The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION'WANNILL-1) BY UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Proposed Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Oakland Lake Circle Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000 May 19, 2017 PREPARED FOR: Ryan Homes 2005 Vista Parkway, Suite 102 West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 PREPARED BY: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. 820 Brevard Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing Threshold Inspection Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville, Ocala • Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota Miami • Panama City - Pensacola • Fort'Pierce • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA • Tifton, GA FILE COPY U Hit, VERSAL ' LOCATIONS: Atlanta Daytona Beach ENGINEERING "SC,IEIICES Fort Myers is Fort Pierce Consultants.ln Geotech'nical Engineering Environmental Sdences �; Gainesville Geophysical' Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection •. Jacksonville .. Miami. Building Inspection Plan Review:- ; Building Code Administration • Ocala. Orlando.(Headquarters) Palm Coast Panama City May 19, 2017 e' Pensacola ; ; Rockledge Ryan Homes :, Sarasota 1450 Centre ark Boulevard, Suite 340 p �.: Tampa West Palm Beach West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 • Atlanta, GA • Tifton, GA 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: 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 bylyou 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 continued association: Please do not hesitate to con if we may further assist you as your plans proceed: Sincerely yours, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES; INC.. Certificate of;Authorizatidh,,No. 549 r Jose R. Benitez Jr., Staff Engineer 2 — Addressee UESDOCS #1450465 E F F 82.0 Brevard, Avenue; Rockledge-, Florida 32955 (321): 638-0808 Fax (321) :638-0978 +wMVw UniversalEngineering:com J a I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................. . ............................................... 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............. ; .......... ............... 3.0 PURPOSE ....................... 4.0 - SITE DESCRIPTION ............ ........... ................................ 4.1 SOIL SURVEY ......................... ................................................................................... 2 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY ....................... 2 5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................. ....... .................................................................................... 2, 6.0 LIMITATIONS .......... . ..... o.. ..... .......... ........ i.3 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES .............................. ........... 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS ....................... 7.2 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS.......,..-. 7.3 PAVEMENT CORE SAMPLES ............ 8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES ... * ................ 8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS.. . .............. 9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY .................. 5 9.1 PAVEMENT CORE RESULTS........... 10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................. 6 1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS * ......... 10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL,;... 11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS ....... 11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ........... 7 12.1 PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS...... 13.0 CLOSURE ........................................ ........................ ........ . . LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Saint Lucie, County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types ....... 2 Table 11: Generalized Soil Profile ............................................... 5 Table Pavement Core Results ...................... 6 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 1 www.UniversalEngineering.com i I FIGURES Boring Location Plan. ...... .... :......... .... .: :Figure No. 1 APPENDICES Key to Boring Logs: ,: -... _ . .:... ............... ........... ....:...: Appendix A Boring Logs .... _ . _ _ ...... _ : - .-... _ . , Appendix A EXHIBITS GBADocument..:......:. . :.,..,. .,. ::: ,: :..:::::.::: ; .......,:::.:,,' Exhibit 1 a 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, :florida 32955 (321) ;638-0808 Fax '(321) 638-0978 www.Uri vRsalEngineeiing.com,. r Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No., 0330'. 1700052.000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface,-Exploratio, 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 the stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces to be developed at this site') will, be collected within an existing retention basin located in the central sections of the project area. Please note thatour subsurface exploration was.,pcei minark,,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. J . 3.0 PURPOSE The purposes of this exploration were: l • toexplore 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. 820 Brevard Avenuiei Rockledge; Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808: Fax (321)1638-0978 www.Oniversa[Engineering.com ,J 1 Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330-1700052.0000 Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration 4.1 SOILZURVEY 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. -TABLEI SLCSS DESIGNATED SOIL TYPES Soil Type (Map Symbol) Brief Description Soil material that has been dug up from several areas with different' Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes (4) kinds of soil. It is used to fill up areas such as low sloughs, marshes, shallow depressions, and swamps. Wabasso sand (48) Nearly level, poorly drained sandy soils in broad areas in the flatwoods. 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY According to 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 (bls). • 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.Universa[Engineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.17-00052. Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Explot • 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 the locations 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 Ahis report by them without the guidance of the soil and foundation engineer who prepared. it constitutes. improper usage which could lead to erroneous assumptionsl 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 shouldbe 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'{321.) 638-0978. . www.UniversalEngineeri,ng.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0000� Fort Pierce, Saint Lucie County, Florida Preliminary Subsurface Exploration's 7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES 7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS The 'seven (7) SPT borings, designated B1 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 by a 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.: - II'' 4 820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, FloriLla 32955 (321') 638-0808 Fax (321.) 638-0978 www.UniversalEngineering.com Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052. 000q 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, to 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 11 i GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE . . 'Depth 'Encountered (feet;;bls) i Approximate . Thickness (feet) . ,I Soil�Description Fill soils consisting of fine sands with varying quantities of silt; clay, Surface 2 to 9 ; gravel, broken shelf, 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 .62, 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 Breward Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0806 Fax (3211638-0978 www.UniverspiEngineering.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, Boring/Core Approximate Thickness/Type Approximate Thickness Type of Base Course Location of Asphaltic Surfacing of Base Course Materials (inches) (inches) 0.7 S3 --- C11 1.0 S3 8'/z - Coquina C2 1.1 S3 1.153 8/ Coquina C3 1.0 S3 1.6 S3 8 Coquina 0.8 S3 C4 1.0 S1 10 Coquina --0.7 S.3 - 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 bis 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: i a,. Measured groundwater level b,. Drainage characteristiceof. 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 82G Brevard Avenue, Rockledgel, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978 l: www.UniversalEngineering.com I Oakland Lake Estates Subdivision Universal Project No. 0330.1700052.0006 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 of the °normal levels for .the month of April.' Year -to;-, a rainfall for 2017 through May 8.. 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'/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 may be higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated above. 11 o LABORATORY RESULTS- 111.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS . The :soil samples submitted for analysis were' classified'as fine 'sands [SP]. The ..percentage of soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size are shown on the boring' logs at the approximate depth sampled. 12.0 ANALYSIS AND GENERAL COMMENTS 12.1 PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS The removal of site vegetation and roots, along with other, construction activities, will further loosen surficial soils to various depths: To provide a homogeneous, compacted, sandy soil system underneath the proposed foundations and floor slabs for the . proposed residences,. densification of at least the upper 2; feet of the existing.surficial, loose soils -and subsequent additional fill soils will be necessary. This should create a soil mat capable of dissipating the building loads over any remaining loose strata at depth. We believe that this can be effectively accomplished using conventional site. preparation procedures including a comprehensive root raking and stripping procedure ' to remove vegetation, root mats, debris and organic topsoils;. and then an extensive proof -rolling and densification program for the surficial .soils and subsequent structural fill. Assuming that such. procedures are properly performed, we anticipate that conventional, shallow spread footing foundations may be used to support'convenfional_oneao two story.<reside1tial construction: 7 }} 8k Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 63ffi-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 1.3.0 CLOSURE. We appreciate this, opportunity to be of service as your geotechnical consultant on -this phase.ofi 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., 1 i i I I � I " ' > i 820'Brevard A - � venue, Rocl�ledge,' Florida 32955 (321). 638-0808 Fax (321) 638 0948 www.UniversalEngineering.com ,: UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES e �I. ® Approximate SPT Boring Location Note: Figure is based upon a Google Earth aerial Photograph. r OAKLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION HUMMINGBIRD WAY v FORT PIERCE, IN_DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BORING LOCATION PLAN DRAWN BY: C6 GATE Ni0 16;,2017 CHECKED BY. -�F O'TE' .Ma 18.201.7 - 'GALE: DEPORT NO: PAGE NO 1" = 200' 0330.1700052.0000 _ _ _ __ _ Flduio J ' � R ! PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 IVNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES — -- — � BORING LOG REPORT NO;: - -- APPENDIX: A' PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: 1 of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G•S„ELEVATION (it): ' I DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 614117 DATE OF READING: 502017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP-; MC EST. W.S•W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: aBLOWS J m w PER6" F 3 C7 DESCRIPTION zoo Mc (INJ court, o y I INCREMENT z I, N as (y.) I%) HR.) 0A) - : - _ .— fine SAND with traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SPI z.+ 4.1 ; 7.4 r , 1 I 4r'i•.t f 1 { r'a'tj I • oy fine SAND with gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps (Fill) — — { L` t brown, [SP] 2 Y 10.6 I'. r t; M-12 clayey fine SAND with traces of broken slfell (Filly,b—rown, [SC] — i ! 7-74 11 ! I I' clayeyfine SAND`wlth traces ofo�ganics,-dark'b-own; [SC]'- I 7 9-15 ' 2d • I is t I BORING TERMINATED AT 10' ! I u )UNIVERSAL' �8�NGINEERING SCIENCE S PROJECTNO.: -, 0330.1700052.0000 BORINBORING LOG REPORT NO-, - — G V APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: 2 BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 9 Of 9 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G:S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: . . 51417 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 51812017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W-T. (ft):' TYPE OF SAMPLING: _ Lu BLOWS 7 a - ~ O r w ..-_-� .- •- --�-- '- -- - ----- zoo --- Mc K ORG. n V y PER6"• ,I INCREMENT z h O �' o DESCRIPTION l�) (�) pNJ HR.) CONT.. M) I' fine SAND with -traces of clay lumps -(Fill); brown,,-[SP]- 6{:,• 3:0, 5:0 •'.{- ��{ 5-22-26 22' sy.•. ' "? fine SAND, grey, [SP] 17-R R* �Y•,Y. I I 5 ••'� • •I ��I ne SANDwith slit, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP S ] - ' ' " ' `�`' •' ' ` clayeyfine SAND,'brown, [SC]-- - 6-7-8 15 I 6-4-4 8 I I clayey fine SAND with occasional cementedrock layers, grey, [SC] 10 - BORING TERMINATED AT 10' * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION_ WITH DYNAMIC I 1 I. I i II CONE PENETROMETER. I 15 i 'I fl I R P U_NIr/E:RSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT"°:: 033°:"°°052.°°°° REPORT NO.:, BORING LOG - - - APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fart Pierce,.Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: 0 0 9 Cn BORING DESIGNATION: BS SHEET: I Of 7 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST 1 G. St ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 614/17 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.3 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: ' 518/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S•W.T:, (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: a 'J BLOWS � O J 1. 200 K ORG. a PER6' ¢ F m w DESCRIPTION Mc (INJ CONT,.' a ... W INCREMENT Z' w 3 G 0 (/0I 0 (A) HR.) (%) fine SAND with silt and traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown,- [SP-SM] I • i :it 9-23-28 23• i4:•77 i; f j �, 5-18-20 18" 1i fine SAND; dark-broft,"[SP] - - - - i I . 5-6-7 13 'i,+ LL's 4.5 18,3 •;dry ,� I fine SAND witfr silt, brown, [SP-SM] - - --- 6-7-9 16 �; I zr '.i•e r?`; -fine SAND, grey, [SP] - -- - 5-7-8 15 ii :'3' ;� 3.9 19.5 _ •t ti L BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I II DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES ' i i 1 I i , i. PROJECT NO.: _ 0330.1700052.0000 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES -_ - BORING LOG REPORTNO,; — APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BA• SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.1 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING; 6/8/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S. W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: F ,� a BLOWS J F: m 1 9 -200 MC i �K ORG. o LL a PERe" } a DESCRIPTION (�1 ly) pNJ CONT.. v1 INCREMENT' z w S HR.) 0A) .:. • fine SAND with silt; gravel, broken shell, and clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP-SM] 3-18-29 18" z 11-21-25 21" i '+• 3-23-30 23* rvr is 5 - - fine SAND with silt, dark brown, [SP-SM]- 8-12-14 26r: 14-12-15 27 fine SAND with silt and broken shell, brown, [SP-SM] i S 14-15-16 32 14-12-10 22 t BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES I i i 15 ....... R ` UNIVERSAL ;ENG'INE.E'k NG SCIENCES ; PROJECT. NO.: 0330.1700052.0000 REPORT NO!: - - (- BORING LOG I APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce; Florida . . CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B5 SHEET: 9 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.6 DATE FINISHED: 5/4117 DATE OF READING: 5/8/2017 .' DRILLED BYc TM, RP, MC EST. W.S;W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: . i.. '�' BLOWS 7 J¢ ._ ° ~ O 0. j zoo Mc K .. ORG. a .' PER6" �' w 3 ;, DESCRIPTION (INJ CONT, INCREMENT - Q i%) (k) HR.) (Y) fine SAND with traces of gravel, broken shell; and"clay lumps — — _ `� - (Fill); brown, [SP] i; Y sx 3'4 2:4 , fr u 2-R R• 1 �, I ) 8-R R'; Y rw' Y 2-21-R 21`�'i •' "tip: .. il:. . 20-20-18 38, fine y -SAND with silt andtaces of broken shell,. gr .: •, {I I i ,[SP-SM.]i I II i, 10-9-6 15 BORING TERMINATED AT 0,1: P I' ` DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES I R - bENOTES R>;FUSALTO`PENETI2ATION WITH DYNAMIC I CONEPENETROM.ETER„ ,I I I I' u UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO-:- 0330.1700052.0000= REPORT NO:=. - --- _ -- BORING LOG -- APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Oakland Estates Subdivision Hummingbird Way Fort Pierce, Florida CLIENT - LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: BG SHEET: I Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 514117 WATER TABLE (ft): 4.3 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 5181201T DRILLED BY: TIN, RP, MC EST. W;S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: x LL '' U, BLOWS j p �I. _ I zoo MC K ORG. W f PER 6" ; 3 Lu DESCRIPTION (IN.1 CONT. ,', c y' INCREMENT HR.) i (%) fine -SAND with silt and traces of clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP-SM] R R* 17-20-25 i 20' ; - d -fiftWSAND 9reY. [SP] -- -- - - - 6-7-7 14 _ y1 ; - � I ' clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 4-8-6 14 i 6-6-6 12 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 10' " DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC I i CONE PENETROMETER. i u ' I m UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.:. 0330.1700052.00OD- 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: BT', SHEET: I Of I SECTION: I TOWNSHIP: SOUTH RANGE: EAST G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 5W17 WATER TABLE (ft): 1 5.7 DATE FINISHED: 514117 DATE OF READING: 518/2017 DRILLED BY: TM, RP, MC EST. W.S.W;T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: SLOWS O K--, ORG. w f` PER6'• a ~ DESCRIPTION -200 j MC (IN./ CONT, o w INCREMENT Z , H C l%) (%) Q-- r fine SAND with silt and"clay lumps (Fill), brown, [SP-SMj - - Sn 21-R R`: find SANI7.,grey. [SP] - - -- — ' 10-24-26 24-1 ;t 1.6 3•4 14-R R•y= Y? 7-7-7 14 clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 3-5-6 I 11 5-5-5 10 I BORING TERMINATED AT 10' "DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. � I' I I I I, ' 1.5 I , { _ 1 e,• ..... KEY TO BORING !LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART* J I 0 Sand or Gravel,[SP SW,GP GWj i - 5 UNIVERSAL j - Sand or Gravel tenth Silt - or Clay [SPSM SPSCI 12 :�:.._..... .... ENGINEERING i SCIENCES, INC. Lu Silty orCla..e','Sand or Gravel S SC GM,GC] o .10 N �1 Z Z Sandy or GFaiieliyy S]It'or'Cla m , L-ML;CL;MH,CH;t) 'O I [ML I a 70 °Silt or.-Cla with Sand orGravtl!I: r [ML;CL-M,Ly,CL;MH,CH,O�OH] "� 85 .- : :.... .. ...........:. ,.:.... Silt or`Clayy. [MLCL''•CL,MH,CH,OL,OH] 100 GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS •.. + • WELL SANDS [SW] U-- �'° . - WELL GRADED GRAVELS [GW] - I I INORGANIC SILTS SLIGHT PLASTICITY [MLj —_ = ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS LOW PLASTICITY [OL]•• 3 y� POORLY -GRADED SANDS [SP] rri ° POORLY -GRADED 0 GRAVELS [GP] o . INORGANIC SILTY CLAY LOW PLASTICITY ORGANIC SILTSICLAYS MEDIUM TO HIGH t }. D [CL-MLj PLASTICITY [OHy+ ' ®R:.POORLYGRADED' SANDS WITHSILTGRAVELS POORLY -GRADED WITH SILT 'INORGANIC CLAYS LONETO MEDIUM �r� rJ r� PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS' WITH HIGH ORGANIC I , (SP-SM] p [GP -GM] PLASTICITY ICLI CONTENTS [PT]•• }..'.. POORLY -GRADED SANDS WITH CLAY. !. ESP-SCI ° o POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH CLAY C,M1' [GP -GC] INORGANIC SILTS HIGH PLASTICITY [MHI :®1 SILTY SANDS 111� ISM] ° o SILTY GRAV ELS , IGMI INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH PLASTICITY [CHI RELATIVE DENSITY (SAND AND GRAVEL) II VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 Blowalft. CLAYEY SANDS i CLAYEY GRAVELS LOOSE - 5 to 10 Blowsift. MEDIUM DENSE -11 to 30 Blowsift II , DENSE - 31 to 50 BlowniR [SCI IGC] VERY DENSE - more than 50 Blowslft. i SILTY CLAYEY SANDS >'.. - :� IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM'D2487- UNIFIED SOIL • CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. j CONSISTENCY I+ - I [SC-SM] "•`� �' (SILT AND CLAY) : '• LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK. VERY SOFT - 0 to 2 Blowsift. SOFT - 3 to 4 Blowsift. . FIRM - 5 to 8 Blowsift. NOTES: STIFF - s to 16 Blowslft. 8' - DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE R -DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION VERY STIFF -17 to 30 Blowsift. HARD -more than 30 Blowslft. � P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER NIE - DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED - I ; NOTE: DUAL:SYMBOLS-ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL"CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A.1 1 �, ,� ,� �., � 1 r' � Opp Repu�t Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. 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 wayi 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 belowi 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 for a different client can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. who prepared it. And no one — not even you —.should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read this Report In Full. Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read this report in full. You Needto Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer about Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors J 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, retatging,walls, access roads,.parking lots, and :. I underground utilities. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of tliis report include those that affect - the site's size or shape; • the function of the proposed structure, as when its changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. I " . 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 liabilityfor. problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. This Report -May Not Be Reliable Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: for a different client; • for a different project; • - for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes; standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an "apply -by" date on "the report, ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis — if any is required at all — could prevent major problems. Most of the "Findings"'Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site's subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ — maybe significantly — from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to project finish, so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, wheneveI needed. This Report's Recommendations Are Confirmation -Dependent The recommendations included in this report = including any options or alternatives — are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. 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 confirma'tion- dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report'Could Bei 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, locations, 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 disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations;' many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond 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-twd' environmental site assessment — differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical- engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report prepared for a difterent 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 engineed may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled migration of moisture — including water vapor — from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical,engineer's recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building - envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Telephone: 3 01 /565-273 3 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA'.s 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 clement of a report of any kind, Any other firm, indlvidual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committint negligent