The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONI I . I 3t Lud8 C00nW R"' E C E I V E MAY 14 2018 Permitting Department St. Lucie County, i L UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES I PRELIMINARY. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Proposed Oakland Lake Estates. Subdivision Oakland Lake Circle Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 IMay 19, 2017 s, Inc. 1820 Brevard Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 I (321) 638-0808 Consultants in: 'Geotechnical Engineering • EnIuironmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacks ala isgWrn C otaMiami •Panama City •Pensacola • Fort Pierce •Tampa • m ea tlan ; G Jnpy Tift I UNIVERSAL- LOCATIONS: • .Manta • Daytona Beach --•-- •..._,- _,;:...•_ �.. ENCI,NEERING ScIE"NC:ES. Fort Myers <, Fort Pierce _,..._ ._ _,. �.... _._ — Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering � Environmental Sciences. ■: Gainesville Jacksonville Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing -Threshold Inspection . Miami Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration Ocala' •' Orlando (Headquarters) Palm Coast Panama City May 19 2017 y , �. Pensacola 4, Rockledge Ryan Homes Sarasota 1450 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 340 -• Tampa West Palm Beach West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - Atlanta, GA ■ Tifton, GA Attention: Mr. Michael DeBock Reference: Preliminary S I bsurface Exploration Proposed Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Oakland Lake Circle Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Proiect No. 0330.1700052.0000 Dear Mr. DeBock: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a preliminary subsurface exploration at the above referenced site in Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by you and -was conducted as outlined in Universal's. Proposal No. 0330.0417.00003. This exploration was performed in accordance withgenerally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The following report presents 1 interpretation of those results. have included our estimates locations and general comme low-rise residential buildings. We appreciate the opportunity continued association. Please c if we may further assist you as Sincerely yours, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING Certificate of-Aiithodidtiob-No. 549 Jose R. Benitez Jr., E.I, Staff Engineer 2 — Addressee UESDOCS #1450465 I results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering th respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We the typical wet season high groundwater, levels at the boring concerning anticipated soil support characteristics for typical have worked with you • on this project and look forward to a .not hesitate to contact us.if you should have *any questions or ur plans proceed, -```>>�y1tf1111111/j�� NCES, INC. �,•—...'�• _ �. 33 23 • ° P:E: Regional Engineer �!i��"St f Florida Professional Engineer No.. I i 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockleldcje,. Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 w+ i v:UniversalEngineedng.com I 1, . 1.0 INTRODUCTION.:, 2.0 PROJECT DESdF TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................... .......... .................................................... 3.0 PURPOSE ................... .......... .................... ..; ....... 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............. 1_ ........ o.. 4.1 SOIL SURVEY ....................1. ............ .................................. . ......... ................. 2 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY ........................ ............................................ 2 ..................... 1 ................ 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.... 1 ............................................................ I ....................................................... 2 6.0 LIMITATIONS...... i -, ......... ..i .................I... ..•.•.........* .......................... i.3 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES1 ................ ....... 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS ......... ........ ... .......... ........... 7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS ...... 7.8 PAVEMENT CORE.SAMPM .......... 4 8.0 -LABORATORY METHODO�OGIES ...................... 4 .8.1.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS 9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAP I I . ................. ........ ......... 9.1 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS .... 5 ........ 10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .................. 10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS:....... .: 6 10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL 6 11.0 LABORATORY. RESULTS ... 7 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS........I 12.1 PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS 13.0 CLOSURE .............................L...... LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Saint Lucie County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types 2 Table [I: Generalized Soil Pr6file .................................................. 5 Table I I. Pavement Core Results ............................. 820 Brevard Avenue; Rockledge,: Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321 . )638- 1 0978 wwvi .Universa[Engineering.corn FIGURES Boring Location ...... ............. oFigure No. 1 APPENDICES Key to Boring Logs. Appendix A .................... Boring Logs ....... .......... ,,Appendix A EXHIBITS GBADocument ............. Exhibit I ii 820 Brevard Avenue, Roc 'Florida 3295,5 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 =nV rsalEngineeiing.com ;t I . I Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County,i Florida 1.0 INTRODUCTION Universal Engineering Scier exploration for the proposed County, Florida.. Our explorai was conducted as outlined in performed in accordance with other warranty, expressed or 2.0 PROJECT DESCRI It is Universal's understandil project will -consist of 'a res shown in Figure No. 1. T residential lots. We understand that the st will be collected within an area. Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Preliminary Subsurface Exploration ;es, Inc. (Universal) has completed a preliminary subsurface Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision in Fort Pierce, -Saint Lucie on was authorized, by Mr. Michael DeBock of Ryan Homes and Universal's Proposal No. 0330.0417.00003. This exploration was generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No nblied. is made. based upon information provided by the client, that the proposed itial subdivision in, Fort Pierce, Florida; currently envisioned as proposed subdivision is intended to have seventy-three (73) runoff from impervious surfaces to be developed at this site retention basin located in the central sections,of the project Please note that our subsurface exploration was,preliininary: in nature'and conducted to acquire general subsurface information only. Once specified site configuration, building detail and structural and traffic loading information are available a final subsurface exploration should be performed. 3.0 PURPOSE The purposes of this exploration were: • to explore the subsurface conditions at general locations and depths as requested by the client and l • to provide our estimates lof the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring locations and • to provide general'.comments concerning .the anticipated soil support characteristics for typical low-rise residential construction. 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION' The subject site is located within Section 11, Township 34 South, Range 39 East in Saint Lucie County, Florida. More specifically, the site is located on the northwest quadrant of Palomar Street Road. and North Kings Highway, in Fort Pierce, Florida. At the time of drilling, the site vegetation. consisted of mostly grass, along with an existing paved circular road around the } proposed subdivision. i I - I 1 820 .Brevard Avenue, Rockl edge,. Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) !638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com J Oakland Lake Estates Subdivisi Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County 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 1980. A brief description of these soils is provided in the following Table I. TABLE SLCSS DESIGNATED SOIL TYPES ~ .Soil!Type ' T (Map_$ymbol) ?' Brief Description Soil material that has been dug up from several areas with different Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes (4) kinds of soil. It is used to fill up areas such as low sloughs, marshes, shallow depressions, and swamps, Wabasso sand (48) Nearly level,. poorly drained sandy soils in broad areas in the flatwoods. , 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY According to informationWE quadrangle map dated 1949, (pre -developmental) is appro; 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVIC The services conducted by Ur as follows: • Drill seven (7) Standard depth of 10 feet below ex • Core through the existing p drill to ascertain the approx Perform Dynamic Cone I selected SPT boreholes to o Secure samples of represe analysis and classification I M from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Oslo, Florida o-revised 1970, ground surface elevation across the site area ely +20 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). during our preliminary subsurface exploration program are ietration Test (SPT) borings within the project site area to a g land surface (bls). ement sections'at four (4) locations with a diamond tipped core ate thickness of the asphaltic surfacing and base course. netrometer (DCP) testing within the upper portions of the Ip further determine soil consistencies. hive soils encountered in ,the soil borings for review, laboratory a Geotechnical Engineer. • Measure the existing -site g loundwater levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet .season high groundwater levels. Conduct soil gradation tests on selected soil samples obtained in the field to help determine their engineering properties. j • Assess the existing soil conditions with respect to. the proposed construction. 2 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32b55 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978, www. UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County; Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Preliminary Subsurface Exploration o Preparing- a geotechnicai 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 i scope of services, general I client. The information subm performed at the locations, in referenced. This report has i contractors, or any other pail soil and foundation engineer erroneous assumptions, fault This report does not reflect extent of such variations ma'l actual construction. If variatio the recommendations in this r period and noting the charact at any of our boring locations the entire property. Therefore and fill quantities. Our field exploration did not fi However, borings for a typical for reliably detecting the press reliably estimating unsuitable recommend relying on our boi estimation of material quantiti exploration for such purpose( provided should be sufficient Therefore, Universal will not I beyond the purpose(s) for whit based on a preliminary subsurface exploration program with the )ring locations and depths as developed in conjunction with the ted in this report is based on data obtained from the soil borings icated on the.Boring Location Plan and from other information as of been prepared to meet the full needs of design professionals, 3s, and any use of this report by them without the guidance of the who prepared it constitutes improper usage which could lead to conclusions, and other problems. iy variations -which may occur across the site. The nature and not become evident until the course of future explorations or s then become evident, it will be necessary for re-evaluation of port after performing on -site observations during the construction ristics of any variations. Deleterious soils were not encountered however, we cannot completely preclude their presence across this report should not be used for estimating such items as cut I unsuitable or unexpected materials at the time of occurrence. mtechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient ce of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or - suitable material quantities. Accordingly, Universal does not g information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for unless ' our contracted services specifically include sufficient. and within the report we 5o state that the level of exploration detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others it is applicable or intended. All users of this report_ are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore no attempt was made by Universal to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if requested. For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document attached within Exhibit 1 "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" prepared by GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association. I i i i 3 820 'Brevard Lenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax.1(321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration 7.0 FIELD METHOD 7.1 STANDARD PENETRA The seven (7) SPT borings, performed in general accord Penetration Test and Split -Be a standard split -barrel sampl( number of blows required tc designated the penetration r The soil samples recovered f in general accordance'with tf Engineering Purposes [Unifie ION TESTS designated B1 through B7 on the attached Figure No. 1, were nce with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for -rel Sampling of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving r into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is sistance, or N-value, an index to soil -strength and consistency. om the split -barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for I Soil Classification System]). The SPT soil borings were performed with a CME 45 ATV mounted drilling rig. Universal located thetest borings, in the field b�,y using the provided site plan and by plotting in the field with a Garmin GPS receiver. No survey control was provided on -site, and our boring locations should be considered only as acc�rate as implied by the methods of measurement used. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Figure No. 1. 7.2 DYNAMIC CONE TESTS Dynamic Cone. Penetrometer .(DCP) tests were performed within the upper portions of the selected SPT boreholes to help further determine. soils consistencies. The DCP tests were performed at 1 foot intervals. in general accordance with. the procedures developed by Professor G. F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges (ASCE, 1966). The basic procedure for the DCP test is as follows: A standard 1.5 inch diameter conical point is driven into the soil by a 1.5-p6und steel hammer failing 20 inches. Foil wing the seating of the, point to a depth .of 2 inches, the number of blows required to drive -the sampler an additional 1.75 inches is designated the penetration resistance, providing an index o soil strength and density. 7.3 PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES Samples of the existing asphaltic pavement sections were obtained at four (4) core locations (Cl through C4) with a 4 inchl nominal diameter diamofd bit .core drill,' advancing through the asphaltic pavement into the underlying base course materials.. Afterwards the core- holes were backfilled and the surfacing patched with an asphaltic "cold patch mixture and the core samples returned to our laboratory for s l bsequent examination. 8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES 8.1 1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS We completed #200. sieve panicle size analyses on seven (7) representative soil samples. These samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM D 1140 (Standard Test Method for Amount of 'Materiall 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. 1 4 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www. UniversalEngineering.com I r. Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0,330.1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County; Florida 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 evaluating its engineering characteristics. The percentage of materials passing the #200 sieve is shown on the attached boring logs. 9.0 SOIL STRATIG The results. of our field exploration and laboratory, analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance :and stabilized groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is ,also included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were prepared from.field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. - The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than d4icted. A generalized profile of -the soils encountered at our boring locations is presentedi in theollowing Table 11. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs. TABLE II GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE Depth ' Encountered;- °(feet, bIs) Apprdxiiii ie Thickness', Efeet) - f , - Soil Oescrlotion,, Fill soils consisting of tine sands with varying quantities of silt, clay, Surface 2 to, 9 gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps [SP, .SP-SM, SC]; loose to. medium dense. Highly interlayered strata consisting,of fine sands-[SP], fine sands with silt [SP-SM]; and clayey fine sands [SC], with varying 2 to 9 1+ to 8+ quantities of broken shell and occasional cemented rock layers; loose to dense. At boring location B2, the fine sand with silt [SP- SM] strata is partially cemented with iron oxide &.organic salts and which is locally known as hardpan. NOTE: [ ] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation. + indicates, strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined: 9;1 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS The results of our examination and measurement of the core samples taken in the field from the existing pavement sections a 1 e shown in the following Table i II: 5, 820 Brelvard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321 )638-08A Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngin'eering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project 111o. 0330.1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County; Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration TABLE III PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS " �; BoringlCore Approximate Th�ckness/Type Approximate Thickness T e of Base Course {' yP t , of Asp alt�c Surfacing of Base Course Materials ; E,ocation . J(inchesj 1 finches)' i 0.7 S3 C1 1.0 S3 S'/z Coquina _ 0.8 S3 C2 8 Coquina 1.1 S3 C3 I,a S3 8 Coquina 1.6 S3 0.8 S3 C4 1.0 S1 10, Coquina 1. 9ee attacnea t-igure No. 1 Jor approximate core iocanons, 2.. Classification of asphaltic layerings was performed visually and may not represent •actual FDOT mix parameters. 3. Subgrade soils consist mostly of fine sands with traces of gravel & broken shell [SP] (i.e. stabilized subgrade). 10.0. GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS We measured the water levels in the boreholes on May 8, 2017 after the groundwater was allowed to 'stabilize. The groundwater levels are shown on the attached boring logs. The groundwater level depths rap ged from 4.3 feet' bls at boring location B6 to 5.7 feet bls at boring locations B2 and B7. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasoal variations in.rainfall, surfacerunoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. 10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL The typical wet season high groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level sustained. for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" .season of the year, for existing site conditions, in a year with average normal rainfall amounts. Based on .historical: data; the rainy season in Saint Lucie County, Florida is between June and October of the year. In order to estimate the wet season, water level at the .boring locations, many factors are examined, including the following: . a, Measured groundwater level b,. Drainage characteristics of existing soil types. C. Season 'of the year (wet/dry season) d. Current &.historical rainfall data (recent.and year-to-date), e, Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.) f. Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.) g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems 6 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledgel, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com . Oakland Lake Estates Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie h.. On -site types i. Area topogral Groundwater level readings Regional Climate Center ai month of April for Central Ss for the month of April. Yez inches, roughly 6 inches bel Based on this information ai groundwater levels at the I measured levels. Please r various intense storm eveni levels. on Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration )f vegetation by (ground surface elevations) ivere taken on May 8, 2017. According to data'from the Southeast d the National Weather Service_, the total rainfall in the previous of Lucie County was 2.2 inches, approximately at the normal levels -to=date rainfall for 2017 through May 8th was approximately 6%z w the normal level for this time period. factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high ing locations will be approximately 2Y 2 feet above the existing e, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following may be somewhat higher than the estimated typical wet season Due to the variable silt and clay content within the near surface soils at this site, we suspect that there may be occasional isoliated pockets of "perched" groundwater throughout the project area, particularly during periods of prolonged wet weather. These temporary perched water table levels may be higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated above. 11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS, 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands [SP], The percentage of soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth sampled. 12.0 ANALYSIS'AND GENERAL COMMENTS 12.1 PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS The removal of site vegetation and roots, along with other construction activities, will further loosen surficial soils to various depths. To provide a homogeneous, compacted, sandy soil system underneath the proposed foundations and floor slabs for the proposed, residences, densification of at least the upper 2 feet of the existing surficial, loose soils and subsequent additional fill soils will be necessary. This should. create a soil mat capable of dissipating the building loads over any remaining loose strata at depth. We believe that this can 'be effectively accomplished using conventional site preparation procedures including a comprehensive root raking and stripping- procedure to :remove vegetation, root mats,, debris and organic topsoils; and then an extensive proof -rolling and densification program for the surficial soils and subsequent structural fill. Assuming that such procedures are properly performed, we anticipate that conventional, shallow spread footing foundations may be used to (support conventional oni§:.t two storu'residenfial construction. 'for 7 8k Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 63�-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 1 www.UniVersalEngineering.com: Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 Preliminary Subsurface Exploration 13.0 CLOSURE We appreciate this opportu , ity 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 through the design phase. If you have any questions concerning.this report or when we may be of any further service, please contact us. I 8 820 Brevard Avenue, Roc4 ledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-096 www.UniversalEngineering.com r I UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES ® Approximate SPT Boring Location Note: Figure is based upon a Google Earth aerial Photograph. OAKLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION HUMMINGBIRD WAY FORT PIERCE, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION PLAN AWN BY: CB DATE Ma .16, 2017 CHECKED'BY. _BP DATE: .. - .... ALE: QROJECT No: ' REPORT NO: PAGE NO. 1" = 200, 0330.1,700052.0000 I �UNIVERSIAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: " 033o,"a°°52,e°°° BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX A PROJECT. I Oakland Estates Subdivision j Hummingbird Way I Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: i BORING DESIGNATION: BSI SHEET: I Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: FAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 614117 DATE OF READING: 51812017, DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: aBLOWS PER ..-. Lu J i- m - — - - - TAo Mc K ORG. ,� a 3 t, �S DESCRIPTION INJ Corq_ n y: INCREMENT' z I N I q HR.) { 7. fine SAND -With traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP] 4.1 TA rrH�t: I K i fine SAND with gravel, broken shell and clay lumps Fill =six brown, [SP] ' Y 10.6 5-6-12 i6 ::•r'+``' Clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell-(Fill);"brown, [SC]- - 7-7-4 11 clayey fine SAND with traces of organics, dark brown, [SC] � I I I I , BORING TERMINATED AT 10' 95 I i, .... - ., ...... ....... c c 2 v UNIVERSA PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision i Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION; SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: ,- - - 0330.1700052.0000 ENGINEERING .SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: BORING LOG REPORTNO;, BORING �7 1 APPENDIX: A BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 1:Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP:. SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514H7 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 618/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: lu M BLOWS PER 6" w a .� p I >: Q lu t, � DESCRIPTION goo MC K (]NJ ORG. CONT._ c . INCREMENT z Ti N o lk) (�) HR► (%) y i Q�- . �- - fine SAND with 'trace`s of clay--IUff -s -(Fill) brown, [SP]- -----' 3;0 5.0 . 6-6-16 1 6" 1 il'1�,�yL 522-26 22' ' e : firie SAND, grey, [SP] - �; ., 5� fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 6-7-8 15 i 6-4-4 a — clayey fine SAND with occasional cemented rock layers, grey, [SC] 10 .. 3-5-7 — -- - --- - - - - - — BORING TERMINATED AT 10' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC I CONE PENETROMETER. 15 I i . ..... ...... ......... ....... c is iu UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.; APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida I CLIENT: I LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B3 SHEET: I Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S.- ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 614117 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 618/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST, W.S.W.T; (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: x^ F' a BLOWS' j 3 g p m �I f J -200 MC K ORG. o G PER } 3 o DESCRIPTION lil h) HIR, C(/IT, m INCREMENT z w • ; fine SAND with silt and traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown,- [SP-SM] 1-55 5" 9-23-28 23' 5-18-20 18" fine SAND, dark brdwn,*[SP] - — fine SAND wit6silt, brown, [SP SM] 5-7-9 16 x�= rr> fine SAND, grey, [SP] - 10 .. BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I j " DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES I UNIVERS. PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way " Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: ENGINEERING .SCIENCES PROJECT NO.-.,- 0330-1700062.0000 L V BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A BORING DESIGNATION: B4 SHEET: 9 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE- EAST G,S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 6/4/17 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.1 DATE FINISHED: 514/17 DATE OF READING: 618/2017 DRILLED,BY. TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W_T- (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: x -1 BLOWS Lu O.200 MC K ORG. G a a PERB" z t< DESCRIPTION l°',l I11> HiRJ c1i)T. INCREMENT fine SAND with silt, gravel; broken shell, aiid'clay lumps (Fill);- ' brown,[SP-SM] 3-18-29 18* -.: 11-21-25 21* 3-23-30 9 23* mow' fine SAND with silt, dark brown, [SP-SM] B-12-14 2& 14-12-15 27 .* _ fine SAND with silt and broken shell, brown, [SP-SM] 14-16-16 32 ".; •' 10 — BORING TERMINATED AT 10' i I i * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 ............... ........ '.... I : I I -I UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 I REPORT NO:: BORING LOG APPENDIX: A PROJECT.' Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN j REMARKS: i I I BORING DESIGNATION: BJ SHEET: I Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 614/17 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 614117 DATE OF READING: 61812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: " a BLOWS -3 F • m � - -200 MC K ORG. w n 2 PER INCREMENT Z 3 i3 o DESCRIPTION (,�) (�) (INJ CONT_ HR.) (y,) fine SAND with traces of ravel, broken shell, and clay�umps - 9 - - (Fill); brown, [SP] ` :u 3:4 2.4 2-11 R''�'tj_ hiS t:� 8-R R' r 2-21-R 21' .ya .w •tJ; - ........... ... Kati »C�i• • _ .. ..:.. ... ...... ....... . ,ryti»ryt 20 20-18 38 i'++ is fine SAND with slit and traces of broken shell,. gray, [SP-SM] ,.:• , 10-9-8 15 .9.- BORING TERMINATED AT 10' " DYNAMICCONE PENETROMETER(DCP) VALUES R-DENOTES'kNIAL:,T0•PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC I I , I I CONE PENETROMETER; ; 1.5.:. .................... I I I . .... ' ...... ....... ....... UNIVERS PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way i Fort Pierce, Florida I CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN i REMARKS` PROJECT NO,: 0330.1700052.0000 ENGINEERING SCIENCES = BORING LOG REPORTNO.r: APPENDIX: A BORING DESIGNATION: BC) SHEET: 9 Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST G.S. ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 614117 WATER TABLE (it): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 614117 DATE OF READING: 518/201.7 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W;S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: x W IL BLOWS 7 I F m �' -- — --- -- Z00 MO K ORG. PER 6" DESCRIPTION (INJ CONT. y INCREMENT = N (�) (y) HR.) (Yo) fine SAND with silt aiid traces of clay um sp -(Fill); brown; - (SP-SM] R R' wf:I 17-20-25 20• ecS ;t - r F r; `fine SAND, gf y, (SP] ry� SI w {itk�.fN 6-7-7 14 clayey fine SAND, grey, (SC] 4-8-6 14 I 6-" 12 10 77=9 16: - BORING TERMINATED AT 10' r "DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC .I •i i i CONE PENETROMETER. 15 �I ...r .. ...... V. RP 1 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330."00052:°°°° BORING LOG REPORTND.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way • Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: I BORINO DESIGNATION: B% SHEET: 1 Of i SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 614117 DATE OF READING: 51812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W,S;W,T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: ,� BLOWS PER 6" U, C ~ 3 3 a DESCRIPTION -200 MC K (IN.I ORG- CONT;, y, INCREMENT z r w i7 (%) (�) HR.), i ` s, -fine SAND with "siifand-clay lumps (Fill), -brown, [SP-SMj - - Z1-R R` i cw: fine SAND, gr&S � [SPj - - 10-24 2Ei 24* pro. 3,4 14-R R* •4r�tif' ...... 7-7-7 14 i clayey fine SAND, grey, [SCI 3-5-6 11 5-5-5 10 10 ` BORING TERMINATED AT 10' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC - I I I I I t I I CONE PENETROMETER. i �5 I i i I .l. I ...... ...... KEY TO BORING LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART* 0 Sand or Gravel [SP,SYV GP,GW] 5 UNIVERSAL Sand or Gravel withSiltUN _AL or Clay 12 . . ..... ................. ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. Lu S% or Cl t d or ravel jj�;;'9�VM,GC] .jG so C, so 0 z so ...... 40 0 E U3 Sandy or Gia"Y'e-111 S, It 0_0 C6 ld, [MLL_ML1,%?M C H 30 P 70 .......... ...... I ................................ I 20 ., JML- ,CL+M:`CL:MH-_Cff;"oL;PHj 85, ------ ;r ...... '-"-" ...... 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70. 80 . 90 100 Silt or IO I LIQUID LIMIT C 1M6qL--m4ejCL,MH,CH,OL,OH] . I PLASTICITY CHART 100 _J,; .............. ......... I ........... GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS M WELL -GRADED SANDS ISM WELL -GRADED GRAVELS [GWI INORGANIC SILTS SLIGHT PLASTICITY IMLI ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS LOW PLASTICITY JOL]" POORLY -GRADED SANDS [SP] POORLY -GRADED' GRAVELS[GP] INORGANIC SILTY CLAY LOW PLASTICITY [CL-MLI ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY [OH]" POORLY -GRADED SANDS WITH LT ISP-SMI POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH SILT GMI INORGANIC CLAYS LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTIC ITY CITY 1CLI PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS 0 WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS [PT] M`3' j� POORLY -GRADED SANDS WITH CLAY [SP-SC] POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH CLAY [GP -GC] INORGANIC SILTS HIGH PLASTICITY JMHI SILTY SANDS ISM] I SILTY GRAVELS IGMI INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH PLASTICITY [CHI RELATIVE DENSITY (SAND AND GRAVEL) VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 BlowsHL CLAYEY SANDS ISCI CLAYEY GRAVELS IGCi LOOSE - 5 to 10 Blowslft. MEDIUM DENSE - 11 to 30 BlowsIrL DENSE - 31 to So Blowslft. VERY DENSE - more than 50 Blowslft. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2487 - UNIFIED SOIL Ism SILTY CLAYEY SANDS [SC-SM] CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. CONSISTENCY LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK. (SILTANDCLAY) VERY SOFT- 0 to 2 Blows/ft. SOFT - 3 to 4 Blowslft. FIRM - 5 to 8 Blows/ft. NOTES; STIFF - 9 to 16 Blowslft. 8'. DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE VERY STIFF - 17 to 30 Blowslft. R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION HARD - more than 30 Blowslft P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER NIE - DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED NOTE: DUAL,§ -ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A-1 � Gep�eh�ical-Eo�i�eering Report -- The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly a client representative interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and, disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed below, contact your GBA-inember,geotechnical engineer. Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil - works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical- engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.; Read this Report In Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors when designing the study behind this report and developing the confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few typical factors include: • the clients goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and risk -management preferences; • the general nature of the structure involved, its size, configuration, and performance criteria; • the structurds location and orientation on the site; and • other planned or existing site improvements, such as retainiQ walls, access roads, parking lots, and urtdergound utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect - the site's size or shape; • the function of the proposed structure, as when its changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; • the composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes — even minor ones — and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. This Report May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client, • for a different project; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an `apply -by" date on the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis - if any is required at all - could prevent major problems. Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ — maybe significantly — from those indicated in this report Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, wheneveI needed. This Report's Recommendations Are Confirmation -Dependent The recommendations included in this report — including any options or alternatives — are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so.lYour geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming, no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability forconfirmation- dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. I This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the design team, to: • confer with other design -team members, • help develop specifications, i • review pertinent elements of other design professionals' plans and specifications, and • be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction observation. I Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design pro fessionals'mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you've included the material for informational purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report, but they may rely.on the factual data relative to the specific times, locations, and depths/elevation's referenced. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind, constructors that they may �w perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.'Ihat lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations," many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmentai Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study — e.g., a "phase-ond' or "phase-twd' environmental site assessment — differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a different client, site, or project, or that is more than six months old. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture — including water vapor — from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building - envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Telephone: 301 /565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA): Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or In part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes ofscholarly research or book review. Only members ofGBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element ofa report ofany kind, Any other firm, individual; or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be eommittin negligent