The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONIII UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES d ' PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE, EXPLORATION Proposed Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Oakland Lake Circle Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 . May 19, 2017 p,ECEIVEV PREPARED FOR: Ryan Homes ucie County, Permitting I _ _ 2005 Vista Parkway, Suite 102 West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 I I PREPARED BY: -Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. i 820 Brevard Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 , l� • Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing Threshold Inspection Offices in: Orlando - Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Ocala - Palm Coast • Rockledge , Sarasota Miami • Panama City • Pensacola • Fort Pierce • Tampa'- West Palm Beactlj' GA . 7f LLOCATIONS: l UNIVERS,ianta ytona Beach • Fort Myers 1 EN WIN ' E E:R�hN G` S C;I E I�LC:ES Fort Pierce Consultants,In:Geoiechnical'Engineering - Environmenia- Sciences Gainesville i Jacksonville Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection 41 Miami Building Inspection _• Plan Review • Building Code Administration Ocala Orlando.(Headquarters) +, Palm Coast �.; Panama City May 19, 2017 Pensacola Rockledge Ryan Homes ;' Sarasota 1450 Centre ark Boulevard, Suite 340 Tampa p - West Palm Beach West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ' • Atlanta, GA Tlftcn, GA Attention: Mr. Michael DeBock Reference: Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Proposed Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Oakland Lake Circle Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1700.052.0000 Dear Mr. DeBock: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a preliminary subsurface exploration at the above referenced- site in Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by you and was conducted as outlined in Universal's Proposal No. 0330.0417.00003. This exploration was performed in accordance with .generally. accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other-warrapty, expressed or implied, is made. The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We have included our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations and general comments concerning anticipated soil support characteristics for typical low-rise residential buildings. We appreciate the opportunity to have. worked with, you..on this project and look forward to a continued associa#.lon: Please do not hesitate to contact us'if you should have any questio..nsi, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed: i �Nly'flllll/�' . Sincerely yours, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING _SCIENCES;, INC. Certificate of,Adthorizatioii:No. 549 Jose R. Benitez Jr., E-1,. Staff Engineer 2 — Addressee UESDOCS #1450465 Brad Faucett, M.S., R.E: !!/ Regional`Engineer Florida Professional;iEngineer 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida.32958 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321.):638-0978. 1 wwvv:UniversalEngineering:com TABLE OF'CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION,.—,, .......... ........... 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................... ............. .:..:.:::.:.:::.:.::........ ::.:::::.::::::..:.::.:::::::::::. 3.0 PURPOSE.....,...... _ - :::•.: 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION............:...................................1 4.1 SOIL SURVEY .......................................... - ................................................................................2 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY ........................:• ... _ _ ._ _ _ ._ _....................._............................................................2 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................................: .....................................:.....................................2 6:0 LIMITATIONS...... _. ,... .................. -................................ 3 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES...::.................................:.................:.................::.::...:::.:::.:::................ 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS ................ 4 7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETERTESTS ...... :;;; 4 7.3 PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES... 4 8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES....................:..:.::...::.:.::::::.::::.:::.:::.::::.:::::::::.:.::::.:::::.:::�:::::.4 8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ................:::... ,.......-sr,::... :.:4 9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY..................... :.5 9.1 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS........... 5. 10.0. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .... .............. .-......:.. 10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ;;;;;;;,•,;;;:,;,.;;,_;;;;;;; 10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER 11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS ......,:... ::..- _-- „- .7 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS............:::......: 12.1 PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS.... 13.0 CLOSURE ...... :................................... ::::r:;:::::.::;::..;..,.••,......•,.•,•r,,.,•.•,•••,.........•,•.•... _ ,8 I LIST OF TABLES. Table I: Saint Lucie County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types _ 2 Table II: Generalized Soil Profile ............................................. Table III: Pavement Core Results ....................... , _,,.�,:,;,;,,,..:,:..,....:, ; 6 1 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Boring Location FIGURES APPENDICES Key to Boring Logs Appendix A Boring Logs ...... -,...,.,,....'..Appendix A EXHIBITS GBADocument ........... . . ei-. .,,,..,.,Exhibit 1 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, fl6fida 32955 (321)',638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.0�e salEnginqe�ing_conj. I Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration 1.0 INTRODUCTION Universal- Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a preliminary subsurface exploration for the proposed Oakland Lake Estates 'Subdivision in Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by Mr. Michael DeBock of Ryan. Homes and was conducted as outlined in Universal's Proposal No. 0330.0417.00003. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is Universal's understanding, based upon information provided by the client, that the proposed project will consist of a residential subdivision in Fort Pierce, Florida; currently envisioned as shown in Figure No. 1. The proposed subdivision is intended to have seventy-three (73) residential lots. We understand that the stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces to be developed at this site will be collected within an existing retention basin located in the central sections of the project area. Please note that our subsurface exploration was,preiiminary in nature and conducted to acquire general subsurface information only. Once specified site configuration, building detail and structural and traffic loading information are available a final subsurface exploration should be performed. 3.0 PURPOSE The purposes of this exploration were: • to explore the subsurface conditions at general' locations and depths as requested by the client and • to provide our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations and • to provide general comments concerning the anticipated soil support characteristics for typical low-rise residential construction. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located within Section 11, Township 34 South, Range 39 East in Saint Lucie County, Florida. More specifically, the site is located on the northwest quadrant of Palomar Street Road and North Kings Highway, in Fort Pierce, Florida. At the time of drilling, the site vegetation consisted of mostly grass, along with an existing paved circular road around the proposed subdivision. 1 820 Brevard Avenue; Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 1638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1-700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration 4.1 SOIL SURVEY Two (2) soil types are mapped within the -general project area according to the Saint Lucie County Soil Survey (SLCSS), dated 1980. A brief description of these soils is provided in the following Table I. TABLE 1 SLCSS DESIGNATED SOIL TYPES Soii Type (Map Symbol) Brief Description - Soil material that has been dug up from several areas with different Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes (4) �' kinds of soil. It is used to fill up areas such as low sloughs, marshes, shallow depressions, and swamps, Wabasso sand (48) �,, Nearly level, poorly drained sandy soils in broad_ areas in the flatwoods. 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Oslo, Florida quadrangle map dated 1949, photo -revised 1970, ground surface elevation across the site area .(pre -developmental) is approximately +20 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).. 6.0 SCOPE. OF SERVICES The services conducted by Universal during our prelirr%inary subsurface exploration program are as follows: • Drill. seven .(7) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the project site area to a. depth of 10 feet below existing land surface (bls). • Core through the existing pavement sections at four (4) locations with a diamond tipped core drill to ascertain the approximate thickness of the asphaltic surfacing and base course. Perform Dynamic Cone. Penetrometer (DCP) testing within the upper, portions of the selected SPT:boreholes to help further determine soil consistencies. .. 'Secure samples of'representative soils encountered in the. soil borings for review, laboratory analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. • Measure the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet .season high groundwater levels. Conduct soil gradation tests on selected soil samples obtained in the field to help determine their engineering properties. • Assess the existing soil conditions with respect tothe proposed construction, 2 - 1 �i 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32b55 (321)-638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978. www..UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.6000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration ii Preparing a geotechnical engineering report .which documents'the results of our preliminary subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program with analysis and general comments. 6.0 LIMITATIONS Please :note that this report is based on a preliminary subsurface exploration program with the scope of services, general boring locations and depths as :developed in conjunction with the client. The information submitted in this report is based on data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report has not been prepared to meet the full needs of design professionals, contractors, or any other parties, and any use of this report by them without the guidance of the soil and foundation engineer who prepared it constitutes improper usage_ which could lead to erroneous assumptions, faulty conclusions, and other problems. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until: the course of future explorations or actual construction. If variations then become evident,; it will be necessaryfor re-evaluation of the recommendations in this report after performing on -,site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of any variations, Deleterious soils were not encountered at any of our boring locations; however, we cannot completely preclude their presence across the entire property. Therefore, this report should not be used for estimating such items as cut and fill quantities. Our field exploration did not find unsuitable or unexpected materials at the time of occurrence. However, borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, Universal does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such. purpose(s) and within the report:we so state that the level of exploration provided -should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, Universal will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use. of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended. Ali users of this report are cautioned that there was no ,requirement for Universal to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore no attempt was made by Universal to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible .for any buried man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can- provide this service if requested. For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report please. review the document attached within Exhibit 1 'important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" .prepared by:GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association. 3 820 Brevard venue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Faxd(321) .638-0978. www..UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS The seven (7) SPT borings, designated 131 through B7 on the attached Figure No. 1, were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D' 1586 (Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils), The SPT drilling technique involves driving a standard split -barrel sampler into the soil by. a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The numbet,.of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil- strength and consistency. The soil samples recovered from the split -barrel sampler were visually inspected. and classified in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2481 (Standard Classification. of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]). The SPT soil borings were performed with a CME 45 ATV mounted drilling rig. Universal located the test borings in the field by using- the provided site, plan and by plotting in the field with a Garmin GPS receiver. No survey control was provided on -site, and our boring locations should be considered only, as accurate as 'implied by the, methods of measurement used. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Figure No. 1. 7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed within the upper portions of the selected SPT boreholes to help further determine soils consistencies. The DCP tests were performed at 1 foot intervals in general accordance with the procedures developed by Professor G. F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges (ASCE, 1966). The basic procedure for the DCP test is as follows: A standard 1.5 inch diameter conical point is jdriven into the soil by, a 15-pound steel hammer falling 20 inches. Following the seating of the. point to a depth of 2 inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional.1175- inches is designated the penetration resistance,. providing an index to soil strength and density. . 7.3 PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES Samples of the existing asphaltic pavement sections ;were obtained at four (4)-core locations (Cl through C4) with a: 4 inch nominal diameter diamond bit core drill, advancing through the asphaltic pavement into the underlying base course materials. Afterwards the core holes were backfilled and the surfacing patched with an asphaltic "'cold patch" mixture and the core samples returned to our laboratory for subsequent examination. 8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES 8.1- PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS We completed #200 sieve particle size analyses on seven (7) representative soil samples. These samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM -D 1.140: (Standard Test Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than .the No'. 200 Sieve). In part, ASTM D 1.140 requires a thorough mixing the sample with water and 'flushing it through a No. 200 sieve until all of the -particles smaller than the sieve size leave the sample. 4. 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, FloriLla 32955G(321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1-700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration The percentage of the material finer than the No. 200 sieve helps determines the textual nature of the soil sample and aids, in evaluating its engineering characteristics. The percentage of materials passing the #200 sieve is shown on the attached boring logs. 9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles,,, penetration resistance and 'stabilized groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were prepared from field, logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile. of the soils encountered at our boring locations is presented in the following Table I1. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs. TABLE 11 ' GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE Depth Encountered (feet; bls) Approximate'! Thickness (feet) Soil Description i Fill soils consisting of fine sands with varying quantities of silt; clay,, Surface 2 to 9 gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps [SP, SP-SM, SC]; loose to medium dense. Highly interlayered strata consisting of fine sands [SP], fine sands' J with silt [SP-SM], and clayey fine sands [SC],: with varying; 2 to 9 1+ to 8+ quantities of broken shell and occasional cemented rock layers; loose to dense. At boring: location 132, the fine sand with silt [SP- SM] strata is partially cemented with iron oxide & organic salts and which is locally known as hardpan. j NOTE: I I denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation. + indicates strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined, 9.1 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS The results of our examination and measurement of the core samples taken in the field from the existing pavement sections are shown in the following Table ill: 5 820 Brelvard Avenue, Rockledge, ;Florida 32955' (321) 638-080� Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No; 0330.1700052. 0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration TABLE III PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS Boring/Core Approximate Thickness/Type Approximate Thickness Type of Base Course ; Location of Asphaltic Surfacing of Base Course Materials (inches) (inches) -0.7 S3 - - C1 1.0 S3 8Y2 Coquina 0.8 S3 -- C2 ---- - - 1.1 S3 1.1 S3 8'/ i Coquina C3 1.0 S3 1.6 S3 -- _--- - 8 ----- - Coquina C4 . 1.0 S1 10 Coquina 1. See attached Figure No. 1 for approximate core locations: -- - 2. Classification of asphaltic layerings was performed visually and may not represent actual FDOT mix parameters. 3. Subgrade soils consist mostly of fine sands with traces of gravel & broken shell [SP] (i.e. stabilized subgrade). 10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS We measured the water levels in the boreholes on May 8, 2017 after the groundwater was allowed to stabilize. The groundwater levels 'are shown on the attached boring logs. The groundwater level depths ranged from 4.3 feet bls at boring location B6 to 5.7 feet bls at boring locations B2 and B7. Fluctuations in groundwater, levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were- conducted. 10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL The typical wet season high groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season of the year, for existing site conditions, in' a year with average normal rainfall amounts. Based on historical data, the rainy season in Saint Lucie County, Florida is between June and October of the year. In order to estimate the wet season water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined, including the following: a, Measured groundwater level b; Drainage characteristics of existing soil types C. Season of the year (wet/dry season) d,. Current & historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date) e,, Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.) f. Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.) g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems 6 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledgel, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www. UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision I Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County,. Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration h... On -site types of vegetation i. Area topography (ground surface elevations) Groundwater level readings were taken on May 8, 2017.- According to data from the Southeast Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in the previous month of April for Central Saint Lucie County was 2.2 inches, approximately at:the normal levels for the month of April. Year-to=date rainfall for 2017 through May 8th was. approximately 6Y2 inches, roughly 6 inches below the normal level for this time period. Based on this information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high groundwater levels at .the boring locations will be approximately 2'/ feet above the existing measured levels. Please note, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following various -intense storm events, may be somewhat higher- than the, estimated typical wet season. levels. Due to the variable silt and clay content within the near surface soils at this site, we suspect that there may be occasional isolated pockets of "perched" groundwater throughout the project area, particularly. during periods of prolonged wet weather. iThese temporary perched water table levels may be higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated above. 11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands. [SP]. The percentage 'of -soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth sampled. 12.0 ANALYSIS AND GENERAL COMMENTS 12.1 PROPOSED -BUILDING AREAS The .removal of site vegetation and roots, along with other construction activities, will further loosen surficial soils to various depths. To provide a homogeneous, compacted, sandy soil system underneath the proposed, foundations and floor slabs for the proposed residences, densification of at least the upper 2 feet of the existing, surficial, loose soils and subsequent additional fill soils will be necessary. This should create a soil mat capable of dissipating the building loads over any remaining loose strata at depth: We believe that this can be effectively accomplished . using conventional site preparation procedures including a comprehensive root raking and stripping procedure to remove vegetation, root mats,, debris and organic topsoils; and then an extensive proof -rolling and densification program for the surficial soils and subsequent structural fill. Assuming that such procedures are properly performed, we anticipate that conventional, shallow spread footing foundations maybe used to support conventional_one°;to two stori=residential.construetion 7 8k Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955:(321) 631-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngine'ering.com f Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision .Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration 13.0 CLOSURE We appreciate. this opportunity to be of service as your geotechnical consultant on this phase of the project and look forward to providing follow up explorations and geotechnical engineering analysesas the project progresses through the design, phase. If you have any questions concerning this report or when we may be of any further service, please contact us. i J 8 I 820 Brevard Avenue, Ro4edge,' Florida 32965; (321) 638-0808 Fax (321.) 638-09P8 . www.Univers.alEngini§e.ring.com _ I UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES ® Approximate SPT Boring Location Note: Figure is based upon a Google Earth aerial Photograph. OAKLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION HUMMINGBIRD WAY FORT PIERCE, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION PLAN )RAWN BY: CB DATE Ma ,16;, 2017 CHECKED BY: ,6F DA7E:-- MIX 1E-2[ — - -- - - - - - - -- - PROJECT No: '- - ' - iCALE: 'REP-ORT NO: pq -E NO: ' 1' - 200' 0330.U700052:0000'� � � ,--F.IgUfO N0, J APPENDIX A III •:c :2 v� PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 )UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT REPORT NO.: .33_- 7 - BORING LOG _ APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: 9 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G•S•,ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (it): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 614117 DATE OF READING: 5/8/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S•W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: BLOWS us 0 K ORG. w PER" a "' z DESCRIPTION 200 MC v y INCREMENT Z y c HR_) I%) -- — -- ~r - -fine SAND with traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP] 4.1 7.4 ........... +S;r•4 fine SAND with gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps (Fill), --' {;t brown, [SP] 27 10.6 I it ~ 1 I •; 5-6-12 18 a`i _ _ _ clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell (Fill), brown, [SC] 7-7-4 11 i clayey fine SAND -with traces of organics; dark brown, [SC]"-__ II } i _ i i BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I i - i I ....... JL 1 PROJECT NO.: - 0330.1700052.0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES REPORTN0. BORING LOG - _ - -- APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 1 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 5/8/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: jE ,� W BLOWS ! U' - 0 -K -- ORG. w e f PER 6'• -' '' m -' DESCRIPTION zoo l%I Mc (%) ([NJ CONT.. y INCREMENT I• HR.) l%I 0 M2ti" fine SAND with traces of ola lum s Fill brown, SP — - y P ( ), I ] - • *,tir . L :r 3;0 5.0 5�r 16 6• {tii:Yi �S I 5 22-26 22' f'r•%T' . 3ti fine SAND, grey, [SP] - - •' r+i 5 : +... :. :.... fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] 6-6-�s clayey fine SAND, brown, ISC] 6-7-8 15 6-4-4 8 I clayey fine SAND with occasional cemented rock layers, grey, [SC] BORING TERMINATED AT 10' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R • DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC i i I i CONE PENETROMETER. I 15 III .............. I II C C u u UNIVERSAL _IVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.; - V APPENDIX: A PROJECT' Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B3 SHEET: 1 of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S: ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 614117 WATER TABLE (it): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 518/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST, W.S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: a BLOWS J• m ga K ORG. w a u PERs" a F 3 W 3 5 DESCRIPTION 200 (�) MC (INJ CONT, ' INCREMENT Z y 0 HR.) (%) 0 fine SAND with silt and traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown;" -- - - - - - "' [SP-SM] I 9-23-28 23' - ;t7 :•fit: 5-18-20 18' fine SAND; -dark brown -ESPY 5-6-7 5-6-7 13 i;'i' x; 4.5 18.3 fine'SAND with silt, brown, [SP-SM] — - - 8-7-9 18 -fine SAND, grey, [SP] -- 5-7-8 15 i° . 3.9 19.5 {�Lf: 10 7 10• .., - -- - — , BORING TERMINATED AT 10' 1 ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 I i i :..' :.... i ..._ . u i � 0330,1700052.0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECTNO.: BORING LOG REPORT NO.: — APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B4 SHEET. 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S.ELEVATION (ft): WATER TABLE (ft): 6.1 DATE OF READING: 6/812017 EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): DATE STARTED: 5/4117 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC TYPE OF SAMPLING: F ...Uj aJ. BLOWS J �,., m -Ji K - - ---' - - -- -200 --MC� - K ORG. c LL PER 8•• a f w cq DESCRIPTION (%) (�) (INr CONT. I N INCREMENT _ r j o ' HR.) (%J fine SAND with silt,"gravel; broken —'shell —,and —clay lumps (Fill), - - {�: ; brown, [SP-SM] 3-18-29 18' •r .`,if 3-23,30 II 23.1 { 5 S - fine SAND with silt, dark brown,.[SP-SM] B-12-14 26 af: 14-12-15 27 r: _ fine SAND with silt and broken shell, brown, [SP-SM] - ;1Y I 14-16-16 32 • i:- � fin ;7•. Y: 10 14-12-10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I ! DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES I I I 15 r ! I . ' _.. _ . . Lu C C 'c u PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700062.0000 U.N[VEFtSAL ENGINEERI'NG� SCIENCES BORING LOG REPORTNo.; APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT. LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BJ SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 518/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S;W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: �_. ° BLOWS j - O w + -- - zoo Mc K - ORG. PER6" f �+ (D DESCRIPTION (INJ CONT. n INCREMENT z > N a 3 M) (,�) HR.) NO fine SAND with traces of gravel, broken shell, and -clay lumps-- "`: = (Fill), brown, [SP] 3;4 2.4 2-R R�y.� S-R R• I 2-21-R 21• ,1 i.?. - fine SAND with silt and traces of broken shellgray, SP-SM f 10-9-6 15 . 10• - 4-45 _ .. -- - BORINGTERMINATEDATIO' -. _ _., . _. `" DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER;;(DCP) VALUES R=DENOTESREFUSA4.T0'PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC I ' CONE PENETROMETER„ I r JLP1�ah� PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 UNIVERSAL- ENGINEERING SCIENCES - - BORING LOG REPORTNO.[. — - - APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BG SHEET: I Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 614117 WATER TABLE (it): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 614117 DATE OF READING: 510/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W:S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: xLU I BLOWS o 5a K ORG. w Q PER6" 3 m 3 DESCRIPTION -200 MC (IN./ CONT.. p U INCREMENT z w 51 p ��) (��) HR.) i (%) :v •,. - fine SAND with slltand traces -of clay lumps (Fill), brown; - [SP-SM] R R• c'sr I �5' 1 17-20-25 20' fine SAND, grey, [SP] - - % i clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] I 4-6-6 14 6-6-6 12 I I . BORING TERMINATED AT 10' " DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC I r CONE PENETROMETER. 15 1---d I, - -- --- - - I I - -- I,, J UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECTNO.: _-0330.1700052.0000 BORING L.OG REPORT NO.: 1V V APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B% SHEET: 1 Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 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: W �_ f PER lu a P: 3 s DESCRIPTION — - -200 MC (. IN./ CONT,, O N INCREMENT > > Q I%) N) 0 fine SAND with -silt and -clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP-SM] - - - -- - I fine SAND, grey, [SPJ 10-24-26 24" 1.6 3.4 14-R R"t; . ... ; rytr.i. , ` 7-7-7 14 > c clayey fine SAND, grey, [SCJ 3-5. 11 i 5-5-5 10 f !' i I BORING TERMINATED AT 10' "DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. r 'I I , i 0 5 :1. 12 - 0 K EY TO BORING'LOGS LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART* J Sand or Gravel [SP,SW,GP,GW] Sand or Gravel with Silt UNIVERSAL, Cla [SP-SM,SP-Sc] ..... ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. SiltyorClavSand or -6'v'_.' Gravel [WS��,GM,GC] z 50 O Sand or qrdObll Silt: o-'r'C" L'� L_ML�, g.b U) CH 70 ,Silt or Clayy vitit Santi=or Gravel, 85 Silt M L CLi� -,CL,MH,CH,(jL,ON 100 so so M o 40 30 20 CL R i _, __I �,tuol 1 1 1 1 1 --3-0 4-0 —6,06,17 70 80 90P il)() LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY CHART GROUPNAMEAND SYMBOL COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS �X'X- WELL -GRADED SANDS JSWI -G WELL -GRADED GRAVELS [GW] INORGANIC SILTS SLIGHTPLASTI CITY E Eli ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS LOW PLASTICITY 101.111 t. IMLI .N. POORLY -GRADED SANDS [SP] POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS IGPI INORGANIC SILTY CLAY ? LOW PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS MEDIUM TO HIGH i [CL-My PLASTICITY [OHr- j POORLYVGRADED SANDSV WITH SILT POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH SILT' INORGANIC CLAYS LOW TO MEDIUM %T In PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC [SP-SM] lap -GM] PLASTICITY ICLI CONTENTS EPTI" "% ffl:r �,& -,G POORLY GRADED SANDS WITH CLAY 0. POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH CLAY INORGANIC SILTS HIGH PLASTICITY EMHI isp-SC] IGP [GP -GC] SILTY SANDS SILTY GRAVELS :'INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH `X ISM] IGMI ®; PLASTICITY [CH] RELATIVE DENSITY (SAND AND GRAVEL) VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 Blowstft. LOOSE - 5 to 10 Slowsift. CLAYEY SANDS CLAYEY GRAVELS MEDIUM DENSE - 11 to 30 Blowsift. DENSE- 31 to 60 BlowBlft. [SC] [GC] VERY DENSE - more than 50 BlowsM. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2487 - UNIFIED SOIL siucLAYFY SANDS- CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. [SC-SM] (SILT AND CLAY) LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK. VERY SOFT- 0 to 2 Blowalft. SOFT - 3 to 4 Blows/It. FIRM - 5 to 8 Blowalft. NOTES: STIFF - 9 to 16 Blowslft. 81 - DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE - 17 to VERY STIFF HARD -mare than 30 Blowalft. 30 Blowsift. R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER NIE - DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED -' NdTE_: DU`Aii�dElbil S:ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A.1 EXHIBITI l,_ Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. 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 be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a 'construction project. Geotechnical-Engineering ServicesAre Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients, A geotechnical-engineering study conducted 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 for a 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. 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 only. Read this report in full. 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 retainipg'walls, access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect the sites size of 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 toa 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 sites 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. This Report's Recommendations Are Confirmation -Dependent The recommendations included in this report — including any options or alternatives — are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer .confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation - dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the 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 misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation. Give ,Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you've included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may 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-twd' 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 1�H�L BUSINESS / ASSOCIATION Telephone: 301 /565-2733 e-mail: info@gdoprofessional.org wwwgeoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, Is strictly prohibited, except with GBXs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element ofa report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committint negligent