Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGEOTHECNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION11 N WANNED Gy L de MOW GEOTECHMCAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA � AACE FILE No. 18-151 RECEIVED JUL 3 12019 ST,. Lucie County, Per.mitting ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. REVIEWEbFOR CODE COMPLEANCE ST. LUCIE COUNTY 834 SW Swan Avenue BOCC Port Si. Lucie,, Florida 3,4983 Ph: 772-8017-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com I FILE Copy TABLE OF CONTENTS GE0 I ECHINIR.JAIL ENGINEERING EVALUATION TREASU IRE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE FILE No. 18-151 PAGE # 1.0 INTRODUCTION .... ............. ........................................................... * 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........... ....... 1 ...................................................... 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJEcr UNDERSTANDING ................................................... 2 3.1 Site Location and Description ......................................................... 2 3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey ......................................................... 2 3.3 Project Understanding. I ............................................................. 2 4.0 FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM ........................... ...................................... 3 Table 1 - Field Exploration Program ............. 3 5.0 OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................. 3 5.1 General Soil Conditions ............................................................. 3 5.2 Measured Groundwat Level ....................................................... 4 5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ............ ...................................... 4 Table 2 - Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results ....... 4 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM,.. ............................................................. 4 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION ......................................................... 5 ZIGeneral ............. I ............................................................. 5 Z2 Site Preparation Recommendations ................................................... 5 7.2.1 Clearing. .. ' I ............................................................. 5 7.2.2 Comn;;rtion Proce'dures ........................................................ 5 7.2.3 Fill Material and Retention Pond Excavation ....................................... 6 Z3 Building Foundation an i d Slab Design .......... : ....................................... 7 8.0 PAVEMENT RECoMMMUA I 1UN5 . . � ............................................................. 8 8.1 Flexible Pavement Design ........................................................... 8 8.2 Rigid Pavement Sections ............................................................. 8 9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TESTING FREQUENCY ...................................................... 9 10.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................ 10 Figure No. I Site Vicinity Maps Figure No. 2 Field Work Lo I cation Plan :Sh6et No. 1 de'neral Nbte� (Soil Boring, Sampling and Testing Methods) Sheets No. 2-4 Soil Boring Profiles and Exfiltration Test Results Appendix I USDA Soil Survey Information Appendix 11 CBR Test Result Appendix III 'AACE Project Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. WWW.AACEINC.COM A ri ANDERSEN ANDRE 0 GeotechnicaL Engineering Construction Materials Testing Environmental Consulting AVCON, Inc. 5555 E. Michigan Street, Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32822 TING ENGINEERS, INC. AACE File No. 18-151 May 8, 2018 Attention: Mr. Robert "Bobby" Palm, P.E. Senior Project Manager Airports GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUA ON TI TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONALAIRPORT MRO HANGAR PROJECT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA In accordance with your request and (AACE) has completed a subsurface e above referenced project. The purpos types and groundwater levels as they restrictions which these soil and groun( Our work included Standard Penett conductivity (exfiltration) testing, lal clocuments'our explorations and tests, recommendations. 1.0 INTRODUCTION uthorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. Oloration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the of performing this exploration was to explore shallow soil elate to the proposed airport improvement project, and vater conditions may place on the various project features. tion Test (SPT) borings, auger borings, soil hydraulic )ratory testing, and engineering analysis. This report resents our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and The following summary is intended to provide a brief overview of our findings and recommendations; however, the repori should be read in its entirety by the project design team members. I 0 The proposed building sites, at t I he locations explored, were found to be underlain by soils which are generally satisfactory to support the proposed airport hangar and auxiliary building construction on conventional shallow foundations. A maximum design foundation bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended for the proposed structures. a Typical pavement sections consi#ing of an asphaltic or rigid concrete wearing surface atop a calcareous base, followed by a stabilized subgrade on compacted natural soils is considered appropriate for the roject. 0 Site preparation procedures will include clearing, stripping and grubbing of all surface vegetation, organic topsoil, former pavement, etc.followed byproofrollingof buildingand pavement areas. a The groundwater table was encountered at depths of about 4 to 5 feet below the existing grades. 834 Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 3�.983 Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com i TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - IVIR0 HANGAR PROJECT AACE File No. 18-151 3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 1 3.1 Site Location and Description I Page -2- The subject site is located within the southeast portion of the Treasure Coast International Airport (TCIA), northwest of the northern' terminus of Jet Center Terrace, in St. Lucie County, Florida (within Section 29, Township 34 South and Range 40 East). A Site Vicinity Map (2017 aerial photograph) which depicts the location of the site is included on the attached Figure No. 1. The site location is further shown superimposed on the 1983 "Fort,Pierce, Florida", USGS topographic Quadrangle Map also included on Figure No. 1. The Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property as being relatively level with apprq I ximate surface elevations of 19-20 feet relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.1 . I The subject site currently consists of vacant, grass -covered land with a decommissioned asphalt - paved taxiway (Taxiway V) crossing the southern portion of the site and remnants of a former runway or taxiway crossing the northern portion of the site. 3.2 Review of USDA SoU Survey Accordingto the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the predominant surficial soil type in the areawhere the site is located is the LawnwooA and Myakka sands (USDA Mar).Unit'21) . This soil type is noted by the USDA to consist of sandy marine deposits originating from flatwood-s found on historic marine terraces, with sands present to depth in excess of 80.inches below grade. The approximate location of the s U�bject site was superimposed on an aerial photograph obtained from the USDA Web Soil Survey an, d is shown on Figure No. 1. Further, the USDA Web Soil Survey summary report is included in Appendix 1. 3.3 Project Understanding Based on our current understandi ng oT the I CIA improvement project, the following features are proposed: I A 30,000 sqft. (±) pre-eng!neered metal hangar with an estimated height of 60 feet. Approximately 4,100 sqft.bf office space and 5,500 sqft. of shop space will be constructed in connection with -the haigar (anticipated 15-20 foot building height). A 300,000-gallon ground storage tank (GST),and fire pump building. A flexible pavement section for conventional vehicle parking. Both, flexible and rigid pavement sections/alprons for aircraft traffic/parking. A stormwater retention/detention area (i.e. pond). We have not been provided with any specific structura[ info ' rmation relative to the proposed hangar and building(s); howev6r, we have made the following assumptions based on our experience from similar projects - It is assumed that the ha�ngar building will be a metal building supported on individual perimeter columns, with a''roof structure spanning from one side to the other. Maximum compression column loads are estimated to be 250 kips/column. Conventional shallow foundations will be the preferred foundation solution. Upliftforces on the structdre(s) will be countered bythe weight of the'shallow foundations as well as any overburden soils. Minimal, if any, fill will be' placed to raise the site grades. 't TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJEcT Page -3- AACE File No. 18-151 i Should any of these assumptions and/6r our understanding of the proposed project features vary significantly from the current desigri, we request that we be notified to ensure that the recommendations presented herein are suitable for the project. Details of the provided Site Plan are pr:sented as our Field Work Location Plan, Figure No. 2. 4.0 Fi LD ExPLORATION PROGRAM To explore su . bsurface conditions at the. slite, the exploration program Summarized in . Table I below was completed: I Table I - Field Exploration Program Field Work Type Standard I# of Borings Depth Below Grade [feet] Location Standard Penetration Test ASTM 10 15-30 Refer to (SPT) D1586 Figure No. 2 Auger ASTM 2 12 . Refer to I D1452 Figure No. 2 Soil Hydraulic SFWMD 1 6 Refer to Conductivity Test ERPIM(" Figure No. 2 NotetoTablel: (1)SFWMD Environmental Ourfield exploration program was coml work locations shown on Figure No. 2 provided site plan, online aerial photogr GPS instrument. Atmospheric disturba of the GPS instrument readings and the only to the degree implied by the methi the actual locations are within 15 feet rce Permit Information Manual, Volume IV (2009 Version) eted inthe period April 20through May2,2018. The'field tere determined in the field by our field crew using the phs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled -es and local weather conditions may affect the accuracy hown field work locations should be considered accurate I * of measurement used. We preliminarily anticipate that :those shown on Figure No. 2. I Summaries of AACE's field procedures are presented on Sheet No. I and the'inclividual boring and test profiles are presented on the attached on,Sheets No. 2-4. Samples obtained during performance of the borings were visuall I classified in the field, and representative portions of the Y samples were transported to our laboratory in sealed samplejars forfurther classification. The soil I samples recovered from -our explorations will be kept in our laboratory for 60 days, then discarded unless you specifically request otherwispl. 5.1 General Soil Conditions Detailed subsurface conditions are illustrOted on the soil boring profiles presented on the attached Sheets No. 2-4. The stratification of the boring profiles represents our interpretation of the field boring logs and the results of laboratory e I xaminations of th e* recovered samples. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundar I y between soil types. The a ctual transitions may be more gradual than implied. In general, atthe locations and depths ey layer of topsoil (sands with roots/organi and occasionally slightly clayey fine san lored, the majority of our soil borings encountered a thin followed by loose to moderately dense fine sands (SP) (SP-SQ. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJECT AACE File No. 18-151 Further, a thin layer of near-surfa the completed borings. Hardpan particles are cemented together typically vary in thickness from materials. Hardpan layers are oft and create a horizontal grouncl� generally considered suitable fo promote vertical infiltration withi given to overexavatingthe hardpi This is' discussed further herein. Page -4- a hardpan -type soils was encountered in approximately half of ype soils are near -surface sandy soils where the individual'soil y either calcium -carbonate or iron oxide. The hardpan layers foot to 3 feet and contain low amounts of silt and organic i relatively impervious, restrictive to vertical water infiltration, iter flow until a fracture in the hardpan occurs. Hardpan is the support of structuros/traffic and also for use as fill. To ponds and/or exfiltration trench systems, consideration can be -type soils and replacingthem with free -draining granular soils. I The above soil profile is,outlined ih! general terms only. Please refer to the attached Sheets No. 2-4 for individual soil'profil� details. 5.2 Measured Groundwater Level The groundwater table depth as encountered in the borings during the field investigations is shown adjacent to the soil profiles on th�l attached Sheets No. 2-4. As can be seen, the groundwater table was generally encountered at depths ranging from a bout 4 feet to about 5 feet below the existing ground surface, with this range likely attributed to similar, locali zied variations in site topography. Fluctuation * s in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. 5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Tielsting One (1) soil hydraulic: concluctivit�y test was performed at the locations shown on Figure No. 2. In general, the test was performedlin substantial accordance with methods described in the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual (ERPIM), Volume IV and yielded fhe' following results: Ta6le 2 - Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results Test No. I Groundwater Depth (.ft-bls) Flow Rate, Q (ds) Myd,raulic Conductivity, K (ds/sqf - ft head) EX-1 4.5 3.6 x 10-3 1.3 x 10-4 The results from Table 2 are also shown on Sheet No. 4 along with the encountered soil profile at the test location. We recommend utilizing a factor of safety of 2 when using the k-value presented herein in the design of stormwater retention and detention facilities. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Ourdrillers observed the soil recovered from the SPTsamplerand the augers, placed the recovered soil samples in moisture proof colntainers, and maintained a logforeach boring. The recovered soil samples, along with the field boring logs, were transported to' our Port St. Lucie soils laboratory where they were visually examined by AACE's project engineer to determine their engineering classification. The visual classification of the samples was performed in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, USCS. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HA:NGAR PROJEcT Page -5- AACE File No. 18-151 Further, to aid in the visual classification of the soils, representative samples were selected for I limited index laboratory testing, consist,ing.of "percent fines" tests (defined as the percent, by dry weight, of soil passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, ASTM D1140), moisture content tests (ASTM D2216), and organic content �ests (ASTM D2974). The soil classifications and other pertinent data obtained from our explorations and laboratory examinations and tests are reported on the soil profiles presented on Sheets No. 2-4. Finally, as requested, one sample of n6ar-surface sands was collected from within the proposed apron area for the purpose of performing a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test (ASTIVI D1883) on the sample. The sample was obtained �following removal of the upper 6 inches (±) of topsoil and was composited from a depth of about�6 inches to about 18 inches below grade. The result of the CBR test is included in Appendix 11. ZI General Based on the findings of our site e ju , dgment based on our experience wil site are generally satisfactory to suop, on conventional shallow foundations. near -surface soils should be improve performance, The general soil impro, building sites site with a heavy vibrati loration, our evaluatio ' n of subsurface conditions, and similar projects, we conclude that the soils underlying this t the proposed hangar and auxiliary building construction lowever, in our opinion, the bearing capacity of the loose in order to reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation ment we recommend includes proofrolling the individual i roller. Following are specific recommendations for site preparation procedures, foundation design, and pavement systems for the project. I . 7.2 Site Preparation 7.2.1 Clearing The site surface should be cleared, g former taxiway remnants. 7.2.2 Compaction Procedures Following clearing, the proposed buildin' (minimum) vibratory roller; any soft, yiel clean, compacted backfill that conforn should be made during the proofrollin percent of the modified Proctor (ASTIVI to depths of 2 feet below the compa whichever is lower. in any case, the bui overlapping passes, half of them in eact and stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, trash, debris and , 7 and pavement areas should be proofrolled with a'10 ton ling soils detected should be excavated and replaced with is with the recommendations below. Sufficient passes u operations to produce dry densities not less than 95 D1557) maximum dry density of the compacted material -ted surface, or 2 feet below the bottom of footings, ding and pavement areas should receive not less than 10 I of two perpendicular directions. After the exposed surface has been proofrolled and tested to verify that the desired dry density F has been obtained, the building and pavement areas may be filled to the desired grades. All fill material should conform to the recomm e1ndations below. It should be placed in uniform layers not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. �Each layer should be compacted to a dry density not less than 95 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTIVI D1557) maximum value. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - M 0HANGARPROJEcT AACE File No. 18-151 Page -6- After completion of the general 'site preparations discussed above, the bottom of foundation excavations dug through the compacted natural ground, fill or backfill, should be compacted so as to densify soils loosened during orl after the excavation process, or washed or sloughed into the excavation prior to the placement of forms. A vibratory, wa lk-be hind plate compactor can be used forthisfinal clensification immediately priortothe placementof reinforcing steel, with previously described density requirements to' be maintained below the foundation level. Following removal of foundation forrhs, backfill around foundations should be placed in lifts six inches or less in thickness, with each lift individually compacted with a plate tamper. The'backfill should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTIVI D-1857) maximum dry density. I Al I fil I materia I under the buildingsland pavement should consist of clean sands free of organics and other deleterious materials. The fill material should have not more than 12 percent by dry weight passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and no particle larger than 3 inches in diameter. Backfill behind walls, if any, should be particularl' pervious, with not more than 4 percent by dry weight passing y the U.S. #200 sieve. I During the excavation forthe dry detention pond on the northern section of the site, the following soils will likely be encountered: Organic topsoil is not considered suitable for use as any�type of fill othertha,n in landscaped areas, or other non-structural areas. Fine sands (SP) should be� suitable to serve as fill soils and with proper moisture control should densify using conventional compaction equipment. Soils obtained from below the water table may require time to dry sufficiently. However, these materials should be suitable for relatively unrestricted use as fill and roadway embankment. Slightly clayey fine sand (S I P-SC) is suitable for structural fill, but will likely be more difficult to compact due to their inherent nature to retain excess soil moisture. If the use of slightly clayey soils is desired, it may be necessary to stockpile these soils in order for them to drain. Thinner lifts (perhaps 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness) may be required for placement and compaction of these soils. Further, it.may become necessary to mix these soils with drier, cleaner gr0nular sands prior to placement to increase the "workability" of these soils. Approximately half of our borings encountered a thin, near -surface layer of weakly cemented dark brown/brbwn fine sands with minor amounts of silt and organics, locally known as hardpan -type s6ils. This hardpan stratum may be significantly more'c,emented and hard in areas not explored. While hardpan is generally suitable for use as a fill material, hardpan -type soils can be challenging for several reasons: Hardpan can be difficult to excavate, often requiring special equipment, especially in confined excavations such as utility trenches. Excavated hardpan -type soils are often bould6r-size chunks of cemented soilswhich are not easily broken down for re -use as structural fill. When pulverized into fragments that can be compacted to an adequately dense matrix, the in -place soil often fails the relative compaction test because during laboratory preparation, the soil is pulverized into smaller particles, resulting in a denser laboratory matrix than that which occurs in.the field. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HA I NGAR PROJECT Page -7- AACE File No. 18-151 With respect to the proposed sto.... I water retention pond, the hardpan -type soils are often relatively impervious and create a horizontal groundwater flow until a fracture in the hardpan occurs. Consideration can be given to overexcavating such hardpan -type soils from within the proposed stormwater pond areas.so a's to facilitate a more rapid drainage, if needed. Backfill in the retention areas should consist of Olee-draining sandy materials with fines content less than 4 percent by dry weight passing the.U.S. N o. 200 sieve. The backfill should be placed in level lifts of 12-18 inches and receive some measure of compaction which likely can be accomplished by overlapping travel paths of loaded earthmoving equipment. The depth of this overexcavation will be dependent upon the pond design. 1, 7.3 Building Foundation and Slab After the fou n dation soils have been prc for supporting the proposed hangar conventional shallow foundations prop per square foot [psfl, or less. To provid the subsoils, all continuous foundations footings should have a minimum width inches below adjacent outside final gra Based upon the boring information an recommended allowable bearing stres! against bearing capacity failure. Wit constructed as recommended, we antic settlement between adjacent similarly Ii of the granular nature of the subsurfaCE construction; post -construction settlen )ared as recommended above, the site should be suitable uilding, water tank and pump house construction on )rtioned for an allowable bearing stress of 2,500 pounds an adequate factor of safety against a shearing failure in hould be at least 18 incheswide, and all individual column If 36 inches. Exterior foundations should bear at least 24 es. i the assumed loading conditions, we estimate that the will provide a minimum factor of safety in excess of two I the site prepared and the foundations designed and pate total settlements of one inch or less, and differential aded footings of less than one -quarter of an inch. Because soils, the majority of the settlements should occur during ent should be minimal. I We recommend that representatives of AACE inspect a I I footing excavations in order to verify that footing bearing conditions are consisten' t with expectations. Foundation concrete should not be cast over a fo briclation surface containing topsoil or organic soils, trash of any kind,.surface made muddy by rainfall runoff, or groundwater rise, or loose soil caused by excavation or other construction work. Reinforcing steel sh oluld also be clean at the time of concrete casting. If such conditions develop during construction, ihe reinforcing steel must be lifted out and the foundation surface reconditioned and approved by AACE. After the ground surface is proofrolled apd filled, if necessary, as recommended in this report, the floor slab can be placed directly on the prepared subgrade. For design purposes, we recommend using a subgrade reaction modulus of 26opounds per cubic inch (pci) for the compacted shallow sands. In our opinion, a highly porous base material is not necessary. We recommend to use a minimum of 10 mil polyolefin film as the main component of a vapor barrier system. I TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MliO HANGAR PROJECT AACE File No. 18-151 8.1 Flexible Pavement Design Page -8- We recommend a standard -duty (2,0-year design life) pavement section consisting of an asphaltic concrete wearing surface on a cakareous base course supported on stabilized subbase over well - I compacted subgrade. I After clearing and proofro'lling the site surface as previously recommended, the surficial soils should be suitable to' support the pavement sections. The embankment material should be compacted to a 'dry density of 98.percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 orAASHTOT-180) maximu m dry density of the compacted soil to a depth of one foot below the surface. The subbase material to 6 depth of 12 inches should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) vailue (FDOT I'M 5-515).of 40 and it should.be compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 orAASHTOT-180) maximum drydensity. The surficial fine sand (SP) on this site does not appear to have the required LBR value and may require mixing. I The base course may consist of crushed limerock or coq,uina and should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (1-611) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 100. We recommend a base course at least 8 inches thick for �standard pavements which may be placed and compacted in a single layer. All base.cou,rse material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its modified Proctor maximup dry density. We recommend an FDOT'Type S-1 asphaltic wearing surface. It should have a Marshall stability not less than 1000 pounds. We recommend a wearing surface 2 inches thick on standard pavement. Carelmust be exercised to place the asph'altover dry, well primed base material. I The above recommendations should provide high quality flexible pavement. lfgreaterriskof more fr6quent pavement maintenanceland repairis acceptable, then the above recommendations could. be relaxed somewhat. We remain available for additional consultations relative to the desired pavement system. &2 Rigid Pavement Design Rigid pavements, (for aircraft apron/taxiway, not runway) should have a similar embankment, j subbase and base section as for,the flexible pavement presented above (see Section 8.1). Note thatit is assumed that a maximum aircrafttire contract pressure of 200 psiwill be subjected tothe rigid pavement. The base course surface should be saturated immediately prior to concrete placement to provide adequate moisture for curing of the concrete. We recommend an eight -inch thick pavement sectionof reinforced Portland cementconcrete (reinforcement to bedesigned by others to control and provide for tensile capacity and load transfer between adiacent slabs). The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 5,000 psi. For the recommended concrete�� thickness, construction control joints should be placed no more than 15 feet apart in either direction and should be at least one -quarter of the thickness of the concrete. They should be cut as soon as the concrete will support the crew and equipment (8 to 12 hours). The concrete should be cured by moist curing or by application of a liquid curing compound. I I I TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJEcT Page -9- AACE File No. 18-151 We recommend establishing a comprehensive quality control program to verify that all site preparation and foundation and pavement construction is conducted in accordance with the appropriate plans and specifications. �ate.rials testing and inspection services should be provided by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. An experienced engineering technician should monitor all stripping and grubbing efforts, and observe the pro.of-rolling operations'tcl, verify that the appropriate number of passes are applied to the subgrade. In -situ density tests should be conducted during filling activities and, below all footings, floor slabs and pavement area's to verify that the required densities have been achieved. In -situ density values should be cornpa�ed to laboratory Proctor moisture -density results for each of the different natural and fill soils encountered. Finally, we recommend inspecting and testing the construction materials for the foundations and other structural components. I In Southeast Florida, earthwork testing is typically performed on an on -call basis when the contractor has completed a portion of �the work. The test result from a specific location is only representative of a larger area if the contractor has used consistent means and methods and the soils and lift thicknesses are practicall' uniform throughout. The frequency of testing can be y increased and full-time construction inspection can be provided to account for variations. We recommend that the following minimum testing frequencies be utilized: . I In proposed parking areas, a minimum frequency of one in -place density test for each 5,000 square feet of area should be 6sed. The existing, natural ground should be tested to a I depth of 12 inches at the prescribed frequency. Each 12-inch lift of fill, as well as the stabilized subgrade (where applicable) and base should be tested at this frequency. Drainage and utility piping backfi,ll should betested ata minimum frequencyof one in -place density test for each 12-inch lift for each 200 lineal feet of pipe. Additional tests should be performed in backfill for manholes, structures, inlets, etc. In proposed structural areas, thi one test foreach 2,000-square - performed at this minimum frei every 1-foot lift of fill placed in performed in each column fool continuous or wall footings, den one test for every 50'lineal fee surface. Representative samples of the various r (where applicable) and base materials s Proctor compaction tests. These tests moisture content for the materials test( in -place density tests to determine the i minimum frequency of in -place densitytesting should be !et of structural area. In -place density testing should be Liency for a depth of 2 feet below natural ground and for Lhe structural area. In addition, density tests should be ng for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing surface. For ity tests should be performed at a minimum frequency of of footing, and for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing ural ground and fill soils, as well as stabilized subgrade )uId be obtained and transported to our laboratory for ill determine the maximum dry density and optimum and will be used in conjunction with the results of the, gree of compaction achieved. I . TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -10- AACE File No. 18-151 10.0 CLOSURE The geotechnical evaluation submitted herein is based on the data obtained from the soil boring and test profiles presented on Sheets 'No. 1 and 2, and our, understanding of the project as previously described. Limitations and conditions to this report are presented in Appencli� 111. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices for the exclusive use of AVCCIN, Inc. and St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners for the subject pro' ject; No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We are pleased to be of assistance to you on t . his phase of your project. When we may be of I further service to you br'should you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, ANDERSEN ANDRE pi�l I �tS, INC. Certificate of Autb KF\i3OiR0V4 No-57956 S TATE OF: JAI' Peter G. And"' p,P.E. I David P. An'dre, P.E. 4r- - Principal Engi*,�j,-:prgfJV) Principal Engineer' Fla. Reg. No. Fla. Reg. No. 53969 PGA/DPA:pa ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. WWW.AACEINC.COM A k LEGEND HA FTB-#] Standard Penetration Test Boring FE_X _-# 1 m SFWMD Exfiltration Test FA_B_-#j 4 W A Solid -Stem Auger Boring FC_B__R_1 CEIR Sample Location 39 CBR NOTE Shown and noted field work locations are approximate. All field work locations were located using the provided boundary and topographic survey, obtained aerial photographs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled GPS instrument. Atmospheric disturbances and and local weather conditions may affect the accuracy of the GPS instrument readings. As such, the shown field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of NOT TO SCALE measurement used. Figure No. 2 Source: Site Plan/Geotechnical Exhibit prepared by AVCON (dated March 2018) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Dram by: PGA Dat :May 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Cha.kd by: DPA Date: May 2018 834 SW Smn Avenue. Part St Lucie, FL 34903 772-807-9191 v­vAACEInc.com FIELD WORK LOCATION PLAN MRO HANGAR PROJECT certificate of Authorization No. 26794 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE File Nw. 18-151 Figure No. 2 SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS (abbreviated version for project specific methods and soil conditions) GENERAL Anderson Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. JAACE) borings describe subsurface conditions I only at the locations drilled and at the time drilled. They provide no Information about subsurface conditions below the bottom of the bomholes. At locations not explored, surface conditions that differ from those observed In the borIng5 may allot and should be anticipated. The Information reported an our boring logs Is based an our ddllem' logo and on visual examination In our laboratory of disturbed sell samples recovered from the borings. The distinction shovan on the logs between soil types Is approximate only. The actual transition from on, soil to another may be gradual and Indistinct. The groundwater depth shown on our boring logs Is the water level the driller observed In the borehole when It was drilled. These water levels may have been Influenced by the drilling procedures, especially In borings made by rotary drilling with bentorritic drilling mud. An accurate determination of groundwater twat requires long-term observation of suitable monitoring welle. Fluctuations In groundwater levels throughout the year should be anticipated. The absence of a grou ndwater level on certain logs Indicates that no groundwater data Is milable. It does not mean that groundwater will not be encountered at that baring location I some other point In time. SOLID -STEM AUGER BORINGS Auger borings (ASTM D1452) ard, used when a relatively large, continuous sampling of Sell strata dose to the "Ic"nal—facel.d.stred. A44nch (100 mm) diameter, con0nuous Right. hellcal auger with . cutting head at its end is screwed into the ground In 5-foot (1.5m) sections. It Is powered by the rotary drill rig. The sample Is re —red by withdrawing the auger our of the ground Wthout minding It. The sell sample so obtained, Is clawifled In the field and representative samples placed In bags or jam and returned to the AACE sells laboratory for dassl0callon and testing. If necessary. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST The Standard Penetration Test (SIFT) Is a widely accepted method of In situ testln g of foundation sells (ASTM D-1586). A 2-foot (0.6m) long, 24nch (SDmm) O.D. spIlt-barrall sampler attached to the end of a String of drilling rude 1. driven 24 Inch.. (0.60m) Into the gmund by successive blows of a 140-pound (63.5 Kg) hammer freely dropping 30 Inches (0.76m). The number of blows needed for each 6 Inches (0.15m) Increments penetration Is ..ended. Th�.u..fth�bl—.qui.df.,p�.�t,.ti..�fth�.Iddi.t.�64..h(O.15.I I.C...nt.ofpsnetmtton�natitutest a test result ofhl�value. After the test the sampler [a ,abraded from the ground and opened to allow visual description of the retained soil sample. The N.wduo has been empirically correlated with various Sell properties allowing a c,,semtiv estimate of the behavior of soils under load. The following tables relato Ropm,antathe spllt�apucn WepW, fm, ,ch ,,pU,g Interval and from dIffeent mits am brought 1, our prior m,g,,,nt Inure ba- made. SFWMD EJ(FILTRATION TESTS (USUAJ_ CONDITION TEST) 1. Nor 1. Me hydraulic ...d.clNity of the up,., all., comItamt h..d or falling head .011raft. test. can be p.,Wmr.d. Th... .Is .. Wrf - - - d In rol-ce with tred. d ... rlbed 1. Iha South Field. We., M .. Sam— Diann. (SFWMD) Permit Informed.. Manuel. Val... IV. 1. brief. for the 'Usual Con,dru.. Test', . 6 to 9 W.h diameter hole 1. u,..d to depth. of about 5 to 7 feet the Whom ... feet 1. fiffed with 57.t.r.; and . G.f,,t [,,a lotted PVC pipe Is I—rad Into the hole. "a distance from We gmundoe- WbW.nd to he ground :urf2 , le mwM,d,,d the hole 1, Iran saturated for 10 onInufts with Me water lavel maintained at the ground rf.— If a constant head test Is porf—ad. Me rate ef pumpl,g UI be meard,d at Rwd late-1, f I I,uta for a total of 10 Inute,, following the sadurefl- pentad. LABOMTORYTESTMETHODS Son arnples returned to the AACE .,R, laboratory am ],,any be ... d by a g-le,hrical rgle..r or a trained el., as de ... d r—eary to old In oil of—libmt1w, and I. help dftne eniprumdag pmperdes of the salls. Yb, wearace—d. -cept that grain she ffl,tdbuU ....... kdad other foot result, may be presented on separate tables, figures or plate, a, disc —ad In this report. Th, oil de-ripflons IWvm on the W9, am based upon A-1—ru.1 pro dome In a­�­ with local practice. 3.11 d ... lqwU,, Is pod—ed In a ... mi ,=Man,, with Me W, Und Sell Cl ... Rican- System (ASTM 0,24ST) ad 1. We — an preced.... r' r1% %J J r- %,, I N v I L. 3 : TH-# STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT1. BORING (ASTM 01586) AB-# AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) EX-0 SFWMD SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXIFILTRATION) TEST N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT XIC-7T GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED EO8 END OF BORING BILS BELOW LAND SURFACE SP, SP-SC. ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS3 USCS GROUPS DETERMINED BY VISUAL CLASSIFICATION EXCEPT FOR NOTED LABORATORY TESTS MC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT (ASTM 02216) -200 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE [PERCENT FINES] (ASTM D1140) OC ORGANIC CONTENT (ASTM 2974) DRILL CREW FIRM: DTH & AACE DRILL CREW CHIEF: PT —DRILL-RIG:-MOBILE-B-57-AND-DIEDRICH D-25- DRILLING METHOD: ROTARY-WASH/BENTONITE SLURRY CASING: NOT NEEDED HAMMER TYPE: SAFETY/MANUAL BORINGS ADVANCED W. HAND AUGER 0-4' IN ALL BORINGS FOR UTILITY CLEARANCE THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA For u.. with the ASTM 0­24 7 trained Sell M.M.U.n S.W. CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES BOULDERS (,12' [300 MMII and COBBLES Is" [75 MMI TO 12" 1300 MMIJ: GRAWL:C.... Gravel: WV (19 nuan) to 3' (75 —) Ff.. Gravel: N. 4 (4.75 man) Steve to 314'(19 reer) D.orhAt—d]-tives: 0.5% - no mention of gm,,l 1, description 5.15-A tmce 15-29% - owes 30.42% - S—ally (0,13. G.—I, ­­" ­dft) SANDS: — N�lu­ to a qualitative description of soil density for coheslonless Colre,lcud— Sell.: N-Value Description 0 h;4 Vdry_L0..a___ sells: COAPSE SAND: No. 10 (2 aran) Steve t, No. 4 (4.75 rare) 51— MEDIUM SAND: No. 40 (425 Arn) SWvo te Ne. 10 (2 amn) Slavo FTNE SAND: Ne. 200 (75 Itm) SW" to No. 40 (425 /,1,) ST- --4to-ifl—L—so 0.5% --ti—feendled—lpflon 10to30 Medium dense 5-15% 30 to 50 Dense Is-"% Above 50 Very done. 30-49% sandy SILTM"Y.- < #200 Slava Cohesive Solis: N-V.Iuo Description RU 0t02 Vo soft ly Below 015 tarf (25 kPa) SILTYORSILM PI�4 2 t04 Soft 0.25 to 0.50 tsf (25 to 50 kPa) SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY. 4 _-� PI _� 7 4 to 8 Medium stiff 0.50 to 1.0 tsf (50 to 100 CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI N 1 kPa) 8 to 15 Stiff 1.0 to 2.0 tsf (100 to 200 kPa) 15 to 30 Very stiff 2.0 to 4.0 tef (200 to 400 kPa) Above 30 Hard Above 4.0 taf (400 kPa) The tests am usually performed at 5 feat (1.5m) Intervals. However, mom frequent or Continuous testing Is done by AACE through depths whers , mom accurate definition of the soils'. required. The test holes am advanced to the test elevations by rotary drilling with a cutting W using circulating fluid to remove the cuttings and hold the flne grains In susp,21on. The circulating fluid. which Is bontanIfic, drilling mud, Is also used to keep the hole op n below the water table by maintaining an excess hydrostatic pressure Inside the hole. In some soil deposits, particularly Idahly pervious ones, 11-h—upled castnit must be driven to just above the testing depth to keep the hole open and/or prevent the loss of circulating fluid. After completion of a test borings, the hole Is kept open until a steady atat. amndwa"r level Is recorded. The hole Is then sealed by backililing, either with accumulated c ngs or loan cement. D—rWil. adW.0 — ­5% -Cie. m,,tl,,,f,ift,r,l,yl,d,,cdpti,nI 3.15% -.11ghtly 16-35% :clayey' vIftyw.Iftydy.y 36-4� v.ry ORGANICSOILS: OrgaeWContent cm.01.U.. 0 -24% Usually no mention of am. See Abe- 2.0.5% slightly organic add 'with Monte fine,' 1, group n,,o 5.30% organic SM th,rg-leflnes OMnc faft (OL) O=:. Cray (OL) On! nsnt (OR) Organic Clay (OH) SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: TOPSOIL FINE SAND (SP) FINE SAND (SP) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS [HARDPAN —TYPE] SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION D.— by: PGA Date: May 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Checked by: DPA Date: May 20 834 SW Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucia, FIL 34983 772-807-9191 wvnv.AACEInc.conn GENERAL NOTES MRO HANGAR PROJECT � E Certificate of Authorttatioun No. 26794 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE File No: 18451 Sheet I I k 0 r 5 F 10 15 20 251- 30 L TB-1 TB-2 TB-3 TB-4 TB-5 DATE� 05/01/10 DATE: 05/01/16 DATE; 05/02/18— DATE: 05/02/18 DATE: 05/02/18 NN N N N ................................ TOPSOIL ...................... TOPSOIL .......... I ....... TOPSOIL .......................... - TOPSOIL 0 CRAY FINE SAND (SP) GRAY FINE SAND (SP) GRAY FINE SAND (SP) DK. GRAY/GRAY FINE SAND (SP) ri. GRAY FINE SAND (SP) DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) L�2p� 4 REDDISH BROWN WEAKLY C EMENTED FINE SAND (SP). T/O SILT DK. BROWN/REDDISH-BROWN ON. BROWN/REDDISH-BROWN DK. BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED FINE SAND (SP). T/O SILT A_ BROWN FINE SAND (SP) FINE SAND (SP) 5.0'm 4 FINE SAND (SP) 4`1�77 4 PF9"'P�. ........................... MC 23 . ............................. .. . . .. . .................. ....... _'�NR 5 [0�j .j 6 _' TAN SL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) a DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) -2 0. 3 OC: 2 __ 7 _ " . 7. GRAY SL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) __jj__j 7 [!260: TAN SL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) 2 TAN FINE SAND (SP) 9 -------- .... 6 ' . ' . ' . ' . I .. GREEN -GRAY FINE SAND (SP) .. ... .... ... T/O CLAY 9 9 . ... .. 7- ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ -TAN/_LT.- . ..................... .................................... .................................. ............................ - 10 BROWN-F-INE SAND. (SP) I a TAN FINE SAND (SP) .......... ..................................... ..................................... f"." I BROWN/DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) .................................. DK. BROWN SAND (SP) TAN/LT. 13ROWN SAND (SP) TAN/LT. BROWN SAND (SP) ................................... ..................................... ............................ d 15 ................................... .................................... .................................... BROWN/DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) BROWN/DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ..... REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 1 4 10 SL ........................................................................................................................................... .................................... REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) REDDISH -BROWN FINE.SAND (SP) REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ..... ..... 6- BROWN FINE SAND (SP) I D. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) 3- GRAY FINE SAND (SP). 5- DK. GRAY FINE SAND (SP) T/O SHELL FROM ............ 0 30' 0 30' BILS EOS 0 30' BILS EOS 0 30' OLS E 0 B SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: TOPSOIL TO—# STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT1 BORING (ASTM D1586) FINE SAND (SP) AS—# EX—# IN AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) SFW`MD SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXIFILTRATION) TEST SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT FINE SAND (SP) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS [HARDPAN —TYPE] raW BLS GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED END OF BORING BELOW LAND SURFACE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) SP. SP—SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS] ............................ 120 REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ........................... 125 GRAY FINE SAND (SP) ........................... GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Drawn by: PDA a ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DPA 1 834 SWSmn Avenue, Part St Lucle, FL 34983 772-807-9191 wwwAACEInc.ci SOIL BORING PROFILES MRO HANGAR PROJECT Cardficate af Auth.d.sti.. N.. 26794 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA :18-151 Sheet No. 2 T8-6 TB-7 TB-8 TS-9 TB-10 DATE: 05/02/18 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 0 N N .................. N N ................... N .......................... 0 YdpSb(L TOPSOIL f6pkfi. ce TOPSOIL TOPSOIL GRAY FINE SAND (SP) ,.,...,._GRAY FINE SAND (SP) GRAY FINE SAND (SP) rz- GRAY FINE SAND (SP) `x" GRAY/DK. GRAY FINE SAND (SP) UK. BROWN/REDDISH-BROWN DK. BROWN/REDDISH-BROWN REDD SH BROWN WEAKLY CEMENT ED ISAND z . .... F INE SAND (SP) Z- FINE SAND (SP) OK. SROWH/REDDISH -BROWN Z- FINE (SP), T/O SILT 4.3' FINE SAND (SP) 4-5�- REDDISH BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED 5 P N �HA`PP. .77p�! ....... T ... 4 BROWN FkNjE. S4�Q ......... ..... ...................... ... ; , ........ ......... .. FINE SAND (StP)tHT/ SILT RO f/d hbOTS 0 BROWN FINE SAND (SP) MC: 25 r- AND URWIC A bI`AW-:1YPEj LT. GRAY SL CLAYEY 1 -200: 5 r FINE SAND (SP-SC) LT. GRAY FINE SAND (SP). L021 3 T/O CLAY AND ROOTS DK. BROWN FINE SA NO (SP) 10 TAN FINE SAND (SP) ................................. .................. . ................ TAN/LT. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ................................ TAN FINE SAND (SP) ................... N FINE SAND (SP) . il:�yii .............. 10 NO (SP-SC) I I TAN FINE SAND (SP) .................................... .. ...................... .................................. .............. 15 ................................. 1�613 0 15' ki... * ......... EOB 0 15' BLS- 20 L .......... R . ED . DIS . H . BROWN . FINE . S . A . N . D . (S . P . ) .......... 9 OWN FINE SAND (SP) 25 ........ -1�11 .............. E013 0 25' ki' ......... EOS 0 BROWN/DX. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) .......................... 8 . R . OW . N . Fl . N . E . SAND . (SP) ................................................................ ......... ............... 120 REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ........ M!EDOISH-BROWN FINE SAND (SP) .................... E . 0 . 8 0 25' B . LS ..................... I .............................................................................. 25 30 L ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... J 30 SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND:' NOTES: TOPSOIL TO-# STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPTI BORING (ASTM DIS86) AS-# AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) FINE SAND (SP) EX # SFW D SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXFILTRATION) TEST - MI N SPT RESISTANCE IN SLOWS PER FOOT EaW. GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT 13ELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED FINE SAND (SP) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS END OF BORING [HARDPAN —TYPE] BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) SP, SP-SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALU ION D P.- Date: May 2018 ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT �Chak.11`111. DP� Date: May 2018 834 SW Smn Avenue, Part St. Lucia, FL 34983 772-807.9191 v­AACEInc.com SOIL BORING PROFILES MRO HANGAR PROJECT Certificate of Authorization No. 26794 CE rile No: 18-151 Sheet No. 3 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA I I 1 4 AG-1 AB-2 EX-1 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/02/18 0 ............................ ... ................. ....... ......... .... *­* ........ ............... ................ .......... TopsbiC* t6ftdic TbP§6iL* 1-260: 3 OC: 2 1 CRAY FINE SAND (SP). 1-26 2 I CRAY FINE SAND (SP). -------- T/O ROOTS ---- T/O ROOTS GRAY FINE SAND (SP) 4.8' k� _DK. BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED FINE SAND (SP), DK. BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED FINE SAND (SP). T/O SILT ' 5 .................. I MC: 22 DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) .............. ....... ";C. 39 Sly� ��?.ORCANICS [HARDPAN —TYPE] . . ...............................................................I 4.WW —AND ORGANICS [HARDPAN —TYPE] 2FO� C rj BROWN FINE SAND S P) BMW ME 9ANd (90) ........... ............. REDDISH —BROWN FINE SAND (SP) — ----- ...... rM_C__2i__'- —LT. GRAY SIL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP�SC) 1-200: 4 11 71, GREEN —GRAY SL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC) EOB 0 6' BLS 11-206 --- I I — OC: LOC: 10 ....................................... .... -TAN/GRAY- FINE -SAND (SP) ............................... TAN -FINE SAND - (SP) .......................... EOB 0 12' BILS E08 0 12' BLS 151 .............................................................. ................................................................. SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES: TOPSOIL TB—# STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPTI BORING (ASTM DIS86) AB-0 AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452) FINE SAND (SP) EX—# SFWMD SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXFILTRATION) TEST N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED FINE SAND (SP) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS E8W END OF BORING [HARDPAN —TYPE] BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE: SAND (SP—SC) SP, SP—SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CUSCS] TEST SUMMARY (EX—IL- �3 ...................................... =­�.WO CFS d = 0.5 FT H2 = 4.5 FT Ds = 1. 5 FT ............... 0 5 ................ J15 EXFILfIRATION TEST CONFIGURATION (Not To Scal.) _ _K HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY 0 STABIUZEb7FLOW—RATE d DIAMETER OF TEST HOL H2 HYDROSTATIC COLUMN DS SATURATED HOLE DEPTH (BY GWT) NOTE: IF 0. GWT NOT ENCOUNTERED K 40 �d(2q+41�%+I�cl) H2 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION 2 b 'PGA 12 1 a! ANDEtnANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. � SOIL BORING PROFILES AND TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT C�ha_:_..dyb� _DP A aa—le: !.,-2! n Avenue, Part St. Lucia, Fl. 34983 772-807-9191 �AACEIncxonn Certificate of Authorization No. 26794 EXIFILTRATION TEST RESULT MRO HANGAR PROJECT V11111=111111 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE File No: 18-151 Sheet A, PPENDIX I USDA Soil� Survey Information. 27- 29'39r N 27- 2Y27N 3: Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (TC [A rem 5UM W780 5EM 58M 5MI40 Map Scale: 1:2,680 ff printed on A landscape (11!'x 83) sheet Mebers N 0 35 70 140 210 — -Feet 0 100 200 400 600 A Map projecdon: Web Mercator Comer oDordinates: WG584 Edge tics: UrM Zone 17N WGS84 usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 513/2018 Page 1 of 3 3 Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida (TCIA) MAPLEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOQ Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI) Stony Spot 1:24,000. Soils Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. F-1 Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Soil Map Unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of 13 Soil Map Unit Points Special Line Features contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed Special Point Features scale. Wo Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot Rails Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service 0 Closed Depression +4_4 Web Soil Surve LIRL: ---~—Interstate-Highways-- Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit PR20 US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravelly Spot Major Roads projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Landfill LocalRoads Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more A. Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required. Background Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida 0 Miscellaneous Water SurveyAreaData: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017 Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales Rock Outcrop 1:50,000 or larger. + Saline Spot Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar 20,2017 Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were 4g� Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor Sinkhole shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Slide or Slip Sadic Spot usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey - 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida Map Unit Legerid Map Unit. Symbol Mapmnit.Name Acres in API Percent of AOI' 21 Lawnwood and Myakkp sands 30.3 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 30.3 100.0% TCIA LISDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Luci-i County, Florida St. Lucie County, F16rida 21—Lawnwoo'd and Myakka sands Map Unit Setting National map unit s bot 1jpvg Elevation: 20 to 200 feet Mean annual precipitation: 49 to 58 inches Mean annual air temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F Frost -free period: 360 to 365 days Farmland classificat'lon: Farmland of unique importance Map Unit Composition � Lawnwood and similar soils: 40 percent Myakka and similar soils: 40 percent Minor components: 120 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Lawn �d Setting 71 Landform: Marine terraces on flatwoods Landform positionj (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Sandy marine deposits Typical profile A - 0 to 8 inches: and E - 8 to 28 inches:1 sand Bh I - 28 to 52 inches: sand Bh2 - 52 to 58 inc4es: sand C - 58 to 80 inches,: sand Properties and qualitie's Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restricti' , feature: 10 to 31 inches. to ortstein Natural draina e class: Poorly drained Runoff class: . ig I Capacity of the mo I t limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water tab�e: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency ofpondin : None 1 9 Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 I to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption Iratio, maximum in profile: 4. 0 Available water storage in profile: Wry low (about 0.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified TCIA USDA Natural Resources I Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperall e Soil Survey Page I of 3 1 Y Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St, Lucie County, Florida TCIA Land capa6flity classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic 'Soil Group: A/D Forage suitability group: Sandy soils on flats. of mesic or hydric lowlands (G156BC141FL) Hydric soil 'rating: No Description of MyAka Setting Landform: j 'Flatwoods on ma�ine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slop I e shape: Convex. Across -slope shape: Linear Parent maierial., Sandy marine deposits Typical profilej A - 0 to 7 Inches: sand E - 7 to 27� inches: sand Bh - 27 to 138 inches: sand C - 38 to 80 inches: sand Properties andl qualities Slope: 0 to 2 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural dralinage class: 136orly drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water ffsat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequenc� of ponding: None Salinity, Maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.01 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0 Available �water storage in profile: Low (about 4.5 inches) I Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated), 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: AID Forage suitability group: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric lowlainds (GI56BC141FL) Hydrid soil rating: No Minor Componeints Ankona. I Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down-sl9pe shape: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No usDA Natural Resources . Web Soil Survey . 5/3/2D1 8 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 -4 Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands —St. Lucie County, Florida Electra Percent of map Lit: '7 percent Landform: Knolls on marine terraces, rises on marine terraces Landform positid I I n (three-dimensional): lnterfl uve Down -slope shape. Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil ratingi- No Waveland Percent of map unit: 6 percent Landform: Flatwolods on marine terraces Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf Down -slope shaple: Convex Across -slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating.- No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida SurveyAreaData: Version 10,�Oct6,2017 TCIA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 APPENDIX 11 CBR Test Result wood. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST RESULTS 115 Moisture vs. Density 113 109 L 107 105 --- I 5 7 9 11 13 15 Moisture Content Moisture vs. CBR Value 100.0 80.0 7- > 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Moisture Content Material Description: Brown Fine SAND Test Results Optimum N oisture (%):, 11 - 0 Maximum Ory Density (pco: �,11 J Maximum CBR Value: 1'3'.3., 1 at.100" deflection (Notgraphed) Maximum d1BR Value: at.200" deflection PROJECT NAME: TCIA MRO Hangar Project PROJECT NO.: 6738-16-5485 CLIENT: AACE DATE TESTED: 51512018 SAMPLE No.: CBR #1 TEST METHOD: ASTM LOCATION: St. Lucie County, FL PERFORMED BY: C R/YJ d gf . k1. 7M MiclIaEll J. Holtn, PE -a STATE OF 'A .0 Florida ional En%n-ft 9,fV63 9 0 SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND -TESTING METHODS GENERAL Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) borings describe subsurface conditions only at I the locations drilled and at the time drilled. They provide no information about subsurface conditions below the bottom of thle boreholes. At locations not explored, surface conditions that differ from those observed in the borings may exist and should be anticipated. The information reported on our b I bring logs is based on our drillers'logs-and on visual examination in our laboratory of disturbed soil samples recovered from the borings. The distinction shown on the logs between soil types is approximate only. The actual transition from one soil to another may be gradual and indistinct. The groundwater depth shown o I n our boring logs is the water level the driller observed in the borehole when it was drilled. These water levels may have been influenced by the drilling procedures, especially in borings made by rotary drilling with bentonitic drilling mud. Anaccurate determination of groundwater le I el requires long-term observation of suitable monitoring wells. Fluctuations in grour '!�s throughout the year should be anticipated. The absence of a groundwater level on certain logs indicates that no groundwaterdata is available. It does not mean that groundwater will not be encountered at that boring location at some other point in time. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST The Standard Penetration Test (SIPT) is a widely accepted method of in situ testing of foundation soils (ASTIVI D-1586). A2-foot (O.�,m) long, 2-inch (50mm) O.D. split-barrell sampler attached to the end of a string of drilling rods is driven 24 inches (0.60m) into the ground by successive blows of a 140-pound (63.5 Kg) hammer freely dropping 30 inches (0.76m). The number of blows needed for each 6 inches (0.15m) increm I ents penetration is recorded. The sum of the blows required for penetration of themiddle two 6-i rich (0.15m) increments of penetration constitutes the test result of N-value. After the test, the sampler is extracted from the ground and opened to allow visual description of the retained soil sa� mple. The N-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties allowing a conservative estimate of the behav'ior of soils under load. The following tables relate N-values to a qua litative description of soil density and, for cohesive soils, an approximate unconfined compressive strength (Qu): Cohesionless Soils: N-Value Description I 0 to'4 Very loose 4 to �10 Loose 10 to 30 Medium dense 30 to 50 Dense Abov ! e 50 I Very dense Cohesive Soils: N-Value 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 Above 30 Description QU Very soft BeloW 0.25 tsf (25 kPa) s6ft 0.25 to 0.50 tsf (25 to 50 kPa) Medium stiff 0.50 to 1.0 tsf (50 to 100 kPa) stiff 1.0 to 2.0 tsf (100 to 200 kPa) Very stiff 2.0 to 4.0 tsf (200 to 400 kPa) Hard Above 4.0 tsf (400 kPa) The tests are u sually performed at 5 foo-t (1.5m) intervals. However., more frequent or continuous testing is done by AACE through depths where a more accurate definition of the soils is required. The test holes are advanced to the test elevations by rotary drilling with a cutting bit, using circulating fluid to remove the cutti, igs ci, Id hold the fine grains in suspension. The circulating fluid, which is -bentonitic drilling mud, is'also used to keep the hole open below the water table by maintaining an excess hydrostatic pre I ssure inside the hole. In some soil deposits, particularly highly pervious ones, flush -coupled ca� I ing must be driven tojust above the testing depth to keep the hole open and/or prevent the loss of circulating fluid. After completion of a test borings, the hole is kept open until a steady state groundwater level is recorded. The hole is then sealed by backfilling, either with accumulated cut',tings or I . ean cement. Representative split -spoon samples fr6m each sampling interval and from different strata are brought to our laboratory in air -tight jars for classification and testing, if necessary. Afterwards, the samples are discarded unless prior �arrangement have been made. POWER AUGER BORINGS Auger borings (ASTIVI D-1452) are used hen a relatively lar ge, continuous sampling of soil strata close to the ground surface is desired. A 4-inch (100 mm) diameter, continuous flight, helical auger with a cutting head at its end is screwed into the ground in 5-foot (1.5m) sections. It is powered by the rotary drill rig. The sample is reco ere�d by withdrawing the auger our of the ground without rotating it. The soil sample so obtained, is Classified in the field and representative samples placed in bags or jars and returned to the AACE soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary. HAND AUGER BORINGS Hand auger borings are used, if soil conditions are favorable, when the soil strata are to be determined within a shallow (approxim I ately 5-foot [1.5m]) depth or when access is not available to power drilling equipment. A 3-inch (75mm) diameter hand bucket auger with a cutting head is simultaneously turned and pressed into the ground. The bucket auger is retrieved at appr oximately 6-inch (0.15m) interval a i nd its contents emptied for inspection. On occasion post - hole diggers are used, especially in the upper 3 feet (1m) or so. Penetrometer probings can be used in the upper 5 feet (1.5m) to determine the relative density of the soils. The soil sample obtained is described and representativ 61 sa ' mples put in bags orjars and transported to the AACE soils laboratory'for classification and testing, if necessary. UNDISTURBED SAMPLING Undisturbed sampling (ASTM D-1�87) implies the recovery of soil samples in a state as close to their natural condition as possible.i'*Comp . lete preservation of in situ conditions cannot be realized; however, with careful handling and proper sampling techniques, disturbance during sampling can be minimized for most geotechni6 I al engineering purposes. Testing of undisturbed samples gives a more accurate estimate of in situ behavior than is possible with disturbed samples. Normally, we obtain undisturbed samples by pushing a 2.875-inch (73 mm) I.D., thin wall seamless steel tube 24 inches( . m ntoth le soil with a single stoke of a hydraulic ram. The sampler, which is a Shelby tube, is 30 (0.8 m) inche s long. After the sampler is retrieved, the ends are sealed in the I field and it is transported to our laboratory for visual description and testing, as needed. ROCK CORING In case rock strata is encountered �ncl roc'kstrength/continuity/com position information is needed for foundation or mining purpos6s, the rock can be cored (ASTM D-2113) and 2-inch to 4-inch diameter rock core samples be performed through flush-jo*'int s above the rock formation and al! are advanced into the rock typica is then opened so that the core - recovered rock cores include pe rock cores are placed in secure inspection and testing, as neede SFWMD EXFILTRATION TESTS )btained for further laboratory analyses. The rock coring is !el casing temporarily installed through the overburden soils installed into the rock. The double- or triple -tube core barrels f in 5-foot intervals and then retrieved to the surface. The barrel mple can be extruded. Preliminary field measurements of the ent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values. The )rb boxes and then transported to our laboratory for further In order to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the upper soils, constant head or failing head exfiltration test� can be perform I ed. These tests are performed in accordance with methods described in the South Florida Waier Management District (SFWMD) Permit Information Manual, Volume IV. In brief, a 6 to 9 inch, diameter hole is augered to depths of about 5 to 7 feet; the bottom one foot is filled with 57-stone; and a 6-foot long slotted PVC pipe is lowered into the hole. The distance from the groundwater table and to the ground surface is recordecland the hole is then saturated for 10 minutes with the' water level maintained at 'the ground surface. If a constant head test is performed, the rate of pumping will be recorded at fixed intervals of I minute for a total of 10 minutes, following the saturation period. LABORATORY TEST METHODS Soil samples returned tothe AACE, soils laboratoryare visually observed bya geotechnical engineer or a trained technician to obtainmore accurate description of the soil strata. Laboratory testing is performed on selected sampl6s as deemed necessary to aid in soil classification and to help define engineering properties of the soils. The test results are presented on the soil boring logs at the depths at which the respect vie sample was recovered, except that grain size distributions or selected other test results may be presented on separate tables, figures or plates as discussed in this report. THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES The soil descriptions shown on the logs are based upon visual -manual procedures in accordance with local practice. Soil classification' is 'performed in general accordance with the United Soil Classification System and is also based on visual -manual procedures. BOULDERS (>12" ('360 MMj) and COBBLES (TI [75 MMI TO 12" [300 MMj): GRAVEL: Coarse Gravel: /4" (19 mm) to 3" (75 mm) Fine Gravel: 1 No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve to 3/4" (19 mm) Descriptive adiectives: 0-5% no mention of gravel in description 5-15% trace 15-29% 30-49% some (shell, limerock, cemented sands) gravelly SANDS: COARSESAND: No. 10 (2 mm)Sieveto No. 4(4.75 mm) Sieve MEDIUMSAND: No. 40 (425 Vm) Sieveto No.. 10 (2 mm) Sieve FINE SAND: No. 200 (75 Iim) S! ve to No. 40 (425 pm) Sieve Descriptive adiectives: 0-5% — no mention of sand in description 5-15% — trace 15-29% — some 30-49% — sandy SILT/CLAY: < #200 (75l.LM) Sieve SILTY OR SILT: PI < 4 SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 :g PI -g 7 CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7 Descriptive adiectives: <-5% clean (no mention of silt or clay in description) 5-15% —'slightly 16-35% — cilayey, silty, or silty clayey 36-49% — very ORGANIC SOILS: Organic Content 0-2.5% 2.6-5% 5-30% Descriptive Adjeci I ive! Usually no mentio n of organics in descriptior slightly organic organic Classification See Above add "with organic fines" to group name SM with organic fines Organic Silt (OL) Organic Clay (OL) Organic Silt (OH) THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIP 1 1014 PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES Organic Clay (OH) HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS AND MATrER: Organic Content Descriptive A�Ijectives Classification 30-75% sandy peat Peat (PT) silty peat Peat (PT) > 75% amorphous peat Peat (PT) fibrous peat Peat (PT) STRATIFICATION AND STRUCTURE: Descriptive Term Thickn s with interbedded seam less than Y2 inch (13 mm) thick layer Y2 to 12Linches (300 mm) thick stratum more than 12-inches (300 mm) thick pocke . t small, erratic deposit, usually less than 1-foot lens lenticul�ar deposits occasional one or less per foot of thickness frequent more ti I an one per foot of thickness calcareous contain I ing calcium carbonate (reaction to diluted HCQ hardpan spodic i horizon usually medium dense marl mixture of carbonate clays, silts, shells and sands I ROCK CLASSIFICATION (FLORIDA) CHART: Symbol Typical Description LS Hard Bedded Limestone o.r Caprock WLS Fractured or W6athered Limestone I LR Limerock (gravel, sand, silt and clay mixture) I SLS Stratified Limesione and Soils THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA I CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES END FOR BORING LOGS N: Number of blows to drive a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches R: Refusal (lessthan s�x inchesadvanceof thesplitspoon after5O hammer blows) MC: Moisture content (percent of dry weight) OC: Organic content ( I ercent of dry weight) PL: Moisture content at the plastic limit LL: Moisture content at the liquid limit PI: Plasticity index (LLIPL) qu: Unconfined compressive strength (tons per square foot, unless otherwise noted) -200: Percent passing a 1�o. 200 sieve (200 wash) +40: Percent retained a bove a No. 40 sieve US: Undisturbed sample obtained with a thin -wall Shelby tube k: Permeability (feet !per minute, unless otherwise noted) DD: Dry density (pounds per cubic foot) TW: Total unit weight (pounds per cubic foot) APPENDIX III AACE Project, Limitations and Conditions ANDERSEN AN6RE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. (revised January 24, 2007) 1 Project LIMitations and Conditions Andersen Andre Consulting Engineer , Inc. has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made herein. Further, the report, in all cases, is subject to the following limitations and conditions: VARIABLE/UNANMCIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The engineering analysis.' evaluation and subsequent recommendations presented herein are based on the data obtained from our field explorations, at the specific locations explored on the dates indicated in the report. This report does not reflect any subsurface variations (e.g. soil types, I groundwater levels, etc.) which may occur adjacent or between borings. The nature and extent of any such variations may not become evident until construction/excavation commences. In the event such variations are encountered, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. may find it necessary to (1) perform additional subsurface explorations, (2) conduct in -the -field observations of encountered variations, and/or re-evaluate the conclusions and recommendation's presented herein. We at Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. recommend that the project specifications necessitate the contractor immediate' ly notifying Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc., the owner and the design engineer (if ap I plicable) if subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those presented in this report. No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those expected in the plans and specifications, or presented in this rE port, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. of such differing site conditions. Additionally, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by an Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. representative. STRATA CHANGES Soil strata changes are indicated by a horizontal line on the soil boring profiles (boring logs) presented within this report. However, the actual strata's changes may be more gradual and indistinct. Where changes occur between soil samples, the locations of the changes must be estimated using the available informal tion and may not be at the exact depth indicated. INKHOLE POTENTIAL Unless specifically requested in writin', g, a subsurface exploration performed by Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is not intended to be an evaluation for sinkhole potential. MISINTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION REPORT AndersenAndre Consulting Engine�,rs, Inc. is responsible for the conclus . ions and recommendations presented herein, based upon the subsurface data obtained during,this project. If others render conclusions or opinions, or make recommendations based upon the data presented in this report, those conclusions, opinions and/or recommendations are notthe responsibility of Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. I CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared to assist the owner, architect and/ot'ciVil engineer in the design of the, subject project. if any changes in �he construction, design and/or location of the structures as discussed in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may not be valid. All such changes in the project plans should be made known to Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. for our subsequent re-evaluation. USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS Bidders who are reviewing this rep rt prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared to assist the owners and project designers. Bidders should coordinate their own subsurface explorations (e.g.; soil borings, test pits, etc.) for� the purpose of determining any conditions that may affect construction operations. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be held responsible for any �interpretations made using this report or the attached boring logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting 'subsurface conditions which may affect construction operations. IN -THE -FIELD OBSERVATIONS Andersen Andre Consulting Engine rs, Inc. attempts to identify subsurface conditions, including soil. stratigraphy, water levels, zones of lost circulation, "hard" ' or "soft" drilling, subsurface obstructions, etc. However, lack of mention in the report does not preclude the presence of such conditions. I LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS Users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. to attempt to locatelany man-made, underground objects during the course of this exploration, and thatrio attempts to locate any such objects were performed. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which, are subsequently encountered during construction. PASSAGE OF TIME This report reflects subsurface conditions that were encountered atthe time/date indicated in the report. Significant changes can occur at the site during the passage of time. The user of the report recognizes the inherent risk in using the information presented herein after a reasonable amount of time has passed. We recommend the user of the report contact Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. with any questions or concerns regarding this issue. I chnico Geotechnical Services Ape Performed fop 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 civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfoir the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering' report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not evenyou —should apply the report for any purposelor project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Ppoject-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, projelct-specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factorsi include: the �Iclient's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing c �improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted,the study specificall� indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report tlh�lt was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing' geotechnicai engineering report include those that affect: I the function of the proposed structure, as when it's &.anged from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, W ineepino Repopt • elevation, configuration, location. orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • 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. Geolachnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed, Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geolachnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Ape Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Ape Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. GeotechniGal engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developedyour report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer !does not perform construction observation. A G110teChniCal Engineering Report Is Subject to Misintepopetation I I Other design team members' misinterpretation of geoteGhnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by 6ing your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications� Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. ! Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs 1 Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To pr6ent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable� but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. i %, Give Contractors a Complete Report an d Guidance I Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by. limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering repon, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contraPtors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be �ure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. ON t e n m ightyou � , le be in a position to give contractors the best information availab to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial re'sponsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. . I Read Responsibility Ppovisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims. and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Readthese provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. GeoenViPonMental Concerns Ape Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geolechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvi ron mental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to n6merous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for some- one else, Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Membep Geotechnclal Engineer top Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnicil engineer for more information. ASFETHE GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2012 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying 0�f this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited, except with ASMY specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document Is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE and onlyfor purposes ofscholarly research or book review. Only members ofASFE may use this document as a complement to oras an element ofa geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commifing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. 11GER03135.0MRP