The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBORING LOCATION PLANaCANIdE-Z) B zl 9ah"' N. Note: Figure is based upon a Google Earth aerial Photograph. j I i OAKLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION HUMMINGBIRD WAY FORT PIERCE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION ALMN UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES DRAWN BY: CEI I 'DATE May, 16; 2017 CHECKED BY: .�F DATE' Ma 1@-201Z PRDJECiNOi 'CAI-e: REPORT NO:- p_AGE NO: 1" = 200' 03301700052.0000 _- --FI UroNos 1_ i — - -- UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0 . 3 1 30.1700062.0000 REPORT NO.: BORING LOG APPENDIX. A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision I BORING DESIGNATION: BI SHEET: I of I Hummingbird Way I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: G.S,ELEVATION ('ft DATE STARTED: 514117 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 5/4M7 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 51812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: - E IL W .j Q. SLOWS PER 6" LU =1 _j 0 In _j -.1 1 -2aG me K ORG. W X_ DESCRIPTION (INJ CONT;, kn < W INCREMENT z I%) I%) HR.) I%) '-fine SAND With traces'of clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP] 4.1 7.4 -V ........... " ........ ......... fine SAID with gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps (Fill), . . . brow [SP] 2 10.6 5-6-12 is -- ---- ------ clayey'fine SAND with traces of broken shell (Fill); brown, [SC] 7-7-4 11 clayey fine -SAND with traces of organ1c;9, dark brown, [SC] BORING TERMINATED AT 10' .......... 2 C 2 9 I �- UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT_NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 BORING LOG REPORTNO.:-, - APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision I BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 1 Of I Hummingbird Way SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST Fort Pierce,Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 5/4H7 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 514117 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 5/8/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W.T_ (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S LU BLOWS W ~ i J 2 w M PER to ! a T' M w 0 DESCRIPTION goo Mc (IN./ ONT.; y INCREMENT Z H I. 3 Q (%) (�) = ^' fine SAND with traces of claylumps (Fill), tirown,-[SP] - - -- - Y J �'i•. 2 ++;i 3;0 5.0 5-6-16 5-22-26 22" fine SAND, grey, [SP] -` - - 17-R R";�%ai :y 5 ri _.. .._.... - -With 'It, dark b wn, (hardpan) SMSneSAN clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] - 6-7-8 15 6-4-4 I 8 i - clayey fine -SAND with occasional cemented rock layers, grey,- ISCI BORING TERMINATED AT 10' "DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R! - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC I I I � I I CONE PENETROMETER. I I i _ i i I I j I I C u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: _ 0330.1700052.0000 = I REPORT NO.; BORING LOG - - APPENDIX: A PROJECT' Oakland Estates Subdivision I BORING DESIGNATION: B3 SHEET' 1 Of Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT - LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S;, ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514/17 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.3 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 61812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST, W.S:W.T: (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: _ BLOWS j p '200 MO K ORG. ' °' PER°'•. ¢ ~ W DESCRIPTION (%) (�) QNJ CONT,,' o u, INCREMENT' _ � 3 c HR.) (%) fine SAND 'ith silt and traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown'- ='� [SP-SM] I f r 1-5-5 5• 9-23-28 23' 5-18-20 18" ti : - ...... - —" - - - fine SAN ; dark brown, [SP] 5-6-7 13 .lz=3` 4.5 18,3 fine SAND -with silt, brown, [SP-SM] - ' — - -- 6-7-9 16 4:• s r=*: --fine SAND, grey, [SP] 5-7-8 15 {;L%;; 3.9 19.5 10 7�� 10 - BORING TERMINATED AT 10' f I I I i DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES I I i _ II II I I i .UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO. __ 0330.1700052.0000 - � BORING LOG REPORT NO,: -- - APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision BORING DESIGNATION: B4 SHEET: 1 Of 1 Hummingbird Way SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: I G.S.ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 5.1 DATE FINISHED: 514117 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 61812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: ~ 2ao MC LWU: LL ' M PER9S ¢ ; +i0.ii s DESCRIPTION (�) (�) ([NJ ONT,. c I .N .INCREMENT � z vi o HR.) (�) fine SAND vvlth silt; gravel; broken shell, -and clay lumps (Fill),- :{: ?f brown, [SP-SM] i 3-18-29 18' I t{ I 11-21-25 21' °%' jj• 3-23-30 J 23' . •1:5 ' G I fine S ND with silt, dark brown, (SP-SM] B-12-14 26 14-12-15 27 ':• _ fine SAND with silt and broken shell, brown, [SP-SM] I ct.• 14-16-16 32 10 ........,................ .. ........... BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES I i I i 15 >. . i UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES BORING LOG PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 REPORT NO' - APPENDIX: A BORING DESIGNATION: B5 SHEET: 9 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 5/4117 DATE OF READING: 5/8/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S;W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: x _ W BLOWS LU O - - K - ORG. a < PER6" DESCRIPTION (�) %� (INJ CONT: INCREMENT z U o HR.) (%) - - ---- - --- -- i? fine SAND with traces of gravel, broken shell, -and -clay lumps — -- -- - -" (Fill),, brown, [SP] %} 1 3;4 2.4 2-R R• 8-R R'!, ry 1 yy`•�t';lyz I rV. {.�£ �' LL ti };{ :•,'c',ii�i rj-. }tij 20 20-18 38 fine -SAND with silt and traces of broken shell, gray, [SP-SM] 10-9-6 15 BORING TERMINATED AT ,10 DYNAMIC CONEP.,ENETRQMETER.(DCP) VALUES , R1-DENOTES REFUSALTO'PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC I I i CONE PENETROMETER. I I I ' i - I I I1 III I � ' L r I UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT"°.:-. 033°."°°U52.°°° REPORT NO,[. BORING LOG -- --=-- APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision BORING DESIGNATION: B6 SHEET: 1 Of 1 Hummingbird Way SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 614117 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 514117 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 510/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W:S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: x a us a• BLOWS 0 O m -1 9 � 200 me K ORG. W LL M PER6" 3 w ` DESCRIPTION l%l lyl (IN.1 CONT,, G y INCREMENT = y o HR.) I%) fine -SAND- wiliffsilt and traces of claylumps (Fill), brown, - �..�';; [SP-SM]I it ,y`' • i R R' {w• i 17-20-25 j 20' , a `fine SA D, 9reY, [SP] - - - 5-19 21 19' r; :•cit'vY �, I clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 4-8-6 14 I i 6-6- I 12 i 10 I — - -- BORING TERMINATED AT 10' ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC r I CONE PENETROMETER. I I I I' 15 i I I i i I UNIVERSAL ENGINE, BORING PROJECT- Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: ERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: - 0330.1700052.0000 REPORT NO.: LOG ___ � - _ -7_ - APPENDIX: A BORING DESIGNATION: B7 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 5/4/17 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 51812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W;S;W.T- (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SLOWS tu :3 -1 0 _j K ORG LU IL 2 PER 6" i M _j 3DESCRIPTION -200 MC (INJ CON Tm( o 4 Lo INCREMENT z U3 1%) 0/6) HR.) i (A) 0 -With silfd—ndclay Iurri brown, ISP-SM] fine SAND ps 21-R R* fine SAN grey, [SP] 10-24-26 24*. 1.6 3.4 14-R R* ....... .... 7-7-7 14 clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 5-5-5 10 10 PORING TERMINATED AT 10' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC. CONE PENETROMETER. KE-Y T018O:RING 'LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART* o Sand or Gravel [SP,SW,GP,GW] -- 5 ... .......,,f..:............,. • -_ . Sand or Gravel with Silt _ or Clay [SPSM,SPSC] 12 __.-::...:.. :::.::..:.....:............ ENGINEERING ISCIENCES, INC. • w Silty or Clayy' eyy"Sand Gravel W or (S-M;SC,GM,GC] 10 I o N 50 .... -... ....., ..- Z N Sandyy or rdvilllyy S[It;orClay, [ML,CL-MqL l;L,MH,CH,OL;O j a 70 _ �Sllt'or Gltiy. -vrith Send;or:Grave . rCL•';MH,CH;OL;OH]- (ML 85 ...:... ............................. Silt or•Cieyy [ML GL;ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH G COARSE GRAINED SOILS • r WELL -GRADED • - WEL GRADED SANDS [SWI ' GRAVELS [GWI o POORLY -GRADED •iY:'::: �:" ' POORLY -GRADED p ..E..jY•�¢ • SANDS [SPI� G VELS [GPI •''•"•?`:2' { POORLY -GRADED POORLY -GRADED M. ? SANDS WITH SILT °, GRAVELS WITH SI "'9: =- 4 [SP-SMI p. [GP -GM] '- POORLY -GRADED POORLY -GRADED SANDSWITH CLAY ° GRAVELS WITH C ESP -SC] O�•. - - IGP-GC] MM'SILTYSANDS ISILTYGRAVELS o D . i CLAYEY SANDS CLAYEY GRAVELS ISC] [GCI 60 60 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT I' PLASTICITY CHART VAME AND SYMBOL FINE GRAINED SOILS LT LAY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ,�INORGANIC . SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS LOW PLASTICITY i [ML1 [OL].. INORGANIC SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS LOW PLASTICITY MEDIUM TO HIGH [CL-ML] PLASTICITY [OHr' INORGANIC CLAYS ..... PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS ®, LOW TO MEDIUM 1, �� El WITH HIGH ORGANIC PLASTICITY [CLI CONTENTS [PT].. INORGANIC SILTS HIGH PLASTICITY [MH] RELATIVE DENSITY INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH (SAND AND GRAVEL) PLASTICITY [CH] VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 Blowslft. LOOSE - 5 to 10 Blowsift. MEDIUM DENSE -11 to 30 Blowslf . DENSE - 31 to 50 BlowslfL VERY DENSE - m°r° than 50 Blows1ft. I IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2487- UNIFIED SOIL SILTY CLAYEY SANDS I • CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. ?. [SCSMI >�-.'• '•LOCALLY MAY BEKNOWN ASMUCK. I NOTES: I 8•- DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER(DCP) VALUE R -DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER NIE - DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED NOTE: DUAI.'SYMIBOLS:ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS CONSISTENCY (SILTANDCLAY) VERY SOFT - 0 to 2 Blowslft. SOFT - 3 to 4 Blowalfl. FIRM - 5 to 8 Blows/ft. STIFF - 9 to 16 Blowslft. VERY STIFF -17 to 30 8lowslf . HARD - more than 30 Blows/ft. APPENDIX A.1 XHIBIT 1 e-:,c HicalmE 1 BePin_ U Report The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly a client representative — interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively) as possible. In that way, clients.can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more Information about any, of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active:involvement'in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can he of genuine benefit for everyone involved�with a construction project. Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects I Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering studylconducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil - works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical- engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared fora different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply'this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. I Read this Report In Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements brily. Read this report �• in full. i You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,.project-specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: • the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk -management preferences; • the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; • the structures location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, land eKground utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect • the site's size or shape; • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes — even minor ones — and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it; for a different client; • for a different project; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. if your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an `apply -by" date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis — if any is required at all — could prevent major problems. Most of the "Findings Related in'This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ — maybe significantly — from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, wheneveI needed. nu This Report's Recommendations Are Confirmation -Dependent The recommendations included in this report — including any opl or alternatives — are confirmation -dependent. In other words, the not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical eng can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subs conditions revealed during construction. If through observation y geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to es actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assure no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who pr this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation dependent recommendations ifyou fail to retain that engineer to pe construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time men design team, to: confer with other design -team members, help develop specifications, review pertinent elements of other design professionals' plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinti report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform observation. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Gu' Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe tht unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors the information they provide for bid preparation. To help pre the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, inc complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any atl or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain conspicuously that you've included the material for informatio; purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also wan that "informational purposes" means constructors have no ri on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommend the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to th times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certaii constructors know they may learn about specific project regt including options selected from the report, only from the des drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they r risk of the this stance IIcan shift tV limiting ent tide the chments note it to note ht to rely lions in specific that perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than -other engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations; many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study — e.g., a "phase -one" or "phase -two" environmental site assessment— differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold, While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture — including water vapor — from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building - envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS It ASSOCIATION Telephone: 301 /565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofesslonal Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, gtlotmg, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes ofscholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity) that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent