,268.30
6.B.2 Alternative 1 Structural overlay (no rigid pavement) and full depth asphalt (no standard asphalt section).
New Pavement
Item
Heavy Duty Pavement Full depth
application (5”/4”/1.5”)
4’ wide 24.00 / LF 5,007 LF $120,168.00
6’ wide 36.25 / LF 9,962 LF $361,122.50
2” overlay 9.50 / SY 38,544 SY $366,168.00
Structural overlay 22.00 / SY 1,600 SY $35,200.00
Median (MS-1)
4’ wide 26.67 / LF 11,664 LF $311,078.88
8-10’ wide 50.00 / LF 610 LF $30,500.00
Curb (CG-2) 24.00 / LF 2,850 LF $68,400.00
New Pavement Sub Total $1,292,637.38
Pavement Markings
Item
Eradicate Stripe 1.00 / LF 26,105 LF $26,105.00
Eradicate Marking / Symbol 50.00 / EA 80 EA $4,000.00
Re-Stripe Lanes 1.00 / LF 26,105 LF + 27,928 LF $54,033.00
Marking / Symbol / Message 150.00 / EA 320 EA $48,000.00
Pavement Markings Sub Total $132,138.00
Demolition (6.B.1) and Pavement (6.B.2) Total Estimate $2,342,043.68
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 19

Table 7. BRT Cost Estimate Comparison of Specialty Pavement Surfaces for Dedicated Transitway Lanes
Item Unit Cost Quantity Amount

Standard Surface Paint 7.50 / SY 32,289 SY $242,167.50
Pigmented / Color Aggregate 42.30 / SY 32,289 SY $1,365,824.70
Asphalt (Red)
High Friction Epoxy Coating – 28.50 / SY 32,289 SY $920,236.50
Full Block Application
High Friction Epoxy Coating – 28.50 / SY 7,822 SY $222,927.00
Partial Application (100 Feet at
Start of Blocks)
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 20

Appendix A
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report
Revision 03
Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015

PRELIMNARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT – REVISION 03
GRTC Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project – Phase 1:

Preliminary Engineering
Broad Street and E. Main Street
Richmond, Virginia
Schnabel Reference #14613154.00

Kimley-Horn Project #113206000
February 23, 2015
Prepared For:
February 23, 2015
Mr. Brian A. McPeters, PE

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1700 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23230
Subject: Project 14613154, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report – Revision 01,

GRTC Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project – Phase 1: Preliminary Engineering, Broad
Street and E. Main Street, Richmond, Virginia
Dear Mr. McPeters:
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. (Schnabel) is pleased to submit our revised

geotechnical engineering report for this project. This revised report includes tables, figures and
appendices with relevant data collected for this study. This study was performed in accordance with our
revised proposal dated July 19, 2014 as authorized by our Sub-consultant Agreement, fully executed on
November 5, 2014. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service for this project. Please call us if you
have any questions regarding this report.
Sincerely,
SCHNABEL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Frank J. Romano, EIT

Senior Staff Engineer
Edward G. Drahos, PE
Senior Reviewer
FJR:EGD
Distribution:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Attn: Mr. Anush Nejad, PE
Mr. Jonathan Oliver, PE
Rummel Klepper and Kahl
Attn: Mr. Malachi Mills, PE
Mr. Marty Rodgers, PE
GRTC Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project – Phase 1: Preliminary Engineering
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT – REVISION 01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ..................................................... 3
3.1 Site Description

3.2 Proposed Construction
3.3 Regional Geology
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM ................................................................................. 6
4.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing

4.2 Location Control
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................... 7
5.1 Soils Testing
6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................... 8
6.1 Site Geology

6.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy
6.3 Groundwater
6.4 Existing Pavement Measurements
6.5 Seismic Site Class
7.0 PRELIMINARY SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 12
7.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades

7.2 Compacted Fill
7.3 Rock excavation
8.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 15
8.1 Spread Footings – Station Platforms

8.2 Drilled Shafts – Signal Poles
8.3 Floor Slabs
9.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 17
9.1 Flexible Pavements

9.2 Rigid Pavements
February 23, 2015 Page i Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Project 14613154.00 ©2015 All Rights Reserved
10.0 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................. 23
10.1 Site Grading and Earthwork

10.2 Foundations
10.3 Construction Dewatering
10.4 Engineering Services During Construction
11.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 25
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Boring Location Plan (Sheets 2A through 2I)
Figure 3: Uplift Resistance Detail
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Summary of Traffic Volume Data

Table 3.2: Proposed BRT Station Locations
Table 6.1: CBR and Proctor Testing Summary – Stratum A
Table 6.2: CBR and Proctor Testing Summary – Stratum B
Table 6.3: Broad Street Pavement Section Thickness Summary
Table 6.4: E. Main Street Pavement Section Thickness Summary
Table 7.1: Preliminary Estimated Undercut Summary
Table 8.1: Preliminary Recommended Soil Parameters
Table 8.2: Preliminary Recommended Drilled Shaft Soil Parameters
Table 9.1: Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane - Section with Stone Base
Table 9.1a: Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane Pavement – Full Depth Asphalt
Table 9.2: Preliminary Mixed Traffic Operations - Flexible Pavement Sections
Table 9.3: Structural Mill and Overlay for Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lanes
Table 9.4: Functional Mill and Overlay
Table 9.5: BRT Stations and Transition Pads- Rigid Pavement Section
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Subsurface Exploration Data
Appendix B: Soil Laboratory Test Data
Appendix C: Calculations
February 23, 2015 Page ii Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We are providing this executive summary solely for purposes of overview. Any party that relies on this
report must read the full report. This executive summary omits several details, any one of which could be
very important to the proper application of the report.
This report presents the results of subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical
engineering analysis for the proposed GRTC Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project in Richmond, Virginia. The
purpose of the exploration was to provide preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations
regarding the design of foundations, earthwork and pavements for the project.
We drilled 39 borings to a depth of 10 ft for this preliminary geotechnical report. The borings indicated
variable depths of existing fill generally over Pleistocene terrace clay, sand and gravel. Some younger
alluvial soils were encountered in the Shockoe Creek area near Main Street Station. Ground water was
not encountered in the borings.
We consider shallow spread footings suitable for support of the proposed BRT Stations. Footings should
be founded on suitable existing fill, suitable natural soils, or on new compacted structural fill. The
proposed signal poles for the BRT alignment can be supported on straight-sided drilled shafts founded on
suitable natural soils.
The borings encountered high plasticity soils in roughly 30 percent of the borings. In addition, portions of
the fill and pavement subgrades are expected to be soft, loose, or otherwise unsuitable. Unsuitable soils
should be undercut and replaced with compacted structural fill. Estimated depths and locations of
undercut are included herein. The Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate actual undercut depths during
construction.
The preliminary construction plans and project parameters have not been finalized at this time. Some of
the parameters include, but are not limited to: project baseline stationing, proposed changes to roadway
and site grading, and the location of traffic signal poles. We have made certain assumptions in order to
complete our analysis. Once the details are available, we should be provided an opportunity to review
the proposed construction and make additional recommendations, as necessary.
February 23, 2015 Page 1 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The objective of this study is to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the project site and to provide
preliminary geotechnical engineering recommendations regarding the design of foundations, earthwork,
and pavements for the project. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated July 9,
2014, as authorized by our Sub-consultant Agreement, fully executed on November 5, 2014. The scope
of services for Phase 1 includes the following:
 Subsurface exploration including 39 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings for the proposed
BRT corridor alignment.
 Field engineering including: site reconnaissance, boring layout, subcontracted traffic control, and
logging of the subsurface exploration.
 Soil laboratory testing including: moisture contents, Atterberg Limits, gradation analysis, moisture-
density relationship testing, and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing.
 Geotechnical engineering analysis and development of the recommendations summarized in this

preliminary geotechnical engineering study.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
3.1 Site Description
The project spans across several of the central neighborhoods in Richmond, Virginia. The western limits
of the project begin at about the intersection of Broad Street and Byrd Avenue in the Willow Lawn area.
From there, the project runs down Broad Street through downtown, where it transitions to E. Main Street
th
via 14 Street, through Shockoe Slip and Shockoe Bottom. The project continues along E. Main Street,
where it ends in the Rocketts Landing neighborhood at about the intersection of E. Main Street and
Orleans Street near the Henrico County Line. The total project length is approximately 7.6 miles.
Within the limits of the overall project site, Broad Street is an asphalt paved roadway with three travel
nd
lanes in each direction, separated by a concrete median from Willow Lawn to about 2 Street. At about
nd
E. Broad Street and 2 Street, the layout transitions into two travel lanes in each direction separated by a
concrete median, with a third lane designated for bus travel along the curb. Through downtown, Broad
Street remains a three-lane divided roadway with a fourth lane used for parking and/or bus travel along
th
the curb. Between E. Broad Street and E. Main Street, 14 Street is a concrete paved two-lane roadway
with a parking lane along the curb. E. Main Street is an asphalt paved roadway with two to three travel
lanes in each direction through Shockoe Bottom and Rocketts Landing.
Traffic volume and vehicle classification estimates provided in Table 3.1 were obtained from the 2013
Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Jurisdiction Report 43-Henrico
County and 2013 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Special Locality
Report 127–City of Richmond. Table 3.1 presents a summary of the traffic volumes from west to east.
Table 3.1: Summary of Traffic Volume Data
Roadway From To 2013 ADT Buses Trucks

Broad Street Horsepen Road Richmond City Line 25,000 1% 1%
Broad Street WCL Richmond Staples Mill Road 29,000 1% 1%
Broad Street Staples Mill Rd Malvern Avenue 24,000 1% 1%
Broad Street Malvern Avenue Sheppard Street 24,000 1% 1%
Broad Street Sheppard Street Terminal Place 24,000 1% 5%
Broad Street Terminal Place Harrison Street 24,000 1% 1%
Broad Street Harrison Street Hancock Street 26,000 1% 1%
nd
Broad Street Hancock Street 2 Street 15,000 1% 1%
nd th
Broad Street 2 Street 8 Street 16,000 1% 4%
th th
Broad Street 8 Street 14 Street 21,000 1% 1%
th
14 Street Broad Street Main Street 13,000 1% 2%
th th
Main Street 14 Street 18 Street 21,000 2% 1%
th st
Main Street 18 Street 21 Street 18,000 1% <1%
st th
Main Street 21 Street 25 Street 18,000 1% <1%
th
Main Street 25 Street Williamsburg Ave. 15,000 <1% <1%
Main Street Williamsburg Ave. Nicholson Street 6,600 <1% <1%
Main Street Nicholson Street Richmond City Line 10,000 0% 5%
Old Osborne Tpk Richmond City Line New Market Road 9,500 0% 2%

The project site grades gently slope from west to east beginning at about El 270 at Willow Lawn and
gradually grading down to about El 175 at Broad and N. Adams Street. Site grades begin to rise slightly
th
from N. Adams Street to about El 180 at Broad Street and N. 5 Street, then decline to about El 132
th
around Broad Street and 14 Street. Site grades through Shockoe Bottom around Main Street Station
th
are at about El 20 and rise toward the east to about El 75 at E. Main Street and N. 24 Street. Continuing
along Main Street from Church Hill towards Rocketts Landing, site grades drop from about EL 75 down to
El 20 and then rise to about EL 40 at the eastern end of the project site.
We obtained the site information from the Request for Proposal (RFP) dated May 29, 2014, from the City
of Richmond GIS data base, and through our site visits. A Vicinity Map is included as Figure 1.
3.2 Proposed Construction
Proposed for construction is a 7.6-mile long dedicated bus guideway route between Willow Lawn and
Rocketts Landing through downtown Richmond. The route begins at about the intersection of Broad
Street and Byrd Avenue in the Willow Lawn area, continuing east along Broad Street through downtown
th th
to 14 Street, where the route travels south down 14 Street from Broad Street to Main Street. The route
th
continues through Shockoe Bottom along E. Main Street from 14 Street to its terminus at E. Main Street
and Orleans Street in Rocketts Landing at the Henrico County Line. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project
will create a rapid bus corridor by combining the use of dedicated inside bus lanes created from existing
medians, dedicated outside bus lanes created from existing curb lanes, and portions of the route where
the buses will continue to travel in general traffic.
The GRTC buses will operate in general traffic along Broad Street from Willow Lawn to Thompson Street.
Beginning at Broad Street and N. Thompson Street, and extending to Broad and N. Adams Street, the
buses will operate in a center-running, dedicated BRT bus lane. The center running dedicated BRT lane
th
will transition to an outside curb lane, from N. Adams Street to 4 Street, with the buses traveling in mixed
th th
traffic. From 4 Street to 14 Street, the buses will travel in a dedicated outside curb lane down Broad
th
Street. The buses will travel in mixed traffic along Main Street from 14 Street to Rocketts Landing.
Fourteen new BRT sheltered bus stop stations will be installed along the route. Some of the exiting local
bus stops along the BRT route will be consolidated and removed to help increase efficiency and bus
speed between stops. The stations will include new platforms, canopies and street furniture. The
shoulder lane at each platform will also include concrete approach pads. Additional improvements along
the BRT corridor could include intersection modifications, bicycle facilities, pavement rehabilitation and
resurfacing, median and curb rehabilitation, drainage improvements, utility relocations, traffic signal
relocation, and changes to parking facilities and street lights. Table 3.2 lists proposed station locations.
Table 3.2: Proposed BRT Station Locations
Station Route Guideway

Willow Lawn Broad Street Mixed Traffic Operations
Staples Mill Broad Street Mixed Traffic Operations
Cleveland Street Broad Street Median Running
Robinson Street Broad Street Median Running
Allison Street Broad Street Median Running
Shafer Street Broad Street Median Running

Station Route Guideway

Adams Street Broad Street Mixed Traffic Operations
th th
4 /5 Street Broad Street Curb Running
th
9 Street Broad Street Curb Running
th
12 Street Broad Street Curb Running
Main Street Station Main Street Mixed Traffic Operations
th
24 Street Main Street Mixed Traffic Operations
Route 5 Main Street Mixed Traffic Operations
Rockett’s Landing Orleans Street Mixed Traffic Operations
We obtained the project details from the RFP and the station location details from the GRTC BRT Map
Version 6, provided by your office.
3.3 Regional Geology
Based on our review of available resources, including the Geologic Map of Virginia (VA DMME, 1993),
and the Geologic Map of the Western Portion of the Richmond 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle (VA DMME,
2002), the project site is located within the Piedmont physiographic province of Virginia. The site is
mapped as being underlain by Coastal Plain sediments and Pleistocene age terrace deposits above
Petersburg Granite. Petersburg Granite is a fine to medium-grained rock, ranging from granite to quartz
monzonite.
For sites east of the Rocky Mountains, the USGS Active Faults Map (USGS, 2010) indicates seismic
zones rather than identifying particular faults as active. In accordance with the USGS Active Faults Map,
the site is not located within an identified active seismic zone.

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM
We conducted a subsurface exploration and field testing program to identify the subsurface stratigraphy
underlying the site and to evaluate the geotechnical properties of the materials encountered. This
program included test borings and field classification of soils. Exploration methods used are discussed
below. The appendices to this report contain the results of our exploration.
4.1 Subsurface Exploration and Field Testing
4.1.1 Test Borings
Our subcontractor, Ayers & Ayers, Inc., drilled 39 test borings under our observation between November
18, 2014 and December 1, 2014. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was conducted at selected
depths in the borings to establish N values related to soil strength. Appendix A includes specific
observations, remarks, and logs for the borings, classification criteria, drilling methods, and sampling
protocols. Figure 2 (Sheets 2A through 2I), included at the end of this report, indicates the approximate
test boring locations. We will retain soil samples up to 45 days beyond the issuance of our Phase II Final
report, unless you request other disposition.
4.2 Location Control
Boring locations were staked in the field using a handheld sub-meter GPS unit. Approximate boring
locations are shown on Figure 2 (Sheets 2A through 2I). Ground surface elevations at the borings were
obtained from the City of Richmond GIS topographic plans and are indicated on the logs. Where borings
were offset in the field due to access constraints by more than 5 ft, the locations were marked and the as-
drilled coordinates were obtained with the GPS unit. These locations and elevations should be
considered no more accurate than the methods and means used to obtain them. We will scale the
ground surface elevations at the boring locations from the project topographic map when it becomes
available.

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
Our laboratory conducted tests on selected samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. The
testing aided in the classification of materials encountered in the subsurface exploration and provided
data for use in the development of recommendations for design of foundations, earthwork and
pavements. Moisture contents are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. Appendix B presents the
results of the remaining laboratory tests.
5.1 Soils Testing
5.1.1 Index Testing
We conducted natural moisture content, Atterberg Limit and gradation tests on jar and bulk samples of
soil representing Strata A, B1 and B2 to provide soil classifications and to provide parameters for use with
published correlations with soil properties. The results are presented in the Summary of Laboratory Tests
in Appendix B and are summarized (for each stratum) in Section 6.0.
5.1.2 Compaction and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Testing
We conducted Standard Proctor compaction and CBR testing of ten soil samples representing Strata A
and B2 to evaluate compaction characteristics and to provide soil parameters for pavement design. The
test results are included in Appendix B and are summarized (for each stratum) in Section 6.0.

6.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
6.1 Site Geology
We reviewed existing geologic data and information in our files. Based on this review, the geologic
stratigraphy of the project site, from the ground surface down, typically consists of Pleistocene Age
terrace deposits, the Miocene Age Calvert Formation, Eocene and Cretaceous Age sands, and residual
soils and rock of the Petersburg granite formation. The terrace deposits are alluvial soils that typically
consist of a mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel exhibiting moderate strength and compressibility. The
Calvert Formation consists of marine-deposited sediment. These soils exhibit moderate to high strength
and low to moderate compressibility. The Eocene and Cretaceous Age sands are also marine sediments
that typically exhibit high strength and low compressibility. The residual soils are derived from the
chemical and physical weathering of the underlying parent material, the Petersburg granite rock.
th
In the Shockoe Valley area at 17 and Main Streets, the geologic stratigraphy consists of younger river
alluvial deposits underlain by Cretaceous geologic age soils. The alluvium typically consists of a mixture
of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The dense Cretaceous aged soils also typically consist of a mixture of clay,
silt, sand and gravel.
Fill soils associated with roadway and utility construction are present within the footprint of the existing
roadways.
6.2 Generalized Subsurface Stratigraphy
We characterized the following generalized subsurface stratigraphy based on the exploration and
laboratory test data included in the appendices.
Ground Cover:
Most of the 39 test borings were located in the existing roadway. Boring 14BH-033 was drilled in
the sidewalk. At the roadway locations, 26 of the borings encountered between 2 and 8 inches of
asphalt underlain by 5½ to 16 inches of concrete. At 10 of the roadway locations, the borings
encountered about 4.5 to 13 inches of asphalt. At the two remaining roadway locations, the
th
borings encountered 4 to 5 inches of concrete. Boring 14BH-033 was drilled near 9 Street in the
adjacent sidewalk, and encountered 6 inches of concrete. See Tables 6.3 and 6.4 for a summary
of the pavement thicknesses at the boring locations.
Fill (Stratum A):
Existing fill soils of Stratum A were encountered in 37 of the 39 test borings below the ground
cover materials to depths of about 1 to 10 ft, with typical fill depths of about 5.5 ft. The existing fill
soils classify as Fat Clay (CH), and Lean Clay (CL) with varying amounts of sand and gravel; and
Clayey Sand (SC), Silty Sand (SM), Poorly Graded Sand (SP), Clayey Gravel (GC), Silty Gravel
(GM), and Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt (GP-GM). Minor amounts of wood fragments, gravel,
crushed stone, rock fragments, brick fragments and asphalt fragments were observed in the
existing fill. The existing fill soils are generally soft to very stiff and loose to dense, with SPT N-
values varying from 3 to 47.

Atterberg Limits tests performed in our laboratory indicate that the soils of this stratum are
generally moderately to highly plastic having liquid limits of 14 to 42 and plasticity indices of 2 to
22. Natural moisture contents of samples from this stratum varied from about 2 to 24 percent.
Laboratory tests conducted on samples representing Stratum A indicate these soils exhibit a low
potential for moisture-related volume change (shrink/swell behavior).
We conducted nine Standard Proctor and CBR tests on bulk samples obtained from auger
cuttings from this stratum. The results of the testing are summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: CBR and Proctor Testing Summary – Stratum A

Depth Classification Max. Dry Optimum
Boring CBR CBR
Interval (USCS/ Density Moisture
Number Value Swell (%)
(ft) AASHTO) (pcf) Content (%)
14BH-003 0 – 5.0 SC / A-6 117.7 13.0 8.4 0.2
14BH-006 0 – 5.0 SC / A-6 111.0 15.2 17.2 0.1
14BH-009 0 – 5.0 SM / A-2-4 132.3 7.2 35.8 0.0
14BH-012 0 – 5.0 SC / A-2-6 120.6 11.8 34.9 0.0
14BH-020 0 – 5.0 SC / A-2-6 119.7 11.9 26.7 0.0
14BH-023 1.0 – 5.0 SC / A-2-6 124.4 10.5 39.9 0.0
14BH-028 3.0 – 7.0 CL / A-7-6 110.8 15.7 10.1 0.2
14BH-034 1.2 – 7.0 SC / A-6 117.3 13.6 6.3 0.1
14BH-038 1.3 – 8.0 SC / A-6 118.4 12.7 10.4 0.5
Alluvium (Strata AL):
Alluvium was encountered below the ground cover in Borings 14BH-037 and -038, located near
the former stream and river features of Shockoe Bottom. The alluvial soils classify as loose to
medium dense Clayey Sand (SC) and Silty Sand (SM), with SPT N-values varying from 6 to 22.
This stratum is characterized by the presence of minor amounts of organics and root fragments
and varying amounts of gravel; it is loose density. The thickness of this stratum varies from about
2 to 3 ft, where penetrated. The natural moisture content of this stratum varied from about 17 to
27 percent.
Pleistocene Terrace (Strata B1 and B2):
Strata B1 and B2 consist of Pleistocene Terrace soils. On the boring logs in Appendix A, the
coarse-grained soils of this stratum are designated as B1 and the fine-grained soils are
designated as B2 (collectively referred to as “Stratum B” herein). The terrace soils were
encountered in most of the borings and all the borings that were deep enough to penetrate Strata
A and AL (where present). These soils typically consist of soft to very stiff Fat Clay (CH), Elastic
Silt (MH) and Lean Clay (CL) with varying amounts of sand, and loose to dense Clayey Sand
(SC), Silty Sand (SM), Clayey Gravel (GC) and Poorly-Graded Gravel with Silt (GP-GM). SPT N-
values varied from 4 to 24 in the fine-grained soils and from 3 to 48 in the coarse-grained soils.

Atterberg Limits tests performed in our laboratory indicate that the soils of this stratum are
generally moderately to highly plastic having liquid limits of 43 to 74 and plasticity indices of 17 to
48. The natural moisture contents of samples from this stratum varied from about 3 to 42 percent
but generally clustered between about 10 and 25 percent.
Laboratory tests conducted on samples representing Stratum B indicate the fine-grained portions
of these soils exhibit a moderate to very high potential for moisture-related volume change
(shrink/swell behavior).
We conducted a Standard Proctor and CBR test on a bulk sample obtained from auger cuttings
from this stratum. The results of the testing are summarized in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: CBR and Proctor Testing Summary – Stratum B

Depth Classification Max. Dry Optimum
Boring CBR CBR
Interval (USCS/ Density Moisture
Number Value Swell (%)
(ft) AASHTO) (pcf) Content (%)
14BH-017 2.5 – 7.0 SC / A-7-6 115.7 14.8 13.7 0.1
6.3 Groundwater
We did not observe groundwater in the borings during drilling or upon completion. We did not obtain
long-term water level readings since we backfilled the test borings upon completion for safety. The final
design should anticipate the fluctuation of the hydrostatic water table depending on variations in
precipitation, surface runoff, pumping, evaporation, leaking utilities, river levels, and similar factors.
However, based on our groundwater observations, we do not expect groundwater levels to impact the
proposed construction.
6.4 Existing Pavement Measurements
All of the borings, with the exception of Boring 14BH-033, were drilled in the existing roadway alignment
of Broad Street, and E. Main Street. At each location, the pavement was augered through and the in-
service pavement section was measured. Figure 2 (Sheets 1 through 13) shows the approximate test
boring locations. Tables 6.3 and 6.4 summarize the pavement section thickness data.
Table 6.3: Broad Street Pavement Section Thickness Summary

Asphalt Concrete Portland Cement Concrete
Boring
Thickness (inches) Thickness (inches)
14BH-001 5 7
14BH-002 4 8
14BH-003 6 12
14BH-004 6 12
14BH-005 4 8
14BH-006 6 8
14BH-007 6 12
14BH-008 6 6
14BH-009 7 6
14BH-010 8 8


Boring
14BH-011 6 9
14BH-012 6 9
14BH-013 6 12
14BH-014 8 7
14BH-015 7 9
14BH-016 7 9
14BH-017 7 9
14BH-018 6 16
14BH-019 6 11
14BH-020 6 9
14BH-021 11 --
14BH-022 13 --
14BH-023 12 --
14BH-024 12 --
14BH-025 11 --
14BH-026 11 --
14BH-027 12 --
14BH-028 6 8½
14BH-029 6 9
14BH-030 6 6
14BH-031 5½ 5½
14BH-032 11 --
14BH-034 8 6
14BH-035 -- 4½
14BH-036 -- 4
Note: Boring 14BH-033 has been excluded from this table, as it was drilled in the sidewalk.
Table 6.4: E. Main Street Pavement Section Thickness Summary

Boring
14BH-037 11 --
14BH-038 2 13½
14BH-039 4½ --
6.5 Seismic Site Class
We evaluated the Seismic Site Class and Seismic Site Coefficients for this project according to the
International Building Code (IBC) Section 1613 (2009). Our analysis indicates Site Class D for this
location. This Site Class was evaluated based on corrected SPT values, shear strength values from
pocket penetrometer results, and extrapolation of the soil parameters to 100 ft based on our local
experience.

7.0 PRELIMINARY SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Limited cut and fill is anticipated for this project. We understand that the existing median will be removed
and the existing curb lanes widened for construction of the dedicated BRT lanes. We have assumed that
existing site grades will not change by more than 1 ft to construct the BRT project as proposed.
Earthwork operations should be conducted according to current VDOT specifications and standards.
Recommendations for compacted fill subgrade preparation, fill soil requirements, placement and
compaction criteria, are presented in subsequent sections.
7.1 Compacted Fill Subgrades
Subgrades to receive compacted structural fill for pavement support should be stripped of all vegetation,
topsoil and organic matter in accordance with VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications, Section 303.06(a).
Existing structures and utilities should be removed from areas to receive fill. Where new full depth
pavement is required, existing pavements should be removed in accordance with the VDOT Road and
Bridge Specifications.
The subsurface conditions encountered at this site generally consist of shallow depths of existing fill over
soft to stiff terrace clays and loose to dense terrace sands. The natural soils generally consist of a
mixture of silty sands, clayey sands, and lean clays as well as some high plasticity fat clay. Soils of Strata
A and B are generally expected at fill subgrades after stripping topsoil and removing existing pavement.
Some of the on-site soils may be unsuitable for support of pavements and foundations due to the
presence of deleterious materials, low SPT N-values, high plasticity and/or high moisture contents.
Most of the borings contain fill which was placed during roadway and utility construction. High plasticity
fat clays and/or low SPT N-values were encountered in the existing fill or immediately below the existing
fill in about 30 percent of the borings. Estimated depths and locations of undercut are shown in Table
7.1. The information in Table 7.1 is not intended to be completely sufficient for delineating estimated
undercut depths on the project plans. After the roadway design is advanced to a point where additional
geometric changes are not likely, we should be provided an opportunity to review the cross-sections to
estimate the station ranges, depths and lateral extents of undercut anticipated. Regardless of the
estimated areas of undercut, the need for undercut should be evaluated based on the actual conditions
encountered during construction.
Table 7.1: Preliminary Estimated Undercut Summary
Estimated Undercut
Boring Location Reason
Depth (ft)
14BH-14 1 High Plasticity
14BH-33 1 Soft/Loose
14BH-36 1 Soft/Loose
Note: The lateral extent of unsuitable soils can be estimated to extend halfway to the adjacent borings.

When excavation of unsuitable materials is required, it should be performed in a manner to limit

disturbance of the underlying suitable material. The excavation should be performed under the
observation of the Geotechnical Engineer to evaluate required excavation depths.
Undercut volumes should be evaluated by cross sectioning. Other methods of calculating volumes of
undercut, such as counting trucks, are less accurate and generally result in additional expense. If truck
counts are used, we recommend the method of payment be in accordance with Section 109 of VDOT
Road and Bridge Specifications.
Fill and pavement subgrades should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck to evaluate their suitability to
support new fill or pavement at the time of construction. If unsuitable soils are encountered at subgrade
elevations, they should be undercut. Undercutting should be performed in accordance with VDOT Road
and Bridge Specifications Sections 305.03(b) and 303.06(a).3 and undercut should be replaced with
additional structural fill material.
The upper 6 inches of pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 100 percent of the maximum
dry density per VTM-1, Standard Proctor. Materials considered unsuitable for support of the proposed fill
should be undercut and replaced with new compacted structural fill.
Compacted structural fill subgrades should be kept free of ponded water. If springs or other flowing water
are present at the compacted structural fill subgrade level, the Contractor should direct water to discharge
beyond the fill limits. Recommendations for discharging springs should be provided by the QA Engineer.
Compacted structural fill subgrades should be free of snow, ice, and frozen soils. If snow, ice, or frozen
soils are present at subgrade levels, these materials should be removed as recommended by the QA
Engineer.
Compacted structural fill subgrades should not be steeper than about 4H:1V. If steeper slopes are
present, subgrades should be benched to permit placement of horizontal lifts of fill, and the benches
should be at least 6 ft wide.
7.2 Compacted Fill
Compacted fill materials placed within 2 ft of pavement subgrade elevations should exhibit a minimum
CBR value of 4.5. Most of the on-site soils are expected to meet the material requirements for re-use as
compacted fill. If off-site soils are needed, they should classify CL, ML, SC, SM, SP, SW, GC, GM, GP or
GW according to ASTM D2487. Compacted fill materials should consist of non-organic soils with a
maximum particle size of 3 inches.
Fill should be placed in accordance with the current VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications. Compacted
structural fill should be placed in maximum 8-inch thick horizontal, loose lifts. Fill should be compacted to
at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per VTM-1, Standard Proctor. The moisture content of
the fill materials should be within 20 percent of the optimum moisture content for the material used (i.e. +/-
2 percent for optimum moisture content of 10 percent).
Backfill placed in excavations, trenches, and other areas that large compaction equipment cannot access
should be placed in maximum 6-inch thick lifts. Backfill should meet the material, placement, and
compaction requirements outlined above.

Successful re-use of the excavated, on-site soils as compacted structural fill will depend on their natural
moisture contents during excavation. The natural moisture contents for soil tested at this site were
generally wet of optimum. Scarifying and drying of these soils should be anticipated to achieve the
recommended compaction. Drying of these soils will likely result in some delays, and may not be
possible during cooler, wetter weather. We recommend that the earthwork be performed during the
warmer, drier times of the year.
Compacted structural fill slopes should be constructed at inclinations of 2H:1V or flatter.
7.3 Rock excavation
The test borings did not encounter rock while drilling for this project. We do not anticipate that rock
excavation will be required for the BRT Project.

8.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION AND FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
We based our geotechnical engineering analysis on the information developed from our subsurface
exploration and soil laboratory testing, along with the project development plans, site plans, and structural
loading furnished to our office. We recommend shallow spread footings for support of the proposed BRT
Station Platforms and drilled shafts for proposed signal poles based on our analysis. The following
sections of the report provide our detailed recommendations.
8.1 Spread Footings – Station Platforms
We consider spread footings suitable for support of the proposed BRT station platforms. Footings should
be founded on suitable existing fill soils, suitable natural soils or on new compacted structural fill.
Compacted structural fill should meet the requirements outlined in Section 7.2. Based on the information
currently available, we estimate the on-site soils are suitable for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of
1,500 to 3,000 psf. We anticipate suitable natural soils will be encountered at shallow depths (less than 2
ft) below the proposed footing grade.
For planning purposes, the elevation of suitable materials between borings may be considered to vary
linearly between boring locations. All footing subgrades should be observed by the Geotechnical
Engineer prior to placement of concrete to verify subgrade materials are as anticipated.
If unsuitable soils are encountered at the design bearing grade, these soils should be removed and
replaced as recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer. Unsuitable soils should be replaced with
compacted fill as described in Section 7.2, open graded crushed stone such as VDOT No. 57 aggregate
or lean concrete.
It is possible that the size and bearing grade of the footings might be controlled by uplift loads acting on
the foundation. Foundation uplift resistance should be taken as the full weight of the foundation concrete
and the weight of the soil wedge above the foundation as shown in Figure 3. Total and buoyant unit
weights of the soils have been summarized in Table 8.1. We recommend a concrete unit weight of 150
pcf above the estimated water table and a concrete buoyant unit weight of 87.6 pcf below the water table
in evaluating uplift resistance. Spread footings should be designed to provide a factor of safety of at least
two against uplift.
Table 8.1: Preliminary Recommended Soil Parameters

Unit Weight, (pcf)
Stratum
Total Buoyant
A: Existing Fill 115 52.6
AL: Alluvium 110 47.6
B1: Fine- Grained 105 42.6
T
B2: Coarse-Grained 120 57.6
T
Column and wall footings should be at least 24 and 12 inches wide, respectively, for shear
considerations. Exterior footings should be founded at least 2 ft below final exterior grades for frost
protection. Interior footings may be founded at nominal depths below the floor slabs. Interior footings
subject to freezing should be founded at least 2 ft below slab grade.

8.2 Drilled Shafts – Signal Poles
The proposed signal poles for the BRT alignment can be supported on straight-sided drilled shafts
bearing in suitable natural soils of Stratum B. Drilled shafts may be sized using a preliminary end bearing
pressure of about 2,500 psf to 4,000 psf. Additional test borings will need to be drilled at each of the
proposed signal pole locations to evaluate the depth to suitable bearing materials. VDOT Standard PF-1,
Signal Pole Foundation, is included as Figure 4.
It is our understanding that the signal pole designers will need total and buoyant unit weights, effective
angle of internal friction, cohesion, and active and passive earth pressure coefficients for the soils
encountered. These parameters have been summarized in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2: Preliminary Recommended Drilled Shaft Soil Parameters

Effective Earth Pressure
Unit Weight, (pcf)
Angle of Coefficients
Cohesion,
Stratum Internal
(psf) Active, Passive,
Total Buoyant Friction
Ka Kp
(degrees)
A: Existing Fill 115 52.6 30 -- 0.33 3.0
AL: Alluvium 110 47.6 28 -- 0.36 2.7
B1: Fine-Grained 105 42.6 -- 1,500 1.00 1.0
B2: Coarse Grained 120 57.6 32 -- 0.31 3.2
Lateral resistance should be ignored within 2 ft of the finished ground surface since these soils are within
the zone of seasonal influence. A factor of safety of two for side friction in compression and for end
bearing should be applied. When considering tension loads, a factor of safety of three should be applied
to the ultimate friction values.
8.3 Floor Slabs
The proposed BRT Station floor slabs should be supported on suitable existing fill, suitable natural soils of
Stratum B or new compacted structural fill. A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 125 pci can be used in
preliminary design of station floor slabs. A four-inch crushed stone or washed gravel capillary moisture
barrier should underlie floor slabs on grade. Moisture barrier material should consist of VDOT No. 57
crushed stone. The Contractor should compact the stone in place with at least two passes of suitable
vibratory compaction equipment. Since floors will be slab-on-grade, footing and utility excavations should
be backfilled with compacted structural fill as defined in Section 7.2.

9.0 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
We understand that the proposed BRT project route will contain a combination of dedicated center bus
lanes, dedicated outside bus lanes created along existing curb lanes, and portions of the route where the
buses will operate in mixed traffic. The dedicated bus lanes and bus operations in mixed traffic will have
flexible pavement sections and the bus stations and areas approaching and leaving bus stations will have
rigid pavement sections. The pavement sections provided herein are preliminary. The recommended
pavement sections could change when additional borings and tests are performed for the final
geotechnical engineering study.
We developed the different recommended pavement sections based on the design methodology
presented in Chapter VI of the VDOT Manual of Instructions (VDOT 2012). We obtained traffic volume
estimates from the 2013 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Including
Vehicle Classification Estimates Jurisdiction Report 43 – Henrico County (VDOT 2013) and the 2013
Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates Including Vehicle Classification
Estimates Special Locality Report 127 – City of Richmond (VDOT 2013), and from information contained
in the Final Request for Proposals (RFP). Recommendations for the different pavement sections are
presented in subsequent sections.
The Contractor should prepare pavement subgrades and place compacted structural fill for pavement
support as described in Section 7.0 of this report. Dense-graded aggregate placed as pavement base
course should be compacted in accordance with VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications, Section 305.03
(VDOT 2007).
Adequate control of surface drainage will be a very important consideration for the overall performance of
the pavement designs. The area surrounding pavements should be graded to direct surface water away
from paved areas. Utility excavations within pavement areas should be backfilled with compacted
structural fill.
9.1 Flexible Pavements
9.1.1 BRT Dedicated Bus Travel Lanes
The dedicated BRT bus travel lanes will be reserved for transit operations 24 hours a day and will not be
subjected to passenger vehicles or additional heavy truck loads. We developed flexible pavement
sections for the dedicated BRT bus travel lane based on an average daily traffic (ADT) of 160 vehicles
per day with a design life of 30 years. The ADT estimate was developed from information contained in
the RFP, which included proposed bus operating hours and projected bus trip frequencies. In our
calculation of equivalent 18-kip single axle loads (ESALs), we used a design truck factor for commuter
buses based on information contained in the article, “Impact of Buses on Highway Infrastructure – Case
Study for New Jersey State,” (Boile 2003).
The design CBR value is based on approximately two-thirds of the average laboratory CBR value, minus
the four highest values obtained during testing. We removed the four highest CBR values when
calculating our design CBR, as the presence of gravel in the sample may have artificially represented the
strength of the existing subgrade soils. The samples with the highest CBR values contained about 10 to
30 percent gravel. The pavement design parameters are as follows:

 Construction Year = 2017

 Percent Buses = 100%
 Percent Trucks in Design Lane = 100%
 Growth Rate = 2.0%
 Directional Distribution = 50%
 Bus Truck Factor = 3.58
 Reliability = 90%
 Standard Deviation = 0.49
 Initial Serviceability = 4.2
 Terminal Serviceability = 2.8
 Design CBR = 7.4
Our analysis considers that proper grading will be maintained to provide runoff from the pavement surface
and beyond the limits of paved areas.
We recommend two pavement options. These sections can be used where there is no existing pavement
and in areas where the existing pavement needs to be completely removed and replaced. Table 9.1
shows a recommended pavement section that includes a crushed stone base course. Table 9.1a shows
a recommended full-depth pavement section without a crushed stone base course.
Table 9.1: Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane - Section with Stone Base
Layer Thickness
Pavement Section Material
(inches)
Table 9.1a: Preliminary Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane Pavement – Full Depth Asphalt
Layer Thickness
Pavement Section Material
(inches)
9.1.2 Travel Lanes for BRT Buses and Mixed General Traffic Operations
The BRT buses will operate within the general traffic flow for a portion of the roughly 7.6 mile project
corridor. After reviewing the traffic data and vehicle classification estimates provided by VDOT, we
divided the project into two segments with different flexible pavement sections based on the traffic loading
conditions the roads will experience. The first project segment begins at the western project limits at
th
Broad Street and Horsepen Road and extends to E. Main Street and 25 Street. The second project
th
segment is from E. Main Street and 25 Street and extends to the eastern project limits at New Market
Road/Rocketts Landing. Within each segment, our pavement design was controlled by the vehicle mix
that produced the greatest number of equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs).

th
For the segment from Horsepen Road to 25 Street, our design considers a traffic volume of 24,000
vehicles per day with one percent bus traffic and five percent heavy truck traffic; these controlling traffic
counts and vehicle estimates occur from Sheppard Street to Terminal Place. We used the design truck
factor for commuter buses as previously mentioned. The design CBR is based on approximately two-
thirds of the average laboratory CBR value minus the four highest values obtained during testing. The
pavement design parameters are as follows:

 Design Period = 30 years
 Heavy Truck Factor = 1.05
th
For the segment from 25 Street to New Market Street, our design considers a traffic volume of 15,000
vehicles per day with one percent bus traffic and one percent heavy truck traffic; these controlling traffic
th
counts and vehicle estimates occur from 25 Street to Williamsburg Avenue. We used the design truck
factor for commuter buses as previously mentioned. We have assumed that the project will be reduced to
th
a two-lane undivided roadway from 25 Street to Rocketts Landing as opposed to a three-lane undivided
roadway. The design CBR is based on approximately two-thirds of the average laboratory CBR value,
minus the four highest values obtained during testing. The pavement design parameters are as follows:

and beyond the limits of paved areas. We recommend the following pavement sections:

Table 9.2: Preliminary Mixed Traffic Operations - Flexible Pavement Sections

Layer Thickness
Type Section
(inches)
th
Roadways from Horsepen Road to 25 Street
th
Roadways from 25 Street to Rocketts Landing
Asphalt Concrete Surface Course, VDOT SM-9.5D 1.5
Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Base Course, VDOT IM-19.0A 2.5
We recommend standard UD-4 edge drains be included in the design of the BRT corridor. The standard
UD-4 edge drains should be connected to the untreated aggregate base course to provide for positive
lateral drainage.
9.1.3 Mill and Overlay
Portions of the project alignment will attempt to reuse the existing pavements, as many existing curb
parking lanes will be repurposed as travel lanes in the new BRT corridor. There may also be concrete
pavements below the existing center medians that if encountered, would likely be reused. Depending on
their age and condition, some of the existing pavements will likely need to be milled and overlaid with new
asphalt to meet structural requirements.
We reviewed the existing in-service pavement sections and applied reduced structural layer coefficients
to reflect the worn nature of the pavement. Based on the “Suggested Layer Coefficients for Existing
Flexible Pavement Layer Materials,” from Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements – FHWA Report NHI-05-
037, the structural number (SNEFF) of the in-place pavement is inadequate at roughly half of the test
boring locations. The estimated SNEFF of the proposed dedicated BRT Bus Travel lane is equal to 3.66.
In order to meet the requirement of the new pavement, we recommend the structural mill and overlay
presented in Table 9.3 for the dedicated BRT Travel Lanes.
Table 9.3: Structural Mill and Overlay for Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lanes
Layer Thickness
Type Section
(inches)
Milling Depth 4.0
The existing pavement section at Borings 14BH-35, -36 and -39 consisted of about 4 to 4.5 inches of
asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete. The structural mill and overlay section in Table 9.3 does

not apply at these locations and the pavement should be replaced with the sections shown in Tables 9.1
and 9.1a.
Portions of the project alignment will utilize the existing main-line pavements along Broad Street and Main
Street. For existing pavements that do not require a structural overlay, we recommend the functional mill
and overlay presented in Table 9.4.
Table 9.4: Functional Mill and Overlay

Layer Thickness
Type Section
(inches)
Milling Depth 2.0
Surface – Asphalt Concrete, SM-9.5E 2.0
The recommended mill and overlay sections should be constructed without buildup of the existing
sections. The pavement transition from the new pavement sections to the existing pavement should be
constructed according to VDOT Road and Bridge Standard WP-2.
9.2 Rigid Pavements
We understand that BRT bus stations and transition areas approaching and leaving bus stations will have
rigid pavement sections. We developed a rigid pavement section for the BRT bus corridor based on a
traffic volume of 24,000 vehicles per day with one percent bus traffic and five percent heavy truck traffic;
these controlling traffic counts and vehicle estimates occur from Sheppard Street to Terminal Place. We
used the design truck factor for commuter buses as previously mentioned. The pavement design
parameters are as follows:

 Mean Effective K-value = 250 psi/inch
 Load Transfer Coefficient = 2.7
 Drainage Coefficient = 1.0
and beyond the limits of paved areas. We recommend the following pavement section:

Table 9.5: BRT Stations and Transition Pads - Rigid Pavement Section
Layer Thickness
Type Section
(inches)
Rigid Pavement
Concrete – Jointed Plain Concrete 10.0
The recommended pavement section should be constructed with a minimum design compressive
strength of 4,000 psi and a modulus of rupture of at least 650 psi.

10.0 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
10.1 Site Grading and Earthwork
The test boring data indicates the approximate depth of topsoil based on our visual identification
procedures. The required depth of stripping should be evaluated by the excavation contractor prior to
construction using test pits, probes, or other means that the Contractor wishes to employ. This evaluation
should be the Contractor's responsibility.
The on-site soils are susceptible to moisture changes, will be easily disturbed, and will be difficult to
compact under wet weather conditions. Drying and reworking of the soils are likely to be difficult during
wetter winter months. We recommend that the earthwork phases of this project be performed during the
warmer, drier times of the year to limit the potential for disturbance of on-site soils.
Traffic on stripped or undercut subgrades should be limited to reduce disturbance of underlying soils.
Also, using lightweight, track-mounted dozer equipment for stripping will limit the disturbance of
underlying soils, and may reduce the undercut volume needed. The contractor should provide site
drainage to maintain subgrades free of water and to avoid saturation and disturbance of the subgrade
soils before placing compacted structural fill or pavement base course material. This will be important
during all phases of the construction work. The contractor should be responsible for reworking of
subgrades and compacted structural fill that were initially considered suitable but were later disturbed by
equipment and/or weather.
10.2 Foundations
10.2.1 Spread Footings – Station Platforms
The Contractor should exercise care during excavation for spread footings so that as little disturbance as
possible occurs at the foundation level. The Contractor should carefully clean loose or soft soils from the
bottom of the excavation before placing concrete. A Geotechnical Engineer from our firm should observe
actual footing subgrades during construction to evaluate whether subgrade soils meet the requirements
as recommended in this report.
Footing subgrades needing undercut may be concreted at the elevation of undercut or backfilled to the
original design subgrade elevation with an open-graded crushed stone such as No. 57 aggregate. The
contractor should place footing concrete immediately after excavation of the footing to prevent
accumulation of water in the excavation or drying of foundation soils.
10.2.2 Drilled Shafts – Signal Poles
Drilled shafts should be constructed according to good engineering and construction practice. Temporary
steel casing and dewatering should be used to support the sides of the excavation where needed. A
minimum concrete slump of 6 inches is recommended.

10.3 Construction Dewatering
The downtown portion of the project site located in and around Shockoe Bottom is low-lying and has
historically been prone to flooding. The boring logs drilled in this area did not encounter ground water at
the anticipated subgrade levels. The water level in these areas will fluctuate depending on precipitation.
The Contractor should anticipate the need to deal with standing water and soft, saturated soils in these
areas. Based on our experience, lowering perched surface water and/or groundwater at least 2 ft below
the base of excavations will provide a stable working platform. However, dewatering methods are the
responsibility of the Contractor and alternative methods that create a stable working platform are
acceptable.
10.4 Engineering Services During Construction
The engineering recommendations provided in this report are based on the information obtained from the
subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. However, conditions on the site may vary between the
discrete locations observed at the time of our subsurface exploration. The nature and extent of variations
between borings may not become evident until during construction.
To account for this variability, we should provide professional observation and testing of subsurface
conditions revealed during construction as an extension of our engineering services. These services will
also help in evaluating the Contractor's conformance with the plans and specifications. Because of our
unique position to understand the intent of the geotechnical engineering recommendations, retaining
Schnabel for these services will allow us to provide consistent service throughout the project construction.

11.0 LIMITATIONS
We based the preliminary analyses and recommendations submitted in this report on the information
revealed by our exploration. This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation of this site and to
assist in the preliminary design of the project. It is intended for use concerning this specific project. We
based our recommendations on information on the site and proposed construction as described in this
report. Substantial changes in loads, locations, or grades should be brought to our attention so we can
modify our recommendations as needed.
We have endeavored to complete the services identified herein in a manner consistent with that level of
care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality
and under similar conditions as this project. No other representation, express or implied, is included or
intended, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this report, or other instrument of
service.

REFERENCES
th
AASHTO (2010). “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications”. 5 Edition, including 2010 Interim
Revisions, Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.
Boile, M.P., Narayanan, P., and Ozbay, K. (2003). “Impact of Buses on Highway Infrastructure – A Case
Study for New Jersey State”, Transportation Research Record, No. 1841, pp. 32-40.
Christopher, B.R., Schwartz, C., and Broudreau, R. (2006). “Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements.”
Report FHWA NHI-05-037, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
USGS (2010). “Eastern U.S. Quaternary Faults”. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/eusa/eus.php
VA DMME (2002). “Geologic Map of the Western Portion of the Richmond 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle.”
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy, Charlottesville, VA.
VA DMME (1993). “Geologic Map of Virginia.” Scale 1:500,000, Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals
and Energy, Charlottesville, VA.
VDOT (2012). “Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision Roads in Virginia”. Virginia Department of
Transportation, Richmond, VA.
VDOT (2012). “Manual of Instructions”. Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA.
VDOT (2007). “Road and Bridge Specifications.” Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA.
VDOT (2008). “Road and Bridge Standards”. Virginia Department of Transportation. Richmond, VA.

FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 through 2I: Boring Location Plan
Figure 3: Uplift Resistance Detail
Figure 4: VDOT Standard Signal Pole Foundation (PF-1)
February 23, 2015 Schnabel Engineering Consultants, Inc.

³
arcgis
_
^
12/31/2014 This Map was Created In Schnabel Engineerings Site Vicinity Map Application
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap
NOT TO SCALE
GRTC BROAD STREET BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

BROAD STREET AND EAST MAIN STREET SITE VICINITY
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA MAP
PROJECT NO. 14613154 FIGURE 1
© Schnabel Engineering, 2014. All Rights Reserved.
N
SHEET 2A
SHEET 2B
SHEET 2C
SHEET 2D
SHEET 2E
SHEET 2F
SHEET 2G
SHEET 2H
SHEET 2I
ROCKETT'S
LANDING
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION Base Plan Provided by RK&K on October 24, 2014.
GRTC BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) Figure Name: Done: Figure Number:
SCALE: 1"=3000' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2
ENGINEERING Project Number: Reviewed: Date:
0 3000' 6000' BROAD STREET AND E. MAIN STREET
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 14613154.00 E. MORRIS FEB 2015
EETTR
OAD
50TH S
MORDIE R
BISHOP ROAD
W. BW
RO
.B
ARDOSATDRE
SETR
T E- E
UT.S. RO
UTE 250
B-01
B-02
W. BRO
AD STR
EET - U
.S. ROU
TE 250
E
N DRIV
CHANTILLY STREET
W LAW
MARKE
WILLO
L ROAD
RADFORD AVENUE
E
N DRIV
FITZ
HUG
W LAW
H AVE
NUE
WILLO
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2A
ENUE
WESTWOOD AV
OAD
EATH R
UE
ROAD S B-03
TREET
N
- U.S. RO
ISH AVE
UTE 25
ROSEN
0 W. MAR
VENUE
SHALL
STREE
T
B-04
MacTAV
OINT A
E
W.WB.RO
AVENU
BRAODAS
DTSRTEREETE
NUE
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2C

-TU.S. R
OUTE 2B-05
50
HIGH P
NT AVE
SUMMIT
REET
TA AVENUE
ROAD
B-06
ALLAMO
TILDEN STREET
N. THOMPSON ST W. BRO B-07
AD STR
EET - U
ROSENEATH
.S. ROU
T E 250 B-08
B-09
N. BELMONT AVENUE
CUTSHAW AVENUE CUTSHAW AVENUE CUTSHAW AVENUE
WAYNE STREET
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2B
161
OUTE
TE R
- SEE SHEET 2B
S T A
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2D

-
TERMINAL PLACE
VARD ULE
DMV DRIVE
B-09 N. BO
B-11 B-13
B-10
W, BROAD STREET - U.S. ROUTE 250 B-12W. BROA D STRE ET - U.S. ROUTE 250
W. BROAD STREET W. BROA D STREET
N. ROBINSON STREET
HAW AVENUE
MATCHLINE
N. SHEPPARD STREET
N. MULBERRY STREET
STRAWBERRY STREET
N. DAVIS AVE
WAYNE STREET
W. GRACE STREET W. GRACE STREET
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2C
- SEE SHEET 2C
N. LOMBARDY STREET
HERMITAGE ROAD
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2E

LODGE STREET
B-13 B-14 B-16
W. BROA
W. BROA
D STRE ET ET - U.S. ROUTE 250
D STRE B-15 ET - U.S. ROUTE 250
W. BROAD STRE B-17
N. HAMILTON STREET
N. ALLISON STREET
N. ALLEN AVENUE
STRAWBERRY STREET
MATCHLINE
W. GRACE STREET W. GRAC
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2D
N. BELVIDERE STREET - U.S. ROUTE 1
GOSHEN STREET
W. MARSHALL STREET
N. HANCOCK STREET
GILMER STREET
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2D
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2F

B-18 B-19 B-20
B-17 ET - U.S. ROUTE 250 B-21 B-22
STREET
D STRE
W. BROAD W. BROAD STREET - U.S. ROUTE 250
SHAFER STREET
N. HARRIS STREET
N. LAUREL STREET
RYLAND STREET
N. PINE STREET
W. GRACE STREET W. GRACE STREET W. GRACE STREET
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2E
N. BELVIDERE STREET - U.S. ROUTE 1
N. MADISON STREET
W. MARSHALL STREET W. MARSHALL STREET E. MARSHALL ST
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2G

2E
BR
O
O
K
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET
RO
AD
N. MONROE STREET
B-23 B-24 B-25 B-26 B-27 B-28
W. BROAD STREET - U.S. ROUTE 250 W. BROAD STREET - U.S. ROUTE 250 E. BROAD STREET E. BROAD STRE ET - U.S. ROUTE 25
N. 2nd STREET
N. 1st STREET
N. 3rd STREET
N. JEFFERSON STREET
N. ADAM STREET
N. FOUSHEE STREET
W. GRACE STREET W. GRACE STREET E. GRACE STREET
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2F
E. MARSHALL STREET E. MARSHALL STREET
N. 11th STREET
N.12th STREET
MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2F
N. 10th STREET
B-29 B-30 B-33 B-34 B-35
B-31 B-32
B-28
AD STRE ET - U.S. ROUTE 250 D STRE ET - U.S. ROUTE 250
E. BROA
E. BROAD STREET - U.S. ROUTE 250 E. BROAD STREET B-36D STREET
E. BROA
B-32A
N. 5th STREET
N. 7th STREET
N. 4th STREET
N. 8th STREET
N. 6th STREET
N. 9th STREET
T
E. GRACE STREET E. GRACE STREET
REE
R ST
RAC
E. G
RNO E
GOV
LEGEND BANK STREET
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2G
N. 17th STREET
N. 18th STREET
N. 20th STREET
N. 19th STREET
N. 22nd STREET
N. 21th STREET
N. 23rd STREET
N. 24th STREET
B-37 B-38
E.E.MAIN
MAINSTRE
STRE ET
ET E. MAIN STREET
E. MAIN STREET E. MAIN ST
E. CARY STREET E. CARY STREET
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2H
N
B-39
ORLEANS STREET
ROCKETT'S
LANDING
LEGEND
SCALE: 1"=200' PROJECT - PHASE 1: PRELIMINARY BORING LOCATION PLAN K. POCTA 2I
PF-l
TOP VIEW .rGROUNDING ELECTRODE
OPTION: TOP 12" MIN,

OF THE FOUNDATION
MAY BE FORMED
SQUARE
BOLT CIRCLE
BOL T PROJECTION AS REQUIRED BY SIGNAL POLE MANUFACTURER HOWEVER

DIST ANCE BETWEEN BOTTOM OF BASE PLATE AND TOP OF PEDESTAL
SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN THE DIAME TER OF ANCHOR BOLT PLUS [II~
ONE INCH, II CONDUITS TO EXTEND
SQUARE OR HEX NUTS UNDE R BASE CASTING SERVE 4 ,
:~ICJ~, 8" ABOVE FOUNDATION
AS A MEANS OF LEVELING 0 R RAKING POLE

.. ,;. ·"11. -It r : t~
..
.... ,)~:
~
'. ;".
-
- .' -
"..
i'~ t;'iL . ; .
,
•• .'.
~
flo'
~ ,
'
ALL CONDUIT S AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS. IN ," ... - ,'-V n _.- ,J r "-.-" !!e
[ GROUNDING CONDUCTOR
ADDITION ONE 1" CONDUIT REQUIRED FOR • . ; .. - ;11~ - i'f L ; ~t . ; .. ~ .
GROUNDING CONDUCTOR. 2 - 2" PVC !'-.-" - ,'-~r l,i I'-,~ r .-.-"
CONDUITS RE QUIRED FOR FUTURE USE. NOTE THAT
.... - .
"
-·'1. -l', ,,;-'.n....: ..-..
' , '
'I\ - - - - GROUNDING ELECTRODE
.
ADDITIONAL SPARE CONDUITS MAY BE REQUIRED -
,
BY PLANS • ,;& -5
_1~,
.... - - ~'ll' ' "'-': ;~ ~III: _I

FOUNDATION TO EXTEND 4"~' ',;'. '_ ;i1' _;'. ;'H, ;'., ,
.-
i.
ABOVE GROUND WHEN IN EARTH AND • - - '-L,'., •. ~'. - ~
S HALL BE FLUSH WITH SURF ACE WHEN -, - " - -, -
IN SIDEWALK.
WELDED WIRE FABRIC AS REQUIRED

BY FOUNDATION DESIGNER
HYDRAULIC CEMENT CONCRETE
NOTES: ANCHOR RODS/BOLTS
ANCHOR BOLTS AND BOLT PATTERN SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH POLE. POLE
SHALL BE CENTERED ON FOUNDATION.
EACH FOUNDATION SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MARKED TO INDICATE ALL SIDES FROM

WHICH CONDUITS PASS. THIS MARK SHALL BE MADE WITH A TROWEL WHEN
FINISHING THE CONCRETE AND SHALL BE I;''' DEEP AND 4" TO 6"
LONG. LOCATIONS OF EMPTY CONDUITS SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 2"
LONG MARK MADE PERPENDICULAR TO AND CENTERED ON THIS MARKING,
WHEN FOUNDATION EXTENDS 4" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE ALL EDGES

SIDE VIEW
SHALL BE CHAMFERED Y4" AND FOR SIDEWALKS SHALL BE FLUSH,
CIRCULAR FOUNDATION
GROUNDING BUSHINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON EACH END OF METAL CONDUITS,
EMPTY CONDUITS SHALL BE PLUGGED TO PREVENT MOISTURE AND RODENT ENTRY,
BELL ENOS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON EACH END OF PVC CONDUITS.
OPEN ENOS OF CONDUITS WITH CONDUCTORS INSTALLED SHALL BE SEALED WITH AN APPROVED
SOFT, PLIABLE, AND EASILY REMOVABLE WATERPROOF SEALANT, THE SEALANT SHALL NOT HAVE A
DELETERIOUS EFFECT ON CABLE COVERINGS,
NO MORTAR, GROUT, OR CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN BOTTOM OF BASE PLATE AND TOP OF FOUNDATION,
HEIGHT, WIDTH, AND DEPTH OF FOUNDATION SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY FOUNDATION DESIGNER
'VDOT SIGNAL POLE FOUNDATION

SPECIFICATION
REFERENCE
ROAD AND BRIDGE STANDARDS
SHEET 1 OF REVISION DATE INSTALLATION DETAILS 700

1310.10 06-15-2009 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION DATA

Subsurface Exploration Procedures
General Notes for Subsurface Exploration Logs
VDOT Unified Soil Classification System
Material and Sample Symbol List
Boring Logs: 14BH-001 through 14BH-039

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES
Test Borings – Hollow Stem Augers
The borings are advanced by turning an auger with a center opening of 2¼ or 3¼ inches. A plug device
blocks off the center opening while augers are advanced. Cuttings are brought to the surface by the
auger flights. Sampling is performed through the center opening in the hollow stem auger, by standard
methods, after removal of the plug. Usually, no water is introduced into the boring using this procedure.
Standard Penetration Test Results
The numbers in the Sampling Data column of the boring logs represent Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
results. Each number represents the blows needed to drive a 2-inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. split-spoon
sampler 6 inches, using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The sampler is typically driven a total of
18 or 24 inches. The first 6 inches are considered a seating interval. The total of the number of blows for
the second and third 6-inch intervals is the SPT “N value.” The Standard Penetration Test is conducted
according to ASTM D1586.
Soil Classification Criteria
The group symbols on the logs represent the Unified Soil Classification System Group Symbols (ASTM
D2487) based on visual observation and limited laboratory testing of the samples. Criteria for visual
identification of soil samples are included in this appendix. Some variation can be expected between
samples visually classified and samples classified in the laboratory.
Pocket Penetrometer Results
The values following “PP=” in the sampling data column of the logs represent pocket penetrometer
readings. Pocket penetrometer readings provide an estimate of the unconfined compressive strength of
fine-grained soils.
Boring Locations and Elevations
Boring locations were staked in the field using a handheld sub-meter GPS unit. Approximate boring
locations are shown on Figure 2 (Sheets 2A through 2I). Ground surface elevations at the borings were
obtained from the City of Richmond GIS topographic plans and are indicated on the logs. Locations and
elevations should be considered no more accurate than the methods used to determine them. We can
scale the ground surface elevations at the boring locations from the project topographic map when it
becomes available.

GENERAL NOTES FOR
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS
1. Numbers in the Standard Penetration Test Hammer Blows column of the logs indicate blows required to drive a 2-
inch O.D., 1⅜-inch I.D. sampling spoon 6 inches using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) N value is the number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches, after a 6-inch
seating interval. The Standard Penetration Test is performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586.
2. Visual classification of soil is in accordance with terminology set forth in Chapter 3 of the Materials Manual of
Instruction (MOI). The ASTM D2487 group symbols (e.g., CL) included in the Field Description of Strata column
are based on visual observations. Some variation can be expected between samples visually classified and
samples classified in the laboratory. Descriptions of materials tested in the laboratory were typically revised to
indicate the material classification based on the results of the laboratory testing.
3. The values in the Pocket Penetrometer column represent pocket penetrometer readings. Pocket penetrometer
readings provide an estimate of the unconfined compressive strength of fine-grained soils.
4. Estimated water levels indicated on the logs are only estimates from available data and may vary with precipitation,
porosity of the soil, site topography, and other factors.
5. The logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular
time when drilled or excavated. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these
locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and water level conditions at the
subsurface exploration location.
6. The stratification lines shown on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types as
obtained from the subsurface exploration. The transition lines appear on the logs as a finite boundary between two
material types, but the transition between soil and rock materials may be finite or gradual. These transition lines
are shown about half way between samples, as required by Chapter 3 of the Materials MOI, but some variation may
also be expected vertically between samples taken.
7. The soil profile, water level observations and penetration resistances presented on these logs have been made with
reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface
conditions to be encountered at the particular location.
8. A list of material and sample symbols are included on the following pages.
UNIFIED SOIL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)
Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) D 60 D 30
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3
GW GW D 10 D10 x D60
mixtures, little or no fines
GRAVELS
More than 50% Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand
GP GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
of coarse mixtures, little or no fines
fraction larger Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines)
than No. 4
sieve size GM GM Atterberg limits below "A"
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Above "A" line with P.I. between
line or P.I. less than 4
4 and 7 are borderline cases
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay Atterberg limits above "A" requiring use of dual symbols
GC GC
mixtures line with P.I. greater than 7
Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines) D 60 D 30
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3
SW SW D 10 D10 x D60
little or no fines
SANDS
50% or more Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,
SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
of coarse little or no fines SP
fraction smaller Sands with fines (More than 12% fines)
than No. 4
sieve size SM SM Atterberg limits below "A" Limits plotting in shaded zone
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
line or P.I. less than 4 with P.I. between 4 and 7 are
Atterberg limits above "A" borderline cases requiring use
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures SC of dual symbols.
line with P.I. greater than 7
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.) Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Depending
on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size),
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:
ML flour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayey Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW, SP
SILTS silts with slight plasticity More than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC
AND 5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual symbols
CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium
Liquid limit CL plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
less than silty clays, lean clays PLASTICITY CHART
50%
Organic silts and organic silty clays of 60
OL
low plasticity
PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) (%)
50
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
CH
MH diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
SILTS 40
elastic silts A LINE:
AND PI = 0.73(LL-20)
CLAYS Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat 30
CH CL MH&OH
Liquid limit clays
50% 20
or greater
Organic clays of medium to high 10
OH
plasticity, organic silts CL+ML ML&OL
0
HIGHLY 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ORGANIC PT Peat and other highly organic soils LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)
SOILS
Page 1of 2
MATERIAL AND SAMPLE

SYMBOLS LIST
Sedimentary Igneous Metamorphic
Pavement/Soils Sampling
Rocks Rocks Rocks
ASPH- GP - Poorly- MH - SC - CGL - SE - AND - GGE -
ASPHALT PVT graded Gravel Elastic Silt Clayey Sand Conglomorate Shell Bed Andesite Gouge SPT
CH - SM - Silty CLST - Cherty SHL - BST - GNS -

Fat Clay GP-GC MH/CH Sand Limestone Shale Basalt Gneiss Core
CL - SP - Poorly- COL - SLS - DBS - MYL -

Lean Clay GP-GM MH/ML Graded Sand Coal Siltstone Diabase Mylonite Auger
DRT - PHY -
GW - Well- MST SST - Phyllite
CL-ML Graded Gravel MH/SM SP-SC Mudstone Sandstone Diorite Vane
SST-SHL -
CONC- GWK - GBR - SCH -
Interbedded
CONCRETE PVT GW-GC ML - Silt SP-SM Graywacke Gabbro Schist Undisturbed
Sandstone/Shale
SST-SLS -
SW - Well- LST - Interbedded GRD - SLT -
FL -Fill GW-GM ML/CL Graded Sand Limestone Sandstone/Siltstone Granodiorite Slate Grab
GC - Clayey
GM/GP ML/GM UCY - SHLS-Shaly GRN
Granite
Misc. No
Gravel SW-SC Underclay Limestone Recovery
CAV -
Cavity
SHDS MSH POR -

GC-GM GM/ML ML/SM Shaly Dolostone Silty Shale Other
Porphyry HWR
Highly Weathered
Rock
GM - Silty CHK SSHL RHY -

Gravel GM/SM SW-SM Chalk Sandy Shale Rhyolite
BRC -
Breccia
Page 2 of 2
MATERIAL AND SAMPLE

SYMBOLS LIST
Sedimentary Igneous Metamorphic
Pavement/Soils Sampling
Rocks Rocks Rocks
TOPS- BLD-Boulder CHT MSLS
TOPSOIL SC/CH CH/CL CH/MH CH/SC Bed Charnocktite Metasiltstone
CRA DLS MSST

CL/ML CL/SC CL/CH GP/GW Crushed Aggregate Dolostone Metasandstone
LST-DLS-
QZT -
Interbedded
GW/GP ML/MH GC/SC OH/OL GP/SP Limestone/Dolostone Quartzite
PT OH OL SPS
OL/OH SC/CL CHRT Soapstone
Peat Organic Organic
SC/GC SC-SM SP/SW SM/GM SM/MH MBST

Metabasalt
MBL
SM/ML SM/SC SP/GP SW/SP Marble
PROJECT #: 14613154
LOCATION: GRTC BRT Project - Phase 1 14BH-001
STRUCTURE: WILLOW LAWN STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:
LATITUDE: 37.582704° N LONGITUDE: 77.494971° W
SURFACE ELEVATION: 229.5 ft COORD. DATUM: NAD 83
FIELD DATA Date(s) Drilled: 11/18/2014 - 11/18/2014 LAB DATA
SOIL ROCK Drilling Method(s): 2-1/4" ID Hollow Stem Auger
PKT. PENETROMETER (tsf)
FINES CONTENT -#200 (%)

SPT Method: Safety Hammer (140 lb)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
Other Test(s): Not Applicable
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
Driller: Ayers & Ayers, Inc.
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING
NO LONG TERM MEASUREMENTS TAKEN
FIELD DESCRIPTION OF STRATA LL PI
0.5
0.0 / 229.5
5-INCHES ASPHALT ASPH
1.0 16 1
1.5 228 10 70 0.4 / 229.1 3.7
2.0 2 7-INCHES CONCRETE CONC
19 1.0 / 228.5
2.5
7 100 Fill, brown-gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, 14.1
3.0
7 trace crushed stone, moist [A] FL
3.5 226 3.5
4.0 4 2.0 / 227.5
5 Brown-gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH
4.5
2 2 100 GRAVEL FILL, medium dense, moist FL 61 17 36.0 57.2
5.0
2 3.0 / 226.5
5.5 224 5.5
6.0 Pleistocene Terrace, Orange-brown and
6.5 yellow-brown, SANDY ELASTIC SILT, trace mica,
7.0 7 stiff, moist [B1] MH
2 SAME, soft below 4 ft
7.5 222
2 100 7.0 / 222.5 39.1
8.0
3 Orange-brown, fine to medium, SILTY SAND, loose,
8.5 8.5
2 moist [B2] SM
9.0
2 100 SAME, very loose below 8.5 ft 41.8
9.5 220
1
10.0 10
Bottom of Boring at 10 ft.
SPT_LOGAB:14613154 VDOT BORING LOGS.GPJ:8.30.002:012512:1/23/15
REMARKS: Rig Type: CME-55 (Truck). PAGE 1 OF 1

Auger probe from 0 to 1 ft.
First split-spoon sample driven 1-ft interval from 1 ft to 2 ft.
14BH-001
Copyright 2015, Commonwealth of Virginia
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: STAPLES MILL ROAD STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 219.5
1.0 11 1
1.5 218 11 80 0.3 / 219.2 9.3
15 1.0 / 218.5
2.5
5 53 Fill, dark gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, trace gravel, 5.3
3.0
3 contains crushed stone, moist [A] FL
3.5 216 3.5
4.0 4 SAME, loose below 2 ft
2 4.0 / 215.5
4.5
3 67 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, 16.0
5.0
10 medium dense, moist [B2] SC
5.5 214 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 7
8
7.5 212
7 100 11.7
8.0
8
8.5 8.5
8 8.5 / 211.0
9.0
13 100 Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, dense, moist SM 10.0
9.5 210
17
10.0 10
SPT_LOG:14613154 VDOT BORING LOGS.GPJ:8.30.002:012512:1/23/15

14BH-002
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: ROADWAY PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 208
0.0 / 208.5
1.0
1.5 0.5 / 208.0
12 1.5 / 207.0
2.5 206
4 47 Fill, brown-gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL 16.7
3.0
4 FILL, contains crushed stone, loose, moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4.0 4
4.5 204
15 4.0 / 204.5
18 67 Gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, contains organic 9.3
5.0
10 odor, medium dense, moist FL
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5 202
7.0 7
3 7.0 / 201.5
7.5
3 67 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, 13.2
8.0
4 loose, moist [B2] SC
8.5 200 8.5
2
9.0
2 100 16.6
9.5
3
10.0 10

Auger probe from 0 to 1.5 ft.
14BH-003
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: THOMPSON STREET STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 209.0
1.0 208
1.5 0.5 / 208.5
14 1.5 / 207.5
2.5
6 67 Fill, gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL FILL, 4.8
3.0 206
7 contains crushed stone, medium dense, moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4.0 4
4.5
19 SAME, contains wood fragments below 4 ft
16 73 5.4
5.0 204
7
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 202 7
3 7.0 / 202.0
7.5
1.5 5 87 Pleistocene Terrace, Brown-gray, SANDY FAT CLAY, stiff, 11.6
8.0
7 moist [B1] CH
8.5 8.5
4 8.5 / 200.5
9.0 200
5 100 Fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, trace gravel, medium dense 10.9
9.5
8 [B2] SC
10.0 10
SPT_LOGA:14613154 VDOT BORING LOGS.GPJ:8.30.002:012512:1/23/15

14BH-004
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 206
0.0 / 206.5
1.0 19 1
1.5 13 100 0.3 / 206.2 2.3
2.5 204 3 80 1.0 / 205.5 8.8
3.0 4 3 Fill, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, contains
3.5 crushed stone, and asphalt fragments, moist [A] FL
4.0 4 2.0 / 204.5
6 Pleistocene Terrace, Brown and gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY
4.5 202
6 93 SAND, moist [B2] SC 22.2
5.0
9 SAME, medium dense below 4 ft
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5 200
7.0 7
5 7.0 / 199.5
7.5
5 100 Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, moist SC 18.9
8.0
6
8.5 198 8.5
4
9.0
5 100 17.8
9.5
6
10.0 10

First two split-spoon samples driven in 1-ft intervals from 1 ft to 3 ft.
14BH-005
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 202
0.0 / 202.5
1.0 12 1
1.5 7 80 0.5 / 202.0 3.7
15 1.2 / 201.3
2.5 200
4 9 67 Fill, light gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, 7.6
3.0
11 contains concrete fragments, moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4.0 4 2.0 / 200.5
5 SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, very stiff, moist FL
4.5 198
2.5 4 100 24.1
5.0 4.0 / 198.5
4 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray and brown, SANDY FAT CLAY,
5.5 5.5
6.0 firm, moist [B1] CH
6.5 196
7.0 7
4 7.0 / 195.5
7.5
2.5 4 100 Light brown, FAT CLAY WITH SAND, firm, moist CH 23.0
8.0
4
8.5 194 8.5
4
9.0
2.5 3 100 20.6
9.5
5
10.0 10

14BH-006
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 200
0.0 / 200.5
1.0
1.5 1.5 0.5 / 200.0
10 12-INCHES CONCRETE CONC
2.0
19 73 1.5 / 199.0 5.2
2.5 198
18 Fill, brown-gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH
3.0 3
3.5 GRAVEL FILL, dense, moist [A] FL
4.0 4
4.5 196
2 4.0 / 196.5
2 3 100 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray, SANDY FAT CLAY, firm, moist 15.2
5.0
3 [B1] CH
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5 194
7.0 7
6 7.0 / 193.5
7.5
5 73 Gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, loose, moist [B2] SC 7.3
8.0
4
8.5 192 8.5
3 SAME, orange-brown, medium dense below 8.5 ft
9.0
6 87 20.8
9.5
12
10.0 10

14BH-007
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 198
0.0 / 198.5
1.0 7 1
1.5 7 100 0.5 / 198.0 9.3
5 1.0 / 197.5
2.5 196
5 87 Fill, gray-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL 12.1
3.0
4 FILL, contains crushed stone, moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4.0 4 2.0 / 196.5
5 Pleistocene Terrace, Brown and gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY
4.5 194
4 87 SAND WITH GRAVEL, loose, moist [B2] SC 14.2
5.0
10 SAME, light orange-brown, medium dense below 4 ft
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5 192
7.0 7
5
7.5
8 80 10.4
8.0
19
8.5 190 8.5
15 8.5 / 190.0
9.0
12 73 Brown, CLAYEY GRAVEL, medium dense, moist GC 8.2
9.5
14
10.0 10

14BH-008
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 195.5
1.0 6 1
1.5 194 14 70 0.6 / 194.9 8.5
17 1.1 / 194.4
2.5
22 93 Fill, brown-gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, contains 5.0
3.0
10 crushed stone, moist [A] FL
3.5 192 3.5
4.0 4 2.0 / 193.5
2 Gray, fine to medium, SILTY SAND FILL, trace gravel,
4.5
2 100 dense, moist FL 13.4
5.0
3 4.0 / 191.5
5.5 190 5.5
6.0 Pleistocene Terrace, Light gray and light yellow-brown, fine
6.5 to medium, CLAYEY SAND, loose, moist [B2] SC
7.0 7
188
7.5
7 100 9.6
8.0
7
8.5 8.5
3 8.5 / 187.0
9.0
3 4 100 Light brown-gray, FAT CLAY WITH SAND, stiff, moist [B1] 20.3
9.5 186
6 CH
10.0 10

14BH-009
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 197.5
1.0
1.5 196 0.7 / 196.8
17 1.3 / 196.2
2.5
12 80 Fill, dark gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL 6.7
3.0
6 FILL, contains crushed stone, moist [A] FL
3.5 194 3.5
4.0 4 SAME, medium dense below 2 ft
8 4.0 / 193.5
4.5
8 93 Pleistocene Terrace, Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY 15.7
5.0
10 SAND, trace gravel, medium dense, moist [B2] SC
5.5 192 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 7
4
7.5 190
6 93 20.2
8.0
8
8.5 8.5
3 SAME, loose below 8.5 ft
9.0
4 93 18.8
9.5 188
4
10.0 10

14BH-010
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 201.0
1.0 200
1.5 0.5 / 200.5
7 1.3 / 199.7
2.5
7 87 Fill, gray-brown, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, contains crushed 23.7
3.0 198
7 stone, moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4.0 4 2.0 / 199.0
7 Pleistocene Terrace, Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND,
4.5
9 100 medium dense, moist [B2] SC 20.5
5.0 196
11 SAME, orange-brown and yellow-brown below 4 ft
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 194 7
5 7.0 / 194.0
7.5
3 5 100 Orange-brown and light gray, FAT CLAY WITH SAND, stiff, 27.1
8.0
9 moist [B1] CH
8.5 8.5
3 SAME, very stiff below 8.5 ft
9.0 192
4 7 100 25.8
9.5
10
10.0 10

14BH-011
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: ROBINSON STREET STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 207.0
1.0 206
1.5 0.5 / 206.5
12 1.3 / 205.7
2.5
11 47 Fill, brown-gray, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, moist [A] FL 6.3
3.0 204
3.5 3.5
4.0 4
4.5
2 4.0 / 203.0
3 87 Brown-gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace brick 12.8
5.0 202
3 fragments, and crushed stone, loose, moist FL
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 200 7
2 7.0 / 200.0
7.5
3 87 Pleistocene Terrace, Light gray-brown, fine to coarse, 19.5
8.0
5 CLAYEY SAND, loose, moist [B2] SC
8.5 8.5
3 8.5 / 198.5
9.0 198
4.5 7 80 Brown-gray, SANDY FAT CLAY, stiff, moist [B1] CH 15.7
9.5
8
10.0 10

14BH-012
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 205.0
1.0 204
1.5 0.5 / 204.5
7 1.5 / 203.5
2.5
5 47 Fill, brown-gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, contains 9.0
3.0 202
3.5 3.5
3 4.0 / 201.0
4.5
1.75 3 60 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY, firm, 26.1
5.0 200
4 moist [B1] CH
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 198 7
7 7.0 / 198.0
7.5
10 93 Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, medium 17.5
8.0
12 dense, moist [B2] SC
8.5 8.5
8
9.0 196
9 93 20.3
9.5
10
10.0 10

14BH-013
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:


DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 200.0
1.0
1.5 0.7 / 199.3
2.0 198 2 7-INCHES CONCRETE CONC
10 1.3 / 198.7
2.5
6 73 Fill, Gray and orange brown, fine to medium gravel, 74 48 10.9 30.4
4.5 3.0 3
7 CLAYEY GRAVEL, moist [A] GC
3.5 3.5
4.0 196 4 SAME, medium dense below 2 ft
6 2.5 / 197.5
4.5
4 6 80 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray and orange-brown, 21.2
5.0
10 SANDY FAT CLAY, trace gravel, stiff, moist [B1] CH
5.5 5.5
6.0 194 4.0 / 196.0
6.5 Gray and orange-brown, SANDY ELASTIC SILT, very
7.0 7 stiff, moist MH
6 7.0 / 193.0
7.5
6 100 Gray and orange-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, 16.1
8.0 192
8 trace gravel, medium dense, moist [B2] SM
8.5 8.5
5
9.0
6 87 14.3
9.5
12
10.0 190 10

14BH-014
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Ben Azumah
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 204.0
1.0
1.5 0.6 / 203.4
11 1.4 / 202.6
2.5
3 53 Fill, gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, contains 2.5
3.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 200 4 SAME, loose below 2 ft
8 4.0 / 200.0
4.5
4 6 73 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY, very 23.3
5.0
10 stiff, moist [B1] CL
5.5 5.5
6.0 198
6.5
7.0 7
6 7.0 / 197.0
7.5
12 93 Red-brown and orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY 20.8
8.0 196
13 SAND, medium dense, moist [B2] SC
8.5 8.5
8 SAME, trace gravel below 8.5 ft
9.0
9 100 20.6
9.5
13
10.0 194 10

14BH-015
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 202
0.0 / 202.5
1.0
1.5 0.6 / 201.9
4 1.3 / 201.2
2.5 200
6 87 Fill, gray, fine to medium gravel, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, moist 10.2
3.0
7 [A] FL
2.5 3.5 3.5
3 2.5 / 200.0
4.5 198
1 2 80 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY, stiff, 22.0
5.0
2 moist [C1] CL
5.5 5.5
6.0
SAME, gray, soft below 4 ft
6.5 196
7.0 7
6 7.0 / 195.5
7.5
4 7 87 Gray and orange-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY, stiff, moist CH 16.7
8.0
7
8.5 194 8.5
3
9.0
4 5 87 24.5
9.5
6
10.0 10

14BH-016
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 197.5
1.0
1.5 196 0.6 / 196.9
12 1.3 / 196.2
2.5
3 20 Fill, gray, fine to medium gravel, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, moist 3.1
3.0
3 [A] FL
3.5 194 3.5
3 2.5 / 195.0
4.5
2.5 5 67 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY, stiff, 19.8
5.0
6 moist [B1] CL
5.5 192 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 7
190
5 7.0 / 190.5
7.5
6 87 Red-brown and orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY 16.4
8.0
7 SAND, medium dense, moist [B2] SC
8.5 8.5
4
9.0
5 73 16.3
9.5 188
7
10.0 10

14BH-017
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 192.0
1.0
1.5 0.5 / 191.5
2 1.8 / 190.2
2.5
3 60 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, 12.6
3.0
2 moist [B2] SC
3.5 3.5
4.0 188 4 SAME, loose below 2 ft
2
4.5
3 73 12.3
5.0
2
5.5 5.5
6.0 186
6.5
7.0 7
5 SAME, orange-brown and red-brown, medium dense below 7 ft
7.5
5 80 15.3
8.0 184
9
8.5 8.5
6
9.0
10 87 13.4
9.5
10
10.0 182 10

Offset 16 ft at an azimuth of 132 degrees.
14BH-018
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: HARRISON STREET STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 186.0
1.0
1.5 0.5 / 185.5
10 1.4 / 184.6
2.5
11 53 Fill, gray, fine to medium gravel, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, moist [A] 8.2
3.0
6 FL
3.5 3.5
2 4.0 / 182.0
4.5
1 67 Gray, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, soft, moist FL 15.8
5.0
2
5.5 5.5
6.0 180
6.5
7.0 7
9 7.0 / 179.0
7.5
5 53 Gray and brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, contains 8.5
8.0 178
6 gravel, medium dense, moist FL
8.5 8.5
2 8.5 / 177.5
9.0
1 80 Pleistocene Terrace, Brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, 11.9
9.5
2 contains gravel, very loose, wet [B2] SM
10.0 176 10

Offset 5 ft at an azimuth 166 degrees.
14BH-019
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 184.0
1.0
1.5 0.5 / 183.5
14 1.3 / 182.7
2.5
9 47 Fill, gray, fine to medium gravel, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, moist [A] 6.7
3.0
8 FL
3.5 3.5
3 3.0 / 181.0
4.5
2 53 Pleistocene Terrace, Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, 16.9
5.0
4 medium dense, moist [B2] SC
5.5 5.5
6.0 178
SAME, loose below 4 ft
6.5
7.0 7
4 SAME, gray and orange-brown, medium dense below 7 ft
7.5
5 100 11.0
8.0 176
5
8.5 8.5
5 8.5 / 175.5
9.0
10 80 Gray orange-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, medium dense, 8.3
9.5
10 moist SM
10.0 174 10

14BH-020
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 180.0
1.0 14 1
1.5 15 70 0.9 / 179.1 10.5
2.0 178 2 Fill, orange-brown and gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND
10 FILL, trace gravel, moist [A] FL
2.5
4 27 SAME, loose below 2 ft 9.0
3.0
5
3.5 3.5
4.0 176 4
4.5
1 4.0 / 176.0
2 4 60 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY, 18.1
5.0
3 firm, moist [B1] CL
5.5 5.5
6.0 174
6.5
7.0 7
6 7.0 / 173.0
7.5
6 60 Orange-brown and red-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, 10.2
8.0 172
4 medium dense, moist [B2] SM
8.5 8.5
3 8.5 / 171.5
9.0
1.5 3 87 Gray-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY, firm, moist [B1] CL 18.3
9.5
3
10.0 170 10

14BH-021
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 178
0.0 / 178.5
1.0
1.5 1.1 / 177.4
2.0 2 Fill, gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, trace gravel,
20 moist [A] FL
2.5 176
9 67 SAME, medium dense below 2 ft 7.6
1.5 3.0 3
5 3.0 / 175.5
3.5 3.5
4.0 4 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray, SANDY FAT CLAY, stiff, moist
3 [B1] CH
4.5 174
2.5 3 73 SAME, firm below 4 ft 19.3
5.0
4
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5 172
7.0 7
6 7.0 / 171.5
7.5
6 80 Gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, moist 14.7
8.0
6 [B2] SC
8.5 170 8.5
3 8.5 / 170.0
9.0
2.5 3 100 Gray, SANDY FAT CLAY, firm, moist [B1] CH 21.6
9.5
5
10.0 10

14BH-022
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 174.0
1.0
1.5 1.0 / 173.0
2.0 172 2 Fill, brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
15 FILL, moist [A] FL
2.5
3.0
6
3.5 3.5
4.0 170 4
4.5
4 4.0 / 170.0
3 73 Pleistocene Terrace, Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY 10.5
5.0
2 SAND, loose, moist [B2] SC
5.5 5.5
6.0 168
6.5
7.0 7
4
7.5
3 87 11.4
8.0 166
5
8.5 8.5
4 8.5 / 165.5
9.0
1.5 4 87 Gray and orange-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY, firm, moist 13.7
9.5
4 [B1] CL
10.0 164 10

14BH-023
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 172.0
1.0
1.5 1.0 / 171.0
2.0 170 2 Fill, dark brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH
14 GRAVEL FILL, moist [A] FL
2.5
19 67 SAME, dense below 2 ft 9.8
3.0
22
3.5 3.5
4.0 168 4
4.5
3 4.0 / 168.0
1.5 1 47 Gray-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, soft, moist FL 13.0
5.0
2
5.5 5.5
6.0 166
6.5
7.0 7
2 SAME, firm below 7 ft
7.5
0.5 2 53 15.6
8.0 164
3
8.5 8.5
3 8.5 / 163.5
9.0
2 60 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray and orange-brown, fine to coarse, 15.6
9.5
2 CLAYEY SAND, loose, moist [B2] SC
10.0 162 10

14BH-024
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:


DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 172
0.0 / 172.5
1.0
1.5 0.9 / 171.6
2.0 2 Fill, brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH
13 GRAVEL FILL, moist [A] FL
1 2.5 170 2.5
3.0
5 2.5 / 170.0
3.5 3.5
4.0 4 Red-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, stiff, moist
2 FL
4.5 168
1 2 40 SAME, firm below 4 ft 38 22 12.1 33.4
5.0
3
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5 166
7.0 7
5 7.0 / 165.5
7.5
11 80 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, fine to medium 11.9
8.0
15 gravel, CLAYEY GRAVEL, medium dense, moist [B2]
8.5 164 8.5
GC
11
9.0 SAME, dense below 8.5 ft
15 67 9.6
9.5
23
10.0 10

14BH-025
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 174.0
1.0
1.5 0.9 / 173.1
2.0 172 2 Fill, brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
2 2.5 6 2.4 FILL, moist [A] FL
3.0
5 2.4 / 171.6
3.5 3.5
4.0 170 4 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY, trace
11 gravel, firm, moist [B1] CH
4.5
18 80 4.0 / 170.0 7.4
5.0
17 Red-brown, fine to medium gravel, CLAYEY GRAVEL,
5.5 5.5
6.0 168
dense, moist [B2] GC
6.5
7.0 7
7.5
11 87 14.4
8.0 166
13
8.5 8.5
10
9.0
10 73 11.3
9.5
12 SAME, orange- brown below 9.5 ft
10.0 164 10

14BH-026
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: ADAMS STREET STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 174.0
1.0
1.5 1.0 / 173.0
2.0 172 2 Fill, gray, fine to medium gravel, POORLY GRADED
16 GRAVEL WITH SILT FILL, moist [A] FL
2.5
3.0
5 2.6 / 171.4
3.5 3.5
4.0 170 4 Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY FILL, trace gravel, stiff,
2 moist FL
4.5
1 2 53 SAME, soft below 4 ft 20.2
5.0
2
5.5 5.5
6.0 168
6.5
7.0 7
5 7.0 / 167.0
7.5
1.5 5 40 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY, trace 18.5
8.0 166
10 gravel, stiff, moist [B1] CH
8.5 8.5
9 8.5 / 165.5
9.0
11 73 Orange-brown, fine to medium gravel, CLAYEY GRAVEL, 12.9
9.5
12 medium dense, moist [B2] GC
10.0 164 10

14BH-027
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 177.5
1.0
1.5 176 0.5 / 177.0
2.0 2 8.5-INCHES CONCRETE CONC
11 1.2 / 176.3
2.5
12 33 Fill, gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL FILL, 15.7
3.0
8 trace gravel, moist [A] FL
3.5 174 3.5
4 3.0 / 174.5
4.5
3.5 4 40 Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY FILL, trace gravel, very stiff, 19.3
5.0
5 moist FL
5.5 172 5.5
6.0
SAME, stiff below 4 ft
6.5
7.0 7
4
7.5 170
2 4 33 19.6
8.0
5
8.5 8.5
3
9.0
3 6 40 21.1
9.5 168
6
10.0 10

14BH-028
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: 5TH STREET STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 179.0
1.0 178
1.5 0.5 / 178.5
4 1.3 / 177.7
2.5
2 5 47 Fill, gray, fine to coarse, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, trace gravel, 18.4
3.0 176
6 moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4 2.1 / 176.9
4.5
2.5 5 47 Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY FILL, trace gravel, stiff, 21.6
5.0 174
5 moist FL
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 172 7
5
7.5
5 53 19.0
8.0
7
8.5 8.5
4
9.0 170
2.5 6 53 16.6
9.5
8
10.0 10

Offset 4.5 ft at an azimuth of 285 degrees.
14BH-029
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:


DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 178.0
1.0
1.5 0.5 / 177.5
8 1.0 / 177.0
2.5
4 53 Fill, gray, fine to coarse, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, trace 44 27 17.1 65.9
3.0
7 gravel, moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4.0 174 4 1.5 / 176.5
8 Pleistocene Terrace, Orange-brown, fine to coarse,
4.5
4.5 10 80 SILTY SAND, moist [B2] SM 22.6
5.0
5.5 5.5
6.0 172 4.0 / 174.0
6.5 Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY, trace gravel, very
7.0 7 stiff, moist [B1] CH
7
7.5
4.5 12 80 20.9
8.0 170
12
8.5 8.5
8 8.5 / 169.5
9.0
8 73 Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, medium 15.5
9.5
10.0 168 10

14BH-030
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 176.0
5.5-INCHES ASPHALT ASPH
1.0
1.5 0.5 / 175.5
2.0 174 2 5.5-INCHES CONCRETE CONC
10 0.9 / 175.1
2.5
3.5 5 47 Fill, gray, fine to coarse, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, trace gravel, 16.9
3.0
5 moist [A] FL
3.5 3.5
4.0 172 4 2.0 / 174.0
5 Red-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, trace gravel, stiff,
4.5
2 4 47 moist FL 21.9
5.0
7
5.5 5.5
6.0 170
6.5
7.0 7
5 SAME, very stiff below 7 ft
7.5
3 6 47 24.1
8.0 168
11
8.5 8.5
5 8.5 / 167.5
9.0
8 53 Pleistocene Terrace, Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY 16.3
9.5
10 SAND, trace gravel, medium dense, moist [B2] SM
10.0 166 10
Bottom of Boring at 10 ft

14BH-031
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER

0.2
0.4
0.0 / 173.5
0.6 173 11-INCHES ASPHALT ASPH
0.8
1.0 0.9 / 172.6
1.2
1.4 172 Fill, light brown, fine to coarse, POORLY GRADED SAND FILL,
1.6
1.8 moist [A] FL
2.0 2
2.2 4
2.4 171 3 0 0.6
2.6
2.8
3.0 3

Boring terminated on obstruction.
Offset 5.5 ft towards the center median. 14BH-032
PROJECT #: 14613154
LOCATION: GRTC BRT Project - Phase 1 14BH-032A
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 173.5
1.0
1.5 172 0.9 / 172.6
2.0 2 Fill, brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace
5 gravel, moist [A] FL
2.5
1.5 3 27 2.0 / 171.5 18.3
3.0
5 Red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY FILL, trace gravel, firm,
3.5 170 3.5
4.0 4 moist FL
3
4.5
1.75 3 53 17.3
5.0
3
5.5 168 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 7
166
5 SAME, stiff below 7 ft
7.5
1 5 87 14.6
8.0
8.5
6
8.5 8.0 / 165.5
3 Light orange-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, stiff, moist
9.0
2 6 40 FL 14.4
9.5 164
8
10.0 10

14BH-032A
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 0.5 0.0 / 169.0

1.0 168
2 80 0.4 / 168.6 16.0
1.5
3 Fill, dark brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace
2.0 2
2 gravel, loose, moist [A] FL
2.5
1.5 2 80 2.0 / 167.0 19.7
3.0 166
2 Red-brown, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, trace gravel, soft,
3.5 3.5
4.0 4 moist FL
4.5
1.25 3 60 18.9
5.0 164
3
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 162 7
4 7.0 / 162.0
7.5
3 67 Pleistocene Terrace, Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY 11.3
8.0
5 SAND, trace gravel, loose, moist [B2] SM
8.5 8.5
4
9.0 160
4 67 8.7
9.5
5
10.0 10

Offset 6 ft onto sidewalk.
Concrete Cored. 14BH-033
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 165.5
1.0
1.5 164 0.7 / 164.8
4 1.2 / 164.3
2.5
2 4 40 Fill, red-brown, SANDY FAT CLAY FILL, trace gravel, moist 12.4
3.0
5 [A] FL
3.5 162 3.5
4.0 4 SAME, stiff below 2 ft
4.5
2 2 47 14.7
5.0
3
5.5 160 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 7
158
3 7.0 / 158.5
7.5
3 53 Pleistocene Terrace, Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY 8.2
8.0
4 SAND WITH GRAVEL, loose, moist [B2] SC
8.5 8.5
3
9.0
3 67 7.6
9.5 156
4
10.0 10

14BH-034
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 158 0.5 0.0 / 158.5

3 4.5-INCHES CONCRETE CONC
1.0
3 53 0.4 / 158.1 11.5
1.5
8 Fill, brown, fine to coarse, POORLY GRADED SAND FILL,
2.0 2
10 medium dense, moist [A] FL
2.5 156
8 20 1.5 / 157.0 14.5
3.0
10 Red- brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, medium dense,
3.5 3.5
4.0 4 moist FL
7 SAME, contains gravel below 2 ft
4.5 154
13 73 4.0 / 154.5 8.2
5.0
14 Orange-brown, fine to coarse gravel, CLAYEY GRAVEL FILL,
5.5 5.5
6.0
medium dense, moist FL
6.5 152
7.0 7
17
7.5
13 53 9.0
8.0
12
8.5 150 8.5
10
9.0
12 60 10.4
9.5
10
10.0 10

Offset 29.5 ft at an azimuth of 326 degrees.
Concrete Cored. 14BH-035
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 0.5 0.0 / 132.0

1.0
7 47 0.3 / 131.7 13.5
1.5
3 Fill, brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL FILL,
2.0 130 2
3 medium dense, moist [A] FL
2.5
2 40 SAME, contains brick fragments, loose below 2 ft 14.7
3.0
2
3.5 3.5
4.0 128 4
4.5
2 4.0 / 128.0
4 0 Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL FILL, 14.6
5.0
2 loose, moist FL
5.5 5.5
6.0 126
6.5
7.0 7
3 SAME, light brown below 7 ft
7.5
2 100 19.9
8.0 124
4
8.5 8.5
5 SAME, medium dense below 8.5 ft
9.0
11 53 18.0
9.5
11
10.0 122 10

14BH-036
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: MAIN STREET STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 21.0
1.0 20
1.5 0.9 / 20.1
2.0 2 Fill, orange-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL
11 FILL, moist [A] FL
2.5
3.0 18
7
3.5 3.5
4.0 4
7
4.5
15 47 12.3
5.0 16
6
5.5 5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0 14 7
4 7.0 / 14.0
7.5
5 93 Alluvium, Gray, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND, contains mica, and 26.5
8.0
5 organic matter, medium dense, moist [AL] SM
8.5 8.5
7 SAME, loose below 8.5 ft
9.0 12
3 87 20.7
9.5
3
10.0 10

14BH-037
PROJECT #: 14613154
STATION: OFFSET:


DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5
0.0 / 75.0
1.0 74
1.5
1.3 0.2 / 74.8
6
2.0 13.5-INCHES CONCRETE CONC
3 87 35 19 16.8 40.9
2.5 5 1.3 / 73.7
2.8 Alluvium, Gray, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, loose,
3.0 72 3
17 moist [AL] SC
3.5
11 87 SAME, contains gravel, medium dense below 3 ft 7.9
4.0
11 4.0 / 71.0
4.5 4.5
6 Pleistocene Terrace, Gray and orange brown, fine to
5.0 70
6 67 coarse, CLAYEY SAND, contains mica, medium 17.1
5.5
6.0 6
6.5
7.0 68 7
5 7.0 / 68.0
7.5
2.5 7 87 Gray and red brown, LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, 18.9
8.0
10 contains mica, very stiff, moist [B1] CL
8.5 8.5
5 SAME, stiff, contains petroleum odor below 8.5 ft
9.0 66
4 8 93 23.9
9.5
7
10.0 10

14BH-038
PROJECT #: 14613154
STRUCTURE: ROCKETT'S LANDING STATION PAGE 1 OF 1
STATION: OFFSET:

DIP °
PLASTICITY INDEX
SAMPLE INTERVAL
CORE RECOVERY (%)

SAMPLE LEGEND
STRATA LEGEND
SOIL RECOVERY (%)
PENETRATION TEST
LIQUID LIMIT
ELEVATION (ft)
HAMMER BLOWS
ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION
DEPTH (ft)
STANDARD
Logger: Kevin Pocta
STRATA
JOINTS
GROUND WATER
0.5 0.5 0.0 / 38.0

23 4.5-INCHES ASPHALT ASPH
1.0
13 60 0.4 / 37.6 2.7
1.5
10 Fill, gray, fine to coarse gravel, SILTY GRAVEL FILL, contains
2.0 36 2
13 mica, medium dense, moist [A] FL
2.5
11 60 2.5
3.0
9
3.5 3.5
4.0 34 4
6
4.5
6 47 2.6
5.0
6
5.5 5.5
6.0 32
6.5
6.0 / 32.0
Pleistocene Terrace, Light brown, fine to coarse gravel, POORLY
7.0 7
20 GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT, dense, moist [B2] GP-GM
7.5
25 47 3.0
8.0 30
18
8.5 8.5
15
9.0
20 53 3.8
9.5
28
10.0 28 10

14BH-039
APPENDIX B
SOIL LABORATORY TEST DATA
Summary of Laboratory Tests

Atterberg Limits
Gradation Curves
Moisture-Density Relations
California Bearing Ratio Tests

Appendix B
Summary Of Laboratory Tests Sheet 1 of 3
Project Number: 14613154
Sample
At Compaction (pcf)
CBR Percent Swell

Testing Laboratory
Optimum Moisture
Depth
CBR Dry Density

ft
Plasticity Index
CBR Moisture
Maximum Dry
No. 200 Sieve
Boring Sample Description of Soil
Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
No. 40 Sieve
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
Content (%)
Content (%)
% Retained
No. 4 Sieve
No. Type Specimen
CBR Value
% Passing
% Passing
Stratum
Elevation
Natural
ft
4.0 - 5.5 Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SANDY

14BH-001 Jar ELASTIC SILT, MH RICH B1 36.0 61 44 17 57.2 80.4 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
225.5 - 224.0
0.0 - 5.0 Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL,

14BH-003 Bulk trace gravel, SC (A-6) RICH A 10.7 35 16 19 39.6 75.6 3.3 117.7 13.0 119.2 12.2 0.2 8.4
DYNAMIC LAB SUMMARY 14613154 SCHNABEL LOGS.GPJ SCHNABEL DATA TEMPLATE 2010_02_25.GDT 1/8/15
208.5 - 203.5
0.0 - 5.0 Light brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND

14BH-006 Bulk FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-6) RICH A 18.5 38 18 20 40.3 71.6 12.9 111.0 15.2 118.2 13.8 0.1 17.2
202.5 - 197.5
0.0 - 5.0 Gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL,

14BH-009 Bulk trace gravel, contains crushed stone, SM RICH A 11.0 14 12 2 34.7 74.9 10.7 128.9 8.3 132.3 7.2 0.0 35.8
(A-2-4)
195.5 - 190.5

14BH-012 Bulk WITH GRAVEL FILL, contains crushed stone, RICH A 12.6 26 15 11 28.1 59.1 18.9 120.6 11.8 128.2 8.8 0.0 34.9
SC (A-2-6)
207.0 - 202.0
2.0 - 3.5 Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH

14BH-014 Jar GRAVEL, SC RICH B2 10.9 74 26 48 30.4 54.4 28.1 -- -- -- -- -- --
198.0 - 196.5
2.5 - 7.0 Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND,

14BH-017 Bulk trace gravel, SC (A-7-6) RICH B2 19.3 43 18 25 34.9 72.6 12.8 115.7 14.8 118.0 12.6 0.1 13.7
195.0 - 190.5
Notes: 1. Soil tests in general accordance with ASTM standards.

2. Soil classifications are in general accordance with ASTM D2487(as applicable), based on testing indicated and visual
classification.
3. Key to abbreviations: NP=Non-Plastic; -- indicates no test performed
Project: GRTC Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project - Phase 1

Richmond, VA
Appendix B
Sample
At Compaction (pcf)
CBR Percent Swell

Testing Laboratory
Optimum Moisture
Depth
CBR Dry Density

ft
Plasticity Index
CBR Moisture
Maximum Dry
No. 200 Sieve
Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
No. 40 Sieve
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
Content (%)
Content (%)
% Retained
No. 4 Sieve
No. Type Specimen
CBR Value
% Passing
% Passing
Stratum
Elevation
Natural
ft
0.0 - 5.0 Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND

SC (A-2-6)
184.0 - 179.0

SC (A-2-6)
173.0 - 169.0
4.0 - 5.5 Dark orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY

14BH-025 Jar SAND FILL, trace gravel, SC RICH A 12.1 38 16 22 33.4 70.0 14.6 -- -- -- -- -- --
168.5 - 167.0
3.0 - 7.0 Brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN CLAY

14BH-028 Bulk FILL, contains crushed stone, CL (A-7-6) RICH A 16.8 42 20 22 56.0 85.9 0.9 110.8 15.7 110.8 15.4 0.2 10.1
174.5 - 170.5
2.0 - 3.5 Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN

14BH-030 Jar CLAY, CL RICH B1 17.1 44 17 27 65.9 93.3 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
176.0 - 174.5
0.4 - 1.9 Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND

14BH-033 Jar WITH GRAVEL FILL, SC RICH A 16.0 28 16 12 23.3 48.0 23.2 -- -- -- -- -- --
168.6 - 167.1
1.2 - 7.0 Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND

14BH-034 Bulk FILL, trace gravel, SC (A-6) RICH A 12.4 35 17 18 46.0 82.4 1.3 117.3 13.6 118.1 13.6 0.1 6.3
164.3 - 158.5

classification.

Richmond, VA
Appendix B
Sample
At Compaction (pcf)
CBR Percent Swell

Testing Laboratory
Optimum Moisture
Depth
CBR Dry Density

ft
Plasticity Index
CBR Moisture
Maximum Dry
No. 200 Sieve
Density (pcf)
Moisture (%)
No. 40 Sieve
Plastic Limit
Liquid Limit
Content (%)
Content (%)
% Retained
No. 4 Sieve
No. Type Specimen
CBR Value
% Passing
% Passing
Stratum
Elevation
Natural
ft

14BH-038 Bulk FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-6) RICH A 16.8 35 16 19 40.9 76.0 8.0 118.4 12.7 120.1 11.1 0.5 10.4
73.8 - 67.0

classification.

Richmond, VA
80
CL CH
60
PLASTICITY INDEX
40
20
CL-ML ML MH
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
PLOTTED DATA REPRESENTS SOIL PASSING NO. 40 SIEVE

Specimen LL PL PI Fines Testing
Lab
Description
Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SANDY ELASTIC SILT, MH
14BH-001 4.0 ft 61 44 17 57 RICH
Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace gravel,
14BH-003 0.0 ft 35 16 19 40 RICH SC (A-6)
Light brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, contains
14BH-006 0.0 ft 38 18 20 40 RICH crushed stone, SC (A-6)
Gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, trace gravel,
14BH-009 0.0 ft 14 12 2 35 RICH contains crushed stone, SM (A-2-4)
Light brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
14BH-012 0.0 ft 26 15 11 28 RICH FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-2-6)
ATTERBERG_LIMITS 14613154 SCHNABEL LOGS.GPJ SCHNABEL DATA TEMPLATE 2008_04_22.GDT 1/8/15
Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, SC

14BH-014 2.0 ft 74 26 48 30 RICH
Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, trace gravel, SC
14BH-017 2.5 ft 43 18 25 35 RICH (A-7-6)
Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH
14BH-020 0.0 ft 32 16 16 26 RICH GRAVEL FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-2-6)
14BH-023 1.0 ft 28 14 14 22 RICH FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-2-6)
Dark orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL,
14BH-025 4.0 ft 38 16 22 33 RICH trace gravel, SC
Brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, contains
14BH-028 3.0 ft 42 20 22 56 RICH crushed stone, CL (A-7-6)
Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN CLAY, CL
14BH-030 2.0 ft 44 17 27 66 RICH
Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH
14BH-033 0.4 ft 28 16 12 23 RICH GRAVEL FILL, SC
Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace
14BH-034 1.2 ft 35 17 18 46 RICH gravel, SC (A-6)
14BH-038 1.3 ft 35 16 19 41 RICH crushed stone, SC (A-6)
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Richmond, VA
Contract: 14613154
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
COBBLES SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SIEVE 5 SHEET 14613154 SCHNABEL LOGS.GPJ SCHNABEL DATA TEMPLATE 2010_02_25.GDT 1/8/15
Specimen Sample Description LL PL PI

Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SANDY ELASTIC SILT, MH
14BH-001 4.0 ft 61 44 17
Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace gravel, SC
14BH-003 0.0 ft (A-6) 35 16 19
14BH-006 0.0 ft crushed stone, SC (A-6) 38 18 20
Gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND FILL, trace gravel,
14BH-009 0.0 ft contains crushed stone, SM (A-2-4) 14 12 2
14BH-012 0.0 ft FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-2-6) 26 15 11
Specimen Test Method Testing Lab D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay
14BH-001 4.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 4.75 0.1 -- -- 0.0 42.8 57.2
14BH-003 0.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 25.4 0.23 -- -- 3.3 57.1 39.6
14BH-006 0.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 38.1 0.23 -- -- 12.9 46.8 40.3
14BH-009 0.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 38.1 0.23 -- -- 10.7 54.6 34.7
14BH-012 0.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 38.1 0.45 0.09 -- 18.9 53.0 28.1
GRADATION CURVES
Richmond, VA
Contract: 14613154
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAVEL SAND
Specimen Sample Description LL PL PI Cc Cu

Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, SC
14BH-014 2.0 ft 74 26 48 -- --
Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, trace gravel, SC
14BH-017 2.5 ft (A-7-6) 43 18 25 -- --
Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
14BH-020 0.0 ft FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-2-6) 32 16 16 -- --
14BH-023 1.0 ft FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-2-6) 28 14 14 -- --
Dark orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace
14BH-025 4.0 ft gravel, SC 38 16 22 -- --
14BH-014 2.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 25.4 0.68 -- -- 28.1 41.5 30.4
14BH-017 2.5 ft ASTM D422 RICH 38.1 0.28 -- -- 12.8 52.3 34.9
14BH-020 0.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 38.1 0.43 0.11 -- 18.8 55.5 25.7
14BH-023 1.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 38.1 1.58 0.16 -- 31.7 45.9 22.4
14BH-025 4.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 19 0.3 -- -- 14.6 52.0 33.4
GRADATION CURVES
Richmond, VA
Contract: 14613154
4 2 1 1/2 3 6 10 16 30 50 100 200
6 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 14 20 40 60 140
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAVEL SAND
Specimen Sample Description LL PL PI Cc Cu

Brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN CLAY FILL, contains
14BH-028 3.0 ft crushed stone, CL (A-7-6) 42 20 22 -- --
Orange-brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN CLAY, CL
14BH-030 2.0 ft 44 17 27 -- --
Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL
14BH-033 0.4 ft FILL, SC 28 16 12 -- --
Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, trace gravel,
14BH-034 1.2 ft SC (A-6) 35 17 18 -- --
14BH-038 1.3 ft crushed stone, SC (A-6) 35 16 19 -- --
14BH-028 3.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 19 0.1 -- -- 0.9 43.1 56.0
14BH-030 2.0 ft ASTM D422 RICH 4.75 -- -- -- 0.0 34.1 65.9
14BH-033 0.4 ft ASTM D422 RICH 19 0.73 0.16 -- 23.2 53.5 23.3
14BH-034 1.2 ft RICH 25.4 0.21 -- -- 1.3 52.7 46.0
14BH-038 1.3 ft ASTM D422 RICH 25.4 0.16 -- -- 8.0 51.1 40.9
GRADATION CURVES
Richmond, VA
Contract: 14613154
120.0
119.0
118.0
117.0
116.0
115.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
114.0
113.0
112.0
111.0
110.0
109.0
COMPACTION 14613154 SCHNABEL LOGS.GPJ SCHNABEL DATA TEMPLATE 2008_04_22.GDT 1/23/15
108.0
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
WATER CONTENT, %
Sample Description: Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL, Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.73
trace gravel, SC (A-6) Max. Dry Density (pcf): 117.7
Opt. Moisture (%): 13.0
Sample Source: 14BH-003, 0.0 ft
Test Methods: VTM1
Liquid Limit (LL): 35 Comments:

Bulk sample obtained from auger cuttings over
Plasticity Index (PI): 19
the depth interval 0 to 5.0 feet
% Retained #4 Sieve: 3.3
% Passing # 200 Sieve: 39.6 Date: 12/10/14 Reviewed By: DS
MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Richmond, VA
Contract: 14613154 Testing Lab: RICH
113.0
112.0
111.0
110.0
109.0
108.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
107.0
106.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
WATER CONTENT, %
Sample Description: Light brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.61
FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-6) Uncorrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 111.0
Uncorrected Opt. Moisture (%): 15.2
Test Methods: VTM1 Corrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 115.8
Oversize Fraction Sieve Size: No 4 Corrected Opt. Moisture (%): 13.5
Percent Oversized Retained: 12.9%

Bulk sample obtained from auer cuttings over the
depth interval 0 to 5.0 feet
% Passing # 200 Sieve: 40.3 Date: 1-05-15 Reviewed By: DS
Richmond, VA
130.0
129.0
128.0
127.0
126.0
125.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
124.0
123.0
122.0
121.0
120.0
119.0
118.0
3 5 7 9 11 13 15
WATER CONTENT, %
Sample Description: Gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.75
FILL, trace gravel, contains crushed stone, Uncorrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 128.9
SM (A-2-4)
Test Methods: VTM1 Corrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 132

Richmond, VA
124.0
123.0
122.0
121.0
120.0
119.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
118.0
117.0
116.0
115.0
114.0
113.0
112.0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
WATER CONTENT, %
WITH GRAVEL FILL, contains crushed Uncorrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 120.6
stone, SC (A-2-6)
Test Methods: VTM1 Corrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 127

Richmond, VA
117.0
116.0
115.0
114.0
113.0
112.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
111.0
110.0
109.0
108.0
107.0
106.0
105.0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
WATER CONTENT, %
Sample Description: Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND, Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.73
trace gravel, SC (A-7-6) Uncorrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 115.7

the depth interval 2.5 to 7.0 feet
Richmond, VA
122.0
121.0
120.0
119.0
118.0
117.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
116.0
115.0
114.0
113.0
112.0
111.0
110.0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
WATER CONTENT, %
Sample Description: Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.66
SAND WITH GRAVEL FILL, contains Uncorrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 119.7
crushed stone, SC (A-2-6)

Richmond, VA
126.0
125.0
124.0
123.0
122.0
121.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
120.0
119.0
118.0
117.0
116.0
115.0
114.0
113.0
3 5 7 9 11 13 15
WATER CONTENT, %
WITH GRAVEL FILL, contains crushed Uncorrected Max. Dry Density (pcf): 124.4
stone, SC (A-2-6)

Richmond, VA
113.0
112.0
111.0
110.0
109.0
108.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
107.0
106.0
105.0
104.0
103.0
102.0
101.0
9 11 13 15 17 19 21
WATER CONTENT, %
Sample Description: Brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN CLAY Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.64
FILL, contains crushed stone, CL (A-7-6) Max. Dry Density (pcf): 110.8
Test Methods: VTM1

Richmond, VA
120.0
119.0
118.0
117.0
116.0
115.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
114.0
113.0
112.0
111.0
110.0
109.0
108.0
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
WATER CONTENT, %
Sample Description: Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND Assumed Specific Gravity: 2.68
FILL, trace gravel, SC (A-6) Max. Dry Density (pcf): 117.3
Test Methods: VTM1

Richmond, VA
120.0
119.0
118.0
117.0
116.0
DRY DENSITY, pcf
115.0
114.0
113.0
112.0
111.0
110.0
109.0
7 9 11 13 15 17 19
WATER CONTENT, %
FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-6) Max. Dry Density (pcf): 118.4
Test Methods: VTM1

Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
STRESS ON PISTON (psi)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
CBR SINGLE POINT 14613154 SCHNABEL LOGS.GPJ SCHNABEL DATA TEMPLATE 2008_04_22.GDT 1/8/15
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PENETRATION (INCHES)
Dry Density Before Soaking (pcf): 119.2

Sample Description: Brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND FILL,
trace gravel, SC (A-6) Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 118.9
Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 117.7
Moisture Content Before Soaking (%): 12.2
Sample Source: 14BH-003 Moisture Content After Soaking (Avg) (%): 1958.1
Sample Depth: 0.0 ft Moisture Content Top Inch After Soak (%): 15.3
Test Method: VTM-8 Optimum Moisture Content (%): 13
Liquid Limit (LL): 35 CBR: 8.4, Soaked

Plasticity Index (PI): 19 Surcharge (psf): 50
% Retained #4 Sieve: 3.3 Swell (%): 0.2
% Passing # 200 Sieve: 39.6
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sample Description: Light brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND
FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-6) Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 118.1
Maximum Dry Density (pcf): 111
Test Method: VTM-8 Optimum Moisture Content (%): 15.2


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sample Description: Gray-brown, fine to coarse, SILTY SAND
FILL, trace gravel, contains crushed stone, Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 132.3
SM (A-2-4)


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

WITH GRAVEL FILL, contains crushed Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 128.2
stone, SC (A-2-6)
Test Method: Optimum Moisture Content (%): 11.8


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sample Description: Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND,
trace gravel, SC (A-7-6) Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 117.9


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sample Description: Orange-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY
SAND WITH GRAVEL FILL, contains Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 123.6
crushed stone, SC (A-2-6)


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

WITH GRAVEL FILL, contains crushed Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 132.6
stone, SC (A-2-6)


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sample Description: Brown, fine to coarse, SANDY LEAN CLAY
FILL, contains crushed stone, CL (A-7-6) Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 110.7


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Sample Description: Red-brown, fine to coarse, CLAYEY SAND
FILL, trace gravel, SC (A-6) Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 118.0


Richmond, VA
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

FILL, contains crushed stone, SC (A-6) Dry Density After Soaking (pcf): 119.5
Sample Depth: 1.3 ft Moisture Content Top Inch After Soak (%): --


Richmond, VA
APPENDIX C
CALCULATIONS
Pavement Design

Determine the Design Flexible Pavement Section per AASHTO 1993 Guide
Project: GRTC BRT - Phase 1 Calculations By: FJR Date: 2/3/2015

Date: 2/23/2015 Checked By: EGD Date: 2/3/2015
Contract No.: 14613154 Sheet No.: 1 of 2
Description: Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane with Stone Base
Step 1 - Determine Design ESALs

INPUT IN BLUE
2 way AADT = 160
% Trucks = 100.0%
% Trucks in Design Lane = 100%
Growth Rate = 2.00%
Design Period = 30
Directional Distribution = 50.00%

% Single Unit Trucks = 0.00%
% Buses = 100.00%
% Cars / Passenger Vehicles = 0.00%
Design Truck Factors:

Cars / Passenger vehicles = 0
Single Unit Trucks = 0
Buses = 3.58
G*Y = 40.57
ESAL = 4,243,729
Step 2 - Determine the Required Structural Number (SNreqd)

INPUT IN BLUE KNOWN
Reliability 90 % Zr -1.281611
So 0.49 ESAL 4,243,729
PSIi 4.2 delta psi 2.2
PSIf 2
Mr 11100 psi
SNreqd 3.66 ==>Modify this value until delta equals zero.

0.00 ∆ values
6.627747684 Left Hand Equation

6.627985985 Right Hand Equation
Determine the Design Flexible Pavement Section per AASHTO 1993 Guide (cont.)
Project: GRTC BRT - Phase 1

Date: 02/23/15
Step 3 - Design the Pavement Section

Design Pavement Section
Structural Coeficient Subgrade Moisture
Layer Material (a) Thickness (in) Condition (m) SN
1 SM-9.5E 0.44 1.5 1 0.66
2 IM-19.0A 0.44 2 1 0.88
3 BM-25.0A 0.44 3 1 1.32
4 21B 0.12 7 1 0.84
5 0
6 0
7
Total Thickness 13.5 SNeff 3.7
SNreqd 3.66
OK
Project: GRTC BRT - Phase 1 Calculations By: FJR Date: 2/3/2015

Description: Dedicated BRT Bus Travel Lane - Full Depth Asphalt

INPUT IN BLUE
2 way AADT = 160
% Trucks = 100.0%
Growth Rate = 2.00%
Design Period = 30

% Single Unit Trucks = 0.00%
% Buses = 100.00%

Cars / Passenger vehicles = 0
Single Unit Trucks = 0
Buses = 3.58
G*Y = 40.57
ESAL = 4,243,729

INPUT IN BLUE KNOWN
So 0.49 ESAL 4,243,729
PSIf 2
Mr 11100 psi

0.00 ∆ values

Project: GRTC BRT - Phase 1

Date: 02/23/15

1 SM-9.5E 0.44 1.5 1 0.66
2 IM-19.0A 0.44 3 1 1.32
3 BM-25.0A 0.44 4 1 1.76
4
5
6
7
SNreqd 3.66
OK
Project: GRTC Flexible Pavement Calculations By: FJR Date: 1/20/2015

Description: Pavement Section from Horsepen Road to 25th Street

INPUT IN BLUE
2 way AADT = 24000
% Trucks = 6.0%
Growth Rate = 2.00%
Design Period = 30

% Buses = 1.00%
% Tractor Trailer Trucks = 5.00%

Cars / Passenger vehicles = 0.0002
Buses = 3.58
Tractor Trailer Trucks = 1.05
G*Y = 40.57
ESAL = 11,013,829

INPUT IN BLUE KNOWN
So 0.49 ESAL 11,013,829
PSIf 2.8
Mr 11100 psi

0.00 ∆ values

Project: GRTC Flexible Pavement

Date: 02/23/15

1 SM-9.5E 0.44 1.5 1 0.66
2 IM-19.0D 0.44 3 1 1.32
3 BM-25.0A 0.44 4 1 1.76
4 21B 0.12 9 1 1.08
5 0
6 0
7
SNreqd 4.73
OK
Project: GRTC Flexible Pavement Calculations By: FJR Date: 1/23/2015

Description: Pavement Section from 25th Street to Rocketts Landing

INPUT IN BLUE
2 way AADT = 15000
% Trucks = 2.0%
Growth Rate = 2.00%
Design Period = 30

% Buses = 1.00%

Buses = 3.58
G*Y = 40.57
ESAL = 4,650,440

INPUT IN BLUE KNOWN
So 0.49 ESAL 4,650,440
PSIf 2.8
Mr 11100 psi

0.00 ∆ values

Project: GRTC Flexible Pavement

Date: 02/23/15

1 SM-9.5D 0.44 1.5 1 0.66
2 IM-19.0A 0.44 2.5 1 1.1
3 BM-25.0A 0.44 3.5 1 1.54
4 21B 0.12 8 1 0.96
5 0
6 0
7
SNreqd 4.11
OK
Determine the Design Rigid Pavement Section per AASHTO 1993 Guide
Project: GRTC BRT Phase 1 Calculations By: FJR Date: 1/20/2015

Description: BRT Stations and Transition Pads

INPUT IN BLUE
2 way AADT = 24000
% Trucks = 6%
Growth Rate = 2.00%
Design Period = 30

% Buses = 1.00%

Buses = 3.58
G*Y = 40.57
ESAL = 14,386,136
Step 2 - Determine the Required Slab Thickness (Dreqd)

INPUT IN BLUE KNOWN
Serviceability Parameters
So 0.39 ESAL 14,386,136
PSIf 2.8
Construction & Materials Parameters

Pavement Type Jointed Plain Concrete
Concrete Elastic Modulus (Ec) 5000000 psi
Concrete Modulus of Rupture (S'c) 650 psi
Load Transfer Coefficient (J) 2.7
Mean Effective k-value 250 psi/inch
Drainage Coefficent (Cd) 1.0
Dreqd 10 ==>Modify this value until delta equals zero.

0.00 ∆ values

Determine the Design Rigid Pavement Section per AASHTO 1993 Guide (cont.)
Project: GRTC BRT Phase 1

Date: 02/23/15
Step 3 - Design Pavement Section
Layer Material Thickness (in)

Jointed Plain
1 Concrete 10 Dreqd = 10 OK
2 VDOT 21A 6
3
4
Total Thickness = 16 in
Appendix B
Dedicated Transitway Marking References

Appendix C
11” x 17” Pavement Modifications Plan Sheets

GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project

Geotechnical and Pavement Modifications Report

Changes in station locations, station design, roadway

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 i

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 ii

Table 6. BRT Pavement Modifications Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................... 18

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 iii

1.1. Overall Corridor Station Locations Plan

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 1

2. Corridor Geotechnical Report Summary

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 2

Pavement Section Material Layer Thickness (inches)

Pavement Section Material Layer Thickness (inches)

Table 2. Preliminary Mixed Traffic Operations – Flexible Pavement Sections

Roadways from Horsepen Road to 25th Street

Roadways from 25th Street to Rocketts Landing

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 3

Type Section Layer Thickness (inches)

Pavement Section Material Layer Thickness (inches)

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 4

2.1. Preliminary BRT Station Foundation and Floor Slab Recommendations

Table 4. Preliminary Recommended Soil Parameters

Stratum Unit Weight (pcf)

Figure 2. Uplift Resistance Recommendations

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 5

2.2. Preliminary Signal Pole Drilled Shaft Foundation Recommendations

Table 5. Preliminary Recommended Drilled Shaft Soil Parameters

Figure 3. Signal Pole Foundation (VDOT PF-1 detail)

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 6

2.3. Dedicated Transitway Pavement Marking Options

Advantages of this option include:

 Lowest installation cost of options investigated,

Disadvantages of this option are:

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 7

Advantages of this option include:

 BRT lanes would be marked with a red surface color,

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 8

The disadvantages of this option include:

 Higher installation cost,

Figure 4. TrafficGrip Application Photos (I-66, Northern Virginia)

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 9

Figure 5 shows additional examples of application of TrafficGrip in an urban, downtown street.

Advantages of this option include:

 BRT lanes marked with a red surface color,

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 10

 A reported long service life.

The disadvantages of this option include:

 Higher installation cost;

Each cost is described below.

OPTION A: HIGH FRICTION COLORIZED COATING / OVERLAY (FULL BLOCK APPLICATION)

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 11

3. Summary of Pavement Modifications Per Route Segment

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 12

Figure 6. W. Broad Street – Willow Lawn Drive to Lafayette Street

Figure 7. W. Broad Street – Lafayette Street to N. Mulberry Street

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 13

Figure 8. W. Broad Street - N. Mulberry Street to N. Harrison Street

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 14

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 15

Figure 12. E. Main Street to Rocketts Landing

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 16

4. BRT Pavement Modification Cost Estimate

Version 3.0 | July 23, 2015 17