HomeMy WebLinkAboutENGINEERINGI y 1
y �
I
o�Qs�46�d4�
WOO
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Proposed Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision
Oakland Lake Circle l
Fort'Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
May 19, 2017
i
PREPARED FOR:
Ryan Homes.
2005 Vista Parkway, Suite 102
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
PREPARED BY..:
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc.
820 Brevard. Avenue
Rockledge, Florida 32955
(321) 638=0808
Py
Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing - Threshold Inspection
Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach - Fort Myers • Gainesville -'Jacksonville • Ocala -'Palm Coast Rockledge •Sarasota
Miami • Panama City • Pensacola - Fort Pierce • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta,:GA • Tifton, GA
EE
)40. ".) ERING SCIENCES
Consultants 1'nr Geo[echnical Engineering i Environmental Sciences
Geophysical'Services.' Construction Materials Testing., Threshold Inspection
Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration
May 19, 2017
Ryan Homes
1450 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 340
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Attention: Mr. Michael DeBock
Reference: Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
Proposed Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision,
Oakland Lake Circle
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
Dear Mr. DeBock:
LOCATIONS:
• Atlanta
• Daytona Beach
• Fort Myers
Fort Pierce
■ Gainesville
�. Jacksonville.
+ Miami
■' Ocala
■' Orlando (Headquarters)
Palm Coast
j.i Panama City
Pensacola
J%. Rockledge
Sarasota
,!: Tampa
• West Palm Beach
• Atlanta, GA
• Tifton, GA
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) . has completed a preliminary subsurface
exploration at the.: above. referenced site in Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our
exploration was authorized by you and was conducted as outlined in Universal's Proposal No.
0330.0417.00003. This exploration was performed in accordance 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 high groundwater levels At the boring
locations. and general comments concerning anticipated soil support characteristics -for typical
low-rise residential buildings.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with -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. .,��1N11►t1�:�11�/I��;
Sincerely yours;
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING'SCIENCES, INC.
Certificate of-Autht -di4 h No. 549
Jose R. Benitez Jr., E.L:.,
Staff Engineer
2 — Addressee
UESDOCS #1450465
Brad Faucett, M.S, P•.E:,�,
Regionai.Engineer
Florida Professional Engineer No,,`
820 Brevard Avenue, RockledJe, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 i
wmv.UniversalEngineering.com .
-TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... • ............ ...... ........ ............ _..:.::..........:.:1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .... .............. ................. :..::::.... :.:....... :.::.:........... :,::.......
:::a::.:�::::.:::.::..::
.1
3.0 PURPOSE ........... ........... :.:......... :::.::....:..:....... ::.........
::..:..:.::::::::.::::
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................:.......
4.1 SOIL SURVEY .............................. ...........:..................... 2
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY ......................... 2
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVIC.ES ................................................................................................... ....2
6.0 LIMITATIONS......
............. ._. _. ........................:.3
7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES....:.................:...........:..................:.................:..::::....:..::::.:::..:::::.:.:::.:.,.4
7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS ................ _ 4
7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS.... T 4,
7.3 PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES ............ T.;.......
:.,.........._........
T.
8
.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES......................::.::;..:,...::::..::..::.:,::.::::..::::.::::;::::,:::::::.::::::c�.4
8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS.........................;4
9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY......... :.........
.......................
::::.::::::::.:.:..:
9.1 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS........... 5
10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS..................:::.::::.::::::,....:.:::::,.;.:.:::::..:..:::sc:.::� ::; ;:::.::::.,...:6
10.-1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ........ g
10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL:.. 6
11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS......,:::
_.......:..:..:..::::,::,:::.::..:::.....:,,,....:.:............. :.....,........ 7
11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS.... :. .. .. .... ...,.............:.... .....,,.. 7
12.1 PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS..... ., .. ... .....,.... 7
13.0 CLOSURE ...................................................._. ,..,,... .......,..;..:8
LIST OF TABLES
Tabled: Saint Lucie County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types . 2
Table II: Generalized Soil Profile .......... .......................... : - ;5
Table III: Pavement Core Results. ......... . .... ..:.:::..........:.......... ,. : 6
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida. 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
i www.UnivbrsalEngineering.com i
FIGURES
Boring Location Plan....-.. .... .. ...... *.'—..�....'; .................................... Figure No. 1
APPENDICES
Key to Boring Logs,. . ... ....
Boring Logs . .. .Appendix A
EXHIBITS
GBADocument—,..., ... Exhibit 1
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, 'Florida 32955 (321),,.'6,38-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.1.161 . V'prsalEnginee�ing.dom,
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, 'Saint Lucie County,. Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed - a preliminary subsurface
exploration for. the proposed Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision in Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie
County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by Mr. Michael DeBock of Ryan Homes and
was conducted as outlined in Universal's Proposal No. 0330.0417.00003. 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
It is Universal's understanding, based upon information provided by the client, that the proposed
project will consist of a residential subdivision in Fort Pierce, Florida; currently envisioned as
shown in Figure No. 1. The proposed subdivision is intended to have seventy-three (73)
residential lots.
We understand that thestormwater runoff from impervious surfaces to be developed at this site
will be collected within an existing retention basin located in the central sections of the project
area.
Please note that our subsurface exploration was ;pr-:el mindry, in nature and conducted to acquire
general subsurface information only. Once specified site configuration, building detail and
structural and traffic loading information are available a final subsurface exploration should .be
performed.
3.0 PURPOSE
The purposes of this exploration -were:
• to explore.the subsurface conditions at general locations and depths as requested. by the
client and
• to provide our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring
locations and
to provide general comments concerning the.anticipated soil support characteristics for
typical low-rise residential construction.
4.0 - SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located within Section 11, Township 34"South, Range 39 East in Saint Lucie
County, Florida. More specifically, the site is located on the northwest quadrant of Palomar
Street Road and North Kings Highway, in Fort Pierce, Florida. At the time of drilling, the site
vegetation consisted of mostly grass, along with an existing paved circular road. around the
proposed subdivision.
1
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 1638-0978
www. UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
4.1 SOIL SURVEY
Two (2) soil types are mapped within the general project area according to the Saint Lucie
County Soil Survey (SLCSS),. dated 1980. A brief description of. these soils is provided in the
following Table I.
TABLE
SLCSS DESIGNATED SOIL TYPES
Soil Type
• Brief Description
(Map^Symbol) i
Soil material that has been dug up from several areas with different
Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes (4) kinds of soil. It is used to fill up areas such as low sloughs, marshes,
shallow depressions, and swamps,
Wabasso sand (48) Nearly level, poorly drained sandy soils in broad ,areas in the
flatwoods.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Oslo, Florida
quadrangle map dated 1949, photo -revised 1970, ground surface elevation across the site area
(pre -developmental) is approximately +20 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services conducted by Universal during our preliminary subsurface exploration program are
as follows:
• Drill seven (7) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the project site area to a
depth of 10 feet below existing land surface (bis).
• Core through the existing pavement sections at four (4) locations with a diamond tipped core
drill to ascertain the approximate thickness of the asphaltic surfacing and base course.
Perform Dynamic Cone -Penetrometer (DCP) testing within the upper portions of the
-selected SPT boreholes to help further determine soil consistencies.
Secure samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory
analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.
• Measure the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet
season high groundwater levels.
• . Conduct. soil gradation tests on selected soil samples obtained in the field to help determine
their engineering properties.
• Assess the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction'.
2.
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32b55 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com.
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
Preparing a geotechnical engineering report which documents the results of our preliminary
subsurface exploration and laboratory testing program with analysis and general comments.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
Please note that this report is based on a preliminary subsurface exploration program with the
scope of services, general boring locations and depths as developed in conjunction with the
client. The information submitted in this report is'based on data obtained from the soil'borings
performed at, thelocations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as
referenced. This report. has not been prepared to meet the full .needs of .design. professionals,
,contractors, or any other parties, and any use of this report by them without the guidance of the
soil and foundation engineer who prepared it constitutes improper usage which could lead to
erroneous assumptions, faulty conclusions, and other problems.
This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site. The nature and
extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of future explorations or
actual construction. If variations then become evident, it will be. necessary for re-evaluation of
the recommendations in this report after performing on -site observations during the construction
period and noting the characteristics of any variations. Deleterious soils were not encountered.
at any of our boring locations; however,, we cannot completely preclude their presence across
the entire property. Therefore, this report. 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 GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association.
3
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax 1(321) 638-0978
www. UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0600
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, .Florida Preliminary Subsurface. Exploration
7.0. FIELD METHODOLOGIES
7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS
The seven (7) SPT borings, designated 131 through B7 on the attached Figure No. 1, were
performed in .general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for
Penetration Test and Split=Barrel Sampling of Soils). 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 N-value, 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]).
The SPT soil borings were performed with a CME 45 ATV mounted drilling rig. Universal located
the test borings in the field by using the provided site plan and by plotting in the field with a
Garmin GPS receiver. No survey control was provided on -site; and our boring locations should
be considered only as accurate as implied by the .methods of measurement used. The
approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Figure No: 1.
7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed within the upper portions of the
selected SPT .boreholes to help further determine soils consistencies. The, DCP tests were
performed at 1 foot intervals in general accordance with the procedures developed by Professor
G. F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges (ASCE, 1966). The basic procedure for the DCP test is as
follows: A standard 1.5 inch diameter conical point is driven into -the soil bya 15-pound steel
hammer falling 20 inches. Following the seating of the point to a depth of 2 inches; the number
of blows required to drive the sampler an additional.1.75 inches is designated the penetration
resistance, providing an index to soil strength and density.
7.3 PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES
Samples of the existing asphaltic pavement sections were obtained. at four (4) core locations
(Cl through C4) with a 4 inch nominal diameter diamond bit core drill, advancing through the
asphaltic pavement into the underlying base course materials. Afterwards the core holes were
backfilled and the'surfacing patched with an asphaltic "cold patch" mixture and the core samples
returned to our laboratory for subsequent examination.
8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES
8.1 PARTICLE. SIZE ANALYSIS
We completed #200 sieve particle size analyses on. seven (7) representative soil samples.
These samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM D 1140 (Standard Test
Method for Amount of 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.
4
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, FloriLla 32955 (321) 638-0808- Fax (321) 638-0978
www. UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project.No. 033a 1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
The percentage of the material finer than the No. 200 sieve helps determines the textural nature
of the soil sample and aids in evaluating its engineering characteristics.. The percentage of
materials passing the #200 sieve is shown on the attached boring logs.
9.0 SOIL 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 in the following Table IL For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the
attached boring logs..
TABLE II
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
Depth.
Encountered '
' (feet,; b[s)-
Approximate,
, . Thickness
(feet)
I.
, $oilDescriptIon,
Fill soils consisting of fine sands with varying quantities of silt, clay,
Surface
2 to 9
gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps [SP, SP-SM, SC]; loose to�
medium dense.
Highly interlayered strata consisting. of fine sands [SP], fine sands,
with silt [SP-SM], and' clayey fine sands [SC], with varying
2 to 9
1+ to 8+
quantities of broken shell and occasional cemented rock layers;
loose to dense. At boring location B2, the fine sand with silt [SP-
SM] strata is partially cemented with iron oxide & organic salts and
which is locally known as hardpan.
NOTE: I ] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation.
. + indicates strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined,
9.1 - PAVEMENT -CORE RESULTS,
The results of our examination and measurement of the.core samples taken in the field from the
existing pavement sections are shown in the following Table III:
5
820 Brelvard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0801 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
TABLE III
PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS
BoringlCore
.Approximate Yhickn' ss!tType
Surfacing
Approximate Thickness
Course
T
Type otBase Course ,
Locatioa.,
of Asphaltic
of. Base
Materials
,.
(inches)'
(inches)
0.7 S3
C1
1.0 S3
8'/2
Coquina
0.883
C2
1.1 S3
1.1 S3
8%
Coquina
C3
1.0. S3
1.6 S3
8
Coquina
0.8 S3-
C4
1.0 S1
10
Coquina
0.7 S3 . .
1: See attached Figure No. 1 for approximate core locations.-_ - '
2. Classification of asphaltic layerings was performed visually and may not represent actual FDOT mix
parameters.
3. Subgrade soils consist mostly of fine sands with traces of gravel & broken shell [SP] (i.e. stabilized
subgrade).
10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
We measured the water levels in the boreholes on May 8; 2017 after the groundwater was
allowed to stabilize. The groundwater levels are shown on the attached boring. logs. The
groundwater level depths ranged from 4.3 feet bls at boring location B6 to 5.7 feet bls at boring
locations B2 and B7. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the
year, primarily due to 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 Saint Lucie County, Florida is between June and October of the year. In order to
estimate the wet season water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined,
including the following:
a. Measured groundwater level
b, Drainage characteristics of existing soil types
C. Season of the year (wet/dry season)
d.. Current & historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date)
e. Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.)
f. Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.)
g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems
6
820 Brevard.Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
h.. On -site types of vegetation.,
i. Area topography (ground surface elevations)
Groundwater level readings were taken on May 8, 2017. According to data from the Southeast
Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in the previous
month of April for Central Saint Lucie County was 2.2 inches, approximately at";the normal levels
for the month of April. Year-to=date rainfall for 2017 through May 81h was approximately 6Y2
inches, roughly 6 inches below the normal level for this time period.
Based on this information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high
groundwater levels at the boring locations will be approximately 2% feet above the existing
measured levels. Please note, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following
various intense storm events, may be somewhat higher than the estimated typical wet season
levels.
Due to the variable silt and clay content within the near surface soils at this site, we suspect that
there may be occasional isolated pockets of "perched" groundwater throughout the project area,
particularly during periods of prolonged wet weather. These temporary perched water table
levels maybe higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated above.
11.0 . LABORATORY RESULTS
11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands [SP]. The percentage of
soil sizes :passing the #200 sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth
sampled.
12.0 ANALYSIS AND GENERAL COMMENTS
12.1 PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS
The removal of site vegetation and roots, -along with other construction activities, will further
loosen' surficial soils to various depths. To provide a homogeneous, compacted, sandy soil
system underneath the proposed foundations and floor slabs for the proposed residences,
densification of at least the upper 2 feet of the existing surficial, loose soils and. subsequent
additional fill soils will be necessary. This should create a soil mat capable of dissipating the
building loads over any remaining loose strata.at depth.
We believe that this can be effectively accomplished using conventional site preparation
procedures including a comprehensive root. raking and stripping procedure to remove
vegetation, root mats, debris and organic topsoils; and then an extensive proof -rolling and
densification program, for the surficial soils and subsequent. structural fill. Assuming that such
procedures are ' properly performed, we .anticipate that conventional,. shallow spread footing
foundations may be used to supportconventional,6nd.,to two storv'tesidential construction.
7
_(
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 6A-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330. 1700052.0000
Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration
13.0 CLOSURE
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service as your geotechnical consultant on this phase of
the project and look forward to providing follow up explorations and geotechnical engineering
analyses as the project progresses through the design phase. If you have any questions
concerning this report or when we may be of any further service, please contact us.
8 I
820 Brevard Avenue, Ro4edge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-09r 8
www.UniversalEngineering.com
® Approximate SPT Boring Location
Note: Figure is based upon a Google Earth
aerial Photograph.
OAKLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION
HUMMINGBIRD WAY
FORT PIERCE, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BORING LOCATION PLAN
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES DRAWN BY: DATE CHECKED BY: DATE:
CB Ma 16; 2017 B� M;
... ......
•ca1.E: PROJECT NO: ' R,RP.,DRT NO: PAGE No:
1 ° = 200' 1 0330.1700052.0000 Fii
APPENDIX A
LI
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
PROJECT NO.: os3o.n000s2.a000
- - -
BORING LOG
B
REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT:
Oakland Estates Subdivision'
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: 9 'Of :1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST'
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117
WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 514117
DATE OF READING: 516/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC
EST. W.S,W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:
W
...Lu-
O
J -2
K
ORG.
n
w,
IrucReMeNr
Z
3
H
3 g
DESCRIPTION
��)
%�
(NJ
corm,.
p.
HR.)
I%)
r.
fine SAND with traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP]
4.1
7.4
fine SAND with gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps (Fill), — -
:w.,t{
brown, [SP]
2:7
10.6
5-6-12
1S
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell -(Fill); brawn, [SC]" .—
7-7-4
11
-'
..
clayey fine SAND'with traces of organics,-darkbrown, [SC]
7-9:15
..tom...
-
BORING TERMINATED -AT 10'
15
!
.....
..........
u
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE_ S PROJECT"°•: °33Q.,7°°052A0°°
BORING LOG REPORT NO.: — -
APPENDIX A
PROJECT:
Oakland Estates Subdivislon '
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
c
C
c
Z
u
BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 9 Of l
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117
WATER TABLE (It): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 51411T
DATE OF READING: 51812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:
F .•.
BLOWS
W
a
Q
_
.K__
ORG.
o
,,,
nWJ.
PER 6'
,
3
°
5
DESCRIPTIQN%�
��)
([NJ
coNT.
o
a
H
INCREMENT
z
y
HR.)
M)
o
fine SAND with traces of clay'lumps {Fill), brown, [SP]—
3,0
5.0
5-6-16
6"
c
5-22 26
22'
r.x
fine SAND, grey, [SP],
17-R
R'
f. :•
ti�V�Ms
'
5
,
...........
.....
. . .
fine SAND with silt; dark brown, (hardpan) ISP-SM]
; t,
6-6-6
12
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
6-7-8
15
6<i-4
8
i
clayey fine SAND with occasional cemented rock layers, grey;
[SC]
BORING TERMINATED AT 10'
" DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
15
f
......
....................
c
c
E
2
F
V
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700062.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.;
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT:
Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT.,
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B3 SHEET: 1 Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST
G.S,. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 614117
WATER TABLE (it): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 514117
DATE OF READING: 6/8/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC
EST, W.-S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:
a
a
`BLOWS
?
o
m
�.
goo
Mc
K
ORG.
PER6"
>
w
3 <
DESCRIPTION
(%)
VA)
(INJ
CONT,
INCREMENT
Z
w
0
HR.)
(%)
'
fine SAND with silt and traces of clay
Y brown,
-"- `
--
—
-
[SP-SM]
M1]t:
9-23-28
23`
V;
I{.
5-18-20
18"�.;.
,..-."
fine SAND; dark brown, [SP]-
5
.,...5.6-7
..13 .
:�
......
.�4.5
.:183
... ..
yt'x
fine SAND'with silt, brown, [SP-SM] -- -
16
B-7-9
ti:,•
ri
fine SAND, grey, [SP]
5-7-8
15
s
7 :�':
3.9
19.5
10
7sa
io
....
BORING TERMINATED AT 10'
" DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
15
........
..:.....:.........
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PRO �ECTNO.: 0330.1700062.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX' A
PROJECT:
Oakland Estates. Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B4 SHEET: 1 Of 1
SECTION- TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117
WATER TABLE (ft): 5.1 DATE FINISHED: 61411T
DATE OF READING: 51812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:
aBLOWS
J
r
200
MC
U LL
M
C
PERe'•
-t
m
}
a
DESCRIPTION
(�a)
h)
pK
ON .
INCREMENT
z
N
p
HR.)
(%a)
fine SAND with silt, gravel; brokeFnrsheII, and clay lure 's (Fill)-
.?
brawn, [SP-SM]
3-18-29
18*
ryz
11-21-25
21*
i
3-23-30 1
23*
5
.....:
fine SAND with silt, dark brown, [SP-SMj
8-12-14
PS
I
14-12-15
27
fine SAND with silt and broken shell, brown, [SP-SM]
L
14-16-16
32
10
14-12-10.
Y+'
- — - — -- - - —
...
BORING:TERMINATED AT 10'
* DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
15
.....
...
i
Q
C
C
7
h
4
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000
BORING LOG
REPORT NO..
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: .
Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B5
SHEET:
1 Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED: ,
514117
WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6
DATE FINISHED:
614117
DATE OF Ri EADING: 51812017
DRILLED BY:
TM, RP, MC
EST. W.S,W.T. (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
a
BLOWS
Lu
m
J
200
Mc
K v
ORG.
a
�r
PER6"
q
w
DESCRIPTION
(%)
(%)
(INJ
CONT,
oINCREMENT=
0
HR.)
(%)
0
_..
fine SAND with traces of-gravel,of.gravel, broken shell-and"cla lum s
-
(Fill), brown, [SP]
3.4
2:4
2-R
R'
8-R
R'
•.rs: .
2-21-R
21'I:
...........
...y��
.......
..
......
.......
10-15-15
30
Y
20 20-18
38
find -SAND with silt and traces of broken shell,. gray, [SP-SM]
10-9-6
15
., •
F
-
BORING TERMINATED AT 10'
" DYN�IMIC GONE PENETROMETER (p'CP) VALUES
'R = DENOTES:RI~Fu6A1:.-TO' PEKE_ TRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER. � � -
'
I
I
I
i
i
q:5:
..
....,,
......
RP
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.-
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT.
Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
i
BORING DESIGNATION: BB SHEET: 9 Of 7
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (it):
DATE STARTED: 514117
WATER TABLE (ft): 4.3
DATE FINISHED: 514117
DATE OF READING: 5/8/2017
DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC
EST. W;S W.T_ (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
~ F
LU
a'
BLOWS
PER 6 "
W
-1
o
S
.� f;.
w
i
i DESCRIPTION
200
MC
K
ON./
ORG.
CONT.
a
s
U)
INCREMENT.
z
3
H
5
c
l�)
fy)
HR.)
('k)
-
° fine SANWWi# slit alrid trace`s of clayTinp§ (Fill); brown,
ISP-SM]
Yf�
,
R
R'
'
17-20-25
20"
-fine SAND gfey, [SP] ._.
5-19-21
19"
"<
_
6-7-7
14
clayey fine SAND, grey, ISC]
4-8-6
14
6-6-6
12
10-
BORING 'TERMINATED AT 10'
" DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
15
i
.....
......
-UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330"000520000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
V APPENDIX: A
PROJECT:
Oakland Estates Subdivision
Hummingbird Way
Fort Pierce, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B% SHEET: 9 Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117
WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 614117
DATE OF READING: 51812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC
EST. W;S:W,T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING:
BLOWS
Uj
M
O.
K
ORG_
PER6"
a
DESCRIPTION
200
MC
CONT,;
o
y;
INCREMENT
z
�
o
(Y.)
I%i
HR.)
HR.) i.
(q)
End SAND -With silt and clay lumps (FiIQ brown; [SP-SM]
- -
-
21-R
R`
S:
fine SAND, grey, [SP] -
10-24-26
24*
1.6
3.4
14-R
R*
.'i'.
7-7-7
14
clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC]
'
3-5.6
11
5-5-5
10•
10
7-8-10
18::
- - ---- — - --- -
BORING TERMINATED AT 10'
* DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
15
......
.......
......
W
w
W
0
0
N
z
50
c7
y
rn
a
70 ..
0
85 :.
100 _.
KEY TO BORING .LOGS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART*
Sand or Gravel [SP,SW,GP,GW] t,, �% . R
AL
Sand or Gravel with Silt UN I M: E-" S
or Clay [SPSM,SPSC] E NGIN E E RI N G
SCIENCES, INC.
Silty or Cl 4_g,. Ca,GM,GC] or Gravel [ ._
Sandy or Grd0%ySilt;'6 Clay
[ML, L-MC,%L MH,CH,b
.,
Silt'or. Clayy with Sand or Gravel
L ML,CL';MH,GH;t)L�Oi]"
Silt or;C[dCL;Mhyy
[ML;CL,MH,CH, OL,OH]
66
5o
a40
z .
30
W
g 20
o.
• aLfo
0 10' 20 30 40 'SO 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY CHART
GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL
COARSE GRAINED SOILS
FINE GRAINED SOILS
•
•
t
WELL -GRADED
SANDS [SWf
� i
WELL -GRADED
GRAVELS [GW]
tu
INORGANIC SILTS
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
. IMLI
r
POORLY -GRADED
SANDS [SP]
Qo
P s:
D I1 �' '
P-RADED
G OORLY
GRAVELS [GP]
INORGANIC SILTY CLAY
LOW PLASTICITY
[CL-ML]
+
+
{ . ,•
POORLY -GRADED
SANDS WITH SILT
ESP
° °1
p. `
POORLY -GRADED
GRAVELS WITH SILT
[GP -GM]
INORGANIC CLAYS
LOW TO MEDIUM
PLASTICITY [CLI
}
;, ,g "-SANDS
POORLY -GRADED
WITH CLAY
[SP-SC]
"•
.
a ,. . ,
POORLY.GRADED
GRAVELS WITH CLAY
GP -GC]
INORGANIC SILTS HIGH
PLASTICITY [MH]
SILTY SANDS
[SMI
e c -
SILTYGRAVELS
[GM]
INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH
PLASTICITY [CH]
'
CLAYEY SANDS
[SCI
CLAYEY GRAVELS
IGCI
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2487 - UNIFIED SOIL
sm . SILTY CLAYEY SANDS' CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.
[SCSM]
•• 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 $YM OS.ARE USED.TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS
E 5-J,
LOW PLASTICITY low"
ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS
MEDIUM TO HIGH
PLASTICITY IOM"
'—'
—7
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS
WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS [PT]"
RELATIVE DENSITY
, (SAND AND GRAVEL)
VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 Blowsift.
LOOSE - 5 to 10 Blowslft.
MEDIUM DENSE -11 to 30 BlowsffL
DENSE - 31 to 50 Blowaftt.
VERY DENSE- more than SO Blowslft.
CONSISTENCY
(SILT AND CLAY)
VERY SOFT- 0 to 2 Slowsift.
SOFT. 3 to 4 Blowalft.
FIRM- 5 to 8 Blowslft.
STIFF- 9 to 18 Blows/ft.
VERY STIFF -.17 to 30 Blowslft..
HARD -more than 30 Biowsltt.
APPENDIX A.1
� Geo�chtiicalE�gineeriog Report
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly
a client representative — interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively
as possible. In that way, clients,can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
that, for decades, have been a principal cause of
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and
disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a
wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a
construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil -
works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Those who
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared fora different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one .
— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except
the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report
in full.
You Need to inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include;
• the client's goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk -management preferences;
the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
the structures location and orientation on the site; and
other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
I.undeiground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect-
• the site's size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from alight -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
the composition of the design team; or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes — even minor ones — and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the ggotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it;
. for a different client;
• for a different project;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely.on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an "apply -by" date on the report
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis — if any is required at all — could prevent major problems.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a sites
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ — maybe significantly — from
those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
wheneveF needed.
This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirmation -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report — including any options
or alternatives — are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are
not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation -
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform
construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals' misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the
design team, to:
• confer with other design -team members,
• help develop specifications,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals'
plans and specifications, and
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering
guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction
observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note
that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times,'Iocations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements,
including options selected from the report, only from the design
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough
time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering discipIines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled "limitations," many of these provisions indicate
where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these
provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study — e.g., a "phase -one' or "phase -two" environmental
site assessment — differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotedinical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared for a different client site, or project, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture- including water vapor — from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building -
envelope or mold specialists.
'HAGEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
' ASSOCIATION
Telephone: 301 /565-273 3
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofesslonal Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBAs specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA; and only for purposes ofscholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report ofany
kind., Any other firm, indridual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committint negligent