HomeMy WebLinkAboutENGINEERING 5-19-17SCANNED
BY -
St Lucie County
i ---
I
UNIVERSAIJ ENGINEERING SCIENCES
PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Proposed Oal�land Lake Estates Subdivision
Oakland Lake Circle
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida.
Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
May 19, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
Ryan Homes
2005 Vista Parkway, Suite 102
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
PREPARED By. -
'Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc.
820 Brevard Avenue
Roc fledge, Florida 32955
(321) 638-0808
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 Beach • Atlanta, GA • Tifton, GA
FILE—
C0-PY
u
Geophysical Services • Co
Building Inspection.• Plan
Ryan Homes
1450 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 340
West Palm Beach, Florida:33401
Attention: Mr. Michael De.Bock
Reference: Preliminary Subsurface
Proposed Oakland Lake
Oakland Lake Circle
Fort•Pierce, Saint Lucie
Universal Project No. 03
Dear Mr.DeBock:
SC;IE 'CES
leering � Environmental Sciences
in Materials Testing Threshold Inspection
Building Code Administration
May 191 2017
Exploration
:states Subdivision
anty, Florida
1700052.0000
:LOCATIONS:
• Atlanta
• Daytona Beach
• Fort Myers
Fort Pierce
Gainesville
'•-� Jacksonville
Miami
Ocala
Orlando (Headquarters)
Palm Coast
4ci Panama City
s" .Pensacola
i;i Rockledge.
•_; Sarasota
i':, Tampa .
• .West Palm Beach
.� Atlanta, GA
Tilton, GA
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc.�ite
(Universal) has completed a preliminary subsurface
exploration at the above referenced in Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our
exploration Was authorized by you and `rvas conducted as outlined in Universal's Proposal' No.
0330.0417.00003. This exploration was l performed in accordance with generally accepted soil
and foundation engineering practices. N � other'warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The following report presents the resultslof our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering
interpretation of those results with resp ct 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 y' orked with you on this project and look forward to a
continued associatjon; Please do not hesitate to contact w0f you should have any questions;, or
if we may further assist you as your plan proceed: _`\`���illllllff/l/jj��
Sincerely yours, '
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIE
Certificate ofAuth'd—ft ioh,No. 549
Jose +R. ,Benitez Jr., E('..
Staff Engineer
2 — Addressee
UESDOCS #1450465
INC.
Brad Faucett, M.S;, P.;E: !�
RegionALEngineer
Florida P"rofessional;!Eng`neer
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) :638-0978 1
wwl4v:Uni� rsaIEngineering:com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION:................:........,......I.........,...:..,,:..,.............................:..:::.::.:::::::
.1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............. ........................... ..................... :..:...::.:::.. .1
3.0 PURPOSE.........:.: _ .. ----- - ---- - - ,_,..: - ...
....:.:..::::::.::.::::::::::::..............................:. ..:.. .::::: . :1
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...........::::::::::::::::::::::::... v :.....,...,..;..1
4.1 SOIL SURVEY . ............ . ... .> ••...__,.._.. 2
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY ................ .... 2
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .....................:..............................................:.:....................................2:
6.0 LIMITATIONS... r,.,.::........................................................... :.......... ::3
7.0
FIELD METHODOLOGIES ..... :....................
..... .... ......................................:.:::::.::...:::.::;.;.:::::::::::::::4
7.1
7.2
7.3
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS.......
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS....
PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES ....
.. - 4
e}
8.0
LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES..................:,.:::::.,.::.:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::r::::::::::::�:4
8.1
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ................;;,,,
9.0
SOIL STRATIGRAPHY.....................
9.1
PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS........... ,..
„...._..x._,,:.�r.. .._..ter __ .._ _ .. - :�. r ............... :5
10.0'
10.1
10.2
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS..........
EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER
........ 6
11.0
LABORATORY RESULTS......,::::::.::1::::::::::.:::_:...:,....::.,.....:�_-..:.:_..:
7
11.1
12.1
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS..........
PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS...... ,,....�
; ]
.....•,...:,::::. .:.a ....... ....:.:. ;:iz_- _ ...; 7
13.0
CLOSURE
- - R
Table I: Saint Lucie County Soil Sul
Table II: Generalized Soil Profile.....
Table III:• Pavement Core Results.....
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge,
Www. U
OF TABLES
vey Designated Soil Types y v 2
......................................................:.5
i
rida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
rsalEngineering.com
FIGURES
Boring Location Plan: ........ .. :Figure No. 1
PPENDICES
Key to Boring Logs>:;: :: :::: Appendix A
Boring Logs .. : Appendix A
EXHIBITS
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, flolda 32955 (321) ;638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978.
www.q�l. csalEngineeTing_eorn,:
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Universal 'Engineering Sciences, Inc.
exploration for the proposed Oakland
County, Florida. Our exploration was, a
was conducted as outlined in Universal'
performed in accordance with generally
other warranty, expressed or implied, is
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Universal Project.No. 0330.1700052.0000
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
(Universal),. has completed' a preliminary subsurface
Lake Estates Subdivision in Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie-
ithorized by Mr. Michael DeBock of. Ryan Homes and
s Proposal No. 0330.0417.00003. This exploration was
accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No
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,pelmihary 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 con
client and
• to provide our estimates of the
locations and
• to provide general comments co
typical low-rise, residential constn
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
at general locations and depths as requested by the
wet season high groundwater levels at the boring
rning the anticipated soil support characteristics for
The subject site is located within Section 11, Township 34 South, Range 39 East in Saint Lucie
County, Florida. More specifically, the sL is located on the northwest quadrant of Palomar
Street Road and North Kings Highway, i in 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
L820 Brevard Avenu�e,i Rockledge, Florida 955 (321) 638-08Q8 Fax (321) �638-0978
www.Universa]Engineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
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 19�80. A brief description of these soils is provided in the
following Table 1.
TABLE
.SLCSS ESIGNATED SOIL TYPES
Soil Type
(Map Symbol)
Brief Description {
I
; 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
I
flatwoods.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Oslo, Florida
quadrangle map dated 1949, photo-reviZ 1970, ground. surface .elevation across the site area
(pre -developmental) is approximately +26.feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services conducted by Universal dur�ng our preliminary 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 s, rface (bls).'
• Core through the existing pavement
drill to ascertain the approximate this
Perform Dynamic Cone Pe.netroi
selected SPT boreholes. to help fur
. Secure samples of representative
analysis and .classification by a Gei
• Measure the existing site .grour
season high groundwater.levels.
Conduct soil gradation tests on si
their engineering properties.
• Assess the existing soil conditions
ons at four. (4) locations with a diamond tipped core
;s of the asphaltic surfacing and base course.
�r (DCP) testing within _ the- upper portions of the
determine soil consistencies.
encountered in the. soil borings for -review, laboratory
finical Engineer.
levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet
soil samples obtained in the field to help determine
respect to.the proposed construction..
i '
I 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, � Flirida 32g55 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www..UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake'Estates Subdivision
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.17-00052.0000
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
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 o
scope of services, general boring loca
client. The information- submitted in this
performed at the. locations, indicated on�
referenced. This report, has not been p
contractors, or any other parties, and an
soil and foundation engineer who prepe,
erroneous assumptions,:faulty conclusioi
This report does not reflect any variatic
extent_ of such variations may not ,becc
actual construction. If variations then be
the recommendations in this report after
period and noting the characteristics of
at any of our boring locations; however,
the entire property. Therefore, this repo
and fill quantities. .
a preliminary subsurface exploration program with the
ons and depths as developed in conjunction with the
report is based on data obtained from the soil borings
he Boring Location Plan and from other information as
Dpared to meet the full needs of design professionals,
i use of this report by them without the guidance of the
red it constitutes improper usage which could lead to
is, and other:problems.
Our field exploration did not find unsuitak
However, borings for a typical geotechnic,
for reliably detecting the presence of isol
reliably estimating, unsuitable or suitable
recommend relying on our boring informs
estimation of material quantities unless 4
exploration for such, purpose(s)- and with
provided should be sufficient to detect sL
Therefore, Universal will not be responsi
beyond the purpose(s) for which it is appli
ns which may occur across the site: The nature and
me evident until the course of .future explorations or
:ome evident, it will be necessary for re-evaluation of
>erforming on -site observations during the construction
my variations. Deleterious, soils were not encountered
we cannot completely preclude their presence across
should not be used for estimating such items as cut
le or unexpected materials at the time of occurrence.
al report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient
3ted, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or
material quantities. Accordingly, Universal does not
Lion to negate presence -of anomalous materials or for
Ur contracted services specifically include sufficient
n the report we so state that the level of exploration
ch anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities.
)le for any extrapolation or use of our data by others
,able or intended.
All users of this report are cautioned.thatlthere 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 o 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 haz rds .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 l 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 Fax�1(321) 638-0978,
www.:Unive�splEngineering.com
1
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida
7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES,
7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION
The seven (7), SPT borings, designate
performed in general ,accordance with
Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Samp
a standard split -barrel sampler into the
number of blows: required to drive the
designated the penetration resistance,
The soil samples recovered from. the sr
in general accordance with the guidelin
Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Clac
Universai ,Project.No.. 0330.1700052. 0000
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
.131 through. 137 on the attached Figure 'No.* 1, were
:procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for
g of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving
it bya. 140 pound hammer, free falling 30. inches. The
ampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is
N-value, an index to soil, strength .and consistency.
-barrel sampler were visually inspected. and classified
of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for
Fication System]).
The.SPT soil borings were performed witk a CME 45 ATV mounted drilling rig..Universal.located
the test borings- in the field by using th 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 -im,I plied by the methods of measurement used. The
approximate boring locations are shown do the attached Figure No. .1.'
7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tea
selected SPT boreholes to help further
performed at 1 foot intervals in general ac
G. F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges (AE
follows: A. standard 1.5 inch diameter cc
hammer falling: 20 inches. Following the
of blows required to drive the sampler ai
resistance, providing 'an index to soil strei
7.3 PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES
were performed within the upper portions of the
letermine soils consistencies. The DCP tests were
ordance with the procedures developed by Professor
.E, 1966). The basic procedure for the DCP test is as
ical point is driven into the soil by a 15-pound steel
gating of the point to a depth of.2 inches, the number
additional 1.75 inches is designated the penetration
th and density...
Samples of the existing asphaltic pavement sections were obtained at four (4): core locations'
(Cl through C4) with,a: 4 inch nominal dilameter diamond bit core drill, advancing through the
asphaltic pavement into the underlying ba�e_ course materials.. Afterwards the core holes were,
backfilled and the surfacing patched with a� 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 ,Inalyses on seven (7) representative soil -samples.
These samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM D 1140 (Standard Test
Method for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve). In part, ASTM D 1140
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.
I 4
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, 'Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniverlsalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie -County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330:1700052. 0000
Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
The percentage of:the material finer than the No. 200 sieve helps determines the textural nature
of :the soil sample and aids in evalua ing its engineering. characteristics.. The percentage of
materials passing the #200 sieve'is sho n on the attached boring logs.
9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY
The results ,of our field exploration and
obtained from the SPT borings, such
groundwater levels are shown on the I
Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also _ii
from field, logs after the recovered soil s.
The stratification lines shown on the bori
soil types, and may not depict exact sub
be more transitional than depicted, A ge
locations is presented in the following Ta
attached boring logs.
GEN
iboratory analysis, together with pertinent information
soil profiles,, penetration resistance and stabilized-
�ing logs included in Appendix A. The Key to Boring
uded in Appendix A. The soil profiles were prepared
iples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer.
3 logs represent the approximate boundaries between
.irface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries.may
eralized profile. of the soils encountered at our boring
le II`. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the
TABLE II
LIZED SOIL PROFILE
----Depth 1
Encountered ,
(feet, fbis)
_ ....
Approximate'
Thickness j
Soil Description
Fill soils onsisting of fine sands with varying quantities of silt, clay,'!
Surface
j 2 to 9
gravel, b�oken shell, and clay lumps [SP, SP-SM, SC]; loose to
medium dense. �-
Highly in�erlayered strata consisting of fine sands [SP], fine sands`.
with silt I [SP-SM], and clayey fine sands [SC],. with varying'
2 to 9
1+ to 8+
quantities of broken shell and occasional cemented rock layers;
�I
loose to dense. At boring location .132, the fine sand with .silt [SP-,.
SM] strati is partially cemented with iron oxide & organic salts and;
which is locally known as hardpan.
NOTE: [] denotes Unified. Soil Classification system
+ indicates strata encountered at boring terr
9.1 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS
nation.
in, total thickness undetermined.
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 .11l:
5.
820 Brelvard Avenue, Rockledge, -Florida 32955 (321) 638-084' Fax (321) 638-0978,.
www.Unive�salEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie. County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
TABLE Iff
PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS
Boring/Core r
Approximate Th'icknesslType
Asphaltic Surfacing
Approximate thickness
Base Course
n
Type of Base Course,
E.ocation
of
of
,
(inches)
(inches)
-Materials
I, f
0.7 S3.. _
C1
1.0 S3
8'/2
Coquina
0.833
C2 I
1.1 S3.
1.1 S3
8+/
Coquina.
l
C3 4
1.0 S3
1.S3
8
Coquina
0.8 S3
PC
1.0 S1
10
Coquina
i. tiee attacnea rigure No. i Tor approxim
2. Classification of asphaltic layerings %
parameters. .
3. Subgrade soils consist mostly of .fine
subgrade).
10.0 GROUNDWATER. CONDITION
10A EXISTING GROUNDWATER CON
We measured the water levels in the be
allowed to stabilize.. The groundwater le
groundwater level depths ranged from 4.3
locations B2 and B7. Fluctuations in grot
year, .primarily due to seasonal variations
vary from the time the borings were condu
core iocanons.
performed visually and may not represent actual FDOT mix
with traces of gravel & broken :shell [SP] (W., stabilised.
ioles on May 8, 2017 after the groundwater was;
Is are shown on the attached boring logs. The
:t bis at boring location B6-to 5.7 feet bis at boring
water levels.should be anticipated throughout the
rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may:
10.2. TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL
The typical wet season high groundwate
sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks d
conditions, in a year with average normal
season- in Saint Lucie County, Florida .is
estimate the wet season water level at
including the following:
level is defined as the highest groundwater level
ring the "wet" season of the year, for existing site
ainfalf amounts. Based on historical data, the rainy
etween June and October of the year. In order'to'
he boring locations, many factors are examined,
a. Measured groundwater level
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 systemsl(ditches; canals, etc.)
g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems
6
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge!, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808. Fax (321) 638-0978 11,
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project,Nb. 0330.1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
h On -site types of vegetati n
is Area topography (groundsurface: elevations)
Groundwater level readings were taken ion May 8, 2017. According to data from the Southeast
Regional Climate Center and the Nati nal Weather Service, the total rainfall in the previous
month of April for Central Saint Lucie Coiunty was 2.2 inches, approximately atthe 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 norm�l 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 locati ns will be approximately 2Ys 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 pocket of"perched" groundwater throughout the project area,
particularly during, periods of prolonged wet weather. These temporary perched water table
levels maybe higher than the.: estimated et season high groundwater levels indicated above.
11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS
11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS.
The soil ' samples" submitted for analysis ere classified as fine sands, [SPI. The percentage of
soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size a ie shown on the boring logs at the approximate' depth
sampled. .
12.0 ANALYSIS AND GENERAL
12.1 PROPOSED`BUILDING AREAS
The removal of site vegetation, and root
loosen surficial soils to various. depths.
system. underneath the proposed, found
densification of at least the upper. 2 fee
additional,.fill .soils will. be necessary. Thi
building loads over any remaining loose s
along with other construction activities, will further
-o provide a homogeneous, . compacted, sandy soil
tions and floor slabs for the proposed residences,,
of the existing surficial; . loose soils and subsequent
should. create a soil mat capable of dissipating the
ata at depth. .
We believe that this can be effectively accomplished using conventional site preparation
procedures including a comprehensivel 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 may used to support conve tional_one;to tvuostoniresidentiaLconstrtiction;
7 8k Bre.vard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 631-0808, Fax (321:) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com.
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision I T- — Universal Project No. 0330.1760052.0000
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
analyses as the project progresses trough the design phase. If you have any questions
concerning this report or when we may a of any further service, please contact us.
* 1* * * * * *
8 I
820 Brevard Avenue, Ro4edge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-09P8
www.UnivelrsalEngineering.com
4 '
I
I I
I
i
- I
Fl. a
RES
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES RAWN BY: CB
OA�LAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION
HUMMINGBIRD WAY
FORT PIE�CE, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BORING LOCATION PLAN
IDAT
REPORT NO:
APPENDIX A
IN jUNIVERSAL ENG SCIENCES
41NEER
PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000
.,G
BORING LOG
REPORT NO.:.
-APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision
BORING DESIGNATION: BI
SHEET:
I of, I
Hummingbird Way
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
G.S,,ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
64/17
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6
DATE FINISHED:
5/4117
REMARKS:
DATE OF READING: 5181201T
DRILLED BY:
TM, RP, MC
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
LU
-4
IL
2
SLOW
PERS
Lu
=1
1 0
DESCRIPTION
-200
me
K
CRd.
IN
a1%)
:r
1%)
(INJ
co".1
!INCREMENT
z
H
HR.)
(116)
fine SAND Ith
traces of clay luftipi (Fill), brown, [SP]
4.1
7.4
J
fine SANDwikh
gravel, broken shelf, and clay lumps (Fill),
brown, [SP]
2.T
10.6
5-6-12
is
clayey fine S
'NO with traces of broken shelf_ (Filqt-b-r-owri, [SC]
hii
7-7-4
11
claydyfiffe
�SA�D-
With traces of organIc6. brown, [SC]
dark 15-
7-9-15
—-
E30ZW�TE TERMI
NATED AT 10'
AI
C
C
a
a
----- ._.
^ "• ' 0330.1700052.0000
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PR _
REPORT NO:2
BORING LOG - - - -"--- -
PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce,:Florlda
CLIENT:
LOCATION,, SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
APPENDIX: A
BORING DESIGNATION: BZ SHEET: I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED:. 614117
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:
+ ,l .F
ul
BLOWS �I
H
'
m
MC
K
ORG.
lu
n
y
PER 6"
IN
z
T'
3 o
DESCRIPTION
-200
hl
lei
CO,T_
i
I
f
HR.)
:
,
fine SANDWith-traces
of cla 7um s (Fill), brown, SP -
-'
- -
3;0
5.0
5-6-16 II
6*
5-22-26 II
22''
fine SAND,-
rey, [SP]
17-R
R*
;:A.4
i
I
�fti•,; �'
I
I
t: •
fine SAND w
th silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM]
" ' '
I
S
6-6-6
I
I
I
I
clayey fine S',
ND, brown, [SC]
k
6-7-8
15
,
—
6-4-4
I
I
6
I
I
+.
I
i
clayey fine SAND
with occasional cemented rock layers" grey; --- a
[SC]
10
- --- —
_
BORING TERMINATED
AT 10'
I.
I
DYNAMIC
R - DENOTESIREFUSAL
CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC !.
h
'
CONE PENETROMETER.
.'
f'
,I
i a
�
15
I
I
l
C
z
u
0330,1700052.0000
UNIVERSAL EN'GI�IEERING SCIENCES
CTNO:_
:...� ,.
BORING
-
LOG
T NO.;<
-
[-APPENDIX.A
- - -
PROJECT:
Oakland Estates Subdivision
BORING DESIGNATION: B3
SHEET:
1 Of 1
Hummingbird,Way
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
Fort Pierce,.Flarida
CLIENT:
G.S:, ELEVATION (ft):
i
DATE STARTED:
5/4117 .
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3
DATE FINISHED:
514117
REMARKS:
DATE OF READING:' 518/2017
;DRILLED BY:'
TM, RP, MC
EST, W.S,W.T:;(ft);
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
I F _
1
U'
BLOWS I
PERK 1
OJ
J
lu
—
`
—
zoo
—
Ma
II —'K
- ORG. II
w
.
I
3
.
DESCRIPTION
I
(INJ
CONT,,�i
'I
`
I
INCREMENT
, Z
p
HR.)
s (Y.)
C}
fine SAND 'with
silt and traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown,
I;
[SP-SM]
l
1_5_5
5•
+
j.
J:
9-23-28 .I
23' ':
I
I
II
5-18-20 I
18
{+
E
i"
�4.5
S
I 5-6-7
13:
��
j,�r
•�,' • •
I
fine SANo
n -
it silt, brow
X.
{..
6-7-9
16
I
fin-e .AND ,
S
fey,[SP ]
5-78
15
3.9
19.5
M
46
IJ
,
1
BORING TERMINATED
AT 10'
" DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
I
I1i
15
I'
....
...
..:.
-.
..
j; UNIVERSAL
PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird;Way
Fort Pierce,. Florida ..
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN -
REMARKS:
: PROJECT NO.__- 0330.1700052 0000
:N, INEERING SCIENCES
REPORT NO,;
BO _ING LOG -
... APPENDIX: A
BORING DESIGNATION. 8 - SHEET: Of
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST "
G:S,.ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED:, SMA7
WATER TABLE (ft). 5.1. DATE FINISHED: 514117
DATE OF READING:' 618/2017 'DRILLED BY: TM, t2P, MC
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:
F
a
BLOWS I
j
j
OJ
J.
K
ORG
a.200
N'
PER 8
r-
m
�i,
w
DESCRIPTION
MC
IINJ
CONT.-
I o �'
y`
CREM INENT
z
N
v
it,.. .. _._.
..
_... ... __�.
-.__ �
°-•
--
i
------,-!
-� -_ .. �
�--- __ _. '. _"." � .�_'� -
l�
I
Y
fine SAND
clay"lumps
ith.silt;#ravel token shell and (Fill),
�f,
brown,.[
P-SM]
i
fl
it
i g
3-18-29
Is*,
I
11-21 25
21
;l
3-23-30• II
23
!I 5
z
'"""''fine
:.
-
SAND'
With silt, dark brown; [SP-SM] ,I
8-12-14
2i3
'i
f
I
I
js
14-12-15
27
u
;
h
fine SAND i
41th silt and broken shell, brown, [SP-SM]
S
!' 14-16A6 I
32
i
10
1412-10
BORING TERMINATED
AT 10'
" DYNAMICI
CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
i
V
1
-_--
- — -
U,N[VERSAL ENGINEERIN
BORING
a
SCIENCES
LOG
I
PROJECTO.: _ 0330.1700052.0000
PROJECT N
l
REPORTG
-
APPENDIX: A
- - -
BORING DESIGNATION: B5
SHEET:
_-
• I Of 1
PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
SECTION: TOWNSHIP_ SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
514117
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6
DATE FINISHED:
514117
REMARKS:
DATE OF READING: 5/812017
DRILLED BY:
TM, RP, MC
EST. W.S;W.T. (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
Lu
IL
BLOWS
;
~
mPER6"
w
I
zao
MC.
LL
a v
¢
3
DESCRIPTION
I%)
I4)I
(INJ
CONT.,
,�
INCREMENT
Z
y
G
HR.)
(%)
:udfrs
fine SAND
with traces of gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps "-
- -
—
--
(Fill),, brown,
[SP]
l
Ytif,
I,
3.4
2.4
2-R
R'
8-R
R" I
I
t
Kx:
2-21-R-
21'
i'�ritivt�,
i
I
�I
�
•rVatX'
�
�.�
i
4{ �;•r
it
I'
i
•i''4
,t4iC'
I 1
ill
find -SAND
with slit and traces of broken shell,, gray, [SP-SM]
•��,
,
Il
I
I�
t
't
'
I
1
it
4-4-5
•t•
..
BORING
ERIU�INAl ED AT 10'
i
,1
"DYNAmic
CONEPENETROM T- ER=;(DCP) VALUES
R-:DENOTE§'REFUSAL;TO
PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
:CONE.PENETROMETER.,
I
l
I
UNIVERSAL EN(
I� BO
PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision'
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
EERI,NG SCIENCES
G LOG
PROJECT NO . _, , 0330.
REPORT NO
APPENDIX: A
BORING DESIGNATION: BG
SHEET:
i Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
614117
WATER TABLE (ft): 44
DATE FINISHED:
514117
DATE'OF, READING: 51812017
DRILLED BY:'
TM, RP, MC
EST. W;S:W.T. (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
i I x
��
I IL"
BLOWS
�
~'
I O
.J ��
1 _ i
-200
--- --
MC
K
ORG. '
'
ji W LL
PER 6
a
' j ,mt•
w
DESCRIPTION
i
iiN.r
CONT.
c
y'
Z
y
3 51
_INCREMENT
t
I'
I'
fine SAND
ith silt and traces ofclaylumps (Fill), brown,
[SP-SMi
I
R
R`I
I
1
17-20 25 I'I
20t
5-1921.
f
clayey fine
SAND, grey, [SC]
4-6-6
14
,
h
I
I
'
6-6-6
12
10
„
�
I
I
10'
_
}
BORING TIERMINATED
AT
DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
I!
R - DENOTES
REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC f
CONE PENETROMETER.
I
UNIVERSAL ENG�:INE
S ' BORIN 7
PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce; Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN .
REMARKS:
o0
G. SCIENCES--
PROJECT NO.:; _ 0330.1700052 00
REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX:! _ A _--Y
BORING DESIGNATION:. BT
SMEET:,
'I 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: 518/2017
DRILLED BY:
TNI, RP, MC
EST. W,S:W;T. (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
ja
BLOWS
�=PER
m I
-200
MC
' K
ORG.
6"
> j
s
y
a
DESCRIPTION
(�)
(�)
(INJ
CONT;i
C
r
iy
.INCREMENT
t
R.) 1
(%)
a
:,
fine SAN
with silYand clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP-SM] - —
1.
ij
21-R
R, I
fine SAN
grey, ISPI
i n
1
10-24-26
14-R
R"
�
I
14,
'
I
I'
I1
-clayey fine
SAND, grey, [SC]
�' ('•
3-5-6 �
11 �
i I
li
t
s'
5-5-5
10
,t
i
I
i
,
'
i •'
�j
10
I
I
:.T
,
,<:•
.. _--
,i
:. a•;
r
`
BORING TERMINATED
AT 10
I'
I
,I
DYNAMI
CO PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
'
R - DENOTES
REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
I
CONE
ER
NETROMETE
r
'I
i
_
w
lip
1
�•
II
'I
i
,
I
li
�.
I
I
I
I f
`-
,
0
6
I
12
�I
KEY TO EO;RING LOGS
SOIL. . WSIFICAT ION CHART*
Sand or Gravel W
[SP SW GP G], — --
r y "
Sand or Gravel with S[ItUNIVERSAL_
,
•`� -
orClay[SPSMiSPSC] i ENGINEERING
• SCIENCES, LNC.
orlGraveIor CI[S.M 4 GM,GC]
Sand yy or GrAyellyy S[Ifor Clayy;
[ML,CL-ML-M.; H,CH;OL OHj
60
50
c40
z;
v30
a. 20
II 41It or.:.Clay vuith Sand onGrave1 10 -
��
85 a. :. .4u.a.�i u .:'n{: 0 10, 20 30 40 60 60 70 60 60 100 j
II
'Silt OT:�CIay LIQUID LIMIT
I. [ML CL=ML;CL,MH,CH,OL,OH] I
J PLASTICITY CHART
100' ? Sa:....................... Tr ::::.
GRO P NAME AND SYMBOL
COARSE GRAINED SOILS
FINE GRAINED SOILS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
'� • . • i WELL -GRADED
SANDS JIM
�•' • -
WELL -GRADED
GRAVELS�GWI
I INORGANIC SILTS
d � SLIGHT PLASTICITY
ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS
LOW PLASTICITY]OL]"
[MLI
POORLY -GRADED
iti 4 SANDS [SP]
yo
POORLY -GRADED
GRAVELS [GP]
INORGANIC SILTY CLAY
LOW PLASTICITY
t•
+
ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS
MEDIUM TO HIGH
PLASTICITY
[CL-ML]
[OH]..
?',,,�•? , } POORLY -GRADED
SANDS WITHSILT
• `
° '
POORLY -GRADED
GRAVELS
WITH SILT
I INORGANIC CLAYS.
LOW TO MEDIUM
.�
rl /+ ��
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS
WITH HIGH ORGANIC
r; ; .• i [SP-SM]
0� �,
[GP -GM]
PLASTICITY [CLf
- --_
CONTENTS [PT]"
r r POORLY -GRADED
�[FF4,�,•, SANDS WITH CLAY
°
POORLY -GRADED
GRAVELSWITH
-
CLAY
INORGANIC SILTS HIGH
I a/ nsr/riry rnesaf
RELATIVE DENSITY
i SILTY SANDS ° o SILTYG VELS I INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH ,I
[SMI. [GM] PLASTICITY [CHI
(SAND AND GRAVEL) i
VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 Blowslft.
LOOSE -5to10Blows1ft. �I
MEDIUM DENSE-11 to 30 Blowsltt
CLAYEY SANDS CLAYEY GRAVELS DENSE - 31 to 50 Blowslft. :
1 [SC] [GC] VERY DENSE - more than 50 Blowsl t. ti
i
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2487 - UNIFIED SOIL
SILTY CLAYEY SANDS CONSISTENCY
'[SC 'CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. (SILTAND CLAY)
LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK. VERY SOFT- 0 to 2 Blowalft
SOFT - 3 to 4 Blowslft.
FIRM - 5 to 8 Blowsift. I ,I
NOTES: STIFF • e to 16 Blowslft. I
8' - DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE VERY STIFF -17 to 30 BlowslR
R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION HARD -more than 30 Blows/ft. }
P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER I
NIE - DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED
IOTE: DUAL SYM OtS.ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A.1
IMPOPI1801 101opmolion ahout This
�— Optg RepaM
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
' '
has prepared this advisory to help you —'assumedly
those that affect: t
a client representative — interpret and apply t1iis
the site's size or shape;
geotechnical=engineering report as-effectivelti
the function of the proposed structure, as when its
as possible. In that way; clients can benefit from
- -
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from light
i
a, lowered'exposure to the subsurface problems
a -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
'thati for decades, have been a principal cause of
the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
,i
construction :delays, cost overruns, claims, and
the composition of the design team; or
::I
disputes. If you have questions or want mor
project ownership.
information about any. of the Issues discusset below_ i
i .
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engiInear.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
j
Active anvolvement In the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineerslto a
changes — even minor ones — and request an assessment of their I;
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
I
wide array. of risk -confrontation techniques that can
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical I' ;
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved'ikith a
engineer was not informed about developments the -engineer otherwise .
construction project.
would have considered.
Geotechnical-Engineering Serviees.Are. Performed for
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects I
for a different client;
Geotechnical engineers structure their 'services to rneet the ]Specific
for a different project;
needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted
for a civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a Livil-
for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
given .
works constructor -or even a different civil engineer. Because each
portion of the original site); or
before important events occurred at the site or adjacent �! !
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or �I
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client, ilhose who
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. ,
can be seriously misled. -No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
—not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or roject except:.
because of factors like'changed subsurface conditions; new or modified '
the one originally contemplated.
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your
.
Read this Report in Full
eotechnical engineer has not indicated an "apply -by" date on the report,
g 8� P
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
i
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a eotechnical-
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
'
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rel on an
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. R 'ad.this report
analysis — if any is required at all — could prevent major problems.
in full.. �
f
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
You Doodad Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
Professional Opinions
about Change
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-sp cific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developi g the
subsurface throughvarious sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report co eys. A few
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
typical factors include;
data derived from that sampling andtestfng were reviewed by your
the client's goals,.objectives, budget, schedule, and
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to , !
risk -management preferences;
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ — maybe significantly — from
configuration; and performance criteria;
those indicated in this report, Confront that risk by retaining your
Iy�
the structures location and orientation on the site; and
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
g g g P J
other planned or existing site improvements, such as
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
re. itifri walls, access roads, parking lots, and.
j
wheneveF needed.
I. underground utilities.
J:
--- ---
— - — — - -
This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirm ati on -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report — including any
or alternatives — are confirmation -dependent. In other words,
not final, because. the'geotechnical engineer who developed tt
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual a
conditions revealed during construction. If through observatit
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed t
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, as
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer whj
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmu
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer
construction observation.
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
ions to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
v are them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
relied from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
.neer conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
i your
exist
prepared
perform
This ReportCould Bei Misinterpreted
Other design professionals misinterpretation of geotechnic
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time me ber 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 misinti
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform
observation.
Give. Constructors a Complete Report and G
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe I
unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructs
the information they provide.for bid preparation. To help I
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, ii
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any;
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certai
conspicuously that you've included the material for informat
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also w
that "informational purposes" means constructors have no
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommei
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be cert
constructors know they may learn about specific project re
including options selected from the report, only from the
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that the,,
e-mail:
ding this
:icipate in
truction
idance
:y can shift
by limiting
:vent
lude the
Achments
to note
nal
t to note
ght to rely
ations in
e specific
a that
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 f iIlyand frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study— e.g., a "phase -one' or "phase -two' environmental
site assessment — differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical- consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a generabrule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain.Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold.
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture — including water vapor — from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building -
envelope or mold specialists.
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
�..-W ASSOCIATION
Telephone: 301 /565-2733
www.g6oprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geopmfessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quPting, 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 of a report of any
kind Any other firm, individual, or other entity i hat so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing' negligent