The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION_, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION 6UANNED BY St. Lucie County PROPOSED WAWA FACILITY SWC OF NE PRIMA VISTA BLVD. & SE FLORESTA DR. PORT SAINT LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA UES PROJECT No. 0330.1600033.0000 UES REPORT No. 1320866 PREPARED FOR: Brightwork Real Estate 3708 West Swann Avenue, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33609 PREPARED BY: Universal Engineering Sciences 3532 Maggie Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32811 (407) 423-0504 March 23, 2016 ECEUVIP.o MAR 2 9 FEUD 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 St. Auaustine • Panama Citv • Fort Pierce • Leeshura • Tamoa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta. GA • Tifton. GA LOCATIONS: U k l V E R S A L • Atlanta • Daytona tona Beach ENGINEERING SCIENCES 119 • Fort Myers- Fort Pierce Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Gainesville Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection • KissimmJacksoee • Kissimmee Building Inspection -Plan Review -Building Code Administration - Leesburg • Miami March 23, 2016 • Ocala • Orlando (Headquarters) Brightwork Real Estate • Palm Coast 3708 West Swann Avenue, Suite 200 • Panama City • Pensacola Tampa, Florida 33609 • Rockledge • Sarasota • Tampa Attention: Mr. Wright Barrs • West Palm Beach Reference: Geotechnical Exploration Proposed Wawa Facility Southwest Corner of NE Prima Vista Boulevard & SE Floresta Drive Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Universal Report No. 1320866 Dear Mr. Barrs: Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a geotechnical exploration at the above referenced site in Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by Mr. T. Austin Simmons, Vice President of Brightwork Real Estate; and was conducted as outlined in Universal's Proposal No. 0330.0815.00004. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, express 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 seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations and geotechnical recommendations for site preparation procedures, foundation & pavement design parameters, and general comments concerning the anticipated infiltration characteristics of the retention basin & exfiltration trench subsoils. 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 ggA,9kgns, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully Submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. Certificate of Authorization No. 549 ct Jose R. Benitez Jr., E.I. Staff Engineer 2 — Client 1 — George Balaban w/ Bohler Engineering (e-mail) UESOOCS-#1320866 Brad Faucett, M.S. P. Regional Engineer Florida Professional E �\\" O t-AUC "//�, Q.P...... i ENS �.0 e23 '*= 3532 Maggie Blvd. • Orlando, Florida 32811 • (407) 423-0504 • Fax (407) 423-3106 www.Universa[Engineering.com TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................................................1 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................3 2.0 PURPOSE 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................4 3.1 SOIL SURVEY.....................................................................................................................................4 3.2 TOPOGRAPHY.....................................:..........................................................................................:....4 4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.....................................................................................................................5 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION......................................................................................................................5 5.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS..........................................................................................................5 5.2 AUGER BORING..................................................................................................................................6 5.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTING...........................................................................................6 5.4 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES......................................................................................................................6 5.4 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TESTS.................................................................................................6 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................... a 7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..........................................................................................................7 8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS......................................................................................................8 8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL...................................................:.....................................................8 8.2 SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL..............................................................................................8 8.3 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TEST RESULTS....................................................................................9 9.0 LABORATORY RESULTS.............................................................................................................10 9.1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................... 10 9.2 PERMEABILITY TESTS....................................................................................................................... 10 10.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................11 10.1 STRUCTURAL AND GRADING INFORMATION.........................................................................................l l 10.2 ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................... 12 10.3 BEARING PRESSURE......................................................................................................................... 12 10.4 FOUNDATION SIZE............................................................................................................................ 12 10.5 BEARING DEPTH............................................................................................................................... 12 10.6 BEARING MATERIAL.......................................................................................................................... 12 10.7 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES.................................................................................................................. 12 10.8 FLOOR SLABS...................................................................................................................................13 11.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................13 11.1 ASSUMPTIONS.................................................................................................................................. 13 11.2 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS.................................................................................................................... 13 11.2.1 Layer Components..............................................................................................................13 11.2.2 Stabilized Subgrade............................................................................................................14 11.2.3 Base Course........................................................................................................................14 11.2.4 Surface Course....................................................................................................................15 i 11.2.5 Effects of Groundwater........................................................................................................15 11.2.6 Landscape Areas.................................................................................................................15 11.3 CONCRETE "RIGID" PAVEMENTS........................................................................................................ 16 12.0 SITE PREPARATION.....................................................................................................................17 13.0 UST PIT AREA - GENERAL COMMENTS....................................................................................18 14.0 STORMWATER POND/EXFILTRATION TRENCH DESIGN........................................................19 15.0 DEWATERING AND EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS............................................................20 16.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES......................................................................................20 17.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................20 I LIST OF TABLES Table I: Saint Lucie County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types.......................................4 Table II: Laboratory Methodologies...................................................................................7 j Table III: Generalized Soil Profile.......................................................................................7 - Table IV: Groundwater Level Data Summary ...................................................................... 9 Table V: Permeability Test Results..................................................................................11 Table VI: Minimum Asphaltic Pavement Component Thicknesses....................................14 Table VII: Minimum Concrete Pavement Thickness...........................................................16 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Saint Lucie County Soil Survey......................................................................Figure No. 1 USGSTopographic Map................................................................................Figure No. 2 APPENDIX B Boring Location Plan......................................................................................Figure No. 3 Key to Boring Logs Sheet................................................................................. Appendix B BoringLogs.....................................................................................................Appendix B APPENDIX C ASFEDocument.............................................................................................Appendix C Constraints and Restrictions...........................................................................Appendix C u Wawa Facility — NE Pnn'._ -sta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. UnivE , Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This executive summary has been prepared solely to provide a general overview. Do not rely on this executive summary for any purpose except that for which it was prepared. Rely on the full report for information about findings, recommendations, and other concerns. Project Description Universal understands that the proposed project will include the redevelopment of the site and construction of a new Wawa store in Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida. The site is currently developed with seven (7) one story buildings and associated driveway areas, which are to be removed before new construction will commence. From the preliminary site plan provided to Universal; the proposed building will be a one-story structure covering a plan area of approximately 5,900 square feet. A gas pump canopy is proposed on the east side of the proposed building. In addition, we understand that stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected within a proposed retention basin, together with an underground exfiltration system, to be located within the western sections of the Wawa parcel (as shown on Figure No. 3). Soil Conditions Based on the results of our soil borings, the soils at this site are mostly very loose to medium dense fine sands [SP, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC] to the maximum depth of drilling, 25 feet below existing land surface (bls). No highly organic soils, debris, or other deleterious materials were encountered within the near surface soils at our boring locations. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs. Groundwater Considerations The groundwater table at our boring locations was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 4.2 to 7.9 feet bls at the time of our exploration. We estimate that the typical wet seasonal high groundwater levels at the boring locations will be roughly 1 foot above the existing measured levels. Site Preparation and Foundation Design Site preparation will consist of demolition of the existing site improvements and stripping of any vegetation, roots, debris, etc. Thereafter, densification of any loose subgrade soils and all subsequent fill/backfill soils will be necessary as recommended in Section 12.0 of this report. After successful completion of the building site preparation, we recommend a shallow foundation system be used for support of the proposed building. The shallow foundations should be designed using a maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). UST Pit Area We assume the excavation for the proposed UST pit area will be on the order of 10 to 15 feet below the ground surface. Based on the results of Boring B7 (performed within the proposed pit area), the subsoils at this level were classified as medium dense clayey fine sands [SC] and fine sands with silt [SP-SM]. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, it is our opinion the subgrade soils are suitable for supporting the proposed underground tanks. Based on the groundwater conditions encountered at this site, temporary dewatering will be necessary to achieve the necessary excavation and compaction within the tank area. 1 Wawa Facility — NE Prim( sta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univc:' Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 Minimum Pavement Design Based on the results of our soil borings, the Wawa pavement design specs, and review of the applicable FDOT Pavement Design Manuals, our minimum recommended pavement component thicknesses are presented in the following Tables. MINIMUM ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT COMPONENT THICKNESSES MINIMUM CONCRETE PAVEMENT THICKNESSES Location Minimum Pavement Stabilized Maximum Control Recommended' Saw Thickness Subgrade Joint Spacing . Cut Depth Parking & 12 inches, Canopy Area 6 inches FDOT Type B, 12 feet x 12 feet 2 inches LBR >— 40 12 inches, Tank Mat Area 8 inches FDOT Type B, 14 feet x 14 feet 2% inches LBR >— 40 Stormwater Pond Design Based on the preliminary plan provided by the client, we understand that stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected within a proposed retention basin, together with an underground exfiltration system, to be located within the western sections of the Wawa parcel. A total of four (4) borings (designated B5, B9, B11, & B12 on the attached Boring Location Plan) were performed within the potential retention/exfiltration trench areas. Basedon the results of the stormwater borings, the soils with the proposed retention/exfiltration trench areas consist mostly of fine sands [SP] to depths of approximately 2 to 3 feet, underlain by hydraulically restrictive surficial layers of fine sands with silt (hardpan) [SP-SM] and clayey fine sands [SC]. The fine sand with silt (hardpan) [SP-SM]] and clayey fine sands [SC] layer should be considered aquicludes, or the base of surficial aquifer, for the purpose of stormwater infiltration modeling. For stormwater design, we recommend using a fellable porosity of 25 percent for the surficial sands above the groundwater table. Due to the relatively shallow aquiclude layers & groundwater levels, such items as over -excavation & replacement of the trench subsoils with highly permeable backfill, and/or the use of underdrains to a positive outfall should be considered to enhance the infiltration characteristics of the proposed exfiltration trenches. The estimated seasonal high groundwater level is further discussed in Section 8.2 of this report. Wawa Facility— NE Prim, .:eta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univel, 'Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Universal understands that the proposed project will include the redevelopment of the site and construction of a new Wawa store in Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our geotechnical exploration was planned based on a preliminary plan provided by the client (Site Plan, dated February 18, 2016). At the time of our field exploration, the site was currently developed with seven (7) one story buildings and associated driveway areas, which are to be removed before new construction will commence. We understand the proposed Wawa building will be a one-story structure covering a plan area of approximately 5,900 square feet. A gas pump canopy is proposed on the east side of the proposed building. In addition, we understand that stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected within a proposed retention basin, together with an underground eAltration system, to be located within the western sections of the Wawa parcel (as shown on Figure No. 3). The recommendations presented within this report are based upon the above assumptions. Should any of the above information or assumptions made by Universal be inconsistent with the planned development and construction, we request that you contact us immediately to allow us the opportunity to review the new information in conjunction with our report and revise or modify our engineering recommendations accordingly, as needed. No site or project facilities/improvements, other than those described herein, should be designed using the soil information presented in this report. Moreover, Universal will not be responsible for the performance of any site improvement so designed and constructed. 2.0 PURPOSE The purposes of this exploration were: to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to potential problems that may impact the proposed development, • to provide our estimates of the seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations and • to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, pavement design and stormwater pond/exfiltration trench design This report presents an evaluation of site conditions on the basis of geotechnical procedures for site characterization. The recovered samples were not examined, either visually or analytically, for chemical composition or environmental hazards. We would be glad to provide you with a proposal for these services at your request. Our exploration was not designed to specifically address the potential for surface expression of deep geological conditions, such as sinkhole development related to karst activity. This -- -- evaluation -requires a -more extensive range -of -field -services than those performed in this study. We would be pleased to conduct an exploration to evaluate the probable effect of the regional geology upon the proposed construction, if you so desire. 3 ij Wawa Facility— NE Prim. 3ta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. UnivE., Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 -- Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located within Section 28, Township 36 South, Range 40 East in Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida. More specifically, the site is located on the southwest corner of NE Prima Vista Boulevard and SE Floresta Drive as shown on the attached Figures No. 1 & 2. At the time of drilling, the project site was currently developed with seven (7) one story buildings and associated driveway areas. 3.1 SOIL SURVEY There are two (2) primary soil types (pre -developmental) within the general project area according to the Saint Lucie County Soil Survey (SLCSS), dated 1980. A brief description of these soils is shown below in Table I. A copy of a portion of the SLCSS is included as Figure No. 1. TABLE SLCSS DESIGNATED SOIL TYPES Soil Type - f (Map Symbol) Brief Description About 50 to 70 percent of the complex is nearly level Ankona soils or Ankona soils that have been reworked and 15 to 50 percent Urban Land. Ankona-Urban Land The parent formation Ankona sand (2) is described as a nearly level, complex (3) poorly drained sandy soil on broad flat woods. Urban land (47) consists of areas that are more than 70 percent covered by airports, shopping centers, parking lots, large buildings, streets, and sidewalks. About 50 to 70 percent of the complex is nearly level to gently sloping Pendarvis-Urban land Pendarvis soils or Pendarvis soils that have been reworked and 15 to 50 complex (30) percent Urban Land. The parent formation Pendarvis sand (29) is described as a nearly level to gently sloping, moderately well drained sandy soil on low ridges and knolls in the flatwoods. Please note that the BCSS soil survey data is based on pre -developmental conditions. The native subsurface conditions depicted on the soil survey have likely been altered during previous development within the vicinity of the site and are not necessarily representative of the current subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration. 3.2 TOPOGRAPHY Site specific topographic information was not provided by the client for our review at the time of this report preparation. According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Ankona, Florida quadrangle map; dated 1948, photorevised 1983; ground surface elevation across the site area was approximately +10 to +15 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). A copy of a portion of the USGS Map is included in Figure No. 2. 4 Wawa Facility- NE Prim; ata Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 4.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The services conducted by Universal during our geotechnical exploration are as follows: • Drill seven (7) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed building footprint, UST pit area, and canopy area to depths of 20 to 25 feet below existing land surface (bls). • Drill two (2) SPT borings within the proposed parking/drive areas to a depth of 10 feet bls. • Drill two (2) SPT borings within the proposed retention basin/exfiltration trench areas to depths of 10 to 15 feet bls. • Obtain one (1) auger boring within the proposed retention area to a depth of 10 feet bls. • Obtain six (6) undisturbed Shelby tube samples of the near surface soils within the proposed retention & exfiltration trench areas for subsequent laboratory permeability tests. • Perform two (2) South Florida Management District (SFWMD) exfiltration tests within the proposed exfiltration trench area. • Perform Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing within the upper portions of the 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 seasonal high groundwater level at the boring locations. • Conduct laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their engineering properties. • Assess the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction. • Prepare a report which documents the results of our exploration and analysis with geotechnical engineering recommendations. 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION 5.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS The eleven (11) SPT borings, designated B1 through B11 on the attached Figure No. 3, 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 5 Wawa Facility — NE Prim ;ta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive!, project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification.System]). 5.2 AUGER BORING The one (1) auger borings designated B12 on the attached Figure No.3, was drilled in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1452 (Standard Practice for Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings). The auger drilling technique involves advancing a slender, solid - stem, bucket auger into the soil to the required depth. The soil types encountered were also evaluated by visually classifying the cuttings recovered from the auger bucket in accordance with ASTM D 2487 guidelines. 5.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTING Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were made within the upper 4 feet of the 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. The SPT soil borings were performed using a CME 55 truck -mounted drilling rig using either rotary mud techniques or continuous flight augers to termination depth. The shallower auger boring was performed by trained engineering technicians using hand equipment. Universal located the test borings using 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.3. 5.4 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLES We obtained six (6) undisturbed shelby tube samples of the near surface soils for subsequent laboratory permeability tests. The samples were obtained at boring locations 69, 1311, & B12 at depths of approximately 2 to 2'Y2 feet bls, according to the ASTM D 1587 (Thin -Wall Tube Sampling of Soils) procedure. This procedure includes manually excavating a pit and hand driving a 2.82-inch inside diameter shelby tube horizontally or vertically into the soil mass. 5.4 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TESTS Two (2) South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) falling -head, open -hole exfiltration test were performed adjacent to boring locations 65 and 139. The SFWMD exfiltration test, in part, is conducted by drilling an open sided hole to a depth of slightly below the existing groundwater table, filling the hole with water, then measuring the time required for the water level to drop in increments. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from _the test borings were returned to our laboratory and visually classified in general accordance with ASTM D 2487 "Standard Classification of Soils for i Engineering Purposes" (Unified Soil Classification System). We selected representative soil samples from the borings for laboratory testing to aid in classifying the soils and to help to Wawa Facility— NE Prim' ;ta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive', Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 evaluate the general engineering characteristics of the site soils. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. A summary of the tests performed is shown in Table II. TABLE II LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES Test Performed Number Performed Reference Grain Size Analysis 9 ASTM D 1140 "Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the (#200 wash only) No. 200 (75 - pm) sieve" Moisture Content g ASTM D 2216 "Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by Mass" Permeability Tests 6 AASHTO T-215 "Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)" 7.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The results of our field exploration and laboratory analysis, together with pertinent information obtained from the SPT and auger borings, such as soil profiles, penetration resistance and groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix B. The Key to Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix B. 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 Table Ill. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the attached boring logs. TABLE Ill GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE Typical Depth Range of feet,bls Soil Description SPT"N" From To Values, blowsift) Surface 3 to 4 Fine sands [SP]; very loose to medium dense. 2 to 18 Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]; loose to medium dense. The 3 to 4 4 to 6 latter stratum is partially cemented with iron oxide & organic 7 to 24 salts and is locally known as hardpan. Clayey fine sands [SC]; loose to medium dense. At boring 4 to 6 10+ to 12 location 133, the stratum is replaced by fine sands with clay 6 to 19 [SP-SC]; loose to medium dense. Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]; very loose to medium dense. 12 to 17 20+ to 25+ At boring location B11, the stratum is replaced by fine sands 2 to 20 with clay [SP-SC]; medium dense. denotes maximum termination depth of the borings 7 91 Wawa Facility— NE Prim ;ta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive, 'Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 8.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 8.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER LEVEL We measured the water levels in the boreholes on March 10 & 14, 2016 following drilling operations. The groundwater level depths at the boring locations ranged from approximately 4.2 to 7.9 feet bis at the time of our exploration. The encountered groundwater level at each boring is shown on the individual boring logs in Appendix B. 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. 8.2 SEASONAL 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: • Measured groundwater level • Drainage characteristics of existing soil types • Current & historical rainfall data • Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, wetlands, etc.) • Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, retention basins, etc.) • On -site types of vegetation • Review of available data (soil surveys, USGS maps, etc.) Groundwater level readings were taken on March 10 & 14, 2016. According to data from the Southeast Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in the previous month of February for Central Saint Lucie County was 3.4 inches, approximately 0.6 inches above the normal for February. The total rainfall for the year 2015 was 46.8 inches, approximately 7 inches below the yearly norm. The year to date rainfall through March 14, 2016 was 14'/2 inches, approximately 7'/ inches above the normal levels 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 1 foot above existing measured levels. Please note, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following various intense storm events, may be somewhat higher than the estimated typical wet season high levels. Due to the relatively shallow layers of fine sand with silt [SP-SM] (hardpan) and clayey fine sands [SC] within the near surface soils at most of the boring locations, we strongly suspect that there may be occasional isolated pockets of "perched" groundwater within some portions of the project area, particularly during periods of prolonged wet weather. These temporary perched water table levels may be higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated below. A further summary of the groundwater conditions at the boring locations is -- presented -in Table -IV -below: - - 8 T Wawa Facility— NE Prim. ita Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive;, Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 TABLE IV GROUNDWATER LEVEL DATA SUMMARY Boring Location' Depth of Existing Measured Groundwater Level (feet, bls) 2 EstimatedDepth of Typical Wet Season High Groundwater Level (feet, bis) B1 -- B2 7.8 .7 B3 7.9 7 B4 7.1 6 B5 6.4 5'/: B6 6.0 5 B7 4.8 4 138 4.2 3'/ 69 5.8 5 610 7.6 6% B11 7.7 6Y B 12 7.5 6'/z 1. See attached Figure No. 3 for approximate boring locations. 2. Groundwater level readings were taken on March 10 & 14, 2016. 8.3 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TEST RESULTS The results obtained from the SFWMD exfiltration tests, where K is the coefficient of hydraulic conductivity are as follows: 5 Feet North of Boring Location B5: K = 4.60 x 10-5 cfs/ft2 - ft Depth of Test, Surface to 7 feet Depth to Groundwater Table: 6.4 feet bls Soil types encountered: 0 to 3 feet bls Fine sand [SP] — 3-to-5-feet bls Fine sand with silt [SP-SM] (Hardpan) 5 to 7 feet bls Clayey fine sand [SC] 9 Wawa Facility— NE Prim'_ eta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univ6 Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 5 Feet East of Boring Location B9: K = 4.32 x 10s cfs/ft2 - ft Depth of Test, Surface to 6 feet Depth to Groundwater Table: 5.8 feet bls Soil types encountered: 0 to 3 feet bls Fine sand [SP] 3 to 6 feet Us Fine sand with silt [SP-SM] (Hardpan) 9.0 LABORATORY RESULTS 9.1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands [SP], fine sands with silt [SP-SM], and clayey fine sands [SC].The percentage of soil sizes passing the #200 sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth sampled. 9.2 PERMEABILITY TESTS Soil permeability is a measure of the soil's ability to allow water flow though it under saturated conditions. Permeability is a function of the grain size and sorting of the entire soil mass. According to the National Soil Survey Handbook, 1993 Edition, published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, permeability rates can be expressed in the following classes: Permeability Class Permeability K (in/hr) Extremely Slow 0.0 — 0.01 Very Slow 0.01 — 0.06 Slow 0.06 — 0.2 Moderately Slow 0.2 — 0.6 Moderate 0.6 — 2.0 Moderately Rapid 2.0 — 6.0 Rapid 6.0 — 20.0 Very Rapid > 20.0 Most "clean" fine sands [SP] typically exhibit moderately rapid to very rapid permeabilities. Fine sands with silt or clay [SP-SM or SP-SC] can usually be considered to have slow to moderately slow permeabilities; while silty sand [SM], clayey sands [SC], silts [ML] and clays [CL] are typically within the extremely slow to slow class. The results obtained from our remolded laboratory permeability tests, where K is the coefficient of permeability, are displayed in Table V below: 10 a] Wawa Facility— NE Prim. ;ta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive, .'Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 TABLE V PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS 'Boring Location Soil Type Sample Depth (feet) Permeability Rate (in/hr) Permeability Class B9 Fine sand [SP] Horizontal @ 2' 24.5 Very Rapid B9 Fine sand [SP] Vertical @ 2%' 17.9 Rapid B11 Fine sand [SP] Horizontal @ 2' 15.1 Rapid B11 Fine sand [SP] Vertical @ 2' 12.3 Rapid B12 Fine sand [SP] Horizontal @ 2' 18.4 Rapid B12 Fine sand [SP] Vertical @ 2% 17.4 Rapid It should be noted that the coefficient of permeability is not an infiltration rate. The actual infiltration rate is influenced by the coefficient of permeability as well as several factors, including the elevation of the pond bottom/trench, water level in the pond/trench, the elevation of the wet season water table, and the confining layer. 10.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached soil test data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and experience with similar projects and subsurface conditions. The applicability of geotechnical recommendations is very dependent upon project characteristics such as improvement locations, and grade alterations. Universal must review the final site and grading plans to validate all recommendations rendered herein. Additionally, if subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, which were not encountered in the borings, report those conditions immediately to us for observation and recommendations. 10.1 STRUCTURAL AND GRADING INFORMATION It is our understanding that the project will include the construction of a new Wawa store in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. Although detailed loading conditions were not provided, we have assumed that the maximum loadings for the proposed building will not exceed 50 kip per column and 3 kips per linear foot for structural walls. We assume that the finished floor elevation of the new building will be roughly 2 feet above existing grades. Prior to finalizing any design, the structural/grading information outlined above should be confirmed by the project structural/civil engineer. This is crucial to our evaluation and estimates of settlements. If any of this information is incorrect or if you anticipate any changes, please inform -Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. -immediately so that -we may review and -modify our -- recommendations as appropriate. Wawa Facility — NE Prirr' , sta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive'l Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 10.2 ANALYSIS Based on the results of the soil borings, the near surface soils within the proposed building area appear to be loose to medium dense sandy soils to a depth of at least 25 feet below existing grade. It is our opinion that proposed structures can be supported on properly designed and constructed shallow foundation systems, provided that the site preparation recommendations outlined in this report are followed. The parameters outlined below may be used for foundation design. 10.3 BEARING PRESSURE Provided our suggested site preparation procedures are followed, we recommend designing shallow footing foundations for a maximum allowable net soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable net bearing pressure is that pressure that may be transmitted to the soil in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. The allowable bearing pressure should include dead load plus sustained live load. Per Section 1805.4.1 of the Florida Building Code (FLBC), the foundations should be designed for the most unfavorable effects due to the combinations of loads specified in Section 1605.3 of the FLBC. 10.4 FOUNDATION SIZE The minimum width recommended for an isolated column footing is 24 inches. For continuous wall or slab on grade foundations, the minimum footing width should comply with the current FLBC, but under no circumstances should be less than 12 inches. Even though the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure may not be achieved, these width recommendations should control the size of the foundations. 10.5 BEARING DEPTH The base of all footings should be at least 12 inches below finished grade elevation in accordance with the FLBC. We recommend stormwater and surface water be diverted away from the building exterior, both during and after construction, to reduce the possibility of erosion beneath the exterior footings. 10.6 BEARING MATERIAL The bearing level soils should exhibit a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) to a depth of at least 2 feet below foundation level as described in this report. In addition to compaction, the bearing soils must exhibit stability and be free of "pumping" conditions. 10.7 SETTLEMENT ESTIMATES Post -construction settlement of the structure will be influenced by several interrelated factors, such as (1) subsurface stratification and strength/compressibility characteristics of the bearing soils to a depth of approximately twice the width of the footing; (2) footing size, bearing level, applied loads, and resulting bearing pressures beneath the foundation; (3) site preparation and earthwork construction techniques used by the contractor, and (4) external factors, including but not limited to vibration from off -site sources and groundwater fluctuations beyond those normally — - -anticipated-for the naturally -occurring site and -soil -conditions which-are-present.- 12 r" Alk Wawa Facility — NE Primi, _ , to Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univej project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida a Universal Report No. 1320866 Our settlement estimates for the structure are based upon adherence to our recommended site preparation procedures presented in this report. Any deviation from these recommendations could result in an increase in the estimated post -construction settlement of the structures. Furthermore, should building loads change from those assumed by us, greater settlements may be expected. Due to the sandy nature of the surficial soils following the compaction operations, we expect the majority of settlement to be elastic in nature and occur relatively quickly, on application of the loads, during and immediately following construction. Using the recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure, the assumed maximum structural loads, and the field and laboratory test data which we have correlated into the strength and compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils, we estimate the total post -construction vertical settlement of the proposed structure to be on the order of 1 inch or less. Differential settlement results from differences in applied bearing pressures and the variations in the compressibility characteristics of the subsurface soils. Assuming our site preparation recommendations are followed, we anticipate post -construction differential settlement of less than'/ inch. 10.8 FLOOR SLABS Conventional floor slabs may be supported upon the compacted fill and should be structurally isolated from other foundation elements or adequately reinforced to prevent distress due to differential movements. For the slab design, we recommend using a subgrade modulus (k) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci), which can be achieved by compacting the subgrade soils as recommended in this report. However, in no case should the floor slabs have a thickness of less than 6 inches where heavy loads are anticipated. In lightly loaded pedestrian walk areas, we recommend a minimum thickness of at least 4 inches be maintained. We recommend using a sheet vapor barrier (in accordance with Florida Building Code requirements) beneath the building slab -on -grade to help control moisture migration through the slab. 11.0 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 11.1 ASSUMPTIONS We assume that a combination of flexible asphaltic and rigid concrete pavement sections will be used on this project. At the time of this report preparation, specific Wawa flexible pavement design information was provided to us. Our recommendations for both pavement types are listed in the following sections. 11.2 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS 11.2.1 Layer Components Based on the results of our soil borings, the Wawa flexible pavement design specs, and review of the 2008 FDOT Flexible Pavement Design Manual, our minimum recommended pavement component thicknesses are presented in Table VI. 13 Wawa Facility— NE Prime' ,, =Ia Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univei 'roject No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie Coun(K Florida Universal Report No. 1320666 TABLE VI MINIMUM ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT COMPONENT THICKNESSES Service Layer Component Level Surface Course Base Course _ StabilizedSubgrade (inches) (inches) (inches) Light Duty 1'/ 8 12 11.2.2 Stabilized Subgrade We recommend that the stabilized subgrade materials immediately beneath the base course exhibit a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 as specified by FDOT compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) value. Based on the results of the SPT borings, additional stabilization of the upper sands within many areas of the site will be necessary in order to achieve a minimum LBR value of 40 and be suitable for use as a stabilized subgrade to support the proposed pavement sections. Stabilized subgrade can be imported materials or a blend of on -site and imported materials. If a blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum mix proportions. Crushed limerock, crushed concrete base material, or low plasticity clayey sands [SC] could be used to stabilize the subgrade soils to meet the recommended LBR values stated previously. Compaction testing of the stabilized subgrade should be performed to full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet, or a minimum of 4 tests, whichever is greater. 11.2.3 Base Course Based on review of the Wawa pavement specifications and our experience in the project area, limerock, coquina and crushed concrete are suitable base course materials for this project. However, local municipality standards may govern the use of crushed concrete use as an alternative base course material. We recommend the civil engineer consult with the local municipalities prior to selecting the base course material for this project. For a limerock or coquina base, the base course should be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density and exhibit a minimum LBR of 100. The limerock material should comply with the latest edition of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Road and Bridge Construction specifications. Recycled crushed concrete may provide a cost-effective alternative material in lieu of a limerock base course. The advantages of using crushed concrete as a pavement base course include its high strength (stronger than limerock), resistance to groundwater related distress, and lack of reflection cracking caused by thermal expansion and contraction. If a crushed concrete base is used, the base course material should be sourced from an FDOT approved supplier. The base should be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent.of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density and exhibit a minimum LBR of 150. The crushed concrete base material should comply and be placed in accordance with the latest edition of the 14 Wawa Facility- NE Prime', #a Blvd. & SE F/oresta Dr. Univer Iroject No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 FDOT Road and Bridge Construction Specifications. In order to ensure consistency of the crushed concrete material, additional LBR and sieve gradation tests should be performed at a minimum frequency of one test per 15,000 square feet, and for each visual change in material. Compaction testing of the base course should be performed to full depth at a frequency of at least one (1) test per 10,000 square feet. 11.2.4 Surface Course For the pavements, we recommend that the surfacing consist of FDOT SuperPave (SP) asphaltic concrete. The surface course should consist of FDOT SP-9.5 fine mix for light -duty areas and FDOT SP-12.5 and/or SP-9.5 fine mix for heavy duty areas. The asphalt concrete should be placed within the allowable lift thicknesses for fine Type SP mixes per the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 334-1.4 Thickness. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to an average field density of 93 percent of the laboratory maximum density determined from specific gravity (Gmm) methods, with an individual test tolerance of +2 percent and -1.2% of the design Gmm. Specific requirements for the SuperPave asphaltic concrete structural course are outlined in the latest edition of FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, Section 334. Note: If the Designer (or Contract Documents) limits compaction to the static mode only or lifts are placed one -inch thick, then the average field density should be 92 percent, with an individual test tolerance of + 3 percent, and -1.2% of the design Gmm. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to evaluate material thickness and density. Cores should be obtained at frequencies of at least one (1) core per 10,000 square feet of placed pavement, or a minimum of two (2) cores per day's production. 11.2.5 Effects of Groundwater One of the most critical influences on the pavement performance in Central Florida is the relationship between the pavement base course and the seasonal high groundwater level. Sufficient separation will need to be maintained between the bottom of base course and the anticipated seasonal high groundwater level. We recommend that the seasonal high groundwater and the bottom of the base course be separated by at least 12 inches for crushed concrete base course, and at least 18 inches for a limerock/coquina base course. Based on the anticipated seasonal high groundwater conditions, it appears that the site may need to be raised in some areas to achieve the required separation. The separation should be confirmed by reviewing the final site grading and paving plan. If the separation is not provided by grading, the installation of underdrains will be required. 11.2.6 Landscape Areas In the event that landscape areas adjacent to the pavements include large mounds (>1 foot) of poorly draining organic topsoils or silty/clayey sands, we recommend that landscape drains be - provided-to-protect-the-roadway-against-adverse-effects"from over -irrigation or excess rainfall. Poorly draining silty and clayey material causes the irrigation and rainwater to perch and 15 r" Wawa Facility- NE Prim--_A�jta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive' , .'clroject No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 migrate laterally into the pavement components, which eventually compromises the integrity of the pavement section. 11.3 CONCRETE "RIGID" PAVEMENTS Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that is strong, durable and handles the heavy loads more effectively than asphalt pavement. We understand that concrete pavement will be used in the canopy and tank mat areas. In addition, concrete pavement is recommended under the dumpster area, and 10 feet in front of the trash enclosure, at a minimum. We recommend preparing the proposed concrete pavement areas as recommend in Section 11.0 of this report with the following stipulations: 1. The subgrade immediately beneath the concrete should be stabilized to achieve a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of 40 as specified by FDOT and compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) value. 2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting corrected prior to placement of concrete. 3. The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete. 4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the thickened edges (curb or footing). 5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the seasonal high groundwater level by at least 12 Inches. Based on the results of the soil borings, review of the FDOT Rigid Pavement Design Manual and review of the Wawa concrete pavement specifications, we recommend using the minimum design shown in Table VII for concrete pavements. TABLE VII MINIMUM CONCRETE PAVEMENT THiruNFccFc Minimum --- - -• ------- Location Pavement Stabilized Maximum Control Recommended Saw Thickness . Subgrade Joint Spacing Cut Depth P Parking & 12 inches FDOT Canopy Area 6 inches Type B , 12 feet x 12 feet 2 inches LBR t 40 12 inches FDOT Tank Mat Area 8 inches Type B , 14 feet x 14 feet 2% inches LBR >_ 40 We recommend using concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of at least 4000 pounds per square inch and contain fiber reinforcement. Layout of the Saw cut control joints should form square panels, and the depth of Saw cut joints should be '/ of the concrete slab 16 Wawa Facility — NE Prima'._,�J'a Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univer,,, 'roject No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 We recommend allowing Universal to review and comment on the final concrete pavement design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of construction. For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing of Non -Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products Association, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas", published by the Portland Cement Association. Specimens to verify the compressive strength of the pavement concrete should be obtained for at least every 50 cubic yards, or at least once for each day's placement, whichever is greater. 12.0 SITE PREPARATION We recommend normal, good practice site preparation procedures for the new construction areas. These procedures include: demolition of existing structures and stripping/clearing of the site to remove old foundations, pavements, buried improvements, vegetation, roots, organic topsoils, debris, etc. Following stripping, the exposed subgrade soils should be proof -rolled, and all subgrade and subsequent fill/backfill soils should be properly densified. A more detailed description of this work is presented in this section. Prior to construction, existing underground utility lines and other below grade structures within the construction area should be located. Provisions should be made to relocate interfering utilities to appropriate locations. It should be noted that if underground improvements are not properly removed or plugged, they may serve as conduits for subsurface erosion which may lead to excessive settlement of overlying structures. 2. Demolish existing structures and strip the proposed construction limits of old foundations, floor slabs, pavements, vegetation, topsoil, roots, debris and other deleterious materials within and 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the new construction areas. Expect clearing and grubbing to depths of 6 to 12 inches. Deeper clearing and grubbing depths may be encountered in heavily vegetated or depressional areas where major root systems are encountered. We strongly recommend that the stripped/excavated surfaces be observed and probed by representatives of Universal. 3. Proof -roll the exposed subsurface soils under the observation of Universal, to locate any soft areas of unsuitable soils, and to increase the density of the shallow loose fine sand soils. If deemed necessary by Universal, in areas that continue to "yield", remove any deleterious materials and replace with a clean, compacted sand backfill. 4. Place fill/backfill as necessary. All fill should consist of clean sand with less than 12 percent soil fines and be free of organics, debris and other deleterious materials. Fill soils containing between 5 and 12 percent fines may require strict moisture control. Place fill in maximum 12-inch loose, uniform lifts and compact each lift at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. - — --5.- Within-the-tit=grade(or below grade) foundation areas, subgrade compaction of at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor should be achieved to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of foundation/slab levels. 17 T Wawa Facility — NE Prim? 43ta Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 6. Within the pavement areas, the upper 12 inches of subgrade beneath the base course or concrete slabs (sub -base) should be stabilized and compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. 7. Test the subgrade and each lift of fill for compaction at a frequency of not less than one test per 2,500 square feet in the building areas and one test per 10,000 square feet in the pavement areas, with a minimum of 4 tests in each area. 8. Prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete, verify compaction within the footing trenches to a depth of 2 feet. We recommend testing every column footing and at least one test every 100 feet of wall footing, with a minimum of 4 tests per building. Re - compaction of the foundation excavation bearing level soils, if loosened by the excavation process, can typically be achieved by making several passes with a walk -behind vibratory sled or jumping jack. Stability of the compacted soils is essential and independent of compaction and density control. If the near surface soils or the structural fill experience "pumping" conditions, terminate all earthwork activities in that area. Pumping conditions occur when there is too much water present in the soil -water matrix. Earthwork activities are actually attempting to compact the water and not the soil. The disturbed soils should be dried in place by scarification and aeration prior to any additional earthwork activities. Vibrations produced during vibratory compaction operations at the site may be significantly noticeable within 100 feet and may cause distress to adjacent structures if not properly regulated. Provisions should be made to monitor these vibrations so that any necessary modifications in the compaction operations can be made in the field before potential damages occur. Universal Engineering Sciences can provide vibration monitoring services to help document and evaluate the effects of the surface compaction operation on existing structures. It is recommended that vibratory rollers with a maximum static weight of 8 tons be used at this site and remain a minimum of 50 feet from existing structures. Within this zone, the use of a static roller or small hand guided plate compactors is recommended. 13.0 UST PIT AREA— GENERAL COMMENTS We assume the excavation for the proposed UST pit area will be on the order of 10 to 15 feet below the ground surface. Based on the results of Boring B7 (performed within the proposed pit area), the subsoils at this level consist of medium dense clayey fine sands [SC] and fine sands with silt [SP-SM]. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, it is our opinion the subgrade soils are suitable for supporting the proposed underground tanks. The groundwater table was encountered at a depth of approximately 4.8 feet bls at boring location B7 on the date of measurement. Temporary dewatering will be necessary to achieve the necessary excavation and compaction within the tank area. Excavation procedures should conform to the OSHA regulations (Please see section 15.0 of this report). After the excavation for the tanks is complete, we recommend that th_e bottom of the excavation be -compacted -by small -hand -guided -equipment to achieve at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557) to a depth of 1 foot. If the bottom of excavation is unstable due to excessive fines and/or wet conditions, graded aggregate (FDOT 57 stone) can 18 Wawa Facility— NE Prima, a Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univer' `Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 be placed in 3 to 6 inch lifts in the bottom of the over -excavation with compaction equipment (i.e. jumping jack) until a firm, non -yielding subgrade is achieved. After completion of the tank installation, backfill around and above the tanks should be placed in uniform 12 inch (or less) lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor Test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557), with small hand guided equipment. Backfill should consist of clean sand with less than 12 percent soil fines and be free of organics, debris and other deleterious materials. 14.0 STORMWATER POND/EXFILTRATION TRENCH DESIGN Based on the preliminary plan provided by the client, we understand that stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected within a proposed retention basin, together with an underground exfiltration system, to be located within the western sections of the Wawa parcel. A total of four (4) borings (designated B5, B9, B11, & B12 on the attached Boring Location Plan) were performed within the potential retention/exfiltration trench areas. The hydraulic capacity of "dry" stormwater retention areas and exfiltration trenches is principally a function of the ability of the surface soil to receive and percolate the storm water runoff. Upon reaching the groundwater table or a restrictive layer, the stormwater runoff begins to mound. The amount and rate of rise in the recharge mound depends on several factors, including the thickness and permeability of the receiving stratum, the elevation of the groundwater table, and the geometry of the loaded area. The actual infiltration rate of retention pond and exfiltration trench subsoils is influenced by the coefficient of permeability as well as several factors, including the elevation of the pond/trench bottom, water level in the pond/trench, the elevation of the wet season water table, and the confining layer. These factors must be accounted for in an appropriate groundwater model to determine the infiltration rate of a given soil stratum. We recommend the designer use a commercial software program such as "Ponds" or "Modret" in order to evaluate the dry retention ponds and exfiltration trenches. Based on the results of the stormwater borings, the soils with the proposed retention/exfiltration trench areas consist mostly of fine sands [SP] to depths of approximately 2 to 3 feet, underlain by hydraulically restrictive surficial layers of fine sands with silt (hardpan) [SP-SM] and "clayey fine sands [SC]. The fine sand with silt (hardpan) [SP-SM]] and clayey fine sands [SC] layer should be considered an aquiclude, or the base of surficial aquifer, for the purpose of stormwater infiltration modeling. We estimate that the site surficial sands would exhibit a fillable porosity (above the groundwater table) of approximately N = 25%. For dry retention systems (if used at this project), we recommend that the site be filled/contoured to allow pond bottom levels of at least 1 foot above the estimated seasonal high groundwater levels. In order to further enhance the performance potential of dry retention basins & exfiltration trenches at this site, the underlying impermeable fine sand with silt (hardpan) [SP-SM] strata (where encountered) can be undercut to a depth of at least 6 feet below pond/trench bottom --levels-and-replaced-with-highly-permeable-fine sands-(i:e: k z 10 inches/hour-at a density of approximately 92% of the modified Proctor test). 19 a] Wawa Facility — NE Prima l -na Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Univer r, roject No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 After the configuration of the proposed retention basins and exfiltration trenches are further defined, Universal should be allowed to review the proposed plans, so that recommendations for any necessary additional borings and/or laboratory testing can be formulated. 15.0 DEWATERING AND EXCAVATION CONSIDERATIONS Based on the groundwater level conditions encountered, temporary dewatering will be required for the successful construction of this project. Where excavations will extend only a few feet below the groundwater table, a sump pump may be sufficient to control the groundwater table. Deeper excavations may require well points and/or sock drains to control the groundwater table. Regardless of the method(s) used, we recommend drawing down the water level at least 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation. The actual method(s) of dewatering should be determined by the contractor. The design and discharge of the dewatering system must be performed in accordance with applicable regulatory criteria (i.e. water management district, etc.) and compliance with such criteria is the sole responsibility of the contractor. Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As a minimum, temporary excavations below 4-foot depth should be sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. Where lateral confinement will not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be shored in accordance with OSHA requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for maintaining workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor. 16.0 CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES We recommend the owner retain Universal to provide inspection services during the site preparation procedures for confirmation of the adequacy of the earthwork operations. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation and pavement subgrades by monitoring earthwork operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of compacted structural fill courses. The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction documents. The design is an on -going process throughout construction. Because of our familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified to address site problems or construction changes, which may arise during construction, in a timely and cost-effective manner. 17.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Wawa, Inc. and other designated members of their design/construction team associated with the proposed construction for the specific project discussed in this report. No other site or project facilities should be designed using the soil information contained in this report. As such, Universal will not be responsible for the performance of any other site improvement designed using the data in this report. This report should not be relied upon for final design recommendations or professional opinions by unauthorized third parties without the expressed written consent of Universal Engineering --Sciences-Unauthorized-third-parties-that-rely upon the -information contained hereinwithoutthe expressed written consent of Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. assume all risk and liability for such reliance. 20 Wawa Facility — NE Pnm'- .<) to Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Unive' - _"Project No. 0330.1600033.0000 Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida Universal Report No. 1320866 The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan and from other information as referenced. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur between the boring locations. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until the course of construction. If variations become evident, it will then be necessary for a re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report after performing on -site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of the variations. 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 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 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. During the early stages of most construction projects, geotechnical issues not addressed in this report may arise. Because of the natural limitations inherent in working with the subsurface, it is not possible for a geotechnical engineer to predict and address all possible problems. An ASFE/The Geoprofessional Business Association publication, 'Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report" appears in Appendix C, and will help explain the nature of geotechnical issues. Further, we present documents in Appendix C: Constraints and Restrictions, to bring to your attention the potential concerns and the basic limitations of a typical geotechnical report. 21 T Source: USDA Soil Survey of Saint Lucie County, Florida (1980) Approximate Project Location -ii- - PROPOSED WAWA FACILITY SWC OF NE PRIMA VISTA BLVD. & SE FLORESTA DRIVE PORT SAINT LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SOIL SURVEY UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES )RAWN BY:. ,Co DATE: CHECKED BY: ev OATE: .._ ACME (PROJECT NO: (REPORT NO: (PAGE Na. I B I Source: USGS Ankona, Florida 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle (1948; photorevised 1983) Approximate Project Location - - PROPOSED WAWA FACILITY SWC OF NE PRIMA VISTA BLVD. & SE FLORESTA DRIVE ID PORT SAINT LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA USGS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY UNIVERSAL ENGINEEWNG SCIENCES Dmm BY: ieo DATE: CHECSED DATE: .._ ® Approximate SPT Boring Location Note: Figure is based upon a figure provided by the client PROPOSED WAWA FACILITY SWC OF NE PRIMA VISTA BLVD. & SE FLORESTA DRIVE PORT SAINT LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA UNIVERSAL BORING LOCATION PLAN ENGINEERING SCIENCES DRRmBY. ,Jqg DATE: Man.60 arnc CNECI(ED BY: .,� nnTc -- KEY TO BORING LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART' Q............................................. Sand or Gravel ISP,SW,GP,GM 5...................................................... Sand or Grave[ with Sift or Clay [SPSM,SPSC] 12...................................................... ww Sil(v or Clayyeeyy Sand or Gravel [SM,SC,GM,GC] W O O N O z50....................................................... O U) San or Gravell1yy Siltor Clayy L-ML,CL,MI],CH,OL,OHI Q[ML, a 70 ....................................................... ° Silt or Clay with Sand or Gravel [ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH] 85:................... ................................... Silt or Clayy [ML,CL-Mt,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH] 100 COARSE GRAINED SOILS UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. 60 60 10 Lto 0 0 10 20 30 ao 50 6o To 8o B0 100 LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY CHART GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL WELL -GRADED SANCs[SW] www L.'a . ' WELL -GRADED GRAVELSIGWI P06RLYGMUED SANDS[SP] oQ o D POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS IGP] PGORLYGRADED SANDS WITH SILT [SPSM] ° p POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH SILT [GP -GM] POORLY -GRADED SANDS WITH CLAY IsPSC] ° POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS WITH CLAY IGPGCI SILTY SANDS ISMI L. o O SILTY GRAVELS [GMl ISCI ram. E .'.�% FINE GRAINED SOILS INORGSLIGHANIC INORGANIC SILTS TY SILTS [ML] INORGANIC SILTY CLAY LOW PLASTICITY ICL-MN CLAYS ®INORGANIC LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY [CL] ®INORGANIC SILTS HIGH PLASTICITY ®INORGANIC CLA CLAYS HIGH PLASTICITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0 24"- UNIFIED SOIL SILTY CLAYEY SANDS • CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. [sCSM] '• LOCALLY MAYBE KNOWN AS MUCK _ _-- NOTES: W-DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE R -DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION P -DENOTES PENETRATION WRH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER NIE-DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ElORGANIC SILTSICLAYS LOW PLASTICITY [OLr• I /CLAY3 ® MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY [OHr' PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS I t>, •� WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS[PIr RELATIVE DENSITY (SAND AND GRAVEL) VERY LOOSE - 0 to 4 Blows7t. LOOSE-5 to 10 BIOWSM MEDIUM DENSE -11 to 30 BlowsOt. DENSE -31 to 50 8Iow61R VERY DENSE -more than So BlowsHL CONSISTENCY (SILT AND CLAY) VERY SOFT -o to 2 BIOW&TL SOFT-3 to 4 Blowsft FIRM-Sto8 BlowsHL -- SMFF-9 to 16 BlowslR VERY STIFF -17to 30 BlowslR HARD -more than W Blows/ft. NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX At _ EB UNIVEF7-AL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1800033.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Wawa FaaTity BORING DESIGNATION: B1 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE Port Saint Lude, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3114/16 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): DATE FINISHED: 3/14116 -- REMARKS: DATE OF READING: DRILLED BY: PM, PG EST. W.S.W.T. (it): TYPE OF SAMPLING: I DEPTH M BLOWS N M ATTERBERG K (�) p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS ORG. L INCREMENT Fr.) O (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. LL PI E L DAY) N 0 tine SAND, grey, [SP] 15-18-22 18' 2-12-16 12' 10-15-17 15' 8.7 23.5 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) ESP-Sm 4-4-7 11 clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC) 5. ...... 6-8-10 18 9-8-7 15 ..' 5-6-8 14 . .................................. no SAND with silt, gray, [SI �aa�®®ram 4-5-3 8 20 .......................... BORING TERMINATED AT 20' ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES ......... ...... UNIVER, ENGINEERING SCIENCES ° 0.16000 .°°°° 91 - ` BORING LOG REPORT NO.: REPORT APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Wawa Facility BORING DESIGNATION: B2 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Port Saint Lucie, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 3111116 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (it): 7.8 DATE FINISHED: 3111116 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 3/142016 DRILLED BY: BS, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S DEPTH M BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT) p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS Frd CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) O N M) E L LL PI DAY) M) 0 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 3-4-5 5-6-6 10-6-5 9 12 11 5 ... .:............ .......... ..... . 5-6-6 12 5-6-7 13 Z 3hfi 10 10 ............................... I20 ... 5-8- .0....... 18 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) �; [SP-SM] etayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] with silt gray, 1-1-1 2 BORING TERMINATED AT25' 12.6 1 28.4 UNIVERS "L ENGINEERING SCIENCES_ PROJECTNO.: 0330.1600033.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A - PROJECT: Wawa Facility BORING DESIGNATION: B3 SHEET: 1 of 1 SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: - Port Saint Lucie, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 319116 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (it): 7.9 DATE FINISHED: 3/9/16 ' REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 3/1012016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S DEPTH M BLOWS N Y ATTERBERG K ORG. (FT-) p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) O (%) N LL PI EI L DAY) M 0 :i fine SAND, grey, [SP] 1.4 3.2 2-3-3 3 4-4-3 4' 7-21-17 21' fine SAND with sift, dark brown, (hardpan) [SPSMj 2-3-3 6 fine SAND with clay, gray, [SP-SC] 5 .................................................... 4-5-4 9 4-4-4 8 4-5-5 10 20 --F-1.. ....... 1....... l . BORING TERMINATED AT 20' ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES UNIVER_ L ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1600033.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: ' APPENDIX A PROJECT: Wawa Facility BORING DESIGNATION: B4 SHEET: 'I of 'I SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd.B SE Floresta Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Port Saint Lucie, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3/11116 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 7.1 DATE FINISHED: 3111/16 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 3114/2016 DRILLED BY: BS, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (it): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S DEPTH M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (�.) p PER6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS (FT./ CONT. L INCREMENT FT.) O (�D) (A) DAY) (%) E L LL PI 0 .;: fine SAND, grey, [SP] 1-1-1 2 7-63 9 fine SAND with sik, dark brown, (hardpan) [SPSMI clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] . 3-4-4 8 5 .. ................................ .... ................... .....:..................................... ......... ........................................... ��'11.9 13.0�� 4-4-3 7 � 4-0-6 10 10SS 12 BS-11 1 19 6-5-7 12 fine SAND with silt, gray, BORING TERMINATED AT 20' UNIVEF" ";L ENGINEERING SCIENCE'. PROJECT NO.: 0330.1600033.00oo BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Wawa Facility BORING DESIGNATION: B5 SHEET: 1 Of I SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Pan Saint Lucie, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3110/16 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 6A DATE FINISHED: 3/10116 - - REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 3/102016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S DEPTH (�) M I, L E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT .N (BLOWSI FT.) W.T. Y B p L DESCRIPTION -200 (%) MC (%) ATTERBERG LIMITS K (FT./ DAY) ORG. CONT. (%) LL PI 0 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 8-M 8' 5-7-8 7• 6-7-21 7' :: fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SPSM] 3A-5 g fine SAND with silt, brown, [SPSM] 5 .................................. ' clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 5-6-6 12 13.1 . . . ..................................... � � 112 ""' Z 6-5-5 10 4-6-5 11 -.- 10 ................................ ... ....................... gray, 8-10-10 I ... 20 m® I 7-8-7 15 ................................................................ BORING TERMINATED AT 20' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES. 1 25 UNIVEF,."A L ENGINEERING SCIENCES, PROJECT"°.: 0330.1600033.0000 BORING LOG I REPORT NO.: - PROJECT: Wawa Facility SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresra Dr. Part Saud Lucie, Florida _ CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: i n m APPENDIX: A BORING DESIGNATION: BB SHEET: 'I Of 'I SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3110/16 WATER TABLE (ft): 6.0 DATE FINISHED: 3/10116 DATE OF READING: 3/102016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH (Fr) M P L E BLOWS PER 6- INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ Fr.) W.T. M B O L DESCRIPTION -0 ( ) MC N ATTERBERG LIMITS K (�./ DAY) ORG. ON CONT LL PI fine SAND, grey, [SPI 5-6-B 6` .' 6-13-13 13' 5-6-R R• fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SMI 16 X6-7-9 .......................... ... ................................................................ clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 9-12-12 24 Z 7-9-9 16 6-7-9 16 10 ..... .......... .......... ....... '... , . ............................................................................... fine SAND with silt, gray, [SP-SM] 5-6-8 14 15''t''' 444 S 20 '. BORING TERMINATED AT 20' ' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. 25 ........................................................................................................................................................................... UNIVEF-"-1L ENGINEERING SCIENCFS PROJECTNO: 0330.1600033.0000 BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Wawa Facility BORING DESIGNATION: B7 SHEET: 1 Of I SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Port Saint Lucie, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3110116 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (ft): 4.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/10/16 REMARKS: DATE OF READING: 3/102016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (it): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH M OR PE N Y ATTER13ERG (FT) p 6 (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS K ORG. L INCREMENT FT.) O (%) (%) (FT./ CONT. E L LL PI DAY) (%) 0 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 3-7-8 7' 7-10-15 10' 5-15-18 15• fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SPSM] 5-8-7 15'%' 5 Z ............................................................... 7-7-8 15 Clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] 6-7-7 14 4-5-5 10 ' 10 .............. ........ ....... ... .:'............... ---- grey. 2-1-5 1 6 BORING TERMINATED AT 20' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 1 25--i --[ .............'I.......... .....�........ i........ I.... ........ I.. ..'....... ..... I ............ I ....... . 1........1............I.... UNIVEF"I'LL ENGINEERING SCIENCF-, LREPORT ECT NO.: 0330,1600033.0000 BORING LOG NO.: NDIX A PROJECT: Wawa Facility BORING DESIGNATION: 138 SHEET: 1 Of 1 SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Port Saint Lucie, Florida CLIENT: G.S. ELEVATION (R): DATE STARTED: 3/9116 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN WATER TABLE (R): 4.2 DATE FINISHED: 3I9l16 - REMARKS: _ DATE OF READING: 31102016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB - EST. W.S.W.T. (it): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH A p L E BLOWS PER 6" INCREMENT N (BLOWS/ FT.) W.T. Y B O L DESCRIPTION -200 M - MC N AT LIMRBITSERG K (FT/ DAY) ORG. CONT. M LL PI 0 •�� fine SAND, grey, [SP] 6-7-7 7* .:: 6-8-8 8* 9-23-R 4SS R*•. 11 7.2 24.6 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SPSM] 5 5-5-7 12 .' clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 6-9-9 18 7-8-11 19 BORING TERMINATED AT 10' ................................................................ * DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES R-DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER. 15 .:. ... ............. .......... ....... ...... 20 ............................................................................................................ 25 ... ... ..... ....... .......... ....... :..... .............................................................................. . BORING LOG PROJECT NO.: 0330.1600033.0000 c" NIVER.L ENGINEERING SCIENCES_ REPORT NO.: APPENDIX A - JECT: Wawa Facility SWC of NE Prima Vista BNd. & SE Flores -la Dr. Pon Saud Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B9 SHEET: 'I Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 319/16 WATER TABLE (ft): 5.8 DATE FINISHED: 3/9/16 DATE OF READING: 3/10/2016 DRILLED BY: - PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (it): TYPE OF SAMPLING: DEPTH M BLOWS N M ATTERBERG (FT) P PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS K ORG. L INCREMENT Ff.) 0 (%) (FT/ CONT. E L LL PI DAY) (%) 0 fine SAND, grey, [SPI 3-3-3 6 c%i } 336 9 fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) [SP-SM] 6-8-12 20 5 8-8-6 14 -L clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC] 6-6-5 11 13.9 %6 5-6-6 12 - 10 ............... .......... ....... '..- . BORING TERMINATED AT 10' I 15—...[.... ....... ....I .... ...... a.. ■ �m� 1 25 �i LINIVER� ",L ENGINEERING SCIENCES__ PROJECT"°.: 0330.1600033.0000 -' BORING LOG REPORT NO.: APPENDDC A PROJECT: Wawa Facility SWC of NE Prima Vida Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr, Port Saint Lurie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B1 O SHEET: 1 Of 1 SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: 3110116 WATER TABLE (ft): 7.6 DATE FINISHED: 3110116 DATE OF READING: 3/10/2016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING* DEPTH M BLOWS N Y ATTER13ERG K ORG. (FT) p �„, (BLOWS! W.T. 6 DESCRIPTION -200 MC LIMITS L INCREMENT Fr.) p (%) (%) (FT.1 CONT. LL PI E L I DAY) (%) 0 fine SAND, grey, [SP] 7-14-20 14' 10.9-9 9' 4-6-7 13 !.. :.:. fine SAND with silt, dark brown, (hardpan) 5— ............................ ::::: [SP-SM] Clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC] ................................................................ 6-6-6 12 56-6 12 ... . 16.6 19.1 5-6-7 13 10 ................................ . ................................................................ BORING TERMINATED AT 10' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES 15 ... ....... :...... .... .... ... ....... ...... ............. ............................................... ..... ...... ....... ........ .... ......... ........ ...... ..... ........ ...... 20 ................................... ......................................................................................................................................... 25 ......................................... . ..................................................................................................................:.............. UNIVEF," iL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1600033.0000 -fl BORING LOG REPORT NO.: "- APPENDIX A PROJECT: Wawa Facility SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. 8 BE Floresta Dr. - Port Saint Lucie, Florida _ CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: S DEPTH M BLOWS N (FT) P PER 6- (BLOWS) W.T. E INCREMENT FT.) 0 47S 12 4-6-8 16 5-7-7 14 S................................. 6-6-8 14 6-7-8 15 6-7-7 14 10 ................................ 9-9-11 I 20 .................. DESCRIPTION fine SAND, grey, [SPI fine SAND with slit, dark brown [SPSM] clayey fine SAND, grey, [SCI fine SAND with clay, gray, [SPSC] BORING TERMINATED AT IS' BORING DESIGNATION: B11 SHEET. 1 Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE G.S. ELEVATION (ft): DATE STARTED: X9116 WATER TABLE (it): 7.7 DATE FINISHED: 319116 DATE OF READING: 3/102016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (it): TYPE OF SAMPLING: ATTERBERG K ORG. -200 MC LIMITS (FT/ CONT. (%) (%) DAY) (%) LL PI PROJECT NO.: 0330.1600033.0000 UNIVER--1 ENGINEERING SCIENCE. REPORT NO.: BORING LOG APPENDIX: A PROJECT: Wawa Facility SWC of NE Prima Vista Blvd. & SE Floresta Dr. Port Saint Lucie, Florida CLIENT: LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN REMARKS: BORING DESIGNATION: B12 SHEET. 'I Of SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: G.S. ELEVATION (it): DATE STARTED: 3l9/16 WATER TABLE (ft): 7.5 DATE FINISHED: 3/9116 DATE OF READING: 3/10/2016 DRILLED BY: PM, CB EST. W.S.W.T. (ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: S S DEPTH A M BLOWS N Y M ATTERBERG K ORG. (Fr.) p PER 6" (BLOWS/ W.T. B DESCRIPTION -200 MC MC LIMITS (DA CONT, E INCREMENT FT.) O (%) ; _ LL PI 0 fine SAND, grey, [SP] fine SAND with slit, dark brown, (hardpan) [SPSM] clayey fine SAND; brown, [SC] BORING TERMINATED AT10' 1 16-4 ... I......... ......... ......, ®RP i � 4 ;— Geolechnicol Engineeping Repopt , Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted fora civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —not even you —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the M Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Rased an A Unique Set of Project-Specitn: Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or fiabilify for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations -Are Not Final Do not overrely an the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. the geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnfcal Engineering Report Is Subject to Ml8tnterpreta6on Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specdicalions. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. 00 Not Redraw the Engineer's logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe redrawn for inclusion in. architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, butrecognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study, Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is Far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations' many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and and, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmentat findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvi- ronmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk manage- ment guidance. Do not rely on an environmental reportprepared for some- one else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies an be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely, on Your 11811-Member Geotechncial Engineer top Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/THE BEST PEOPLE ON EARTH exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFETHE AL BUSIN SSA SEOCIATION 8611 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 20f2 by ASFE, Inc. Ouprlcatton, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's specific wntten permission. Excerpting, quoting, or Othentise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the expmss written permission ofASFF and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review Only members ofASFEmay use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member ccuAd be commiting negligent or in foremast (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER03135oMFP CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRICTION`S WARRANTY Universal Engineering Sciences has prepared this report for our client for his exclusive use, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices, and makes no other warranty either expressed or implied as to the professional advice provided in the report. UNANTICIPATED SOIL CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed by Universal at the locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan. This report does not reflect any variations of subsurface conditions which may occur at other locations at this project. The nature and extent of variation from the observed soil boring conditions may not become known until excavation begins. If variations appear, we may have to re-evaluate our recommendations after performing on -site observations and noting the characteristics of any variations. CHANGED CONDITIONS We recommend that the specifications for the project require that the contractor immediately notify Universal Engineering Sciences, as well as the owner, when subsurface conditions are encountered that are different from those presented in this report. No claim by the contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the plans, specifications, and those found in this report, should be allowed unless the contractor notifies the owner and Universal Engineering Sciences of such changed conditions. Further, we recommend that all foundation work and site improvements be observed by a representative of Universal Engineering Sciences to monitor field conditions and changes, to verify design assumptions and to evaluate and recommend any appropriate modifications to this report. MISINTERPRETATION OF SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT Universal Engineering Sciences is responsible for the conclusions and opinions contained within this report based upon the data relating only to the specific project and location discussed herein. If the conclusions or recommendations based upon the data presented are made by others, those conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of Universal Engineering Sciences. CHANGED STRUCTURE OR LOCATION This report was prepared in order to aid in the evaluation of this project and to assist the architect or engineer in the design of this project. If any changes in the design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, or if any structures are included or added that are not discussed in the report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report -shall not be considered valid unless -the changes are -reviewed and -the conclusions- modified or approved by Universal Engineering Sciences. USE OF REPORT BY B16DERS Bidders who are examining the report prior to submission of a bid are cautioned that this report was prepared as an aid to the designers of the project and it may affect actual construction operations. Bidders are urged to make their own soil borings, test pits, test caissons or other investigations to determine those conditions that may affect construction operations. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any interpretations made from this report or the attached boring log with regard to their adequacy in reflecting subsurface conditions which will affect construction operations. STRATA CHANGES Strata changes are indicated by a definite line on the boring logs which accompany this report. However, the actual change in the ground may be more gradual. Where changes occur between soil samples, the location of the change must necessarily be estimated using all available information and may not be shown on the boring logs at the exact depth. OBSERVATIONS DURING DRILLING Attempts are made to detect and/or identify occurrences during drilling and sampling, such as: water level, boulders, zones of lost circulation, relative ease or resistance to drilling progress, unusual sample recovery, variation of driving resistance, obstructions, etc.; however, lack of mention does not preclude their presence. WATER LEVELS The water level readings which have been made in the drill holes during drilling indicate normally -occurring conditions. The water levels may not have been stabilized at the last reading. This data has been reviewed and interpretations made in this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, tides, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported. Since the probability of such variations is anticipated, design drawings and specifications should accommodate such possibilities and construction planning should be based upon such assumptions of variations. LOCATION OF BURIED OBJECTS All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal Engineering Sciences to attempt to locate any man-made buried objects during the course of this exploration and that no attempt was made by Universal Engineering Sciences to locate any such buried objects. Universal Engineering Sciences cannot be responsible for any buried man-made objects which are subsequently encountered during construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. TIME This report -reflects -the -soil conditions at the -time of investigation. If the report is not -used in a reasonable amount of time, significant changes to the site may occur and additional reviews may be required.