HomeMy WebLinkAboutENGINEERING EVALUATIONSCANNED"
GEOTEC LAICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
TREASU E COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MRCI HANGAR PROJECT
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AACE FILE No.18-151
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
834 SW S�
Port St. Lucie
Ph: 772-807-9191
www. aai
an, Avenue
Florida 34983
Fx: 772-807-9192
einc.com
FILE COPY
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MRO HANGAR PROJECT
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA ,
AACE FILE No.18-151
.
PAGE #
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................ 1
3.0
SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING................................................... 2
3.1 Site Location and Description........................................................ 2
3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey.......................................................... 2
3.3 Project Understanding.............................................................. 2
4.0
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM ........................ 3
Table 1- Field Exploration Program .............. 3
5.0
OBSERVED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................. 3
5.1 General Soil Conditions............................................................. 3
5.2 Measured Groundwater Level ....................................................... 4
5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing ......... .............................. ....... 4
Table 2 - Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results....... 4
6.0
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM................................................................ 4
7.0
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION......................................................... 5
7.1 General...................................................................... 5
7.2 Site Preparation Recommendations................................................... 5
7.2.1 Clearing ..................................................................... 5
7.2.2 Compaction. Procedures........................................................ 5
7.2.3 Fill Material and Retention Pond Excavation ....................................... 6
7.3 Building Foundation and Slab Design ................................................. 7
8.0
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 8
8.1 Flexible Pavement Design........................................................... 8
8.2 Rigid Pavement Sections............................................................ 8
9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND TESTING FREQUENCY...................................................... 9
10.0 CLOSURE............................................................................... 10
• Figure No. 1 Site Vicinity Maps
• Figure No. 2 Field Work Location Plan
• Sheet No. 1 General Notes (Soil Boring, Sampling and Testing Methods)
• Sheets No. 2-4 Soil Boring Profiles and Exfiltration Test Results
• Appendix I USDA Soil Survey Information
• Appendix II CBR Test Result
• Appendix III AACE Project Limitations and Conditions
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
W WW.AACEINC. COM
ANDERSEN ANDRE
Geotechnical Engineering
Construction Materials Testi
Environmental Consulting
• AVCON, Inc.
5555 E. Michigan Street, Suite
Orlando, FL 32822
ONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. AACE File No. 18-151
May 8, 2018
Attention: Mr. Robert `Bobby"IPalm, P.E.
Senior Project Manager - Airports
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVAL ATION
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL IRPORT
MRO HANGAR PROJECT
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
In accordance with your request an
(AACE) has completed a subsurface
above referenced project. The purpc
types and groundwater levels as the
restrictions which these soil and grou.
Our work included Standard Pene
conductivity (exfiltration) testing, I
documents our explorations and test
recommendations.
The following summary is inten
recommendations; however, the re
members.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
authorization, Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc.
xploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the
a of performing this exploration was to explore shallow soil
relate to the proposed airport improvement project, and
Iwater conditions may place on the various project features.
•ation Test (SPT) borings, auger borings, soil hydraulic
)oratory testing, and engineering analysis. This report
presents our findings, and summarizes our conclusions and
to provide a brief overview of our findings and
should be read in its entirety by the project design team
• The proposed building sites, at the locations explored, were found to be underlain by soils
which are generally satisfactory to support the proposed airport hangar and auxiliary
building construction on conventional shallowfoundations. A maximum design foundation
bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended for the proposed
structures. I
• Typical pavement sections consisting of an asphaltic or rigid. concrete wearing surface atop
a calcareous base, followed bpi a stabilized subgrade on compacted natural soils is
considered appropriate for the project.
• Site preparation procedures will) include clearing, stripping and grubbing of all surface
vegetation, organic topsoil, former pavement, etc. followed by proofrolling of building and
pavement areas.
• The groundwater table was encountered at depths of about 4 to 5 feet below the existing
grades.
834 Swan Avenue, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34993 Ph: 772-807-9191 Fx: 772-807-9192 www.aaceinc.com
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -2-
AACE File No. 18-151
3.0 SITE INFORMATION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
3.1 Site Location and Description
The subject site is located within the southeast portion of the Treasure Coast International Airport
(TCIA), northwest of the northern terminus of Jet Center Terrace, in St. Lucie County, Florida
(within Section 29, Township 34 South and Range 40 East). A Site Vicinity Map (2017 aerial
photograph) which depicts the location of the site is included on the attached Figure No. 1. The
site location is further shown superimposed on the 1983 "Fort Pierce, Florida" USGS topographic
Quadrangle Map also included on Figure No. 1. The Quadrangle Map depicts the subject property
as being relatively level with approximate surface elevations of 19-20 feet relative to the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
The subject site currently consists of vacant, grass -covered land with a decommissioned asphalt -
paved taxiway (Taxiway 'D') crossing the southern portion of the site and remnants of a former
runway or taxiway crossing the northern portion of the site.
3.2 Review of USDA Soil Survey
According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the predominant surficial soil type in the area where
the site is located is the Lawnwood and Mvakka sands (USDA Map Unit 21). This soil type is noted
by the USDA to consist of sandy marine deposits originating from flatwoods found on historic
marine terraces, with sands present to depth in excess of 80 inches below grade.
The approximate location of the subject site was superimposed on an aerial photograph obtained
from the USDA Web Soil Survey and is shown on Figure No. 1. Further, the USDA Web Soil Survey
summary report is included in Appendix I.
3.3 Project Understanding
Based on our current understanding of the TCIA improvement project, the following features are
proposed:
• A 30,000 sqft. (±) pre-engineered metal hangar with an estimated height of 60 feet.
0 Approximately 4,100 sqft. of office space and 5,500 sqft. of shop space will be constructed
in connection with the hangar (anticipated 15-20 foot building height).
• A 300,000-gallon ground storage tank (GST) and fire pump building.
• A flexible pavement section for conventional vehicle parking.
• Both, flexible and rigid pavement sections/aprons for aircraft traffic/parking.
• A stormwater retention/detention area (i.e. pond).
We have not been provided with any specific structural information relative to the proposed
hangar and building(s); however, we have made the following assumptions based on our
experience from similar projects:
• It is assumed that the hangar building will be a metal building supported on individual
perimeter columns, with a roof structure spanning from one side to the other.
• Maximum compression column loads are estimated to be 250 kips/column.
• Conventional shallow foundations will be the preferred foundation solution.
• Uplift forces on the structure(s) will be countered by the weight of the shallow foundations
as well as any overburden soils.
e Minimal, if any, fill will be placed to raise the site grades.
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- M 0 HANGAR PROJECT Page -3-
AACE File No. 18-151
Should any of these assumptions and/or our understanding of the proposed project features vary
significantly from the current d I sign, we request that we be notified to ensure that the
recommendations presented here�jn are suitable for the project.
Details of the provided Site Plan are presented as our Field Work Location Plan, Figure No. 2.
To explore subsurface conditions at he site, the exploration program summarized in Table 1 below
was completed:
1- Field Exploration Program
Field Work Type
Standard
# of Borings
Depth Below Grade [feet]
Location
Standard Penetration Test
ASTM
10
15-30
Refer to
(SPT)
D1586
Figure No.2
Auger
ASTM
2
12
Refer to
D1452
Figure No.2
Soil Hydraulic
SFWMD
1
6
Refer to
Conductivity Test
ERPIM("
Figure No.2
Note to Table 1: (1)SFWMD Environ
Our field exploration program was cor
work locations shown on Figure No.
provided site plan, online aerial photo
GPS instrument. Atmospheric disturk
of the GPS instrument readings and th
only to the degree implied by the met
the actual locations are within 15 fee
Resource Permit Information Manual, Volume IV 2009 Version
pleted in the period April 20 through May 2, 2018. The field
were determined in the -field by our field crew using the
raphs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled
nces and local weather conditions may affect the accuracy
shown field work locations should be considered accurate
od.of measurement used. We preliminarily anticipate that
of those shown on Figure No. 2.
Summaries of AACE's field procedures Ore presented on Sheet No.1 and the individual boring and
test profiles are presented on the ttached on Sheets No. 2-4. Samples obtained during
performance of the borings were visua ly classified in the field, and representative portions of the
samples were transported to our labora ory in sealed sample jars for further classification. The soil
samples recovered from our exploration s will be kept in our laboratory for 60 days, then discarded
unless you specifically request otherwise.
5.1 General Soil Conditions
Detailed subsurface conditions are illustrated on the soil boring profiles presented on the attached
Sheets No. 2-4. The stratification of the lboring profiles represents our interpretation of the field.
boring logs and the results of laboratory examinations of the recovered samples. The stratification
lines represent the approximate bounda it between soil types. The actual transitions maybe more
gradual than implied.
In general, atthe locations and depths explored, the majority of our soil borings encountered a thin
layer of topsoil (sands with roots/organics) followed by loose to moderately dense fine sands (SP)
and occasionally slightly clayey fine sands, (SP-SC).
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -4-
AACE File No. 18-151
Further, a thin layer of near -surface hardpan -type soils was encountered in approximately half of
the completed borings. Hardpan -type soils are near -surface sandy soils where the individual soil
particles are cemented together by either calcium -carbonate or iron oxide. The hardpan layers
typically vary in thickness from 1 foot to 3 feet and contain low amounts of silt and organic
materials. Hardpan layers are often relatively impervious, restrictive to vertical water infiltration,
and create a horizontal groundwater flow until a fracture in the hardpan occurs. Hardpan is
generally considered suitable for the support of structures/traffic and also for use as fill. To
promote vertical infiltration within ponds and/or exfiltration trench systems, consideration can be
given to overexavatingthe hardpan -type soils and replacingthem with free -draining granular soils.
This is discussed further herein.
The above soil profile is outlined in general terms only. Please refer to the attached Sheets No. 2-4
for individual soil profile details.
5.2 Measured Groundwater Level
The groundwater table depth as encountered in the borings during the field investigations is shown
adjacent to the soil profiles on the attached Sheets No. 2-4. As can be seen, the groundwater table
was generally encountered at depths ranging from about 4 feet to about 5 feet below the existing
ground surface, with this range likely attributed to similar, localized variations in site topography.
Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year primarily due to
seasonal variations in rainfall and other factors that may vary from the time the borings were
conducted.
5.3 Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
One (1) soil hydraulic conductivity test was performed at the locations shown on Figure No. 2. In
general, the test was performed in substantial accordance with methods described in the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWM D) Environmental Resource Permit Information Manual
(ERPIM), Volume IV and yielded the following results:
Table 2 - Soil Hydraulic Conductivity Results
Test No.
Groundwater Depth (ft-bls)
Flow Rate, q (cfs)
Hydraulic Conductivity, K (cfs/sqf - ft head)
EX-1
4.5
3.6 x 10-3
1.3 x le
The results from Table 2 are also shown on Sheet No. 4 along with the encountered soil profile at
the test location. We recommend utilizing a factor of safety of 2 when using the k-value presented
herein in the design of stormwater retention and detention facilities.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Our drillers observed the soil recovered from the SPTsampler and the augers, placed the recovered
soil samples in moisture proof containers, and maintained a logfor each boring. The recovered soil
samples, along with the field boring logs, were transported to our Port St. Lucie soils laboratory
where they were visually examined by AACE's project engineer to determine their engineering
classification. The visual classification of the samples was performed in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System, USCS.
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT
AACE File No. 18-151
Page -5-
Further, to aid in the visual classi ication of the soils, representative samples were selected for
limited index laboratory testing, c nsisting of "percent fines" tests (defined as the percent, by dry
weight, of soil passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve, ASTM D1140), moisture content tests
• (ASTM D2216), and organic cont nt tests (ASTM D2974). The soil classifications and other
pertinent data obtained from our a plorations and laboratory examinations and tests are reported
on the soil profiles presented on S eets No. 2-4.
Finally, as requested, one sample of near -surface sands was collected from within the proposed
apron area for the purpose of pert rming a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test (ASTM D1883) on
the sample. The sample was obtai ed following removal of the upper 6 inches (±) of topsoil and
was composited from a depth of ab ut 6 inches to about 18 inches below grade. The result of the
CBR test is included in Appendix II.
7.1 General
Based on the findings of our site �
judgment based on our experience wi
site are generally satisfactory to supp
on conventional shallow foundations
near -surface soils should be improv(
performance. The general soil imprc
building sites site with a heavy vibrat
Following are specific recommendatidi
pavement systems for the project.
7.2 Site Preparation Recommendatio
7.2.1 Clearing
The site surface should be cleared, grub
former taxiway remnants.
7.2.2 Compaction Procedures
ploration, our evaluation of subsurface conditions, and
i similar projects, we conclude thatthe soils underlyingthis
rt the proposed hangar and auxiliary building construction
However, in our opinion, the bearing capacity of the loose
I in order to reduce the risk of unsatisfactory foundation
�ment we recommend includes proofrolling the individual
ry roller.
for site preparation procedures, foundation design, and
and stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, trash, debris and
Following clearing, the proposed building and pavement areas should be proofrolled with a 10 ton
(minimum) vibratory roller; any soft, yielding soils detected should be excavated and replaced with
clean, compacted backfill that conforrr's with the recommendations below. Sufficient passes
should be made during the proofrolling operations to produce dry densities not less than 95
percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum dry density of the compacted material
to depths of 2 feet below the compacted surface, or 2 feet below the bottom of footings,
whichever is lower. In any case, the building and pavement areas should receive not less than 10
overlapping passes, half of them in each 0two perpendicular directions.
After the exposed surface has been proo`frolled and tested to verify that the desired dry density
has been obtained, the building and pavement areas may be filled to the desired grades. All fill
material should conform to the recomme O dations below. it should be placed in uniform layers not
exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. Each layer should be compacted to a dry density not less
than 95 percent of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557) maximum value.
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -6-
AACE File No. 18-151
After completion of the general site preparations discussed above, the bottom of foundation
excavations dug through the compacted natural ground, fill or backfill, should be compacted so as
to densify soils loosened during or after the excavation process, or washed or sloughed into the
excavation priortothe placementof forms. Avibratory, walk -behind plate compactorcan be used
forthis final densification immediately priorto the placement of reinforcing steel, with previously
described density requirements to be maintained below the foundation level.
Following removal of foundation forms, backfill around foundations should be placed in lifts six
inches or less in thickness, with each lift individually compacted with a plate tamper. The backfill
should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557)
maximum dry density.
7.2.3 Fill Material and Retention Pond Excavation
All fill material underthe buildings and pavement should consist of clean sandsfree of organics and
other deleterious materials. The fill material should have not more than 12 percent by dry weight
passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve, and no particle larger than 3 inches in diameter. Backfill behind
walls, if any, should be particularly pervious, with not more than 4 percent by dry weight passing
the U.S. #200 sieve.
During the excavation for the drydetention pond on the northern section of the site, the following
soils will likely be encountered:
Organic topsoil is not considered suitable for use as anytype of fill otherthan in landscaped
areas, or other non-structural areas.
Fine sands (SP) should be suitable to serve as fill soils and with proper moisture control
should densify using conventional compaction equipment. Soils obtained from below the
water table may require time to dry sufficiently. However, these materials should be
suitable for relatively unrestricted use as fill and roadway embankment.
Slightly clayeyfine sand (SP-SC) is suitable for structural fill, but will likely be more difficult
to compact due to their inherent nature to retain excess soil moisture. If the use of slightly
clayey soils is desired, it may be necessary to stockpile these soils in order for them to
drain. Thinner lifts (perhaps 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness) may be required for
placement and compaction of these soils. Further, it may become necessary to mix these
soils with drier, cleaner granular sands prior to placement to increase the "workability" of
these soils.
Approximately half of our borings encountered a thin, near -surface layer of weakly
cemented dark brown/brown fine sands with minor amounts of silt and organics, locally
known as hardpan -type soils. This hardpan stratum may be significantly more cemented
and hard in areas not explored. While hardpan is generally suitable for use as a fill material,
hardpan -type soils can be challenging for several reasons:
Hardpan can be difficult to excavate, often requiring special equipment, especially
in confined excavations such as utility trenches.
Excavated hardpan -type soils are often boulder -size chunks of cemented soils which
are not easily broken down for re -use as structural fill.
When pulverized into fragments that can be compacted to an adequately dense
matrix, the in -place soil often fails the relative compaction test because during
laboratory preparation, the soil is pulverized into smaller particles, resulting in a
denser laboratory matrix than that which occurs in the field.
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AI RPO RT -
AACE File No. 18-151
With respect to the proposed sf
relatively impervious and create
occurs. Consideration can be giv(
proposed stormwater pond areas
the retention areas should consist
percent by dry weight passing the
12-18 inches and receive some n
overlapping travel paths of loaded
be dependent upon the pond desi
7.3 Building Foundation and Slab
HANGAR PROJECT Page -7-
)rmwater retention pond, the hardpan -type soils are often
horizontal groundwater flow until a fracture in the hardpan
n to overexcavating such hardpan -type soils from within the
;o as to facilitate a more rapid drainage, if needed. Backfill in
of free -draining sandy materials with fines content less than 4
J.S. No. 200 sieve. The backfill should be placed in level lifts of
leas ure of compaction which likely can be accomplished by
.arthmoving equipment. The depth of this overexcavation will
Afterthe foundation soils have beer
for supporting the proposed hand
conventional shallow foundations F
per square foot [psf], or less. To prc
the subsoils, all continuous foundati
footings should have a minimum wi
inches below adjacent outside final
prepared as recommended above, the site should be suitable
3r building, water tank and pump house construction on
�oportioned for an allowable bearing stress of 2,500 pounds
Iide an adequate factor of safety against a shearing failure in
ns should be at least 18 inches wide, and all individual column
iIth of 36 inches. Exterior foundations should bear at least 24
#rades.
Based upon the boring information
recommended allowable bearing stre
against bearing capacity failure. W
constructed as recommended, we ani
settlement between adjacent similarli
of the granular nature of the subsurfa
construction; post -construction settl(
nd the assumed loading conditions, we estimate that the
ss will provide a minimum factor of safety in excess of two
th the site prepared and the foundations designed and
icipate total settlements of one inch or less, and differential
loaded footings of less than one -quarter of an inch. Because
•e soils, the majority of the settlements should occur during
�ment should be minimal.
We recommend that representatives f AACE inspect all footing excavations in orderto verify that
footing bearing conditions are consist nt with expectations. Foundation concrete should not be
cast over a foundation surface containing topsoil or organic soils, trash of any kind, surface made
muddy by rainfall runoff, or groundwater rise, or loose soil caused by excavation or other
construction work. Reinforcing steel should also be clean at the time of concrete casting. If such
conditions develop during construction) the reinforcing steel must be lifted out and the foundation
surface reconditioned and approved by AACE.
After the ground surface is proofrolled i nd filled, if necessary, as recommended in this report, the
floor slab can be placed directly on the prepared subgrade. For design purposes, we recommend
using a subgrade reaction modulus of 260 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for the compacted shallow
sands. In our opinion, a highly porous base material is not necessary. We recommend to use a
minimum of 10 mil polyolefin film as the main component of a vapor barrier system.
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -8-
AACE File No. 18-151
8.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Flexible Pavement Design
We recommend a standard -duty (20-year design life) pavement section consisting of an asphaltic
concrete wearing surface on a calcareous base course supported on stabilized subbase over well -
compacted subgrade.
• After clearing and proofrolling the site surface as previously recommended, the surficial
soils should be suitable to support the pavement sections. The embankment material
should be compacted to a dry density of 98 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557
or AASHTO T-180) maximum dry density of the compacted soil to a depth of one foot below
the surface.
The subbase material to a depth of 12 inches should have a minimum Limerock Bearing
Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 40 and it should be compacted to at least 98 percent
of its modified Proctor (ASTM D1557 orAASHTO T-180) maximum dry density. The surficial
fine sand (SP) on this site does not appear to have the required LBR value and may require
mixing.
• The base course may consist of crushed limerock or coquina and should have a minimum
Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) value (FDOT FM 5-515) of 100. We recommend a base course
at least 8 inches thick for standard pavements which may be placed and compacted in a
single layer: All base course material should be compacted to at least 98 percent of its
modified Proctor maximum dry density.
• We recommend an FDOT Type S-1 asphaltic wearing surface. It should have a Marshall
stability not less than 1000 pounds. We recommend a wearing surface 2 inches thick on
standard pavement. Care must be exercised to place the asphalt over dry, well primed base
material.
The above recommendations should provide high quality flexible pavement. Ifgreater risk of more
frequent pavement maintenance and repair is acceptable, then the above recommendations could
be relaxed somewhat. We remain available for additional consultations relative to the desired
pavement system.
8.2 Rigid Pavement Design
Rigid pavements (for aircraft apron/taxiway, not runway) should have a similar embankment,
subbase and base section as for the flexible pavement presented above (see Section 8.1). Note
that it is assumed that a maximum aircraft tire contract pressure of 200 psi will be subjected to the
rigid pavement.
The base course surface should be saturated immediately prior to concrete placement to provide
adequate moisture for curing of the concrete. We recommend an eight -inch thick pavement
section of reinforced Portland cement concrete (reinforcement to be designed by others to control
anri nrovide for tensile capacity and load transfer between adjacent slabs). The concrete should
have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 5,000 psi.
For the recommended concrete thickness, construction control joints should be placed no more
than 15 feet apart in either direction and should be at least one -quarter of the thickness of the
concrete. They should be cut as soon as the concrete will support the crew and equipment (8 to
12 hours). The concrete should be cured by moist curing or by application of a liquid curing
compound.
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - MO HANGAR PROJECT Page -9-
AACE File No. 18-151
We recommend establishing a c ' mprehensive quality control program to verify that all site
preparation and foundation and avement construction is conducted in accordance with the
appropriate plans and specifications. Materials testing and inspection services should be provided
by Andersen Andre Consulting Eng�neers, Inc.
An experienced engineering technician should monitor all stripping and grubbing efforts, and
observe the proof -rolling operatio s to verify that the appropriate number of passes are applied
to the subgrade. In -situ density to is should be conducted during filling activities and below all
footings, floor slabs and pavement areas to verifythat the required densities have been achieved.
In -situ density values should be comn,pared to laboratory Proctor moisture -density results for each
of the different natural and fill soils6countered.
Finally, we recommend inspecting a I d testing the construction materials for the foundations and
other structural components.
In Southeast Florida, earthwork te�ting is typically performed on an on -call basis when the
contractor has completed a portion f the work. The test result from a specific location is only
representative of a larger area if the contractor has used consistent means and methods and the
soils and lift thicknesses are practically uniform throughout. The frequency of testing can be
increased and full-time construction linspection can be provided to account for variations. We
recommend that the following minimum testing frequencies be utilized:
In proposed parking areas, a minimum frequency of one in -place density test for each 5,000
square feet of area should be used. The existing,, natural ground should be tested to a
depth of 12 inches at the pre§cribed frequency. Each 12-inch lift of fill, as well as the
stabilized subgrade (where applicable) and base should be tested at this frequency.
Drainage and utility piping backfill should be tested at a minimum frequency of one in -place
density test for each 12-inch lift for each 200 lineal feet of pipe. Additional tests should be
performed in backfill for manh les, structures, inlets, etc.
• In proposed structural areas, the minimum frequency of in -place densitytesting should be
one test for each 2,000 square feet of structural area. In -place density testing should be
performed at this minimum frequency for a depth of 2 feet below natural ground and for
every. 1-foot lift of fill placed in the structural area. In addition, density tests should be
performed in each column footing for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing surface. For
continuous or wall footings, dens�itytests should be performed at a minimum frequency of
one test for every 50 lineal feet of footing, and for a depth of 2 feet below the bearing
surface.
Representative samples of the various natural ground and fill soils, as well as stabilized subgrade
(where applicable) and base materials should be obtained and transported to our laboratory for
Proctor compaction tests. These tests v ill determine the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for the materials tested and will be used in conjunction with the results of the
in -place density tests to determine the degree of compaction achieved.
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT- MRO HANGAR PROJECT Page -10-
AACE File No. 18-151
10.0 CLOSURE
The geotechnical evaluation submitted herein is based on the data obtained from the soil boring
and test profiles presented on Sheets No. 1 and 2, and our understanding of the project as
previously described. Limitations and conditions to this report are presented in Appendix III.
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation
engineering practices for the exclusive use of AVCON, Inc. and St. Lucie County Board of County
Commissioners forthe subject project.. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
We are pleased to be of assistance to you on this phase of your project. When we may be of
further service to you or should you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely, Jll l l ���
ANDERSEN ANDRE C�dl�i�p *RS, INC.
Certificate of Aut � f
N0. 57966
' STATE Or
Peter G. AndP.E.
Principal Engine -Fi •S°'C�Rt
Fla. Reg. No.
PGA/DPA:pa
David P. Andre, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Fla. Reg. No. 53969
d/6 �/ s
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
WWW.AACEINC.COM 0
2017 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
SITE
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
(1983 USGS Quadrangle Map of "Fort Pierce, Florida")
19
-- 11 Lid_, SITE pie
_ NATION
USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP .
SITE
usDAwea sot spray
Section 29 USDA SOIL TYPES ON SUBJECT SITE
Township 34 South (Source: USDA web Soil Survey)
Range 40 East 21: Lawnwood and Myakka sands
z
0
x
NOT TO SCALE
GEOTE® ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. TREASURE
HNICA STINT INTERNATIONAL
NAL AIREVALUAPORT
Drawn dby:D Dale: May 2018
r TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Checked by: DPA Date; May 2018
834SWSwan Avenue, Part St. Lucia, FL34983 772407.0191 w AACElnc.com SITE VICINITY MAPS MRO HANGAR PROJECT
Certificate of Authorization No. 26704 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA RACE FIIe No:18.151 Figure No. 1
LEGEND
TB-fl
Standard Penetration Test Boring
EX-#
m
SFWMD Exfiltration Test
AB-#
-
Solid -Stem Auger Boring
CSR
X
CBR Sample Location
z
0
2
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE
Shown and noted field work locations are approximate. All field work locations were located using the provided boundary and topographic survey, obtained aerial
photographs, existing site features, and a hand-held WAAS enabled GPS instrument. Atmospheric disturbances and and local weather conditions may affect the
accuracy of the GPS Instrument readings. As such, the shown field work locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method of
measurement used. Figure No. 2 Source: Site Plan/Geotechnical Exhibit prepared by AVCON (dated March 2018)
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
834 SW Swan Avenue, Port SL Lucie, FL 34903 772-007-8191 wwwAACElnc.carn
CertlSceto of Authorbstion No. 26754
FIELD WORK LOCATION PLAN
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Drawn
TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT checked bv: DPA
MRO HANGAR PROJECT
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA AACE File No:18•151
Date: May 2018
Figure No. 2
SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS
(abbreviated version for project specific methods and soil conditions)
GENERAL
Andaman Andre Can ultiDa Engineers, Inc. (RACE) borings describe subsurface conditions
only the loudons drilled and at the time drilled. They provide no Information about
subsurface conditions below the bottom of the bomholes. At locations not explored, surface
condMons that differ from those observed In the bodng. May exist and should be anticipated.
The Information reported on our boring logs Is based on our driven' logs and on visual
examination In our laboratory of disturbed soil samples recovered from the bodngs. The
distinction shown on the logs between soil types Is approximate only. The actual tnndgon
from an. Sol to another may be gradual and Indistinct
THAgroundwater depth shown on our boring logs Is the water Wa1 the driller obso—cl In the
bom it when It was drilled. These water levels may have been Influenced by the drilling
pm-dum,. especially In borings made by rotary drilling with bentonldc driving mud. An
accurate dotermlnation of groundwater level requires Icng4orm observation of suitable
monitoring wells. Fluctuations In groundwater levels throughout the year should lea
anticipated.
The absence of ■ groundwater level on certain log. Indicates that no groundwater data le
avavablo, It doe. not mean that groundwater will not bo encountered al that boring loutlon
al same other point In time.
SOLIDSTEM AUGER BORINGS
Auger bodngs (ASTM D1452) amused when a mladvelylarge, unrinuous samping of sou smote
dose to the ground surf.. Is d..Imd. A 41nch (100 rem) diameter, cendnu..a Nghl, hegol auger
with a arcing head at Its and Is screwed Into the ground h &foot (Mm) secdons. It be powered by
the rotary ddl rig. The sample Is recovered by wMdrawing the auger our of the ground wtthdul
roladng It The sell sample ere obtained, Is ciawitled In the field and representathre samples placed In
Representable spl t�pacn samplaa from each sampling Interval and from different smote an brought to our
kbantery In eb4lyhllarafor alasaMnUon and testing, tl nanessry. Afl.rwarN, the tampl.a an dlacuded unW
prior arrangement lane bean made.
SFWMO EXFILTRATION TESTS (USUAL CONDITION TEST)
In order to eatimals the hydnulk cand,,*Uy of the upper soils, constant head -noting head -410-11an bate can
be peda m.d. Theme lest, an performed In accordance with methods descMed In th. South FlorWa W.lar
Managameni DI.W. (BFWMD) P.mdl Information Manual, Velum. IV. In odor, far Me'U... I Condition Team a 6 to
9lnch dum,nor hot. no oug,red W d,ptha of ale ul5 to 7 fmeC the b,tfern am feat I, filled with ",tone; and a
afoot long aI.ftad PVC pIq is lewd W led Into e hole. The distance from the groundwater table and to the ground
surface le racoro,dand the hot. Is than aalurated for I minutea w11h the water Wet maintained at the ground
.udare.
U a caa,umt head test no p.rform,d, th, rate W pumping well W racardW at fired Intervals of 1 minute far a rota W
10 minutes, following the saturation period.
LABORATORY TEST METHODS
Bog sampias mWmad to the AACE ,It, Wboratory am visually observed by a geotechnlcal engineer or a wined
technician to obtain man accurated-crlption of the soil seals.(aboatorytestingkopadormodon band
,mpMaade.m.d necauary to aid Insolcluslaution andtohipdafimenglne.rl gpmprduof Masoli,
Ths lest nouns an presented - th„og boring log, AIM: depth, al whkh the respective ,ampl, eau —tired,
acepl that gnln,ba dh,trU Wa", —0.,ted other test raauW maybe presented an operate table, dgure, or
e a I plat,u...dln Ws neon Th. mea d..criptlon„hown an U,o leg. an G„d upon N.u.Hnanud
procedures In accordance with local pncdca. Sol classification Is prformed In general acaam,nce with the
W Unh.dSollCakWmMal
so PROJECT NOTES:
THE
FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
bags orlare and returned to the AACE calls laboratory for classification and lesilng, N necessary.
CLAS ONOF-SOILS FORE9GWEERING PURPOSES
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
BOULDERS uu' 1100 YMII and COBBLES 13• ITS Mee TO 12.1300 MUD:
-The Standsrd PenewOon Test(SPT) Is a widely accepted method of In dW testing of
911&% L:Ccarx. Grev.b WV(19 mm) to 3'(73 rem)
foundation .ell. (ASTM D-1580). A 2-foot (O.Bm) long, 24nch (50mm) O.D. eplltbanxil
Fine Gravel] No.4 (4.73 rem) ale. to 3/4' (19 mm)
.ampler attached to the and of a string of drilling rod. Is driven 24Inches (O.BOm) Into the
ground by auccaulve blows of . 1409ound (03.6 Ng) hammer freely dropping 30 Inch-
Oescrlolwa aril no man wnotgnv.l In d.satpuan
(0.76m). The numberof blows needed for each S Inches(0,15m) Increment. penetration is
7b% :coca
racord.d. Th. sum of th. blowe required forponolratlon of the middle two 04nch (0.15m)
15.29% •some
Inerem.nn of penewW, constitute, the tut result of Nwaluo. Agar the text, the sampler Is
30.42% • gm,.Ry hh.q am.ro.k cams ard..do)
...cad from the ground and opened to allow visual description of the ratalned soil scmplo.
Th, Nwalu, he, been ompiricagy comolatsd with various soil properties allowing a
BANn9:
on...T.Weeste timaof the behavior of.ov. under lead. The following tables state
Nwalua,toe qualitative de.ription Of .ell density for cohexlonle&seOgC
cOAgSEilANO: No.tORmm)St.ntoNo.114.7a mm)Sign
MEOIUM SAND: No. Ad(425(!m) Steve to No. 10(2 mm) Slav,
Coh..ldnl... Boll.•. WWI- Da.erioflon
FINE SAND: No.30003 /!m)SYv.lo Na. tell (125 /4m)Bt.ve
Tt 4 Vary tomes
DeserlotM .dlocUre:
41010 Lee..
0.5% m,mmnofsandlnde,cdpd,n
101o30 Medium clan..
5.15% -coca
3D to 50 Dan..
15.29% •,ores
Above 50 Very dense
30.49%•sandy
3ILTICUY: .8200 (7e/tm) clan
Cohulve Sol.: NV,?,, D..crlotlon Rua
81LTY ORSILTr PI<4
0 to Wry soft B.Iaw 0.25 hot(25 Ide)
SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4-ePIS7
2to4 Soft 1.21101.SO tat(25 to 50 kPe)
4to8 A1.diure or. 0.50 to 1.0 taf(50 to 10D
cLAYEY OR CLAY: PI a7
kPa)
11JeriotNo adl.ctive:
a to15 Stith 1.0 to 2.0 lot T 00 to 200 kPa)
<.5%-dun(nam40donofalN..Wyl d.u:iplbn)
15 to 30 Very .tiff 2.0 to 4.0 tef (200 to 400 kPa)
5.13% -sightly ,
Abu,. 30 Hard Above 4.0 let(4a0 kPol
1e.35%•d.ny,.2y, easlry Wy.y
35.49% •very
Tw la.le ore wualiy parform.d at Stool (1.5m)Inkrvals. Howev.r,monheq... tar
continuous testing 1. done by AACE through depth. whom a more accurate definition of the
ORGANIC 5011-11:
soils is required. Th. lost holes are advanced to the test elevations by rotary drilling with
:soils
Omanie Comant D..ulpay.Adloetive. Classification
bin, using circulating ffu(d to remove the cutting. and hold the Ono grain. In
0.21% U... By no mention .4 are. flea Above
suspension. The circulating fluid, which is banlonitic drilling mud, is also used to keep the
2.8.5% .8ghtlyarg.rdc add '*Rh organic NM.' to group nam,
hole open below the water table by maintaining an excess hydrostatic pressure lmkl. the
a-30% am.& SM wain organic flne.
hole. In mom. soil deposit., particularly highly p—lou. one., flush —pled using must be
Organlo SRI(OL)
driven to Just above the testing depth to keep the hole open endfor prevent the loss W
Organic Clay (OL)
cl—lating fluid. After completion of a test boring., the hole is kept open unit a steady. late
Organic 591(OH)
groundwater lerof is reeord.d. The hole I. than &salad by baekf fling, abhor with emumulatd
Organic Clay (ON)
cuttings or lawn Cement
-TB—/—STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM D1586)
AB—# AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452)
EX—/ SFWMD SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXFILTRATION) TEST
N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT
GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED
EOB END OF BORING
BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE
SP, SP—SC, ETC:
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM EUSCS]
USCS GROUPS DETERMINED BY VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
EXCEPT FOR NOTED LABORATORY TESTS
MC NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN PERCENT (ASTM D2216)
—200 PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE (PERCENT FINES] (ASTM D1140)
OC ORGANIC CONTENT (ASTM 2974)
DRILL CREW FIRM: DTH h AACE
DRILL CREW CHIEF: PT
DRILL RIG: MOBILE B-57 AND DIEDRICH D-25
DRILLING METHOD: ROTARY—WASH/BENTONTIE SLURRY
CASING: NOT NEEDED
HAMMER TYPE: SAFETY/MANUAL
BORINGS ADVANCED W. HAND AUGER 0-4' IN ALL BORINGS FOR UTILITY CLEARANCE
SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND:
■ TOPSOIL
FINE SAND (SP)
FINE SAND SP W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS
LHARDPoi P ]
SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC)
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION I Drawn by: PGA : 2D
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Chocked by: DPA R. 1;111—.
Dateate: MayMey2O1e18
034 SW Swan Avenue, Part St. Lucia, FL 34983 772-801.8191 wwwAACElnc.com GENERAL NOTES MRO HANGAR PROJECT
� N Corllflcale of Authorization No.267S4 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA RACE File No:18451 Sheet No. 1
0r
5 F-
10
I
m 15
0
20
25 F
30 L
TB-1
TB-2
TB-3
TB-4
T8-5
DATE 05/01/18
DATE: 05/01/18
DA7E: 05/02/18
DATE 05/02/18
DATE: 05/02/18
N..........................
IN
N
..........................
N
.....................
..........
.N
0
g
TOPSOIL
m
u
TOPSOIL••••
a
i'a
TOPSOIL
TOPSOIL
g
TOPSOIL•
GRAY FINE SAND (SP)':GRAY
::::
FINE SAND (SP)
....
:;:;
GRAY FTNE SAND (SP):.:::.
ri
DK. GRAY/GRAY FINE SAND (SP)
i
:.:;;
GRAY FINE SAND (SP)
DX. BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
OC: ]
REDDISH BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED
FINE SAND (SP), 1/0 SILT
::::.
:.�:
a
x
::.::
::::_
::::
DK. BROWN/REDDISH—BROWN
:::�:
DK. BROWN/REDOISN—BROWN
DK. BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED
FINE SAND (SP). T/O SILT
...7.D'._ ..
AND ORGANICS [HApDPAN—TYPee11
..'i ....
i ..
::?::...........................
BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
A
:::.;
FINE SAND (SP)'•::
...........................5.7
..
':::.
FINE SAND (SP)
..............................
43,
...
..
AND ORGANICS ROPAN—TYP
-INA -1 ... 5
Y1
YCf 13
TAN SL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC)
OK. BROWN FINE SANG (Sp)
'�C:'S 3
1
T`':'`
7
�;
GRAY SL CLAYEY
FlNE SAND (SP-SC)
Yc: 15
7
::
TAN SL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC)
a
TAN FINE SAND (SP)
—10e: 9
Oc. I
0c: I
1
:;.:
OR FINE SAND (SP),
oc: 0
7
....'
1/0 CLAY
.......................
?.i....................................
';;::............................
1C
. •'
TAH/LT. BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
..........':::•:I....:..............................s •:•.... TAN FINE SAND......................
BROWN/DX. BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
..........'4`-..`.��i�l:
DK. BROWN SAND (SP) I TAN/LT. BROWN SAND (SP)
TAN/LT. BROWN SAND (SP)
15
BROWN/OK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) .......'� BROWN/DK. BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ........J. _I................................................................120
REDDISH —BROWN FINE SAND (SP) REDDISH —BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
1 I 1 "
............................................................................. ........ ........................................................ .......................... 25
:;.... .....
REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) :•i: REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP) REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
CL
BROWN FINE SAND (SP) IQ BROWN FINE SAND (SP) •i GRAY FINE SAND (SP), OK. GRAY FINE SAND (SP) GRAY FINE SAND (SP)
T/O SIR FRCM
................................. 30
EOB O 30' BLS EOB O 30' BLS EOB O 30' BLS EOB O 30' BLS EOB O 30' BLS
SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND:
NOTES:
■
TOPSOIL
TB—/
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM D1586)
AB—/
AUGER BORING (ASTM 01452)
FINE SAND
IN -F
ESISTAN ED N ULIC BLOWS PERCFOOi (EXFlLTRATION) TEST
SPT RESISTANCE SFWMD SOIL HYD
_(SP)
FINE SAND SQ W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS
P
GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT 71YE DRILLED
BORING
END FLAND
(.HARDPAN—
SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC)
B BELOWSURFACE
sp. SP-SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS]
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION
COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Orewn by: PGA
Datei May 2018
®
SOIL BORING PROFILES
1
TREASURE
Checketl by:OPA
Date: May 2918
834 SW Swan Avenue, Port SL Lucie, FL 34983 772-607A.c 791 w"JkACElncam
CaMcate of Aulhorketlon No.26704
MRO HANGAR PROJECT
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
AACE File No:18-151
Sheet No. 2
TB-6
TB-7
TB-8
TB-9
TB-10
DATE: 05/02/18
DATE: 05/01/18
DATE: 05/01/18
DATE: OS/01/18
DATE: 05/01/10
p N
TOPSOIL
N
N
..........................
TOPSOIL
N
o:
.......I...........JW
TOPSOIL
.................... p
TOPSOILWGRAY
FlNE SAND (SP),.::Q
ri
FlNE SAND (SP)
u
::t:
GRAY FlNE SAND (SP)co
Q
::•:
GRAY FINE SAND (SP)
:GRAY
GRAY/DK. GRAY FINE SAND (SP)
....
::•
DK. BROWN/REDDISH-BROWN
FlNE SAND (SP)
c
=-.
DK. BROWN/REDDISH-BROWNoz
SAND (SP)z
REDDISH BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED
FINE SAND SP , T/O SILT
( )
••••••
<:•:::FlNE
=
:•:•
:
DK. BROWNi
FINE SAND (REDDISH-BROWN5
DI BROWN Y CEMENTED
W� KLT EY...4'B-T
FN
AND ORGANICS [HARDPAN -TYPE • • •
•• .
•,A?i ,
BROWN, FINE, SAND ,(SP) ..... • „
...... , , ,
......
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , ,:::•::::•::•5
........
SAND SP),
• •5
T/0 R00T5
•:iii
BROWN FINE SAND.(SF)
LT. GRAY SL CUYEY
""'
;;
LT. GRAY FlNE SAND (SP),T/O
.FINESAND(SP-SC)
BROWN FINE SANG (SP)
CLAY AND ROOTSDK.
10
1 1
m 15 ..........
a [
o
:•i BROWN/DK.-BROWN-FlNETANb SP) i BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
7
:ii•F :$::•: �:: ............................:iiii....................................::•............................................................................................................
REDDISH BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
1
TAN/LT. BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
TAN FINE SAND (SP)
..................................TAN .::::....FINE.. SAND. .....................
,..:•
...................................•A'AI....................................
................................. EOB O
....................... ...It200" .
-200: 10
OC: 1
GRAY/TAN FINE SAND (SP)
GR..AY SL CLAUYEYEY .. . ............... TO
FINE SAND (SP-SC)
TAN FINE SAND (SP)
— ------ 115
17 .r.:•••' REDDISH -BROWN FINE ••• REDDISH -BROWN FINE SAND (SP)
;; ;•' BROWN FINE SAND (SP) SANDSP•
:•: i:: ( ) :':��
EOB O 25' BLS EOB O 25' BLS EOB O 25' BLS
30 L............................................................................................................................................................................................................ J 30
SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND: NOTES:
■ TOPSOIL TB-; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST [SPT] BORING (ASTM D1586)
AB-/ AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452)
FINE SAND SP EX-+ SFWMD SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXFILTRATION) TEST
( ) N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT
FINE SAND ;SP2 W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED
Stl1L� END OF BORING
HARDPAN— P ] BLs BELOW LAND SURFACE
SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP-SC) P.
SP-SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM [USCS]
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION Drawn by: PGA Date: May 2018
® ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Chockad by: OPA Date: May 2018
834 SW Swan Avenue, Port St Lucle, FL 34883 772.807-0191 www.AACEInc.com SOIL BORING PROFILES MRO HANGAR PROJECT 3
CurORcata of Authorka0on No.26194 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA RACE FIN No: 1&161 Sheet No.
AB-1 AB-2 EX-1
DATE: 05/01/18 DATE: 05/01/18 DATE. 05/02/18
p ........................ TOPSOIL ................... ..............Inne.."
TOF501L............................. ................ ................. TON§OIL..................... .............. p
Yq IB 200: sGRAY FlNE SAND (SP). +: GRAY FINE SAND (SP),E; GRAY fINE SAND (SP)
OC. 2 T/O ROOTS i T/O ROOTSDK. BROWN WEAKLY CEMENTED
":• DK. BROWN WEAKLY CEYENTED FlNE SAND (SP),FINES (SP). T/O SILT
AND,,,,OK. BROWN FlNE SAND (SP) T/0 SILT AND ORGANICS [HARDPAN —TYPE]• . , , , • . • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • . , • , , • •.yC; 4.."LZAND ORGANICS [HARDPAN—tYPEJ
5 ................. s2WS .�..........................................BROWN FlNE SAND.(SF)... ..... ... ,;'�;{ • 13RbWN'FINE•SAND (5o).........................REDDISH—BROWN FINE SAND (SP) EOB O8' BLS
GREEN —GRAY SL CLAYEY FlNE SAND (SP—SC)YC'. 2a LT. GRAY SL CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC)
—200, 10 OC: 1
W. 0
::ti:•
10 TAN/GRAY -FINE •SAND.(SP)...................................X. TAW -PRE SAND- (SP)...........................
• EOB 0••12' BLS EOB 0'•.12, BLS
I
m15...........:....................................................................................................................
W
c
SOIL GRAPHICAL LEGEND:
■ TOPSOIL
aaH
FINE SAND (SP)
®FINE SAND SP)) W. SILT AND HARDPAN FRAGMENTS
HARDPAN— PE]
SLIGHTLY CLAYEY FINE SAND (SP—SC)
zn1363
TB—# STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ESPT] BORING (ASTM D1586)
AB—# AUGER BORING (ASTM D1452)
EX—# SFWMD SOIL HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (EXFILTRATION) TEST
N SPT RESISTANCE IN BLOWS PER FOOT
GROUNDWATER TABLE (FT BELOW EXIST. GRADE) AT TIME DRILLED
BOW END OF BORING
BLS BELOW LAND SURFACE
SP, SP—SC, ETC: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM EUSCS]
................-3......................................
Q = 3.6x10 CFS
d = 0.5 FT
H2 = 4.5 FT
Ds = 1.5 FT
K = 1.3x10 4 CFS�SQFT - FT HEAD
We recommend using a Factor of Safety of 2
when using this value In the design of drainage Improvements.
EXFILTRATION TEST CONFIGURATION
(Not To Scab)
SFWMD EXFILTRATION TESTS
K HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
0 STABILIZED FLOW RATE
d DIAMETER OF TEST HOLE
H2 HYDROSTATIC COLUMN
DS SATURATED HOLE DEPTH (BY GWT)
NOTE: IF 0, GWT NOT ENCOUNTERED
4G
K trd( +4Nsg+Hid)
H2
�® ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. I GEOTECHNICALENNTERN INTERNATIONG NAL
ON Ohockedrawn by:O Dato:May2015
t SOIL BORING PROFILES AND TREASURE COAST INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Chocked by: DPA Dato: May 2018
e34 SW Swan Avenue, Pon SL Lucie, FL 34883 772-60741191 wwwAACElnc.com EXFILTRATION TEST RESULT MRO HANGAR PROJECT
Codlflcata of Authorization No.26704 ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORLDA AACE File No:18-151 Sheet No. 4
APPENDIX I
USDA Soil Survey Information
27' 29' 39' N
2r 29 27" N
Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida 3
(TCIA)
5ME00 3326W 58Z710 5we0 5mm as=
3
Map Scale: 1:2,680 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet
Meters
NN 0 35 70 140 210
Feet
A
0 100 200 400 800
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WG 84 Edge tl6: UTM Zone 17N WG584
ussDDA, Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
pp 27° 29 39' N
M
0
k1
27° 2927"N
58M 553140
3
5/3/2018
'Page 1 of 3
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
0
Area of Interest (AOI)
Solis
Q
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special
Point Features
V
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
0
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
++
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
0
Perennial Water
V
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
a
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
�D
Slide or Slip
oe
Sodic Spot
Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida
(TCIA )
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
M
Wet Spot
ril
Other
.�
Special Line Features
Water Features
-
Streams and Canals
Transportation
tt F
Rails
^o
Interstate Highways
o�✓
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida
Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 6, 2017
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 31, 2009—Mar
20, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018
Z" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
Soil Map —St. Lucie County, Florida
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
21
Lawnwood and Myakka sands
30.3
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
30.3
100.0%
TCIA
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands --'St. Lucie County, Florida
St. Lucie County. Florida
21—Lawnwood and Myakka sands
Map Unit Setting
National map nit symbol. 1jpvg
Elevation: 20 P 200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 49 to 58 inches
Mean annual a) temperature: 70 to 77 degrees F
Frost -free period : 350 to 365 days
Farmland classrrcation: Farmland of unique importance
Map Unit Compositibn
Lawnwood and similar soils: 40 percent
Myakka and sim�lar soils: 40 percent
Minor componenits: 20 percent
Estimates are ba ed on observations, descriptions, and transects of
the mapunit.
Description of Lawnwood
Setting
Landform: Marne terraces on flatwoods
Landform posihPn (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material. Sandy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches sand
E - 8 to 28 inches: sand
Bh1 - 28 to 52 inches: sand
Bh2 - 52 to 58 inches. sand
C - 58 to 80 inch I s: sand
Properties and qualitie
Slope: 0 to 2 perc(
Depth to restrictive
Natural drainage c)
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the moi
Moderately low
Depth to water tab)
Frequency of flood,
Frequency of pond
Salinity, maximum
to 2.0 mmhosh
Sodium adsorption
Available water sto
Interpretive groups
Land capability cla.
feature: 10 to 31 inches to ortstein
iss: Poorly drained
;t limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
a: About 6 to 18 inches
7g: None
7g: None
i profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0
ratio, maximum in profrle: 4.0
age in profile: Very low (about 0.9 inches)
(irrigated): None specified
TCIA
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands --St. Lucie County, Florida
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D
Forage suitability group: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric
lowlands (G156BC141 FL)
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Myakka
Setting
Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material. Sandy marine deposits
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches. sand
E - 7 to 27 inches: sand
Bh - 27 to 38 inches: sand
C - 38 to 80 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Poorly drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Moderately high to high (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0
to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 4.0
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w
Hydrologic Soil Group: AID
Forage suitability group: Sandy soils on flats of mesic or hydric
lowlands (G156BC141 FL)
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Ankona
Percent of map unit. 7 percent
Landform: Flatwoods on marine terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf
Down -slope shape: Convex
Across -slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
TCIA
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018
211111111 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Description: Lawnwood and Myakka sands—'pt. Lucie County, Florida TCIA
Electra
Percent of
Landform:
Landform i
Hydric soil r
iap unit: 7 percent
'bolls on marine terraces, rises on marine terraces
sition (three-dimensional): Intertluve
shape: Convex
shape: Linear
otinq: No
Waveland
Percent of m1
Landform: FI
Landform po:
Down -slope
Across -slope
Hydric soil ra
Data Source Info
unit: 6 percent
voods on marine terraces
rn (three-dimensional): Talf
pe: Convex
ape: Linear
is No
tion
Soil Survey Area: St. Lucie County, Florida
Survey Area Data: Version 0, Oct 6, 2017
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/3/2018
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX it
CBR Test Result
wood.
CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST RESULTS
III,, Moisture vs. Density
115
I 1
� 113
i I
2, 109
o I I! I I I I I
107-
105
5 7 9 11 13 15
Moisture Content (%)
Moisture vs. CBR Value
100.0
80.0 - --
I I I
60.0 I ! I I I
III II ill it
v 40.(
III I ill II
20.0 I I
0.0 I ! I I I
5 6 7 8 19 10 11 12 13 14 15
Moisture Content (%)
Material Description: Brown Fine SAND
1
Optimum Moist
Maximum Dry G
Maximum CBR
(Not gmphe°) Maximum CBR
'ROJECT NAME:
TCIA MRO Hangar Project
CLIENT:
AACE
;AMPLE No.:
CBR #1
.00ATION:
St. Lucie County, FL
je:
133. ; at .100" deflection
I
ie:
.
" 1.39." ,I at .200" deflection
PROJECT NO.: 6738-16-5485
DATE TESTED: 5/5/2018
TEST METHOD: ASTM, 3
PERFORMED BY: C..iin
J.
V7
A
No. 63829 j
Mictta,AJ. Hol , PPE 3 STATE OF
Florida ofes ional En' r11t•63A?9 t' �
OR VIV
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
SOIL BORING, SAMPLING AND TESTING METHODS
GENERAL
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. (AACE) borings describe subsurface conditions only at
the locations drilled and at the time drilled. They provide no information about subsurface
conditions below the bottom of the boreholes. At locations not explored, surface conditions that
differ from those observed in the borings may exist and should be anticipated.
The information reported on our boring logs is based on our drillers' logs and on visual examination
in our laboratory of disturbed soil samples recovered from the borings. The distinction shown on
the logs between soil types is approximate only. The actual transition from one soil to another may
be gradual and indistinct.
The groundwater depth shown on our boring logs is the water level the driller observed in the
borehole when it was drilled. These water levels may have been influenced by the drilling
procedures, especially in borings made by rotary drilling with bentonitic drilling mud. An accurate
determination of groundwater level requires long-term observation of suitable monitoring wells.
Fluctuations in groundwater levels throughout the year should be anticipated.
The absence of groundwater level on certain logs indicates that no groundwater data is available.
It does not mean that groundwater will not be encountered at that boring location at some other
point in time.
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a widely accepted method of in situ testing of foundation
soils (ASTM D-1586). A 2-foot (0.6m) long, 2-inch (50mm) O.D. split-barrell sampler attached to the
end of a string of drilling rods is driven 24 inches (0.60m) into the ground by successive blows of
a 140-pound (63.5 Kg) hammer freely dropping 30 inches (0.76m). The number of blows needed
for each 6 inches (0.15m) increments penetration is recorded. The sum of the blows required for
penetration of the middle two 6-inch (0.15m) increments of penetration constitutes the test result
of N-value. After the test, the sampler is extracted from the ground and opened to allow visual
description of the retained soil sample. The N-value has been empirically correlated with various
soil properties allowing a conservative estimate of the behavior of soils under load. The following
tables relate N-values to a qualitative description of soil density and, for cohesive soils, an
approximate unconfined compressive strength (Qu):
Cohesionless Soils: N-Value
Description
0 to 4
Very loose
4 to 10
Loose
10 to 30
Medium dense
30 to 50
Dense
Above 50
Very dense
Cohesive Soils:
0 to
2 to
4 to
8 to
15 to
Above
The tests are usually performed at 5''f
testing is done by AACE through dep
The test holes are advanced to they
circulating fluid to remove the cuttin
which is bentonitic drilling mud, is
maintaining an excess hydrostatic p
highly pervious ones, flush -coupled c
the hole open and/or prevent the los
hole is kept open until a steady state
back -filling, either with accumulated c
Description
Chu
Very soft
Below 0.25 tsf (25 kPa)
Soft
0.25 to 0.50 tsf (25 to 50 kPa)
Medium stiff
0.50 to 1.0 tsf (50 to 100 kPa)
Stiff
1.0 to 2.0 tsf (100 to 200 kPa)
Very stiff
2.0 to 4.0 tsf (200 to 400 kPa)
Hard
Above 4.0 tsf (400 kPa)
oot (1.5m) intervals. However, more frequent or continuous
hs where a more accurate definition of the soils is required.
test elevations by rotary drilling with a cutting bit, using
s and hold the fine grains in suspension. The circulating fluid,
Iso used to keep the hole open below the water table by
lessure inside the hole. In some soil deposits, particularly
asing must be driven to just above the testing depth to keep
s of circulating fluid. After completion of a test borings, the
groundwater level is recorded. The hole is then sealed by
fittings or lean cement.
Representative split -spoon samples frpm each sampling interval and from different strata are
brought to our laboratory in air -tight jabs for classification and testing, if necessary. Afterwards,
the samples are discarded unless prior arrangement have been made.
POWER AUGER BORINGS
Auger borings (ASTM D-1452) are used When a relatively large, continuous sampling of soil strata
close to the ground surface is desired. AW�inch (100 mm) diameter, continuous flight, helical auger
with a cutting head at its end is screwed into the ground in 5-foot (1.5m) sections. It is powered
bythe rotary drill rig. The sample is recovered by withdrawing the auger our ofthe ground without
rotating it. The soil sample so obtained, is classified in the field and representative samples placed
in bags or jars and returned to the AACE soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary.
HAND AUGER BORINGS
Hand auger borings are used, if soil conditions are favorable, when the soil strata are to be
determined within a shallow (approximately 5-foot [1.5m]) depth or when access is not available
to power drilling equipment. A 3-inch (75mm) diameter hand bucket auger with a cutting head is
simultaneously turned and pressed into the ground. The bucket auger is retrieved at
approximately 6-inch (0.15m) interval and it contents emptied for inspection. On occasion post -
hole diggers are used, especially in the upper 3 feet (1m) or so. Penetrometer probings can be
used in the upper 5 feet (1.5m) to determine the relative density of the soils. The soil sample
obtained is described and representative samples put in bags or jars and transported to the AACE
soils laboratory for classification and testing, if necessary.
UNDISTURBED SAMPLING
Undisturbed sampling (ASTM D-1587) implies the recovery of soil samples in a state as close to
their natural condition as possible. Complete preservation of in situ conditions cannot be realized;
however, with careful handling and proper sampling techniques, disturbance during sampling can
be minimized for most geotechnical engineering purposes. Testing of undisturbed samples gives
a more accurate estimate of in situ behavior than is possible with disturbed samples.
Normally, we obtain undisturbed samples by pushing a 2.875-inch (73 mm) I.D., thin wall seamless
steel tube 24 inches (0.6 m) into the soil with a single stoke of a hydraulic ram. The sampler, which
"is a Shelby tube, is 30 (0.8 m) inches long. After the sampler is retrieved, the ends are sealed in the
field and it is transported to our laboratory for visual description and testing, as needed.
ROCK CORING
In case rock strata is encountered and rock strength/continuity/composition information is needed
for foundation or mining purposes, the rock can be cored (ASTM D-2113) and 2-inch to 4-inch
diameter rock core samples be obtained for further laboratory analyses. The rock coring is
performed through flush joint steel casing temporarily installed through the overburden soils
above the rock formation and also installed into the rock. The double- or triple -tube core barrels
are advanced intothe rocktypically in 5-foot intervals and then retrieved to the surface. The barrel
is then opened so that the core sample can be extruded. Preliminary field measurements of the
recovered rock cores include percent recovery and Rock Quality Designation (RQD) values. The
rock cores are placed in secure core boxes and then transported to our laboratory for further
inspection and testing, as needed.
SFWMD EXFILTRATION TESTS
In order to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the upper soils, constant head or falling head
exfiltration tests can be performed. These tests are performed in accordance with methods
described in the South Florida Water Management District. (SFWM D) Permit Information Manual,
Volume IV. In brief, a 6 to 9 inch diameter hole is augered to depths of about 5 to 7 feet; the
bottom one foot is filled with 57-stone; and a 6-foot long slotted PVC pipe is lowered into the hole.
The distance from the groundwatertable and to the ground surface is recordedand the hole isthen
saturated for 10 minutes with the water level maintained at the ground surface.
If a constant head test is performed, the rate of pumping will be recorded at fixed intervals of 1
minute for a total of 10 minutes, following the saturation period.
LABORATORY TEST METHODS
Soil samples returned to the AACE soils laboratory are visually observed by a geotechnical engineer
or a trained technician to obtain more accurate description of the soil strata. Laboratory testing
is performed on selected samples as deemed necessary to aid in soil classification and to help
define engineering properties of the soils. The test results are presented on the soil boring logs at
the depths at which the respective sample was recovered, except that grain size distributions or
selected other test results may be presented on separate tables, figures or plates as discussed -in
this report.
THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
The soil descriptions shown on the logs are based upon visual -manual procedures in accordance
with local practice. Soil classification is performed in general accordance with the United Soil
Classification System and is also based on visual -manual procedures.
GRAVEL: Coarse Gravel:
Fine Gravel:
Descriptive adiectives:
0-5%
5-15%
15-29%
30 - 49%
SANDS:
COARSE SAND: No. 10 (2 mm) Sieve to N
MEDIUM SAND: No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve to
FINE SAND: No. 200 (75 µm)
Descriptive adiectives:
0-5%
5-15%
15-29%
30 - 49%
SILT CLAY: < #200 (751.LM) Sieve
SILTY OR SILT: PI < 4
SILTY CLAYEY OR SILTY CLAY: 4 < PI s 7
CLAYEY OR CLAY: PI > 7
Descriptive adiectives:
<-5%
5-15%
16-35%
36 - 49%
ORGANIC SOILS:
Q
3/4" (19 mm) to 3" (75 mm)
No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve to 3/4" (19 mm)
— no mention of gravel in description
— trace
— some
—gravelly (shell, limerock, cemented sands)
(4.75 mm) Sieve
10 (2 mm) Sieve
Fe to No. 40 (425 µm) Sieve
Io mention of sand in description
Irace
—Some
- Cif
— sli,
- CIE
— ve
Organic Content Descriptive Adjectives
0 - 2.5% Usually no mention of
organics in description
2.6 - 5% slightly organic
5 - 30% organic
(no mention of silt or clay in description)
y
silty, or silty clayey
Classification
See Above
add "with organic fines" to group name
SM with organic fines
Organic Silt (OL)
Organic Clay (OL)
Organic Silt (OH)
THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
Organic Clay (OH)
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS AND MATTER:
Organic Content
Descriptive Adjectives Classification
30 - 75%
sandy peat Peat (PT)
silty peat Peat (PT)
> 75%
amorphous peat Peat (PT)
fibrous peat Peat (PT)
STRATIFICATION AND STRUCTURE:
Descriptive Term
Thickness
with interbedded
seam
— less than %: inch (13 mm) thick
layer
-- %= to 12-inches (300 mm) thick
stratum
-- more than 12-inches (300 mm) thick
pocket
— small, erratic deposit, usually less than 1-foot
lens
-- lenticular deposits
occasional
— one or less per foot of thickness
frequent
— more than one per foot of thickness
calcareous
— containing calcium carbonate (reaction to diluted HCL)
hardpan
— spodic horizon usually medium dense
marl
— mixture of carbonate clays, silts, shells and sands
ROCK CLASSIFICATION (FLORIDA) CHART:
Symbol
Typical Description
LS
Hard Bedded Limestone or Caprock
WLS
Fractured or Weathered Limestone
LR
Limerock (gravel, sand, silt and clay mixture)
SLS
Stratified Limestone and Soils
THE PROJECT SOIL DESCRIPTION PROCEDURE FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
LEGEND FOR BORING LOGS
N:. Number of blows to drive a 2-inch OD split spoon sampler 12 inches using a
140-pound hammer dropped 30 inches
R: Refusal (less tf�an six inches advance of the split spoon after50 hammer blows)
MC: Moisture content (percent of dry weight)
OC: Organic conte t (percent of dry weight)
PL: Moisture cont nt at the plastic limit
LL: Moisture content at the liquid limit
PI: Plasticity index�(LL-PL)
qu: Unconfined co pressive strength (tons per square foot, unless otherwise
noted)
-200: Percent passing La No. 200 sieve (200 wash)
+40: Percent retaine I above a No. 40 sieve
US: Undisturbed sarrl ple obtained with a thin -wall Shelby tube
k: Permeability (felt per minute, unless otherwise noted)
DD: Dry density (pounds per cubic foot)
TW: Total unit weightl(pounds per cubic foot)
APPENDIX III
AACE Project Limitations and Conditions
ANDERSEN ANDRE CONSULTING ENGINEERS.. INC.
I (revised January 24, 2007)
Proiect Limitations and Conditions
Andersen Andre Consulting Engine' rs, Inc. has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive
use, in accordance with generally �ccepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made herein. Further, the report, in all cases, is subject to the
following limitations and conditions:
VARIABLE/UNANTICIPATED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The engineering analysis, evaluation and subsequent recommendations presented herein are
based on the data obtained from out field explorations, at the specific locations explored on the
dates indicated in the report. This report does not reflect any subsurface variations (e.g. soil types,
groundwater levels, etc.) which may )occur adjacent or between borings.
The nature and - extent of any such variations may not become evident until
construction/excavation commences) In the event such variations are encountered, Andersen
Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. may find it necessary to (1) perform additional subsurface
explorations, (2) conduct in -the -field gbservations of encountered variations, and/or re-evaluate
the conclusions and recommendation?; presented herein.
We at Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. recommend that the project specifications
necessitate the contractor immediately notifying Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc., the
owner and the design engineer (if applIicable) if subsurface conditions are encountered that are
different from those presented in this rleport.
No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those expected in the plans and
specifications, or presented in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the
owner and Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. of such differing site conditions.
Additionally, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by an
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. representative.
STRATA CHANGES
Soil strata changes are indicated by a horizontal line on the soil boring profiles (boring logs)
presented within this report. However, �� he actual strata's changes may be more gradual and
indistinct. Where changes occur between soil samples, the locations of the changes must be
estimated using the available informationand may not be at the exact depth indicated.
LE POTENTIAL
Unless specifically requested in writing, a subsurface exploration performed by Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc. is not intended to be an evaluation for sinkhole potential.
MISINTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL EXPLORATION REPORT
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. is responsible for the conclusions and recommendations
presented herein, based upon the subsurface data obtained during this project. If others render
conclusions or opinions, or make recommendations based upon the data presented in this report,
those conclusions, opinions and/or recommendations are notthe responsibility of Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc.
CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION
This report was prepared to assist the owner, architect and/or civil engineer in the design of the
subject project. If any changes in the construction, design and/or location of the structures as
discussed in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not
discussed in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report may not
be valid. All such changes in the project plans should be made known to Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc. for our subsequent re-evaluation.
USE OF REPORT BY BIDDERS
Bidders who are reviewing this report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report
was prepared to assist the owners and project designers. Bidders should coordinate their own
subsurface explorations (e.g.; soil borings, test pits, etc.) for the purpose of determining any
conditions that may affect construction operations. Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc.
cannot be held responsible for any interpretations made using this report or the attached boring
logs with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which may affect
construction operations.
IN -THE -FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Andersen Andre Consulting Engineers, Inc. attempts to identify subsurface conditions, including
soil stratigraphy, water levels, zones of lost circulation, "hard" or "soft" drilling, subsurface
obstructions, etc. However, lack of mention in the report does not preclude the presence of such
conditions.
LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS
Users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Andersen Andre Consulting
Engineers, Inc. to attempt to locate any man-made, underground objects duringthe course of this
exploration, and that no attempts to locate any such objects were performed. Andersen Andre
Consulting Engineers, Inc. cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are
subsequently encountered during construction.
PASSAGE OF TIME
This report reflects subsurface conditions that were encountered atthe time/date indicated in the
report. Significant changes can occur at the site during the passage of time. The user of the report
recognizes the inherent risk in using the information presented herein after a reasonable amount
of time has passed. We recommend the user of the report contact Andersen Andre Consulting
Engineers, Inc. with any questions or concerns regarding this issue.
Geolechniqel Engineering Report
Geotechnical Services Are Perform)
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Prl
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conduct
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contracl
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared so
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engin
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prel
— not even you —should apply the report for any pu
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Fail Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an
Do not read selected elements only.
for
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
acts
proposed structure,
, specific needs of
• composition. of the design team, or
for a civil engi-
• project ownership.
or even another
dy is unique, each
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
ifor the client. No
changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Ing report without
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
ed it. And no one
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
)se or project
they were not informed.
A Geotechniol Engineering Report Is l A Unique Set of Project-SpecificWell
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, prd
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical facto
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preference
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuratior
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing sits
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utili
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifical
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report tl
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were ma
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an exist
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function,of the proposed structure, as when it's
parking garage to an office building, or from a light
to a refrigerated warehouse,
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
a geotechnical
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
cutive summary.
ing report whose 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-
ased on
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
s
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
,ct-specific fac-
analysis could prevent major problems.
include: the
s; the general
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
the location of
Opinions
improvements,
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
es. Unless the
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
y indicates oth-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
at was:
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
e.
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
geotechnical
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
inged from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
lustrial plant 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 p'rebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Be 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
neverbe 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 geoenvi ron mental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to
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 for some-
one else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of ilsell he sufficient to prevent mold
from growing in or on the structure involved.
Bell, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial
Engmeer for Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/THE BEsT PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with your ASFE-member 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 commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER03135.OMRP