The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutENGINEERING SUB-SURFACE EXPLORATIONSCANNED BY Sf tud a C®unt%, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES i SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1136 Savanna Club Boulevard & US Highway #1 Port St. Lucie, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 February 20, 2014 PREPARED FOR: RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. 3225 Cumberland Boulevard, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 i PREPARED BY: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. 820 Brevard Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering * Environmental Engineering * Construction Material Testing Offices in: Fort Pierce * Rockledge * Daytona * Orlando * Gainesville * Fort Myers West Palm Beach * Jacksonville * Palm'Coast * Panama City* Miami * Ocala Pensacola * Sarasota * Tampa * and Atlanta, GA UNIVERS ENGINEERING SCI Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Envi Geophysical Services • Construction Materials T Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Co RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. 3225 Cumberland Boulevard Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Attention: Mr. Dan Brown AL ENCES �onmental Sciences esting • Threshold Inspection de Administration February 20, 2014 Reference: Subsurface Exploration { Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1136 Savanna Club Boulevard & US Highway #1 Port St. Lucie, Florida '- - Universal Project No. 0330.14000114.0000 Dear Mr. Brown: LOCATIONS: • Atlanta • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Fort Pierce • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Kissimmee • Leesburg • Miami • Ocala • Orlando (Headquarters) • Palm Coast • Panama City • Pensacola • Rockledge • Sarasota • Tampa • West Palm Beach Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration at the above referenced site in St. Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by you under Purchase Order No. 1135010. This exploration I was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We have included our estimates of the typical wet season groundwater level at the boring locations, general engineering recommendations concerning site preparation procedures, foundation and pavement design parameters and . general comments concerning the anticipated infiltration characteristics of the retention basin subsoils. We appreciate the opportunity to have worked YVith you on this project and look forward to a continued association. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Sincerely yours, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERINGZC,IENCES, INC. Certificate of Authorization No. 549r', . ._ Brad Faucett, -P. E. Regional Engineer Florida Registration Na. 33123 5 — Client UESDOCS - #1100181 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................1 3.0 PURPOSE.........................................................................................................................................1 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................... ............................................................................... 1 4.1 SOIL SURVEY.....................................................!................................... ........... ................................. 2 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................2 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.....................................'...............................................................................2 6.0 I LIMITATIONS...................................................................................................................................3 7.0 I FIELD METHODOLOGIES...............................!...............................................................................4 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS ......................... !............................................................................... 4 7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTING..........................................................................................4 7.3 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES......................................................................................................................4 8.0 I LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES .......... ......!............................................................................... 4 8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................4 8.2 PERMEABILITY TESTS ......................................... ............................................. :................................. 5 I 9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY..................................... :............................................................................... 5 10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ...................... !............................................................................... 6 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....................................1...............................................................................7 11.2 PERMEABILITY TESTS ....................................... 7 12.0 PROPOSED BUILDING....................................................................................................................8 12.1 ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................8 12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................8 - 12.3 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES........................................................................................................9 I 4 13.0 FUEL DISPENSING FACILITY AND TANK PIT AREA.................................................................10 13.1 FUEL DISPENSING FACILITY ................................. ............................................................................... 10 13.2 UST PIT AREA.................................................................................................................................10 14.0 PAVEMENTS .....11 14.1 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................11 14.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................12 14.2.1 Asphaltic (Flexible) Pavements ............. '.............................................................................. 12 14.2.2 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements...............................................................................................13 15.0 PROPOSED RETENTION BASIN ........14 .......................................................................................... 16.0 SEWER AND UTILITY LINES........................................................................................................15 16.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................15 16.2 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................15 17.0 DEWATERING...................................................:............................................................................16 18.0 EXCAVATIONS..................................................;............................................................................16 19.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.........................:.............................................................................17 20.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................................17 LIST OF TABLES Table I: Generalized Soil Profile ....................... ........................... 5 Table II: Permeability Test Results ................... �............................................................................... 7 Table II I: Standard Duty Asphalt/Limerock Pavement.....................................................................12 Table IV: Heavy Duty Asphalt/Limerock Pavement..........................................................................12 Table V: Standard Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement..........................................................14 Table VI: Heavy Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement...............................................................14 FIGURES County Soil Survey ................. USGS Topographic Map ........ Boring Location Plan .............. Key to Boring Logs Boring Logs ..... ........................................................................................................ Figure 1 ......................................................................................................... Figure 2 .........................................................................................................Figure 3 I APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. Appendix A ................................................................................................................. Appendix A ASFE Document ............... I EXHIBITS ....................................................................................................... Exhibit 1 i Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 1.0 INTRODUCTION Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration for the proposed Racetrac Market RT 1135 in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by. Mr. Dan Brown of Racetracl Petroleum, Inc. under Purchase Order No. 1135010. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Universal understands from review of the information provided by the client that the proposed project will consist of a retail gasoline service station. & market in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The facility will include a one-story retail/service building covering a plan area of approximately 5,928 square feet, a canopy with pump islands, an underground storage tank pit area and associated parking/drive areas. The stormwater runoff from ithe new impervious surfaces will be retained within a proposed retention area to be located within the eastern sections of the site. We understand that the proposed construction will consist of a combination of reinforced concrete, masonry and steel framing. Specific structural details are not yet available; however, based on our previous work with similar structures, we assume that maximum loading conditions will be on the order of 50 kips per column, 3 kips per lineal foot for structural walls, and 100 pounds per square foot for on grade floor slabs. We assume that the finished floor level of the proposed building will be approximately 2 to 4 feet above existing grades. I If any of the above information is incorrect or changes prior to construction, please contact Universal immediately so that we may revise the; recommendations contained in this report, as necessary. In order to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented, Universal should be allowed to review the final design and specifications prior to the start of construction. - 3.0 PURPOSE The purposes of this exploration were: • to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to potential problems that may hinder the proposed development, • to provide our estimates of the typical wet season groundwater levels at the boring locations and l • to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation procedures, foundation and pavement design parameters and general comments concerning the anticipated infiltration characteristics of the retention area subsoils. - 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is an approximate 3 acre tract, located within Section 26, Township 36 South, Range 40 East in St. Lucie County, Florida. More Ispecifically, the site is located at the southeast corner of Savanna Club Boulevard and US Highway #1, in Port St. Lucie, Florida. At the time of drilling, the site was relatively level with a vegetative cover ranging from sparse grass to clumps 1� 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.Universa[Ehgineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration of brush & various sized trees. Much of the property was occupied by a single story commercial building and associated asphaltic surfaced parking lots & drives (i.e. remnants of the old Savannas Subdivision sales complex). A large circular decorative walkway was located within the southeastern quadrant of the property. 4.1 SOIL SURVEY The majority of the site soils are mapped as Waveland fine sand (50) according the St. Lucie County Soil Survey (SLCSS) issued March 1980. Waveland sand (50) is described as a nearly level, poorly drained sandy soil on broad flatwoods. A copy of a portion of the SLCSS is included as Figure 2. 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Florida quadrangle maps; ground surface elevation across the site area is from approximately +15 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). A copy of a portion of the USGS Map is included as Figure 1. 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The services conducted by Universal during our • Drill two (2) Standard Penetration Test (SI storage tank (UST) area to a depth of 20 feet urface exploration program are as follows: borings within the proposed underground )w the existing land surface (bls). • Drill two (2) SPT borings within the proposed building footprints to a depth of 15 feet bls. • Drill seven (7) SPT borings within the depth of 10 feet bls. • Drill one (1) SPT boring within the proposed feet bls. canopy, parking & entrance drive areas to a retention basin area to a depth of 10 • Perform Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)l testing within the upper portions of the SPT boreholes to help further determine soil consistencies. • Obtain two (2) undisturbed shelby tube samples of the near surface soils within the proposed eastern retention area for subsequent laboratory permeability tests. I • Secured samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. • Measured the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet season high groundwater levels. • Conducted soil gradation tests on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their engineering properties. • I Assessed the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction. 2 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalErIgineering.com f' Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration • Prepared a report which documents the results of our subsurface exploration and analysis with geotechnical engineering recommendations. 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared in order to aid they client/engineer in the design of the proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 in Port St. Lucie, Florida. The scope is limited to the specific project and locations described herein. Our description of the project's design parameters represents our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation characteristics. In 1 the event that any changes in the design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be informed so the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified, if required, and approved in writing by Universal. i The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Exploration Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report after performing on -site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations. Deleterious soils were not encountered at any of our boring locations; however, we cannot completely preclude their presence across the project area. Therefore, this Ireport should not be used for estimating such items as cut and fill quantities. Our field exploration did not find unsuitable or unexpected materials at the time of occurrence. However, borings for a typical geotechnical report, are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, Universal does not recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities. Therefore, Universal will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended. 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 ASFE/Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences. 31 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEnlgineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS The twelve (12) SPT borings, designated B1 through B12 on the attached Figure 3, were performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soil;'). The SPT drilling technique involves driving a standard split -barrel sampler into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, ' after an initial seating of 6 inches, is designated the penetration resistance, or Wvalue, an index to soil strength and consistency. The soil samples recovered from the split -barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]). 7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTING Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were boreholes, to help further determine soils consis foot intervals in general accordance with the proc( and Charles S. Hedges (ASCE, 1966). The basic standard 1.5 inch diameter conical point is drive falling 20 inches. Following the seating of the poii required to drive the sampler an additional 1.75 in providing an index to soil strength and density. 7.3 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES We obtained two (2) undisturbed shelby tube sar laboratory permeability tests. These specimens w 3 feet bis according to ASTM D 1587 (Thin-V1 procedure includes manually excavating a pit shelby tube horizontally and vertically into the soil The SPT soil borings were performed with a located the test borings in the field by using tr existing on -site landmarks using a cloth tape and was provided on -site, and our boring locations sh by the methods of measurement used. The ap attached Figure 3. 8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES 8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS made within the upper portions of the SPT encies. The DCP tests were performed at 1 �dures developed by Professor G. F. Soweres procedure for the DCP test is as follows: A in into the soil by a 15-pound steel hammer it to a depth of 2 inches, the number of blows ,hes is designated the penetration resistance, ales of the near surface soils for subsequent re obtained at depths of approximately 2Y2 to II Tube Sampling of Soils) procedure. This d hand driving a 2.82-inch inside diameter ME 55 truck mounted drilling rig. Universal provided site plan and measuring from the ;alibrated measuring wheel. No survey control uld be considered only as accurate as implied roximate boring locations are shown on the We completed #200 sieve particle size analyses on four (4) 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. The percentage of the material finer than the No. 200 sieve helps determines the textural nature of the soil sample and aids in evaluating 4 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) .638-0978 www.UniversalEn6ineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration its engineering characteristics. The percentage of materials passing the #200 sieve is shown on the attached boring log. 8.2 PERMEABILITY TESTS Constant head permeability tests were performed on the Shelby tube samples by measuring the water flow through the sample for time versus flow volume. The tests were performed without extracting or otherwise disturbing the.shelby tube .contents. This data was used to calculate the coefficient of permeability (K) of the soils. Results of these tests are found in the laboratory results section of this report. 9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and stabilized groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical Engineer. The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring locations is presented below in Table I. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs. TABLET GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE Depth Approximate Encountered Thickness' Soil Description. (feet, bl's) (feet) Fill soils consisting of fine sands with silt [SP-SM] and varying Surface 1 to 5 trace quantities of roots, gravel, asphalt fragments & clay lumps; loose,to medium dense. Materials are absent at boring. locations B4,1B5 & B10. Fine sands [SP], loose to dense. Stratum is occasionally Surface to 5 2 to 5 overlain by a thin layer of fine sand with silt & traces of roots SP-SM] (topsoil). Interlayered 'strata consisting of clayey fine sand [SC], fine 3 to 9 3 to 9 sand with silt [SP-SM] (hardpan), silty fine sand [SM], and fine sand with cla SP-SC]; loose to dense. 8 to 12 3+ to 12+ 1 Fine sands with silt [SP-SM], medium dense. NOTE: [ ] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation. + indicates strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined. 51 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32b55 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEnigineering.com I i Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS We measured the water level in the boreholes on ;February 20, 2014 after the groundwater was allowed to stabilize. The groundwater levels are shown on the attached boring logs. The groundwater level depths ranged from 1.4 feet bls at boring location B10 to 4.3 feet bis at boring location B9. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were conducted. 10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL The typical wet season high groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season of the year, for existing site conditions, in a year with average normal rainfall amounts. Based on historical data, the rainy season in St. 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. b. C. d. e. f. 9- h. i. Measured groundwater level Drainage characteristics of existing soil types Season of the year (wet/dry season) Current & historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date) Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.) Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.) Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems On -site types of vegetation Area topography (ground surface elevations) Groundwater level readings were taken on February 20, 2014. According to data from the Southeast Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in the previous month of January for Central St. Lucie County was 9.9 inches, approximately 7.4 inches above the normal for December. The total rainfall in the last 6 months of 2013 was 27.0 inches, about 2 inches below normal levels. The year to date rainfall through February 20, 2014 was 12.0 inches, approximately 7Y2 inches above normal levels. Based on this -information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season groundwater levels at the boring locations will be approximately 1 foot above 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 relatively shallow layers of fine sand with silt [SP-SM] (hardpan) and clayey fine sands [SC] within the near surface soils at some of the boring locations, we strongly suspect that there may be occasional isolated pockets of "perched" groundwater within some portions of - - 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. 6 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Port St. Lucie, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Subsurface Exploration 11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS The soil samples submitted for analysis were cla [SP-SM], and clayey fine sands [SC]. The percer are shown on the boring logs at the approximate c 11.2 PERMEABILITY TESTS Soil permeability is a measure of the soil's ability conditions. Permeability is a function of the grr According to the National Soil Survey Handt Department of Agriculture, permeability rates can ;ified as fine sands [SP], fine sands with silt ige of soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size pth sampled. allow water flow though it under saturated size and sorting of the entire soil mass. k, 1993 Edition, published by the U.S. expressed in the following classes: Permeability Class Permeability K (in/hr) . Extremely Slow 0.0 — 0.01 Very Slow 0.01 - 0.06 Slow 0.06 - 0.2 Moderately Slow 0.2 - 0.6 Moderate 0.6 - 2.0 Moderately Rapid 2.0 — 6.0 Rapid 6.0 — 20.0 Very Rapid > 20.0 Most "clean" fine sands [SP] typically exhibit moderately rapid to very rapid permeabilities. Fine sands with silt or clay [SP-SM or SP-SC] can usually be considered to have slow to moderately slow permeabilities; while silty sand [SM], clayey sands [SC], silts [ML] and clays [CL] are typically within the extremely slow to slow class. The results obtained from our laboratory permeability tests, where K is the coefficient of permeability, are displayed in Table II below: TABLE II PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS Boring Location Soil Type :Sample Depth (feet). Permeability Rate,K (iri/tic) Permeability Class 67 Fine sand with silt Horizontal @ 2% 0.85 Moderate [SP-SM] 67 Fine sand with silt Vertical @ 21/ to 3 0.57 Moderately Slow [SP-SM] I 7 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration It should be noted that the coefficient of permeability is not an infiltration rate. The actual infiltration rate is influenced by the coefficient ;of permeability as well as several factors, including the elevation of the pond bottom, water level in the pond, the elevation of the wet season water table, and the confining layer. 12.0 PROPOSED BUILDING 12.1 ANALYSIS The removal of existing structures, foundation topsoils, roots and surface vegetation, along with the surficial soils to various depths. Therefore, dE existing subsoils, and any subsequent fill material: mat capable of dissipating the building loads over be effectively accomplished by compacting the s vibratory rollers, then filling to grade in compacte Preparation Procedures) of this report. The following recommendations are made based our understanding of the proposed constructior subsurface conditions. If the structural loadings, b those discussed previously, we request the opl recommendations with respect to those changes. 12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Provided our suggested site preparation procedi conventional, shallow spread footings foundati pressure of up to*2,500 pounds per square foc pressures may not warrant it, strip and square foc 18 and 24 inches, respectively to prevent "shear should be at least 18 inches below finished grade edge slab foundation system for which a minimum utilities, floor slabs, pavements, organic ther construction activities, will further loosen nsification of at least the upper 2 feet of the , will be necessary. This will help create a soil any remaining loose strata at depth. This can ils with a large static roller or medium sized 1 lifts as recommended in section 12.3 (Site .ipon a review of the attached soil test data, and experience with similar projects and ilding locations or grading plans change from ortunity to review and possibly amend our res are followed, we recommend designing ,ns for a maximum allowable soil -contact t (psf). Even though computed soil -contact ings should have minimum widths of at least unch" deformations. The base of all footings elevation, with the exception of a thickened- Jepth of 14 inches is acceptable. Assuming existing soils and added structural fill soils are prepared and footings are designed according to our recommendations, we estimate maximum total vertical settlements of the structure will be less than 1 inch and maximum differential settlements will be less than Y2 inch. Almost all of the expected settlement will take place as soon as the soil fill and structural loads have been applied to the densified existing sandy soil (and overlying sandy soil fill). We recommend using a sheet vapor barrier, such as visqueen, beneath the building slab -on - grade to help control moisture migration through the slab. Floor slabs can be supported upon the compacted fill and should be structurally isolated from other foundations elements or adequately reinforced to prevent distress due to differential movements. We recommend a minimum thickness of at least 6 inches be maintained for the concrete floor slab where heavy loads are anticipated. In lightly loaded pedestrian walk areas, we recommend a minimum thickness of at least 5 inches be maintained. 8 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEn ineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration i 12.3 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES Following is a list of our recommended site preparation procedures to prepare the site for the proposed construction. 1. Strip the footprint of the proposed building (and canopy), plus a minimum margin of at least ten feet beyond foundation lines, of existing foundations, floor slabs, pavements, vegetation, roots, topsoils, debris, rubble, muck, etc. Any collapsible or leak prone utilities should be completely removed from within the location. of the proposed building. It has been our experience that the subsoils within previously developed areas sometimes contain pockets of buried rubble, muck, debris or other deleterious materials. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the stripped surface be observed and probed by representatives of Universal. Any deleterious matter remaining should be removed and replaced with select fine sand [SP] backfill. 2. Densify the exposed surficial soils, including the ten feet margin, to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density, (ASTM D 1557, Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000 ft-Ibf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3))) to a depth of at least 24 inches below the stripped surface. 3. If vibratory equipment is used to compact fill, then we recommend using vibratory rollers weighing less than 1 ton within 20 feet of existing structures, less than 2 tons within distances of 20 to 40 feet, less than 6 tons between 40 to 100 feet, and up to 10 tons beyond 100 feet. The use of heavier equipment may damage existing neighboring structures. Otherwise static rollers weighing more than 5 tons should be used. 4. Proof -roll the exposed subsurface soils under, the observation of Universal, to locate any unforeseen soft areas of unsuitable soils, ands to increase the density of the shallow loose fine sand soils. Each pass should overlap the proceeding pass by roughly 30 percent to insure complete coverage. If deemed necessary by Universal, in areas that continue to "yield", remove any deleterious materials and replace with a clean, compacted sand backfill [SP]. 5. Depending upon weather conditions, or other factors, the addition or removal (dewatering) of water may be necessary to aid compactive efforts. Additional passes with compaction equipment or over excavation and replacement in compacted layers may be necessary if the minimum density requirements are not achieved by the recommended equipment. 6. Within all of the building areas (including the canopy areas), fill to floor slab/pavement grade as necessary with select structural fill, placed in maximum 10 inch loose lifts; we recommend using sandy soils with less than 10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP-SM, or SP-SC]. Each lift of structural fill should be densified to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density of the soil (ASTM D 1557) and tested for compaction and approved before the placement of subsequent Lifts. 7. Footing and utility excavations and other construction activities frequently disturb compacted subsoils to various depths; therefore, compaction beneath all floor slabs and footings should be verified to a depth of 1 foot immediately prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and 9 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com i Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration concrete, and should meet at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density of the soil (ASTM D 1557). 8. Field density tests should be performed by Universal at appropriate times during earthwork operations in order to verify that the compaction requirements have been satisfied. These tests should be performed after compaction in ithe existing soils, after placement of each lift of structural fill, within all footing excavations, and beneath all concrete slab -on -grade locations. Compaction tests should be performed at a frequency of not less than three tests feet per each foot of compacted increment as specified herein. In addition, we recommend that at least every -other column footing be tested with at least one test per every.-100 linear feet of wall footing. 13.0 FUEL DISPENSING FACILITY AND TANK PIT AREA 13.1 FUEL DISPENSING FACILITY Conventional shallow spread footings can be used for the proposed canopy foundations; however, the design will depend primarily on the uplift loading. We recommend that the footing be sized so that its weight will equal the uplift force. The weight of the soil backfill and the skin friction between the sides of the footing and the soil will provide an additional factor of safety. For design purposes we recommend assuming that the unit weight of concrete is 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and the soil backfill is 115 pcf; however, where these materials will be below the groundwater table, the effective unit weights should be reduced by 62 pcf. The skin friction can be calculated as approximately 0.4 x the mean depth of the footing x the effective unit weight of soil. 13.2 UST PIT AREA We assume the excavation for the proposed USTIpitarea will be on the order of 10 to 15 feet below the ground surface. Based on the results of borings 131 and B2 (performed within/adjacent to the proposed pit area), the subsoils at this level are primarily medium dense fine sands with silt [SP-SM] and clayey fine sands [SC]. Such soils are suitable for supporting the proposed tanks, provided that loose sand pockets are further densified as discussed below. Prior to the excavation and installation of the tanks, we recommend temporary dewatering be performed in order to lower the groundwater table at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation. Excavation procedures should conform to the OSHA regulations (Please see section 17.0 of this report). i After the excavation for the tanks is complete, we recommend that the bottom of the excavation be compacted by small hand guided equipment to achieve at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) to a depth of 1 foot. Any excessively soft soils encountered should be over excavated to a depth of at least 12 inches below bottom of tank foundation level and replaced with compacted select backfill as directed by Universal. i After completion of the tank installation, backfill, consisting of clean fine sands [SP], should be placed in uniform 12 inch (or less) loose lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor Test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), with small hand guided equipment weighing less than one ton. Dewatering should continue until sufficient structural dead weight is in place, 10 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration and the backfill has reached a sufficient level; above the existing groundwater table, to counteract any possible buoyant uplift forces. The proposed underground storage tanks should'. be anchored with sufficient dead weight to counteract buoyant uplift forces during the service -life of the facility, particularly when the tanks are empty. 14.0 PAVEMENTS We recommend using either a rigid concrete pavement or a flexible asphaltic pavement section on this project. Flexible pavements combine the strength and durability of several layer components to produce an appropriate and cost-effective combination of locally available construction materials. Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel loads to the subgrade soils than a flexible asphalt 'pavement; therefore, requiring less subgrade preparation than a comparable flexible pavement section. 14.1 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES Densification of the surficial sands will be required in all parking and drive areas, in order to both {-- help ensure an adequate subgrade capacity and to limit subsequent settlements due to traffic vibrations. Within the parking/drive areas we recommend that the surficial soils be proof rolled with a heavy piece of equipment, such as a fully! loaded tandem axle dump truck, under the observation of Universal personnel. Any areas which exhibit instability under rolling should be j examined by Universal for possible removal and replacement with compacted select backfill. All parking lot subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of base course levels, or the full depth of fill and the top 12 inches of existing subgrade soils, whichever is greater. Soil density testing to verify the uniformity of compactive efforts should be performed at a frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, one per each foot of compacted increment, as specified herein, or at a minimum of three test locations, whichever is greater. All surficial root mats, vegetation, existing foundations, pavements, floor slabs, and debris should be completely removed from the proposed 'new pavement areas. Any collapsible or leak prone utility lines remaining within the new pavement areas should either be completely removed or grouted closed. i All pavement area fill should consist of clean select fill, consisting of sandy soils with less than 10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP-SM, orISP-SC], placed in 12 inch lifts with each lift compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified (Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If vibratory equipment is used to compact fill, subgrade and base courses, then we recommend using vibratory rollers weighing less than 1 ton within 20 feet of existing structures, less than 2 tons within distances of 20 to 40 feet, less than 6 tons from 40 feet to 100 feet and up to 10 tons beyond 100 feet. The use of heavier equipment may damage existing neighboring structures. Depending on weather conditions and other factors, the addition or removal (dewatering) of water may be necessary to aid compactive efforts. 11 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www. UniversalEngineering.corn Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 14.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 14.2.1 Asphaltic (Flexible) Pavements Standard duty pavement areas are defined as having car and pickup truck loading conditions. Heavy duty areas are defined as having delivery, storage, and garbage truck loading conditions along with service drives. Assuming a) the subgrade soils are compacted to 95 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM,D 1557) with a design LBR value of 40 (after stabilization), b) a 20 year design life, c) terminal serviceability index (Pt) of 2, d) reliability of 90 percent, and e) total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E18SAL) of 50,000, we recommend the minimum design shown in the following Table III, for a standard duty asphalt pavement. TABLE III MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT/LIMEROCK PAVEMENT Pavement Layer Thickness Minimum Requirements Asphalt Wearing Surface 95% Laboratory Marshall Density, Mix to be FDOT Type S-1 (SP-12.5) 1.5 Inch Minimum approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it or S-III (SP-9.5) should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum theoretical density. Limerock, Cemented Coquina, 98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry or Recycled Concrete Base 6 Inch Minimum density, Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at least 100. 98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry Stabilized Subbase Course 6 Inch Minimum density, stabilized to a Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at least 40. Assuming the above factors for standard duty pavements apply to heavy duty pavements where heavy trucks such as delivery & refuse collection Vehicles would traverse (i.e. loadings of up to 150,000 E18SALs), we recommend using the following design in Table IV for minimum heavy duty pavement areas. TABLE IV MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT/LIMEROCK PAVEMENT Pavement Layer Thickness Minimum Requirements Asphalt Wearing Surface 95% Laboratory Marshall Density, Mix to be FDOT Type S-1 (SP-12.5) 2 Inch Minimum approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it or S-III (SP-9.5) should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum theoretical density. Limerock, Cemented Coquina, 98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry or Recycled Concrete Base 8 Inch Minimum density, Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at least 100. 98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry Stabilized Subbase Course 8 Inch Minimum density, stabilized to a Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at least 40. We recommend designing asphaltic pavements with at least 18 inches of clearance between the bottom of the pavement base course and the estimated typical wet season groundwater 12 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngipeering.com Proposed Race Trac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration level. A thorough testing and inspection program should be incorporated during the pavement construction. Stabilized subgrade can be imported materials or a blend of on -site and imported materials. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions. Compaction testing of the stabilized subgrade, and the subsequent limerock base course material should be performed to full depth at a minimum of at least four test locations. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material thickness and to perform laboratory densities of the asphaltic surfacing. In parking lots, for extended life expectancy of the surface course, we recommend applying a coal tar emulsion sealer at least six months after placement of the surface course. The seal coat will help patch cracks and voids, and protect the! surface from damaging ultraviolet light and automobile liquid spillage. Please note that applying the seal coat prior to six months after placement may hinder the "curing" of the surface course, leading to its early deterioration. We recommend that all materials used in pavement construction comply with the latest edition of the Florida Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications For Road and Bridge Construction. Universal should be allowed to review and comment on the final asphalt pavement design. 14.2.2 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel loads to the subgrade soils than a flexible asphalt pavement. We recommend using the existing surficial sands or recommend fine sand fill [SP, SP-SM, or SP-SC],1 densified to at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) without additional stabilization, with the following stipulations. 1. Subgrade soils must be densified to at least 9'5 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of at least 2 feet, or the full depth of new fill, whichever is greater, prior to placement of concrete. 2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting corrected prior to placement of concrete. 3. The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete. 4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the thickened edges (curb or footing). 5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated typical wet season groundwater level by at least 1 foot. Based on slab thickness for standard duty concrete pavements are based on the subgrade soils densified to 95 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density we recommend using the design shown in the following Table V for standard duty (loadings of up to 50,000 E18SALs) concrete pavements. 13 j 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration TABLE, V MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT Minimum Pavement Maximum Control , Minimum Saw Cut Depth Thickness Joint Spacing 6 Inches 10 Feet x 10 Feet 1-1/4 Inches Our recommendations on slab thickness for heavy duty concrete pavements (loadings of up to 150,000 E18SALs) are based on the same factors as above. Our recommended minimum design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown) in Table VI below. TABLE UI MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT Minimum Pavement Maximum Control Minimum Saw Cut Depth Thickness I Joint Spacing 7 Inches 14 Feet x 14 Feet 1-3/4 Inches We recommend using concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of at least 4000 pounds per square inch. Layout of the Saw cut control joints should form square panels, and the depth of Saw cut joints should be at least % of the concrete slab thickness. We recommend allowing Universal to review and comment on the final concrete pavement design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of construction. For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing of Non -Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products Association, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas", published by the Portland Cement Association. Compaction testing of the subgrade soils should be performed to the full depths recommended herein at a minimum of at least three locations. Cylinder specimens to verify the compressive strength of the pavement concrete should be obtained for at least every 50 cubic yards, or at least one set for each day's placement, whichever is greater. 15.0 PROPOSED RETENTION BASIN We understand that the stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected within a proposed "dry" retention basin to be constructed within the eastern sections of the site. The hydraulic capacity of stormwater retention areas is principally a function of the ability of the surface soil to receive and percolate the storm water runoff. Upon reaching the groundwater table or a restrictive layer, the stormwater runoff begins to mound. The amount and rate of rise in the recharge mound depends on several factors; including the thickness and permeability of the receiving stratum, the elevation of the groundwater table, and the geometry of the loaded area. 14 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com i Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration ' The majority of the near surface soils within the retention basin area (boring location 137) appear to be moderately permeable fine sands with silti [SP-SM] (fill) underlain by a thin layer of relatively permeable fine sand [SP]. However, the underlying fine sands with silt (hardpan) [SP- SM] and clayey fine sand [SC] soils are relatively impermeable and should be considered aquicludes in retention pond design. We estimate that the site surficial sands (above the groundwater table) would. exhibit a fillable porosity'of approximately N = 25%. For dry retention systems to be used at this project, we recommend that the site be filled/contoured to allow pond bottom levels of at least 1 foot above the estimated: seasonal high groundwater level. In order to further enhance the performance potential of the "dry" retention basin system, the moderately permeable surficial fill soils, together with the underlying impermeable hardpan & clayey sand strata, can be undercut to a depth of at least 10 feet below pond bottom level and replaced with highly permeable fine sands (i.e. k >_ 10 inches/hour at a density of approximately 92% of the modified Proctor test). j Please note that the action of earthmoving equipment tends to densify the subsoils at the bottom of pond level during retention pond construction/modification; somewhat reducing their permeability rate. Hence, we recommend that the permeability rates of the existing surficial sand with silt [SP-SM] fill soils listed in Table II be; reduced by at least 25% in the actual pond design. The actual infiltration rate of retention pond subsoils is influenced by the coefficient of permeability as well as several factors, including the elevation of the pond bottom, water level in the pond, the elevation of the wet season water table, and the confining layer. These factors must be accounted for in an appropriate groundwater model to determine the infiltration rate of a given soil stratum. We recommend the designer use a commercial software program such as "Ponds" or "Modret" in order to evaluate this pond. Universal would be pleased to perform a storm water infiltration study at your request. After the configurations of the proposed site retention basins are further defined, Universal should be allowed to review the, proposed plans, so that recommendations for any necessary additional borings and/or laboratory testing can be formulated. 16.0 SEWER AND UTILITY LINES 16.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS We assume that proposed sewer and other utility lines at the site may have invert elevations roughly 2 to 4 feet below existing grades. Based) on the results of the soil borings and our general knowledge of the area, we believe there may be occasional soft/deleterious pockets at this. invert level. If encountered, such deleterious lavers should be over excavated and replaced with approved backfill or open graded gravel. 16.2 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES The following is our recommended procedures to prepare the site soils for construction of the proposed utility lines. 15 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineenng.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration 1. Install a dewatering system capable of maintaining a groundwater level at least 2 feet below bottom of pipe level. 2. Excavate and install the proposed utility lines. Any deleterious soils encountered at pipe bedding level should be examined by representatives of Universal for possible removal and replacement with clean fine sands [SP] as previously discussed. All replacement soils should be compacted to at least 98 percent, of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D1557) with small vibratory plates or rollers. 3. Backfill to grade with sandy soils with less than 10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP- SM, or SP-SC], placed in 12 inch loose lifts with each lift compacted, with vibratory rollers or plates weighing less than 4 tons, to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Backfill above and around thrust blocks should consist of clean fine sands [SP] compacted at least 98 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). For a design criteria, we recommend using an allowable passive -earth pressure coefficient of KP=3.0. 17.0 DEWATERING Based on the water level conditions encountered,! control of the groundwater will probably be required to achieve the necessary excavation„ construction, backfilling, and compaction requirements presented in the preceding sections. Regardless of the method(s) used, we suggest drawing down the water level at least 2 to 3 feet below the bottom of the excavations to preclude "pumping" and/or compaction -related problems with the foundation and/or subgrade soils. The actual method(s) of dewatering should be determined by the contractor. Dewatering should be accomplished with the knowledge that the permeability of soils decreases with increasing silt [M] and/or clay [C] content. Therefore, a clayey fine sand [C] is less permeable than a fine sand [SP]. The fine sand, fine sand with clay and clayey fine sand [SP, SP-SC and SC] soil types can usually be dewatered by well pointing. It should be noted that the typical wet season groundwater levels previously listed may be temporarily exceeded during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal high estimates. We recommend positive drainage The established and maintained on the site during construction. We further recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. We recommend that the contract documents provide for determining the depth to the groundwater table just prior to construction, and for any required remedial dewateri'ng. 18.0 EXCAVATIONS Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As a minimum, temporary excavations below 4-foot depth should be sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations (29 CFR Par 1926) dated October 31, 1989. Where lateral confinement will not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the 16 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineenng.com Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 Universal Project No. 0330.1400014.0000 Port St. Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for maintaining workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor. 19.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS Vibrations produced during vibratory compaction operations at the site may be significantly noticeable within 100 feet and may cause settlement distress of adjacent structures if not properly regulated. Therefore, provisions should be made to monitor these vibrations by Universal so that any necessary modifications in the compaction operations can be made in the field before potential damages occur. In addition, the conditions of the existing adjacent structures should be ascertained and documented! prior to vibratory operations. Slight cosmetic damage (e.g. hairline cracks in stucco, plaster, or masonry) may occur in conjunction with compaction operations. 20.0 CLOSURE The soil and groundwater conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration of the property and the results of the laboratory analysis identified no geotechnical issues that will significantly hinder development of the proposed project, as we currently understand it, using conventional construction practices. Standard methods of surficial stripping, excavation, proof rolling, compaction and backfilling should adequately prepare the site. The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. The design is an on -going process', throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified to address site problems or construction changes, which may arise during construction, in a timely and cost-effective manner. We recommend the owner retain the Universal Fort Pierce office to provide inspection services during the site preparation procedures for confirmation of the adequacy of the earthwork operations. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation subgrades by monitoring proof -rolling operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of compacted structural fill and pavement courses. 17 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngin6ering.com i Figures N I t' ` °• I '� . r Ya l- ;.r-'� 1 a 4t. trii t� p� s li. ` 1' � 5ry( 'A � � '�.r 2t f � < < w r-y y ~ rJb 40, T ' 1 v S ✓ _'%° r' ° +�'" • C t � ��''! 1 �. t 5�~ , i t"�'� '��}�yl u.' „ �K �:�t'k. -� tV '+=:�� n r �34 '- - � � '�+'.'a*M'^". -+G� `.mot ` � y_y w1 1Q r x 7arf9✓ f a r.e t` ✓Vs �Z-. J ✓l ?� "I r � � 1 ¢ � r " { 4# des"" �.� •.�.. � r. j{ J '��V1 � 1 *h'T r JP d '`' '` 4', ° �.n l �J�' r •� °0" *, fii \ 1 � t i� y t ti t� � f✓`.'� ,� r a � .,t-�' r ( t. i sY •^. a a� #,+ -+ Y � � f � � -� A OApproximate Project location RACETRAC MARKET US HIGHWAY #1 & SAVANNA CLUB DRIVE PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOIL SURVEY UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES DRAWN BY: BMS DATE: 2/1812014 CHECKED BY: BF DATE: 2/18/2014 CALE: PROJECT NO: REPORT NO: PAGE NO: NTS 1 0330.1400014.0000 i I Fiaure No.: 1 i tj 4 (1r tit YA VIC ;�-+ ' .�, `' � �� ii 41 I �� ,I, 1► ` _,�_ Via_: �(��:�`� �, ' ��', 1}. `�a ,�` � JAI t t ..:>v •- ;1 I, f . > d 71 y s '.1 Sys. I11 1 1J 4 '� 7 OS r � `�' x�� d�� 3'*i►`Z � �fA � `rR4 jt til I �' t.�°''`.qc l f� t� Ik 9 1, 7'� tsTCal.ec; O Approximate Project location RACETRAC MARKET US HIGHWAY #1 & SAVANNA CLUB DRIVE PORT ST.' LUCIE, FLORIDA USGS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES DRAWN BY: BMS DATE: 2/18/2014 I CHECKED BY: BF DATE: 2/18/2014 SCALE: PROJECT NO: REPORT NO: PAGE NO: NTS 0330.1400014.0000 I Figure No.: 2 N / f"'�- ;•;;yam: - ,. - •.�:' .� "� 'i' ;�:.,, ";4 , _ '•''�•� { ' it B7 r10 B1j. ' 62 n,f/,warpCi= sBV 6E4A9I, �..- . �, !' S i i {• -` 1 i': fir{ r 5 Ei _ � g �.f. �',!V � .9 •. ' it h"8 .. Sj (i l�r N.s .. ®B'2 �.. 6 a ! r e oga ®nv 1133m90 T�® o o o \ � R R _ R f. f. R f• _ B9Sk t� mow. ® Approximate Boring Location * Figure is based upon a drawing provided by the client. RACETRAC MARKET US HIGHWAY #1 & SAVANNA CLUB DRIVE 91 PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION PLAN UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES DRAWN BY: BMS DATE: 2/18/2014 CHECKED BY: BF DATE: 2/18/2014 CALE: PROJECT NO: REPORT NO: PAGE NO: 1"=100' 0330.1400014.0000 Figure No.: 3 Appendix A W W (N O 0 N O Z Z N W I 0 S 12 SO 70 85 100 KEY TO BORING LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART* ............................... I..................... Sand or Grave[ [SP,SW,GP,GWJ ............... ........................... I.......... Sand or Gravel with Silt or Clay [SPSM,SPSC] ..................................................... Slay or CI eeyy Sand or Gravel t$KSC,GM,GC] Sanl1 or Gravelly Sift or la y [ML, L-ML,CL,M ,CH,OL;O ................................................... Slit or Clay with Sand or Gravel "AL CL-ML,CL M14CH OL,OHj 80 60 X 0 40 z 30 F 20 o. 10 ...................................................... 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 60 60 100 Slit or Clay LIQUID LIMIT [ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH] PLASTICITY CHART ...................................................... GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. COARSE GRAINED SOILS WELL -GRADED SANDS [SW] • `' ! ' WELL -GRADED GRAVELS [GW] Dr. POORLY -GRADED SANDS [SP] ° ° p () POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS [GP] •"•r•' ` POORLY -GRADED SANDS WITH SILT [SPSM] ° p POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH SILT [GP -GM] ;•'ry; POORLY -GRADED SANDS WITH CLAY [SPSC] ° p POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH CLAY [GP -GC] SILTY SANDS I o III°I 1 SILTY GRAVELS CLAYEYSANDS CLAYEY GRAVELS ISCI�,SILTY CLAYEY SANDSIGCI v J�� FINE GRAINED SOILS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS INORGANIC SILTS SLIGHT PLASTICITY — _ ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS — LOW PLASTICITY [OLI— INORGANIC SILTY CLAY ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS LOW PLASTICITY 11 MEDIUM TO HIGH [c"L] PLASTICITY [OH]" i INORGANIC CLAYS %T —7 PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS LOW TO MEDIUM WITH HIGH ORGANIC PLASTIC TY [CL] CONTENTS [PTr' INORGANIC SILTS HIGH PLASTICITY 0H] RELATIVE DENSITY (SAND AND GRAVEL) PLASTICITY [f,H] INORGANIC CLAYS NIGH VERY LOOSE -0 to 4 Blowsftt MEDIUM DENSE -11 to 30 BlowaHt DENSE .31 to 60 BlowsMt. VERY DENSE - more than So Slowsft • IN ACCORDANCEWITH ASTM D 2467 - UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. •' LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK. NOTES: 8* - DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE. R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION. P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER. NIE - DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED. NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS CONSISTENCY (SILT AND CLAY) VERY SOFT - 0 to 2 BlowaHt. SOFT - 3 to 4 Blowaft FIRM - 6 to 6 Blowsfrt. STIFF - 8 to 16 BlowaHt VERY STIFF -17 to 30 Blowa t HARD -more than 30 BlowsfiL APPENDIX A.1 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN ' REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: 9 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2/11/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.0 DATE FINISHED: 2/11/14 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH S A M L E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. S Y M O L DESCRIPTION 200 MC ATTERBERG LIMITS K DAY) ORG. (%) LL pl 0 fine SAND with silt, trace of roots, gravel & asphalt fragments (fill), brown, [SP-SM] 3-6-6 6" 3.9 18.2 9-12-13 12' 8-22-R 22' 10-15-22 37 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 5 ............ ....... ... .................................... ....... .... .. ..... ..... .... ......... ........ 9-11-14 25 10-14-17 31 18-18-20 38 111z clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 10 ......... . .. .. ..................... ...... ...... fine SAND with silt, gray, [SP-SM] 4-7-8 15 15 ...... .. BORING TERMINATED AT 15' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. 20 L UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT,NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1. @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 9 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2/11/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.6 DATE FINISHED: 2111114 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH (FT.) S A M P L E BLOWS " PER 6 INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. S Y M B O L DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ 'AY)(%) ORG. CONT. LL PI 0 fine SAND with silt, trace of roots, gravel 8: clay lumps (fill), brown, [SP-SM] 14-8-8 8- 5-8-8 8' :;. ::: fine SAND with silt, trace of roots (topsoil), dark brown, [SP-SM] 6-13-18 13' fine SAND, grey, [SP] 1.3 21.3 6-12-10 22 5 ` fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) 6-6-7 13 :; [SP-SM] clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 5-6-5 11 4-5-6 11 10 ..................... ............ ..... ........ ... ... ..... .. .. .. ..... . }' fine SAND with silt, gray, [SP-SM] 5-10-8 18 FFF 15 BORING TERMINATED AT 15' ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 20 u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 BORING DESIGNATION: B3 SHEET: 1 Of I U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Port St Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2112114 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 2.2 DATE FINISHED: 2112114 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S S DEPTH (FT) A M p L E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. Y M B O L DESCRIPTION -200 MC ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. (%) LL PI 0 fine SAND with silt & gravel (fill), brown, [SP-SM] 5-5-6 5* =: fine SAND, grey, [SP] 3-7-7 7* 3-5-7 5* silty fine SAND, brown, [SM] 10-14-11 25 5 :... •;........ ... ............... ....................... ... .......... 9-9-11 20 6-6-6 12 fine SAND with clay, gray, [SP-SC] 3-3-4 7 fine SAND with silt, gray, [SP-SM] 5-6-5 11 15 .. ... . ... 6-12-10 22 20 ..... ;: { BORING TERMINATED AT 20' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES C m UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B4 SHEET: 9 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2/12114 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.7 DATE FINISHED: 2/12114 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH (FT.) S A M P E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. S Y M B O DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. (%) LL pl 0 fine SAND with silt, trace of roots (topsoil), dark ::: brown, [SP-SM] 5-6-6 6* :: fine SAND, grey, [SP] 3-4-5 4* Z 4-5-7 5* 4-9-10 19 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) Xclayey [SP-SM] 5 fine SAND, brown, [SC] 8-6-8 14 6-6-7 13 fine SAND with silt, brown, [SP-SMj 5-6-6 12 10 :::.': ..... . .. ..... ...... ........... ........... .. .. ............ .. ........... 4-6-6 12 15 ..... ... ... ................ ... ... . .. .. .... . . 20 BORING TERMINATED AT 20' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BS SHEET: 9 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2/12/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.6 DATE FINISHED: 2/12/14 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S S A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. DEPTH M P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC (%) LIMITS (FT./ CONT. (FT.) INCREMENT FT.) p DAY) E L LL PI 0 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 6-6-6 6- 4-5-7 5' 5-5-6 5' 8-5-5 10 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 2-3-4 7 5-6-6 12 fine SAND with silt, brown, [SP-SM] 6-9-11 20 10 ..... BORING TERMINATED AT 10' ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 20 i UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 - U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC -- LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B6 SHEET: 1 of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2111/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.5 DATE FINISHED: 2111/14 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH (FT.) S A M � E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. S Y M p L DESCRIPTION -200 MC ATTERBERG LIMITS K DA) ORG. CONT. (%) LL PI 0 fine SAND with silt, gravel & concrete fragments (fill), brown, [SP-SM] 6-16-20 16` 10-R R" fine SAND, grey, [SP] 6-9-12 9' 1-2-5 7 "`' fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) 5 . 3-5-5 10 clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 3-3-3 6 3-4-5 9 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. 20 RP UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.. APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 - U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: Cr BORING DESIGNATION: B7 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2111/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.1 DATE FINISHED: 2/11/14 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S S A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. DEPTH (FT.) M P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M B DESCRIPTION - (%) (%) MC (%) LIMITS (FT./ CONT. LL PI L INCREMENT FT.) O DAY) (%) E L 0 fine SAND with slit, trace of gravel, clay lumps shell (fill), brown, [SPSM] r�l 15-18-24 18' 6-15-19 15' .'''f:.:•�;. 6-13-17 13' 3-2-2 4 5—x fine SAND with silt, trace of roots' (topsoil), dark 4-3-3 6 `•:,r:r:: brown, [SP-SM] fine SAND, grey, [SP] 1.4 20.8 3-4-5 9 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) x 3-12-15 27 [SP-SM] 10- ... . . .. ....... . . . . . .:: ':' BORING TERMINATED AT 10' ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 . . ....... .... . ........ ........ .... .. ... .... .. 20 ...... RP UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: a BORING DESIGNATION: B8 SHEET: 1 of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2/11/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 3.1 DATE FINISHED: 2111/14 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S BLOWS N S M ATTERBERG K ORG. DEPTH M (BFO) W.T. DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC (��) LIMITS (DAIS CO) . LL PI (FT') L INCREMENT O E L 0 fine SAND with silt, trace of roots (fill), brown, [SP-sM] 14-18-21 18* 10-16-20 16' 11-21-24 21* fine SAND with silt, trace of roots (topsoil), dark T. brown, [SP-SM] ] 10-11-8 19 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 5 ......................... . ... ...... .... . 3-12-15 27 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] 5-3-4 7 clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 3-4-5 9 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 ... ... 20 I ... ..... q UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B9 SHEET: 1 Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2/11/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 2111114 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH (FT.) S A M PL E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. S Y M O. L DESCRIPTION 200 (%) MC (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. (%) LL PI 0 1:. fine SAND with silt, trace of roots, gravel & f concrete debris (fill), brown, [SP-SM] 12-R R*3r' = 5-11-12 11* fine SAND, grey, [SP] 9-13-14 13* 3-4-4 8 5 ............. .. ... ... ..... ... 3-4-6 10 clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 3-6-6 12 3-6-8 14 10 .. ...... BORING TERMINATED AT 10' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. 20 . . ...... q UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B10 SHEET: I Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2111/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 1.4 DATE FINISHED: 2/11114 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH (FT.)L S A M P E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. S Y M B O L DESCRIPTION -200 % ( ) MC ° (/o) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. (%) LL PI 0 .: fine SAND, grey, [SP] 7-8-8 8' 5-6-7 6- 2-4-7 4' fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) ESP-SM] 10-12-10 22 :p is 7-10-12 22 8-10-10 20 Nml� clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 5-5-7 12 I. 10 . ....... .......... BORING TERMINATED AT 10' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 ...... . 20 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St Lucie, Florida -- CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BSI 1 SHEET: 1 Of I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2/11/14 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.4 DATE FINISHED: 2/11/14 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S 4 BLOWS N S Y ATTERBERG K ORG. DEPTH M PER6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M DESCRIPTION 200 (%) MC (%) LIMITS (�/ CONT. (FT.) L INCREMENT FT.) O DAY) (%) LL PI E L 0 fine SAND with silt, trace of clay, lumps (fill), brown, [SP-SM] 9-14-16 14 ::• 4-17-24 17` '''••` 5-28-R 28' fine SAND, grey, [SP] 10-19-19 38 5 ... ..... .... ..... .. ...... ..... .... .. ....... ....... 12-14-15 29 7-9-8 17 8-8-10 18 10 .... BORING TERMINATED AT 10' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES ; R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. 20 .. m m PROJECT NO.: 0330.1400014,0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Proposed RaceTrac Market RT 1135 U.S. Highway 1 @ Savanna Club Dr. Port St. Lucie, Florida CLIENT: RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B1 Z SHEET: 9 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 2111114 WATER TABLE (ft): 2.9 DATE FINISHED: 2/11/14 DATE OF READING: 2/20/2014 DRILLED BY: PM, PG' i EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S S A BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. DEPTH M P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. M B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. (FT.) L INCREMENT FT.) O (%) (%) DAY) (%) E L LL PI 0 fine SAND with silt, trace of clay lumps & plastic pieces (fill), brown, [SP-SM] 4-5-9 5 13-20-27 20* %`.:'1'••: j 3-11-16 11' {�• 1-3-3 6 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 5 . .... .. ................ ... .... .. ... ...... .. ... .. ... .... .. . 4-7-12 19 clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 7-8-6 14 15.1 19.2 5-6-6 12 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 ... .. . . ... . . . .... . ... .. ... .... 20 ;iql4X3 r Geolechnicol Engineering Report ---) Geotechnical 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 civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —noteven you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the' . proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the ti me the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical.engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared forsome- one else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Membership In ASFE%rHE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide. array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFETHE GEOPROFESSIOAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2012 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commfting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. 1IGER03135.0MRP