HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONt
SCANNED
BY
St.. Lucie County
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Proposed Burger King Restaurant
NEC U.S. Highway 1 & Kitterman Road
Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
June 13, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
Verdad Real Estate, Inc.
1211 South White Chapel Boulevard
Southlake, Texas 76092
PREPARED BY:
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc.
820 Brevard Avenue
Rockledge, Florida 32955
(321) 638-0808
Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing - Threshold Inspection
Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach - Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Ocala •Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota
Miami • Panama City • Fort Pierce • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA
4
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences
Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection
Building. Inspection• Plan Review • Building Code Administration
June 13, 2017
Verdad Real Estate, Inc.
1211 South White Chapel Boulevard
Southlake, Texas 76092
Attention: Ms. Chantelle Marino
Reference: Subsurface Exploration
Proposed Burger King Restaurant
NEC U.S. Highway 1 & Kitterman Road
Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
Dear Ms. Marino:
LOCATIONS:
• Atlanta
• Daytona Beach
• Fart Myers
• Fort Pierce
• Gainesville
• Jacksonville
• Miami
• Ocala
• Orlando (Headquarters)
• Palm Coast
• Panama City
• Pensacola
• Rockledge
• Sarasota
• Tampa
• West Palm Beach
• Atlanta, GA
• Tifton, GA
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration at the
above referenced site in Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by Mr.
Shawn Burkett on behalf of Verdad Real Estate, Inc, under Purchase Order No. 5829-576; and
was conducted as outlined in Universal's proposal No. 0330.0317.00009. This exploration was
performed in accordance with generally accepted soiland foundation engineering practices. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. .
The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering
interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We
have included our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring
locations, general engineering recommendations concerning site preparation procedures,
foundation and pavement design parameters, and general comments concerning the anticipated
infiltration characteristics of the detention basin 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 questions, or
if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Sincerely yours;
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.
Brad Faucett, M.S. P.E.
Regional Engineer
Florida Professional Engineer No. 33123
2 — Client
UESDOCS - #1464010
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www. UniversalEngineering. com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................1
3.0 PURPOSE.........................................................................................................................................1
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................2
4.1 SOIL SURVEY.....................................................................................................................................2
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................2
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.....................................................................................................................2
6.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................3
7.0
FIELD METHODOLOGIES
...............................................................................................................4
7.1
STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS.........................................................................................................4
7.2
AUGER BORING..................................................................................................................................4
7.3
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS..............................................................................................5
7.4
SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TEST..................................................................................................5
7.5
BULK SOIL SAMPLING.........................................................................................................................5
8.0
LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES................................................................................................5
8.1
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................5
8.2
PERMEABILITY TEST........................................................... ............................... ................................6
9.0
SOIL STRATIGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................6
9.1
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE...............................................................................................................6
10.0
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
I
......................................................................................................7
10.1
EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS...............................................................................................7
10.2
TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL............................................................................7
I`
10.3
SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TESTS RESULTS..................................................................................8
11.0
LABORATORY RESULTS
...............................................................................................................8
11.1
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS.....................................................:............:.................................................8
11.2
PERMEABILITY TESTS.........................................................................................................................8
12.0
PROPOSED RESTAURANT BUILDING..........................................................................................9
12.1
ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................................9
12.2
RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................9
12.3
SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................
10
13.0
PAVEMENTS..................................................................................................................................11
13.1
SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................
11
13.2
RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................
12
13.2.1 Asphaltic (Flexible) Pavements...........................................................................................12
13.2.2 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements................................................................................................14
14.0
PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN..................................................................................................15
15.0 SEWER AND UTILITY LINES........................................................................................................16
15.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................... 16
15.2 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES..................................................................................................... 16
16.0 DEWATERING......:........................................................................................................................17
17.0 EXCAVATIONS...............................................................................................................................17
18.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................17
19.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES
Table I: Saint Lucie County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types.......................................2
Table II: Generalized Soil Profile........................................................................................6
Table III: Permeability Test Results....................................................................................9
Table IV: Standard Duty AsphalULimerock Pavement.......................................................13
Table V: Heavy Duty Asphalt/Limerock Pavement...........................................................13
Table VI: Standard Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement............................................14
Table VI I: Heavy Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement................................................15
FIGURES
Saint Lucie County Soil Survey........................................................................................ Figure 1
USGSTopographic Map.................................................................................................. Figure 2
BoringLocation Plan........................................................................................................ Figure 3
APPENDICES
Keyto Boring Logs ..:.................................................................................................. Appendix A
BoringLogs............................................................................................................AppendixA
EXHIBITS
GBADocument............................................................................................................... Exhibit 1
Proposed Burger King ReSau�'ant Universal ; _-`Oct No. 033a 1700067.0000
NEC U. S. Hwy. 1 6 Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration for the
proposed Burger King Restaurant in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration
was authorized by Mr. Shawn Burkett on behalf of Verdad Real Estate, Inc, under Purchase
Order No. 5829-576; and was conducted as outlined in Universal's proposal No.
0330.0317.00009. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil
and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Universal understands from review of the information provided by the client that the proposed
project will consist of a new Burger King Restaurant complex in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The
facility will include a one-story restaurant building covering a plan area of approximately 2,900
square feet with associated paved parking/drive areas. It is our understanding that the
stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be retained within a proposed detention
basin to be located within the northeastern portions of the project site.
We understand that the proposed construction will consist of a combination of reinforced
concrete, masonry and steel framing. Specific structural details are not yet available; however,
based on our previous work with similar structures, we assume that maximum loading
conditions will be on the order of 50 kips per column, 3 kips per lineal foot for structural walls,
and 100 pounds per square foot for on grade Floor slabs. We assume that the finished.floor level
of the proposed building will be approximately 1 to 3 feet above existing grades.
If any of the above information is incorrect or changes prior to construction, please contact
Universal immediately so that we may revise the recommendations contained in this report, as
necessary. In order to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented, Universal should be allowed to review the final design and specifications prior to
the start of construction.
As part of our contracted scope of services with the Client, Universal also prepared a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report in June 2017; under Universal Project No.
0340.1700059.0001, Report No. 1457893-vl.
3.0 PURPOSE
The purposes of this exploration were:
• to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to
potential problems that may hinder the proposed development,
• to provide our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring
locations and
• to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation procedures,
and foundation and pavement design parameters, and general comments concerning
the anticipated infiltration characteristics of the detention area subsoils. -
1
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 538-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
l
Proposed Burger King Res:a ,ant Universal ,vjectNo.0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Ktterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of three (3) abutting tax parcels (ID Nos. 3415-502-0011-000-4,
3415-502-0014-000-5 and 3415-502-0015-000-2), comprising a total area of approximately 1.52
acres of land located on the northeast comer (NEC) of the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and
Kitterman Road in Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida. The address of the subject
property, per the Saint Lucie County Property Appraiser's Office (SLCPAO) records is 6598 US
Highway 1, Port St. Lucie, Florida, 34984. The subject property is located within Section 15,
Township 36 South, and Range 40 East, as referenced in the SLCPAO information.
At the time of drilling, the site was improved with an operational 1-story restaurant building with
an associated paved parking lot. The balance of the grounds of the site consists predominantly
of lawns and landscaped areas, with small wooded areas occupying its southeastern portions.
No stormwater retention areas presently exist on the subject property.
A gravel road that is reputed to be a county road adjoins the site along its north side. Although
the restaurant on the site is reported to be connected to the local municipal sanitary sewer
system (including on -site grease traps), an abandoned subsurface septic waste disposal system
is present on the east side of the building. The subject property owner has related to Universal
that the septic tanks for the abandoned system were filled with soil at the time the site was
connected to the municipal system.
4.1 SOIL SURVEY
Two (2) soil types (pre -developmental) are mapped within the general project area according to
the Saint Lucie County Soil Survey (SLCSS), dated 1980. Brief descriptions of these soil types
are provided in the following Table I. The approximate delineations of the soil types are shown
on the attached Figure 1.
TABLE
ni CSC nPSLIr:NATFn1 nn11 TVPFC'
Soil Type
(Map Symbol)Brief Description
Riviera fine sand (38) Neary level, poorly drained sandy soils in hammocks and along
draina ewa s.
Windsor loamy sand (55) Nearly level, poorly drained loamy soils in hammocks and along_
draina ewa s.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USES) Ankona,
Florida quadrangle maps, dated 1948, photorevised 1983; ground surface elevation (pre -
developmental) across the site area is approximately +10 feet National. Geodetic. Vertical Datum
(NGVD). A.copy of a. portion of the USGS map is included as Figure 2.
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services conducted by Universal during our subsurface exploration, program are as follows:
• Drill three (3) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed building footprint
area to a depth of 15 feet below the existing land surface (bls).
2
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Ren a- ant Universal.-:;;jLct No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U. S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
• Drill two (2) SPT borings within the proposed paved parking/drive areas and dumpster pad
area to depths of 7 feet bls.
• Drill one (1) SPT boring within the proposed retention basin area to a depth of 15 feet bls.
• Drill one (1) auger boring within the proposed dumpster pad area to a depth of 5 feet bls.
• Perform one (1) South Florida Management District (SFWMD) exfiltration test within the
proposed detention basin area.
• Obtain one (1) bulk sample of the near surface soils within the proposed detention area for
subsequent laboratory permeability tests.
• Perform Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing within the upper portions of the SPT
boreholes, and the entirety of the auger borehole, to help further determine soil
consistencies.
• Secure samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory
analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.
• Measure the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet
season high groundwater levels.
• Conduct soil gradation tests on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their
engineering properties.
• Assessed the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.
• Prepared a report which documents the results ofoursubsurface exploration and analysis
with geotechnical engineering recommendations.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in order to aid the clientlengineer in the design of the proposed
Burger King Restaurant in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The scope is limited to the specific project
and. locations described herein. Our description of the project's design parameters represents
our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation characteristics. In
the event that any changes in the design or location of the structures as outlined in this report
are planned, we should be informed so the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of
this report modified, if required, and approved in writing by Universal.
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. Deleterious soils were not
3
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
f�
Proposed Burger King Re i�ofsnt Universe( ;, _ject No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U. S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
encountered at any of our boring locations; however, we cannot completely preclude their
presence across the project area. Therefore, this report should not be used for estimating such
items as cut and fill quantities.
Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for
reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or
reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, Universal does not
recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for
estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services speciVically include sufficient
exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration
provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities.
Therefore, Universal will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others
beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.
All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal to attempt to
locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that
may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore no attempt was made by
Universal to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible for any buried
man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during
construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if
requested.
For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document
attached within Exhibit 1, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report",
prepared by GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association.
7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES
7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS
The eight (8) SPT borings, designated B1 through B6 and B8 on the attached Figure 3, were
performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for
Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving
a standard split -barrel sampler into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The
number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is
designated the penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency.
The soil samples recovered from the split -barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified
in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]).
7.2 AUGER BORING
The one (1) auger boring, designated B7 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
evaluated by visually classifying the cuttings recovered from the auger flights in accordance with
ASTM D 2487 guidelines (Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified
Soil Classification System]).
4
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Res ,au dnt Universal )�r6ject No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
The SPT soil borings were performed with a CME 55 truck -mounted drilling rig. The shallower
auger boring was drilled by experienced technicians using hand equipment. Universal located
the test borings in the field by using the provided site plan and by plotting with a Garmin GPS
receiver. No survey control was provided on -site, and our boring locations should be considered
only as accurate as implied by the methods of measurement used. The approximate boring
locations are shown on the attached Figure 3, "Boring Location Plano.
7.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed within the upper portions of the SPT
boreholes, and the entirety of the auger borehole, to help further determine soils consistencies.
The DCP tests were performed at 1 foot intervals in general accordance with the procedures
developed by Professor G. F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges (ASCE, 1966). The basic
procedure for the DCP test is as follows: A standard 1.5 inch diameter conical point is driven
into the soil by a 15-pound steel hammer falling 20 inches. Following the seating of the point to
a depth of 2 inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 1.75 inches
is designated the penetration resistance, providing an index to soil strength and density.
7.4 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TEST
One (1) South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) falling -head, open -hole exfiltration
test was performed adjacent to boring location B4. The SFWMD exfiltration test, in part, is
conducted by .drilling an open sided hole to a depth of roughly 1 foot below the existing
groundwater table, filling the hole with water, then measuring the time required for the water
level to drop in increments.
7.5 BULK SOIL SAMPLING
We obtained one (1) bulk sample of the near surface soils for subsequent laboratory
permeability tests at boring location B8. The sample was obtained at a depth of approximately 3
feet bls.
8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES
8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
We completed #200 sieve particle size analyses on six (6) representative soil samples. These
samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM D 1140 (Standard Test Method
for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200Sieve). In part, ASTM D 114G requires a
thorough mixing the sample with water and flushing it through a No. 200 sieve until all of the
particles smaller than the sieve size leave the sample.
The percentage of the material finer than the No. 200 sieve helps determines the textural nature
of the soil sample and aids in evaluating its engineering characteristics. The percentage of
materials passing the #200 sieve in each sample tested is shown on the appropriate attached
boring log.
5
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Resmaiant Universes , , -,,act No. 033a 1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
8.2 PERMEABILITY TEST
A constant head permeability test was performed on the "remolded" bulk soil sample recovered
from boring location B8 by measuring the water flow through the sample for time versus flow
volume. This data was used to calculate the coefficient of permeability (K) of the soil. The result
of this test is found in the laboratory results section of this report.
9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY
9.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
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
stabilized groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to
Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were
prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Gectechnical
Engineer.
The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may
be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring
locations is presented in the following Table IL For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the
attached boring logs.
TABLE II
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
Depth
Approximate
Encountered
Thickness
Solt Description
(feet, his)
(feet)
Surface
0.4 to 0.5
Concrete pavement. Encountered at boring locations B1
through B5 inclusive.
Fill soils consisting of fine sands with varying quantities of silt,
clay, roots, gravel, clay lumps and broken shell [SP-SM, SC];
loose to very dense. At boring location B7, which lies within or
Surface
2 to 5+
adjacent to the former septic drain field area, the thickness of
the fill stratum was not determined. At boring location B1 the
fill stratum is underlain by approximately 1 foot of fine sand
with traces of roots (topsoil) SP-SM .
2 to 3
0 to 3
Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]; medium dense to very dense.
Interbedded fine sands with silt [SP-SM] and clayey fine sands
4 to 5
3+ to 11+
[SC] with variable quantities of broken shell; very loose to
medium dense.
NOTE: [] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation.
+ indicates strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined.
6
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Residm`ont Universal,' :_,act No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
We measured the water levels within the boreholes on June 9, 2017 after the ground water was
allowed to.stabilize. As shown on the attached boring logs, the groundwater level depths ranged
from 0.9 foot bls at boring location B6 to 2.8 feet bls at boring location B5. Fluctuations in
groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal
variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings
were conducted.
10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL
The typical wet season high groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level
sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season of the year, for existing site
conditions, in a year with average normal rainfall amounts. Based on historical data, the rainy
season in Saint Lucie County, Florida is between June and October of the year. In order to
estimate the wet season water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined,
including the following:
a. Measured groundwater level
b. Drainage characteristics of existing soil types
C. Season of the year (wet/dry season)
d. Current & historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date)
e. Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.)
f. Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.)
g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems
h. On -site types of vegetation
i. Area topography (ground surface elevations)
Groundwater level readings were taken on June 9, 2017. According to data from the Southeast
Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in June 2017
through June 8t' was approximately 4.1 inches, which is about 2.3 inches above the normal for
that period. Total rainfall in the previous month of May 2017 for central Saint Lucie County was
approximately 4 inches, roughly at the normal levels for the month of May. Year-to-date rainfall
for 2017 through June 8" was approximately 14.3 inches, roughly 2 inches below the normal
level for this time period.
Based on this information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high
groundwater levels at the boring locations will be approximately 1'/z feet above the existing
measured levels. Please note, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following
various intense storm events, may be somewhat higher than the estimated typical wet season
levels.
Due to the variable silt and clay content within the near surface soils at this site, we suspect that
there may be occasional isolated pockets of "perched" groundwater throughout the project area,
particularly during periods of prolonged wet weather. These temporary perched water table
levels may be higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated above.
7
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Resta,;. ont Universal., ;act No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
10.3 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TESTS RESULTS
The results obtained from the SFWMD exfiltration test, where K is the coefficient of hydraulic
conductivity are as follows:
Boring Location BB:
K = 2.4 x 10s cfs/ft2 - ft
Depth of Test, Surface to 4 feet
Depth to Groundwater Table: 1.3 feet bls
Soil types encountered:
0 to 4 feet bls Fine sands, trace of silt [SP]
4 to 5 feet bls Clayey fine sands [SC]
5 to 7 feet bls Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]
7 to 15 feet bls Clayey fine sand [SC]
11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS
11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands [SP], fine sands with silt
[SP-SM] and clayey fine sands with silt [SC]. The percentage of soil sizes passing the #200
sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth sampled.
11.2 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 (Inlhr)
Extremely Slow
0.0 — 0.01
Very Slow
0.01 — 0.06
Slow
0.05 — 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 ISC], silts [ML] and clays [CL] are
typically within the extremely slow to slow class.
8
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Reo;o ,ant Universs!'r�,'oject No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
The results obtained from our laboratory permeability test, where K is the coefficient of
permeability, are displayed in Table III below:
TABLE III
PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
Boring Location
Soil Type
Sample Depth (feet)
Permeability
Rate K (inlhr)
Permeability
Class
B8
Fine sand with silt [SP-SM)
3.0
2.3
Moderate) Rapid
yp
It should be noted that the coefficient of permeability is not an infiltration rate. The actual
infiltration rate is influenced by the coefficient of permeability as well as several factors,
including the elevation of the pond bottom, water level in the pond, the elevation of the wet
season water table, and the confining layer.
12.0 PROPOSED RESTAURANT BUILDING
12.1 ANALYSIS
Based upon the results of the soil borings, the existing fill and native soils within the proposed
building area have a generally medium dense consistency reflecting apparent significant
compactive efforts during the original mass grading operations at this site. Therefore, the
primary concern would be the densification of any remaining loose pockets within the existing
soil mass and the overlying fill materials. This will help create a soil mat capable of dissipating
the building loads over any remaining loose strata at depth. We believe that this can be
effectively accomplished by compacting the fill soils with a large static roller or medium sized
vibratory rollers by filling to grade in compacted lifts as recommended in section 12.3 (Site
Preparation Procedures) of this report.
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. If the structural loadings, building locations or grading plans change from
those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our
recommendations with respect to those changes.
12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Provided our suggested site preparation procedures are followed, we recommend designing
conventional, shallow spread footings foundations for a maximum allowable soil -contact
pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Even though computed soil -contact pressures
may not warrant it, strip and square footings should have minimum widths of at least 18 and 24
inches, respectively to prevent "shear punch" deformations. The base of all footings should be
at least 18 inches below finished grade elevation, with the exception of a thickened -edge slab
foundation system for which a minimum depth of 14 inches is acceptable.
Assuming existing soils and added structural fill soils are prepared and footings are designed
according to our recommendations, we estimate maximum total vertical settlements of -the-
proposed residence will be less than % inch and maximum differential settlements will be less
than % inch. Almost all of the expected settlement will take place as soon as the soil fill and
9
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Re-� __ jnt Universe: =ject No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. i & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
structural loads have been applied to the densified existing sandy soil (and overlying sandy soil
fill).
We recommend using a sheet vapor barrier, such as visqueen, beneath the building slab -on -
grades to help control moisture migration through the slabs. Floor slabs can be supported upon
the compacted fill and should be structurally isolated from other foundations elements or
adequately reinforced to prevent distress due to differential movements. We recommend that
the ground floor slabs be designed using an assumed modulus of subgrade reaction of k = 150
pounds per cubic inch (pci). 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.
12.3 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES
Listed below are Universal's recommended procedures to prepare the site for the proposed
restaurant construction.
1. Strip the footprint of the proposed building, plus a minimum margin of at least 5 feet beyond
foundation lines, of existing vegetation, roots, pavements, slabs, foundations, debris, rubble,
organic topsoils, etc. Any collapsible or leak prone utilities should be completely removed
from within the location of the proposed building.
It has been our experience that the subsoils within previously developed areas sometimes
contain pockets of buried rubble, muck, debris or other deleterious materials. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that the stripped surface be observed and probed by representatives of
Universal. Any deleterious matter remaining should be removed and replaced with clean fine
sands [SP] as recommended below.
2. The subsurface soils beneath the proposed building footprint, including the 5 feet margin,
should be densified to at least,95=percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557, Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000
ft-Ibf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3))) to at least 12 inches below the stripped surface. Please note that
LSD
3. If vibratory equipment is used for proof rolling and to compact fill, then we recommend using
vibratory rollers weighing less than 1 ton within 20 feet of existing structures, less than 2
tons between 20 to 40 feet, up to 6 tons between 40 to 100 feet, and less than 10 tons
beyond 100 feet. The use of heavier equipment may damage existing neighboring
structures. Otherwise static rollers weighing more than 5 tons should be used
4. Proof -roll the exposed subsurface soils under the observation of Universal, to locate any
unforeseen soft areas of unsuitable soils, and to increase the density of the shallow loose
fine sand soils. Each pass should overlap the proceeding pass by roughly 30 percent to
insure complete coverage. If deemed necessary by Universal, in areas that continue to
"yield", remove any deleterious materials and replace with a clean, compacted sand backfill.
10
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Res;,-�jnt Universal ,yect No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 8 Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
5. Depending on weather conditions or other factors, the addition or removal (dewatering) of
water may be necessary to aid compactive efforts. Additional passes with compaction
equipment or over excavation and replacement in compacted layers may be necessary if the
minimum density requirements are not achieved by the recommended proof -rolling.
6. Within the building area, fill to floor slab grade as necessary with select structural fill, placed
in maximum 10-inch= o e'_lifts? We recommend using fill soils consisting of sands with less
than 10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP-SM, or SP-SC]. [=ach-lift-of-stU ural_fill
should_be`-densifiedao=ataeast:95'pgrcent-of the•Modified Proctor test maximum dry density
of the soil (ASTM D 1557) and tested.for-compaction-and-approved before the placement of
subsequent lifts.
7. Footing and utility excavations and other construction activities frequently disturb compacted
subsoils to various depths; therefore, compaction beneath all floor slabs and footings should
be verified to a depth of[1-foot- mmediately_p>rioort pplacement of reinforcing=sti3eLand
concrete, and should meet at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry
density of the soil (ASTM D 1557).
8. Field density tests should be performed by Universal at appropriate times during earthwork
operations in order to verify that the compaction requirements have been satisfied. These
tests should be performed after compaction in the existing fill soils, after placement of each
lift of new structural fill, within all footing excavations, and beneath all concrete slab -on -
grade locations. Compaction tests should be performed at a frequency of not less than three
tests per each foot'of compacted increment as specified herein. In addition, we recommend
that at least every -other column footing be tested with at least one test per every 50 linear
feet of wall footing.
13.0 PAVEMENTS
We recommend using either a rigid concrete pavement or a flexible asphaltic pavement section
on this project. Flexible pavements combine the strength and durability of several layer
components to produce an appropriate and cost-effective combination of locally available
construction materials. Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel
loads to the subgrade soils than a flexible asphalt pavement; therefore, requiring less subgrade
preparation than a comparable flexible pavement section.
13.1 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES
Densification of any loose pockets within the existing fill soils, together with the new fill layers,
will be required in all parking and drive areas, in order to both help ensure an adequate
subgrade capacity and to limit subsequent settlements due to traffic vibrations. Within the
parking/drive areas we recommend that the existing surficial soils be proof rolled with a heavy
piece of equipment, such as a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck, under the observation of
Universal personnel. Any areas which exhibit instability under rolling should be examined by
Universal for possible removal and replacement with compacted select backfill.
All parking lot subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor
test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of base
course levels, or the full depth of new fill and the top 12 inches of existing subgrade soils,
whichever is greater.
11
820 8revard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Res_?=, Ent Universal , ject No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. i & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
Soil density testing to verify the uniformity of compactive efforts should be performed at a
frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, one per each foot of compacted increment, as
specified herein, or at a minimum of three test locations, whichever is greater.
All surficial root mats, vegetation, deleterious soils, pavements, foundations, slabs, rubble and
debris should be completely removed from the proposed new pavement areas. Any collapsible
or leak prone utility lines remaining within the new pavement areas should either be completely
removed or grouted closed.
All pavement area fill should consist of clean select fill, consisting of sandy soils with less than
10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP-SM, or SP-SC], placed in 12 inch lifts with each -lift
compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D
1557).
If vibratory equipment is used to compact fill, subgrade and base courses, then we recommend
using vibratory rollers weighing less than 1 ton within 20 feet of existing structures, less than 2
tons within distances of 20 to 40 feet, less than 6 tons from 40 feet to 100 feet and up to 10 tons
beyond 100 feet. The use of heavier.eguipment may damage existing neighboring structures.
Depending on weather conditions and other factors, the addition or removal (dewatering) of
water may be necessary to aid compactive efforts.
13.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
13.2.1 Asphaltic (Flexible) Pavements
Standard duty pavement areas are defined as having car and pickup truck loading conditions.
Heavy duty areas are defined as having delivery, storage, and garbage truck loading conditions
along with service drives. Assuming a) the subgrade soils are compacted to 95 percent of
Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) with a design LBR value of 40 (after
stabilization), b) a 20 year design life, c) terminal_ serviceability index (Pt) of 2, d) reliability of 90
percent, and e) total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E18SAL) of 50;000, we recommend the
minimum design shown in the following Table IV, for a standard duty asphalt pavement.
12
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321),638-0808 Fax,(321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
Proposed Burger King Res,a dnt Universai ,=rb/ect No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U. S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
TABLE IV
MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTILIMEROCK PAVEMENT
Pavement Layer
Thickness
Minimum Requirements
Asphalt Wearing Surface
95% Laboratory Marshall Density, Mix to be
FDOT Type S-I (SP-12.5)
1.5 Inch Minimum
approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it
or S-III (SP-9.5)
should be compacted to at least 92% of the
maximum theoretical density.
Limerock, Cemented Coquina,
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
or Recycled Concrete Base
6 Inch Minimum
density, Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at
least 100 (150 for recycled concrete).
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
Stabilized Subbase Course
8 Inch Minimum
density, stabilized to a Limerock Bearing Ratio
(LBR) of at least 40.
Assuming the above factors for standard duty pavements apply to heavy duty pavements where
heavy trucks such as delivery & refuse collection vehicles would traverse (i.e. loadings of up to
150,000 ElaSALs), we recommend using the following design in Table V for minimum heavy
duty pavement areas.
TABLE V
MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY ASPHALTILIMEROCK PAVEMENT
Pavement Layer
Thickness
Minimum Requirements
Asphalt Wearing Surface
95% Laboratory Marshall Density, Mix to be
FDOT Type S-I (SP-12.5)
2 Inch Minimum
approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it
orS-III (SP-9.5)
should be compacted to at least 92% of the
maximum theoretical density.
Limerock, Cemented Coquina,
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
or Recycled Concrete Base
8 Inch Minimum
density, Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at
least 100 (150 for recycled concrete).
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
Stabilized Subbase Course
12 Inch Minimum
density, stabilized to a Limerock Bearing Ratio
(LBR) of at least 40.
We recommend designing asphaltic pavements with at least 18 inches of clearance between
the bottom of the pavement base course and the estimated typical wet season groundwater
level. A thorough testing and inspection program should be incorporated during the pavement
construction.
Stabilized subgrade can be imported materials or a blend of on -site and imported materials. If a
blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum
mix proportions. Compaction testing of the stabilized subgrade, and the subsequent limerock
base course material should be performed to full depth at a minimum of at least four test
locations. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to
evaluate material thickness and to perform laboratory densities of the asphaltic surfacing.
In parking lots, for extended life expectancy of the surface course, we recommend applying a
coal tar emulsion sealer at least six months after placement of the surface course. The seal coat
13
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
Proposed Burger King Res.'—ant Universal �-rb)ect No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
will help patch cracks and voids, and protect the surface from damaging ultraviolet light and
automobile liquid spillage. Please note that applying the seal coat prior to six months after
placement may hinder the "curing" of the surface course, leading to its early deterioration.
We recommend that all materials used in pavement construction comply with the latest edition
of the Florida Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications For Road and Bridge
Construction. Universal should be allowed to review and comment on the final asphalt
pavement design.
13.2.2 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements
Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel loads to the subgrade
soils than a flexible asphalt pavement. We recommend using the existing surficial sands or fine
sand fill ISP, SP-SM, or SP-SCI, densified to at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor test
maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) without additional stabilization, with the following
stipulations.
1. Subgrade soils must be densified to at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum
dry density (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of at least 2 feet, or the full depth of new fill,
whichever is greater, prior to placement of concrete.
2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting
corrected prior to placement of concrete.
3. The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete.
4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the thickened
edges (curb or footing).
5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated typical wet season
groundwater level by at least 1 foot.
Based on slab thickness for standard duty concrete pavements are based on the subgrade soils
densified to 95 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density we recommend using the
design shown in the following Table VI for standard duty (loadings of up to 50,000 E18SALs)
concrete pavements.
TABLE VI
MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Minimum Pavement
Thickness
Maximum Control
Joint Spacing
Minimum Saw Cut Depth
6 Inches
10 Feet x 10 Feet
1-1/4 Inches
Our recommendations on slab thickness for heavy duty concrete pavements (loadings of up to
150,000 EIBSALs) are based on the same factors as above. Our recommended minimum
design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown in Table VII below.
14
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa]Engineedng.com
Proposed Burger King RBSL'�a.Jnt Universal _;act No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 $ Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
TABLE VII
MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Minimum Pavement
Thickness
Maximum Control
Joint Spacing
Minimum Saw Cut Depth
7 Inches
14 Feet x 14 Feet
1-3/4 Inches
We recommend using concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of at least 4000
pounds per square inch. Layout of the Saw cut control joints should form square panels, and the
depth of Saw cut joints should be at least % of the concrete slab thickness.
We recommend allowing Universal to review and comment on the final concrete pavement
design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of
construction.
For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing
of Non -Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products
Association, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas", published by the Portland
Cement Association.
Compaction testing of the subgrade soils should be performed to the full depths recommended
herein at a minimum of at least four locations. Cylinder specimens to verify the compressive
strength of the pavement concrete should be obtained for at least every 50 cubic yards, or at
least one set for each day's placement, whichever is greater.
14.0 PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN
We understand that the stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected
within a proposed detention basin to be located within the northeastern portions of the project
site.
The hydraulic capacity of stormwater retention/detention areas is principally a function of the
ability of the surface soil to receive and percolate the storm water runoff. Upon reaching the
groundwater table or a restrictive layer, the stormwater runoff begins to mound. The amount and
rate of rise in the recharge mound depends on several factors, including. the thickness and
permeability of the receiving stratum, the elevation of the groundwater table, and the geometry
of the loaded area.
The majority of the near surface soils within the detention basin area (boring location B8)
appear to be to mostly fill soils consisting of fine sands with silt and gravel,[SP-SM] to a depth of
approximately 2 feet bls, underlain by fine sands with silt [SP-SM] to a depth of approximately 4
feet bls, and further underlain by interbedded fine sands with silt [SP-SM] and clayey fine sands
[SC], which should be considered aquicludes in retention pond design.
We estimate that the site surficial sands (above the groundwater table) would exhibit a Tillable
porosity of approximately N = 25%. For dry retention systems to be used at this project, we
recommend that the site be filled/contoured to allow pond bottom levels of at least 1 foot above
-- the estimated wet seasonal high groundwater level.
15
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Res:.: ant Universal; 2ct No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
Please note that the action of earthmoving equipment tends to densify the subsoils at the
bottom of pond level during retention pond construction/modification; somewhat reducing their
permeability rate. Therefore, we recommend that the permeability rates listed in Table III and
Section 10.3 be reduced by 25% for retention basin design.
The actual infiltration rate of retention pond subsoils is influenced by the coefficient of
permeability as well as several factors, including the elevation of the pond bottom, water level in
the pond, the elevation of the wet season water table, and the confining layer. These factors
must be accounted for in an appropriate groundwater model to determine the infiltration rate of a
given soil stratum. We recommend the designer use a commercial software program such as
"Ponds" or "Modret" in order to evaluate this pond. Universal would be pleased to perform a
storm water infiltration study at your request.
After the configuration of the proposed site detention basin is 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 SEWER AND UTILITY LINES
15.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
We assume that proposed sewer and other utility lines at the site may have invert elevations
roughly 2 to 4 feet below existing grades. Based on the results of the soil borings and our
general knowledge of the area, we suspect there may be occasional soft/deleterious pockets at
this invert level. If encountered, such. deleterious lavers should be over excavated and reolaced
with approved backfill or open graded aravel
15.2 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES
The following is our recommended procedures to prepare the site soils for construction of the
proposed utility lines.
1. Install a dewatering system capable of maintaining a groundwater level at least 2 feet below
bottom of pipe level.
2. Excavate and install the proposed utility lines. Any deleterious soils encountered at pipe
bedding level should be examined by representatives of Universal for possible removal and
replacement with clean fine sands [SP] as previously discussed. All replacement soils
should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry
density (ASTM D1557) with small vibratory plates or rollers.
3. Backfill to grade with sandy soils with less than 10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP; SP-
SM, or SP-SC], placed in 12 inch loose lifts with each lift compacted, with vibratory rollers or
plates weighing less than 4 tons, to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor test
maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
Backfill above and around thrust blocks should consist of clean fine sands [SP] compacted at
least 98 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). For a design
criteria, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure coefficient of KP 3.0.
16
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King Re€:.:giant Universar �.v/ect No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
16.0 DEWATERING
Based on the water level conditions encountered, control of the groundwater will probably be
required to' achieve the necessary excavation, construction, backfilling and compaction
requirements presented in the preceding sections. If dewatering becomes necessary and
regardless of the method(s) used, we suggest drawing down the water level at least 2 feet
below the bottom of the excavations to preclude "pumping" and/or compaction -related problems
with the foundation and/or subgrade soils. The actual method(s) of dewatering should be
determined by the contractor.
Dewatering should be accomplished with the knowledge that the permeability of soils decreases
with increasing silt [M] and/or clay [C] content. Therefore, a clayey fine sand [C] is less
permeable than a fine sand [SP]. The fine sand, fine sand with clay and clayey fine sand [SP,
SP-SC and SC] soil types can usually be dewatered by well pointing.
It should be noted that the typical wet season groundwater levels previously listed may be
temporarily exceeded during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water
drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities
exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal
high estimates. We recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site
during construction. We further recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain
positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. We recommend that the
contract documents provide for determining the depth to the groundwater table just prior to
construction, and for any required remedial dewatering.
17.0 EXCAVATIONS
Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As
a minimum, temporary excavations below 4-foot depth should be sloped in accordance with
OSHA regulations (29 CFR Par 1926) dated October 31, 1989. Where lateral confinement will
not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be shored in accordance with OSHA
requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the
slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for maintaining
workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor.
18.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Vibrations produced during vibratory compaction operations at the site may be significantly
noticeable within 100 feet and may cause settlement distress of adjacent structures if not
properly regulated. Therefore, provisions should be made to monitor these vibrations by
Universal so that any necessary modifications in the compaction operations can be made in the
field before potential damages occur. In addition, the conditions of the existing adjacent
structures should be ascertained and documented prior to vibratory operations. Slight cosmetic
damage (e.g. hairline cracks in stucco, plaster, or masonry) may occur in conjunction with
compaction operations.
19.0 CLOSURE
The soil and groundwater conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration of the
property and the results of the laboratory analysis identified no geotechnical issues that will
significantly hinder development of the proposed project, as we currently understand it, using
17
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineedng.com
Proposed Burger King Rea.; _c kant Universs, ,,jject No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
conventional construction practices. Standard methods of surficial stripping, excavation, proof
rolling, compaction and backfilling should adequately prepare the site.
The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction
documents. The design is an on -going process throughout construction. Because of our
familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified
to address site problems or construction changes, which may arise during construction, in a
timely and cost-effective manner.
We recommend the owner retain the Universal Fort Pierce office to provide inspection services
during the site preparation procedures for confirmation of the adequacy of the earthwork
operations. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation subgrades by
monitoring proof -rolling operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of
compacted structural fill and pavement courses.
18
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
FIGURES
r
Source: USDA Soil Survey of Saint
Lucie County Area, Florida (1980) 0 Approximate Project Location
PROPOSED BURGER KING RESTAURANT
NEC U.S. HIGHWAY 7 & KITTERMAN, ROAD
PORT ST. LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
UNIVERSAL
ENOINEERIN08GIENCES YM BY: 'CB M June B 2017 GNBCIID:..D 9Y: BF OATS June 9 2017
moJEOT NO. IREPORTN&
,PAGE NO:
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Ankona, FL
Topographic Quadrangle Map
(1948; Photorevised 1983) N
PROPOSED BURGER KING RESTAURANT
NEC U.S. HIGHWAY 1 S KITTERMAN ROAD
PORT ST. LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
ENGINFEPoNOSCVENCES
MM BY;
CB
DAB'
June 9 2017
CKECKED BY:
BF
D0.TE:
June 9 2017
_
GALE. NTS I GRwEDTND0330.1700067.0000 1MMRTN . PAGE Np FIGURE 2
M.t
A ♦III
m
I
w
U
'
m
ID�*
BORING LOCATION PLAN
PROPOSED BURGERKING RESTAURANT
NEC U.S. HIGHWAY 1 & KITTERMAN ROAD
PORT ST. LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Drawn By:
Caclua Bvsfi
Date:
June 9, 2017
Checked B :
Bmd Faucet) Pam.
Dale:I
Je9,2017-
1 0330.1700067.0000
1 Scale:
1"-40'
J
APPENDIX A
!'
u
,
Ges PROJECT 0330.1700067-0000
UNIVEkojAL ENGINEERING SCIEN
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX A
PROJECT:
Burger King Store 06599
NEC US 1 S Kittcrman Rd.
Part Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B1
SHEET:
9 Of 9
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (it):
DATE STARTED:
6/9117
WATER TABLE (it): 2.0
DATE FINISHED:
619117
DATE OF READING: 6/9/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
BLOWS
PER 6'
INCREMENT
i
f
p
-I
�i 0
DESCRIPTION
(%)
(%1
K
NINR'
ORe.
COST.
)
CONCRETE pavement
clayey fine SAND with traces of gravel and broken shell (Fill),
brown, (SC]
3-6-e
6'
S
14-R
R'
9-R
R'
3i:;
3.9
21.3
fine SAND with slit and traces of roots (Topsoil), dark brown,
(SP-SM]
clayey fine SAND, brown, (SC]
4-3.5
8
7-9-t0
19
BORING TERMINATED AT T
" DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R-DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
10
.............................................
_..:......:.......,.......................
15
................................
..........
.................................
...........
20
...............
:......
.....
......
........
... ..................................
,.........
t
u
UNIVERat,L ENGINEERING SCIENC&` PROJECT NO.: 0330A700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT:
Burger King Store 96693
NEC US i S Klttennan Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: BZ
SHEET:
I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (R):
DATE STARTED:
619117
WATER TABLE (it): 1.3
DATE FINISHED:
619117
DATE OF READING: 612/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T.(it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
SLOWSW
J
I
K
ORG.
PER
;
iu
DESCRIPTION
-2ao
(M)
Mc
(M)
(INJ
CONT.
INCREMENT
f
tj
HR.)
I%)
0
•:5 •�
CONCRETE pavement
clayey fine SAND with traces of gravel and broken shell (Fill),
brown', Isri]
10.12-12
12'
-_-
8-16-26
1a'
fine SAND with silt, brown, [SP-SM]
2-01-19
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
5
...........................
..
........
... .............................................
14-9
13
&10-10
20
BORING TERMINATED AT 7'
• DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
10
..................................
...........
...
.........................................
15
...............:............
......
.......
... _.........
.............
............
......... .
20
............................................
...........................................
J
u
UNIVER'wL ENGINEERING SCIENGma PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT:
Burger King Store 86598
NEC US 1 6 Kitterman Rd.
Pan Sated LUCIe, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B.3
SHEET:
'I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
618117
WATER TABLE (ft):
DATE FINISHED:
61e117
DATE OF READING:
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
aLOW6
PERe^
m
3
p
s
-�
DESCRIPTION%�
K
ORO.
INCREMENT
8
Via)
(NJ
CONT.
i
G
MR.)
0/6)
0
CONCRETE pavement
clayey One SAND with traces of gravel (Fill), grey, [SCI
2-8.8
6•
3-19-25
19-
`+s :.
Una SAND, brown, [SPI
29
72.7
11-15-22
15.
. '
clayey One SAND, brown, [SC]
5
....."......................
"..........
............................................
3-6-8
14
8.12-13
2S
clayey One SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
9.8.8
16
10
.....4 5.6.......
1.......
.".
...........
One SAND with slit, gray, [SP-SM]
clayey One SAND with broken shell, grey, [SC]
15
.
.......
.
........
.........
..........
...........
......... .
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
20
.............................................
.......
..................
_
...........
3
C
z
f
e
qp
I :
UNIVEP%--- iL ENGINEERING SCIENGr-S PROJECT NO., 0770.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO,:
APPENDIX A
PROJECT: Burger King Store 06698
NEC US T a KINelman Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B4
SHEET.
I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
O.S. ELEVATION (R):
DATE STARTED:
619117
WATER TABLE (ft): 2.7
DATE FINISHED:
619117
DATE OF READING: 6/9/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (h):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
BLOWS
�d
N
ORO.
PER
¢
;
W
3
DESCRIPTION
•200
I%)
Mc
I%)
OLI
CONY
INCREMENT
i
G
HR.)
I%)
CONCRETE pavement
s:
fine SAND with slit and traces of gravel, broken shell, and clay
t�.
lumps (Flip, brown, [SPSM]
6-22-R
22'
.4'::
i `
16-R
R'
Z
3-16-24
is•
fine SAND with silt, brown, [SPSM]
54
...
........................
,.:.
......
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
.,...................
6.6.7
17
,............
5-7-7
14
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
5-6-6
12
10
..... 5.—%6...
... 11..
.
fine SAND with sllt, gray, [SPSM]
^F.
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
15
..... 4.......
........
......
........
..........................................
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
'`DYNAMIC -CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R- DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
20
..........................
......
...........
...
...........
..........
..........
.........,
I.
Rtqj
z
r
E
PROJECT NO.: 0330.1730067.0000
UNIVMj,-%L ENGINEERING SCIEN(:r-J R
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT:
Burger King Store 0669E
NEC US 1 a Kittennan Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: BS
SHEET:
'I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
819MT
WATER TABLE In): 2.8
DATE FINISHED:
8191`17
DATE OF READING: 619/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (R):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
4a
BLOWS
¢
-'
-200
me
K
ORO.
PER
W
DESCRIPTION
(Y.))
-
CONT.
e)
INCREMENT
G
HR.,
0
CONCRETE pavement
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell (FIIQ, brown, [SC]
4-19-25
19'
9-22-R
22•
z
.h
fine SAND with slit and traces of broken shell and clay lumps
(Fill), brown, [SPSM]
3.7
24.7
w
fine SAND with silt, brown, [SPSM]
14.R.
R•
t
5-7-8
15
'
Clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
8-9.10
19
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
&8-7
15
10
..... 568......
12......
...........
fine SAND with silt, grey, [SPSM]
>y.
15
`f: ;
'�` '
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R. DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
20
.............................................
....
...............
............_.....
M I
Z
u
UNIVER%-Ap,L ENGINEERING SCIENC'REPORT
S EPORTTNO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG RNO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT:
Burger King Store 08698
NEC US 1 & KlCerman Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: BG
SHEET:
'I Of 'I
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
618117
WATER TABLE(R): 0.9
DATE FINISHED:
61SM7
DATE OF READING: 61912017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T.(ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
x
W �
n
BLOWS
PERr
.IK
��
MC
ORE.
G
INCREMENT
O
3
DESCRIPTION
(%)
�°)
INJ
CONT.
Z'
$
NR)
(%)
0
fine SAND with silt, broken shell anG traces of gravel (Fill),
brown, [SPSM]
4.13.16
13•
3-16-22
16'
;:
:>
fine SAND with silt. brown, [SP-SMI
3.3-3
3•
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
17.4
29.3
4
..........8....
... ....
.....
: ..............
_ ....................
.
7.9.10
19
BORING TERMINATED AT 7'
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
10
.............................................
.........................................
15
....................................
I ....
... ..............
........ .
..........
..........
20
......... I .....
.... ..
.....
....I.
....... ,
.............................................
f
u
UNIVERdm' L ENGINEERING SCIENC t� R°"0•i70696TA996
BORING LOG REPORT PORTNO,: ,:
APPENDIX A
PROJECT: Burger King Store 1)6698
NEC. US 1 S Kitterman Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B7
SHEET:
I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (tt):
DATE STARTED:
918117
WATER TABLE (N): 2.9
DATE FINISHED:
618117
DATE OF READING: 61912017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (N):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
_
m
BLOWS
j
$
_
NO
K
ORO.
g
PER
s
DESCRIPTION
%'
(INJ
CONT.
INCREMENT
i
m
0
I
NFL)
M)
0
tine SAND with slit and gravel (Fill), brown, [SP-SM]
4-5-6
5•
fr;
3-7-7
7•
e-17-19
17
'
BORING TERMINATED AT 9
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
10
.............................................
............,...........
_.........
..........
15
............ _..
......:...........
...........
..........
_._
..........
....... ..
.... ..-...
20
I
...........................
................
_..
.........
....... -.
_..... ..
........ ..
UuNp
UNIVM6., L ENGINEERING SCIENG�o PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.000D
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDUC A
PROJECT:
Burger King Store VU98
NEC US 1 6 Kittennan Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: BS
SHEET:
1 Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION QO:
DATE STARTED:
618117
WATER TABLE (R): 1.3
DATE FINISHED:
ate117
DATE OF READING: 8/912017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
W LLBLOW
G
PER eg
=
;
DESCRIPTION
(
M'
QNJ
CONT
r�r
IN
0
fine SAND with silt and gravel (Fill), brown, [SPSM]
fine SAND with traces of silt, grey, [SP]
3.2
20.9
18.9
20.0
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
5
...........................
.........................................
;;;;:::
floe SAND with silt, gray, [SPSM]
3410
14
a•9A2
21
:�+'•'
clayey fine SAND, grey, [SCI
8-9-8
17
10
..... aG-5......?.!
.......
...........
15
...... :3.......r—
.....
........
...................
...................
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
20
..........................................'
EXHIBIT 1
SCANNED
BY
St. Lucie County
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Proposed Burger King Restaurant
NEC U.S. Highway 1 & Kitterman Road
Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
June 13, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
Verdad Real Estate, Inc.
1211 South White Chapel Boulevard
Southlake, Texas 76092
PREPARED BY:
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. D
820 Brevard Avenue
VRockledge, Florida 32955 $gyp 2 RECD
(321) 638-0808
1 /.2 - O�'q
Consultants in: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection
Offices in: Orlando • Daytona Beach • Fort Myers • Gainesville • Jacksonville • Ocala • Palm Coast • Rockledge • Sarasota
Miami • Panama City • Fort Pierce • Tampa • West Palm Beach • Atlanta, GA
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEERING SCIENCES
- Consultants In: Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental Sciences
Geophysical Services • Construction Materials Testing • Threshold Inspection
Building Inspection • Plan Review • Building Code Administration
June 13, 2017
Verdad Real Estate, Inc.
1211 South White Chapel Boulevard
Southlake, Texas 76092
Attention: Ms. Chantelle Marino
Reference: Subsurface Exploration
Proposed Burger King Restaurant
NEC U.S. Highway 1 & Kitterman Road
Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida
Universal Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
LOCATIONS:
• Atlanta
• Daytona Beach
• Fort Myers
• Fort Pierce
• Gainesville
• Jacksonville
• Miami
• Ocala
• Orlando (Headquarters)
• Palm Coast
• Panama City
• Pensacola
• Rockledge
• Sarasota
• Tampa
• west Palm Beach
• Atlanta, GA
• Tifton, GA
Dear Ms. Marino:
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration at the
above referenced site in Saint Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration was authorized by Mr.
Shawn Burkett on behalf of Verdad Real Estate, Inc, under Purchase Order No. 5829-576; and
was conducted as outlined in Universal's proposal No. 0330.0317.00009. This exploration was
performed in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The following report presents the results of our field exploration with a geotechnical engineering
interpretation of those results with respect to the project characteristics as provided to us. We
have included our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring
locations, general engineering recommendations concerning site preparation procedures,
foundation and pavement design parameters, and general comments concerning the anticipated
infiltration characteristics of the detention basin 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 questions, or
if we may further assist you as your plans proceed.
Sincerely yours,
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC.
c
Ctp�
Brad Faucett, M.S. P.E. G `�
Regional Engineer
Florida Professional Engineer No. 33123
2 — Client
UESDOCS - #1464010
`v, V * 77F
STATE OF
�.c•:20RlOP.•
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................
1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................1
3.0 PURPOSE.........................................................................................................................................1
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................2
4.1 SOIL SURVEY.....................................................................................................................................2
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................2
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.....................................................................................................................2
6.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................................3
7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES...............................................................................................................4
7.1
'STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS.........................................................................................................4
7.2
AUGER BORING..................................................................................................................................4
7.3
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS..............................................................................................5
7.4
SOUTHFLORIDA EXFILTRATION TEST..................................................................................................5
7.5
BULK SOIL SAMPLING.........................................................................................................................5
8.0
LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES................................................................................................5
8.1
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................5
8.2
PERMEABILITY TEST...........................................................................................................................6
9.0
SOIL STRATIGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................6
- 9.1
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE...............................................................................................................6
10.0
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS......................................................................................................7
10.1
EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS...............................................................................................7
10.2
TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL............................................................................7
10.3
SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TESTS RESULTS..................................................................................8
11.0
LABORATORY RESULTS...............................................................................................................8
11.1
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................8
11.2
PERMEABILITY TESTS......................................................................................................................... a
12.0
PROPOSED RESTAURANT BUILDING..........................................................................................9
12.1 ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................................9
12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................................................9
12.3 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................
10
13.0 PAVEMENTS..................................................................................................................................11
13.1 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................
11
13.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................
12
- - --13.2.1 - Asphaltic (Flexible) Pavements ................. :......... .............................................................. -12
13.2.2 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements...............................................................................................14
14.0 PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN..................................................................................................15
16.0
SEWER AND UTILITY LINES........................................................................................................16
15.1
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................
16
15.2
SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES.....................................................................................................
16
16.0
DEWATERING................................................................................................................................17
17.0
EXCAVATIONS...............................................................................................................................17
18.0
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.......................................................................................................17
19.0 CLOSURE.......................................................................................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES
Table I:
Saint Lucie County Soil Survey Designated Soil Types .......................................
2
Table II:
Generalized Soil Profile.......................................................................................6
Table III:
Permeability Test Results....................................................................................
9
Table IV:
Standard Duty AsphalULimerock Pavement.......................................................13
Table V:
Heavy Duty AsphalULimerock Pavement...........................................................13
Table VI:
Standard Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement............................................14
Table VII:
Heavy Duty (Unreinforced) Concrete Pavement................................................15
FIGURES
Saint Lucie County Soil Survey........................................................................................ Figure 1
USGSTopographic Map.................................................................................................. Figure 2
BoringLocation Plan........................................................................................................ Figure 3
APPENDICES
Keyto Boring Logs..................................................................................................... Appendix A
BoringLogs............................................................................................................AppendixA
EXHIBITS
GBADocument............................................................................................................... Exhibit 1
Proposed Burger King _aurant Unix, .11 Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (Universal) has completed a subsurface exploration for the
proposed Burger King Restaurant in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida. Our exploration
was authorized by Mr. Shawn Burkett on behalf of Verdad Real Estate, Inc, under Purchase
Order No. 5829-576; and was conducted as outlined in Universal's proposal No.
0330.0317.00009. This exploration was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil
and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Universal understands from review of the information provided by the client that the proposed
project will consist of a new Burger King Restaurant complex in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The
facility will include a one-story restaurant building covering a plan area of approximately 2,900
square feet with associated paved parking/drive areas. It is our understanding that the
stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be retained within a proposed detention
basin to be located within the northeastern portions of the project site.
We understand that the proposed construction will consist of a combination of reinforced
concrete, masonry and steel framing. Specific structural details are not yet available; however,
based on our previous work with similar structures, we assume that maximum loading
conditions will be on the order of 50 kips per column, 3 kips per lineal foot for structural walls,
and 100 pounds per square foot for on grade floor slabs. We assume that the finished floor level
of the proposed building will be approximately 1 to 3 feet above existing grades.
If any of the above information is incorrect or changes prior to construction, please contact
Universal immediately so that we may revise the recommendations contained in this report, as
necessary. In order to verify that our recommendations are properly interpreted and
implemented, Universal should be allowed to review the final design and specifications prior to
the start of construction.
As part of our contracted scope of services with the Client, Universal also prepared a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report in June 2017; under Universal Project No.
0340.1700059.0001, Report No. 1457893-v1.
3.0 PURPOSE
The purposes of this exploration were:
• to explore and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site with special attention to
potential problems that may hinder the proposed development,
• to provide our estimates of the typical wet season high groundwater levels at the boring
locations and
• to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for site preparation procedures,
and foundation and pavement design parameters, and general comments concerning
the anticipated infiltration characteristics of the detention area subsoils.
1
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32965 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King aurant Uni, V Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of three (3) abutting tax parcels (ID Nos. 3415-502-0011-000-4,
3415-502-0014-000-5 and 3415-502-0015-000-2), comprising a total area of approximately 1.52
acres of land located on the northeast corner (NEC) of the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and
Kitterman Road in Port Saint Lucie, Saint Lucie County, Florida. The address of the subject
property, per the Saint Lucie County Property Appraiser's Office (SLCPAO) records is 6598 US
Highway 1, Port St. Lucie, Florida, 34984. The subject property is located within Section 15,
Township 36 South, and Range 40 East, as referenced in the SLCPAO information.
At the time of drilling, the site was improved with an operational 1-story restaurant building with
an associated paved parking lot. The balance of the grounds of the site consists predominantly
of lawns and landscaped areas, with small wooded areas occupying its southeastern portions.
No stormwater retention areas presently exist on the subject property.
A gravel road that is reputed to be a county road adjoins the site along its north side. Although
the restaurant on the site is reported to be connected to the local municipal sanitary sewer
system (including on -site grease traps), an abandoned subsurface septic waste disposal system
is present on the east side of the building. The subject property owner has related to Universal
that the septic tanks for the abandoned system were filled with soil at the time the site was
connected to the municipal system.
4.1 SOIL SURVEY
Two (2) soil types (pre -developmental) are mapped within the general project area according to
the Saint Lucie County Soil Survey (SLCSS), dated 1980. Brief descriptions of these soil types
are provided in the following Table I. The approximate delineations of the soil types are shown
on the attached Figure 1.
TABLE
SLCSS DESIGNATED SOIL TYPES
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
According to information obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Ankona,
Florida quadrangle maps, dated 1948, photorevised 1983; ground surface elevation (pre -
developmental) across the site area is approximately +10 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD). A copy of a portion of the USGS map is included as Figure 2.
5.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services conducted by Universal during our subsurface exploration program are as follows:
• Drill three (3) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings within the proposed building footprint
area to a depth of 15 feet below the existing land surface (bls).
2
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King aurant Uni _ Hl Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
• Drill two (2) SPT borings within the proposed paved parking/drive areas and dumpster pad
area to depths of 7 feet bls.
• Drill one (1) SPT boring within the proposed retention basin area to a depth of 15 feet bls.
• Drill one (1) auger boring within the proposed dumpster pad area to a depth of 5 feet bls.
• Perform one (1) South Florida Management District (SFWMD) exfiltration test within the
proposed detention basin area.
• Obtain one (1) bulk sample of the near surface soils within the proposed detention area for
subsequent laboratory permeability tests.
• Perform Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing within the upper portions of the SPT
boreholes, and the entirety of the auger borehole, to help further determine soil
consistencies.
• Secure samples of representative soils encountered in the soil borings for review, laboratory
analysis and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.
• Measure the existing site groundwater levels and provide an estimate of the typical wet
season high groundwater levels.
• Conduct soil gradation tests on selected soil samples obtained in the field to determine their
engineering properties.
• Assessed the existing soil conditions with respect to the proposed construction.
-- Prepared a report which documents the results of our subsurface exploration and analysis
with geotechnical engineering recommendations.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in order to aid the client/engineer in the design of the proposed
Burger King Restaurant in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. The scope is limited to the specific project
and locations described herein. Our description of the project's design parameters represents
our understanding of the significant aspects relevant to soil and foundation characteristics. In
the event that any changes in the design or location of the structures as outlined in this report
are planned, we should be informed so the changes can be reviewed and the conclusions of
this report modified, if required, and approved in writing by Universal.
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. Deleterious soils were not
3
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King , _ aurant Unh 11 Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
encountered at any of our boring locations; however, we cannot completely preclude their
presence across the project area. Therefore, this report should not be used for estimating such
items as cut and fill quantities.
Borings for a typical geotechnical report are widely spaced and generally not sufficient for
reliably detecting the presence of isolated, anomalous surface or subsurface conditions, or
reliably estimating unsuitable or suitable material quantities. Accordingly, Universal does not
recommend relying on our boring information to negate presence of anomalous materials or for
estimation of material quantities unless our contracted services specifically include sufficient
exploration for such purpose(s) and within the report we so state that the level of exploration
provided should be sufficient to detect such anomalous conditions or estimate such quantities.
Therefore, Universal will not be responsible for any extrapolation or use of our data by others
beyond the purpose(s) for which it is applicable or intended.
All users of this report are cautioned that there was no requirement for Universal to attempt to
locate any man-made buried objects or identify any other potentially hazardous conditions that
may exist at the site during the course of this exploration. Therefore no attempt was made by
Universal to locate or identify such concerns. Universal cannot be responsible for any buried
man-made objects or environmental hazards which may be subsequently encountered during
construction that are not discussed within the text of this report. We can provide this service if
requested.
For a further description of the scope and limitations of this report please review the document
attached within Exhibit 1, 'Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report",
prepared by GBA/The Geoprofessional Business Association.
7.0 FIELD METHODOLOGIES
7.1 STANDARD PENETRATION TESTS
The eight (8) SPT borings, designated B1 through B6 and B8 on the attached Figure 3, were
performed in general accordance with the procedures of ASTM D 1586 (Standard Method for
Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils). The SPT drilling technique involves driving
a standard split -barrel sampler into the soil by a 140 pound hammer, free falling 30 inches. The
number of blows required to drive the sampler 1 foot, after an initial seating of 6 inches, is
designated the penetration resistance, or N-value, an index to soil strength and consistency.
The soil samples recovered from the split -barrel sampler were visually inspected and classified
in general accordance with the guidelines of ASTM D 2487 (Standard Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes [Unified Soil Classification System]).
7.2 AUGER BORING
The one (1) auger boring, designated B7 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
evaluated by visually classifying the cuttings recovered from the auger flights in accordance with
ASTM D 2487 guidelines (Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes [Unified
Soil Classification System]).
4
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King . aurant Uni _,d Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 8 Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
The SPT soil borings were performed with a CME 55 truck -mounted drilling rig. The shallower
auger boring was drilled by experienced technicians using hand equipment. Universal located
the test borings in the field by using the provided site plan and by plotting with a Garmin GPS
receiver. No survey control was provided on -site, and our boring locations should be considered
only as accurate as implied by the methods of measurement used. The approximate boring
locations are shown on the attached Figure 3, "Boring Location Plan".
7.3 DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed within the upper portions of the SPT
boreholes, and the entirety of the auger borehole, to help further determine soils consistencies.
The DCP tests were performed at 1 foot intervals in general accordance with the procedures
developed by Professor G. F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges (ASCE, 1966). The basic
procedure for the DCP test is as follows: A standard 1.5 inch diameter conical point is driven
into the soil by a 15-pound steel hammer falling 20 inches. Following the seating of the point to
a depth of 2 inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 1.75 inches
is designated the penetration resistance, providing an index to soil strength and density.
7.4 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TEST
One (1) South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) falling -head, open -hole exfiltration
test was performed adjacent to boring location B4. The SFWMD exfiltration test, in part, is
conducted by drilling an open sided hole to a depth of roughly 1 foot below the existing
groundwater table, filling the hole with water, then measuring the time required for the water
level to drop in increments.
7.5 BULK SOIL SAMPLING
We obtained one (1) bulk sample of the near surface soils for subsequent laboratory
permeability tests at boring location B8. The sample was obtained at a depth of approximately 3
feet bls.
8.0 LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES
8.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
We completed #200 sieve particle size analyses on six (6) representative soil samples. These
samples were tested according to the procedures listed ASTM D 1140 (Standard Test Method
for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 Sieve). In part, ASTM D 1140 requires a
thorough mixing the sample with water and flushing it through a No. 200 sieve until all of the
particles smaller than the sieve size leave the sample.
The percentage of the material finer than the No. 200 sieve helps determines the textural nature
of the soil sample and aids in evaluating its engineering characteristics. The percentage of
materials passing the #200 sieve in each sample tested is shown on the appropriate attached
boring log.
5
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King 6 ;aurant Unh al Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 $ Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
8.2 PERMEABILITY TEST
A constant head permeability test was performed on the `remolded" bulk soil sample recovered
from boring location B8 by measuring the water flow through the sample for time versus flow
volume. This data was used to calculate the coefficient of permeability (K) of the soil. The result
of this test is found in the laboratory results section of this report.
9.0 SOIL STRATIGRAPHY
9.1 GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
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
stabilized groundwater levels are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. The Key to
Boring Logs, Soil Classification Chart is also included in Appendix A. The soil profiles were
prepared from field logs after the recovered soil samples were examined by a Geotechnical
Engineer.
The stratification lines shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between
soil types, and may not depict exact subsurface soil conditions. The actual soil boundaries may
be more transitional than depicted. A generalized profile of the soils encountered at our boring
locations is presented in the following Table ll. For more detailed soil profiles, please refer to the
attached boring logs.
TABLE II
GENERALIZED SOIL PROFILE
Depth
Approximate
Encountered
Thickness.
Soil Description
(feet, bls)
(feet)
Surface
0.4 to 0.5
Concrete pavement. Encountered at boring locations B1
through B5 inclusive.
Fill soils consisting of fine sands with varying quantities of silt,
clay, roots, gravel, clay lumps and broken shell [SP-SM, SC];
loose to very dense. At boring location B7, which lies within or
Surface
2 to 5+
adjacent to the former septic drain field area, the thickness of
the fill stratum was not determined. At boring location B1 the
fill stratum is underlain by approximately 1 foot of fine sand
with traces of roots (topsoil) SP-SM .
2 to 3
0 to 3
Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]; medium dense to very dense.
Interbedded fine sands with silt [SP-SM] and clayey fine sands
4 to 5
3+ to 11+
[SC] with variable quantities of broken shell; very loose to
medium dense.
NOTE: [] denotes Unified Soil Classification system designation.
+ indicates strata encountered at boring termination, total thickness undetermined.
6
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
Proposed Burger King . , aurant Unir' II Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
10.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
10.1 EXISTING GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
We measured the water levels within the boreholes on June 9, 2017 after the ground water was
allowed to stabilize. As shown on the attached boring logs, the groundwater level depths ranged
from 0.9 foot bls at boring location B6 to 2.8 feet bls at boring location B5. Fluctuations in
groundwater levels should be anticipated throughout the year, primarily due to seasonal
variations in rainfall, surface runoff, and other factors that may vary from the time the borings
were conducted.
10.2 TYPICAL WET SEASON HIGH GROUNDWATER LEVEL
The typical wet season high groundwater level is defined as the highest groundwater level
sustained for a period of 2 to 4 weeks during the "wet" season of the year, for existing site
conditions, in a year with average normal rainfall amounts. Based on historical data, the rainy
season in Saint Lucie County, Florida is between June and October of the year. In order to
estimate the wet season water level at the boring locations, many factors are examined,
including the following:
a. Measured groundwater level
b. Drainage characteristics of existing soil types
C. Season of the year (wet/dry season)
d. Current & historical rainfall data (recent and year-to-date)
e. Natural relief points (such as lakes, rivers, swamp areas, etc.)
f. Man-made drainage systems (ditches, canals, etc.)
g. Distances to relief points and man-made drainage systems
h. On -site types of vegetation
L Area topography (ground surface elevations)
Groundwater level readings were taken on June 9, 2017. According to data from the Southeast
Regional Climate Center and the National Weather Service, the total rainfall in June 2017
through June 8° was approximately 4.1 inches, which is about 2.3 inches above the normal for
that period. Total rainfall in the previous month of May 2017 for central Saint Lucie County was
approximately 4 inches, roughly at the normal levels for the month of May. Year-to-date rainfall
for 2017 through June 81h was approximately 14.3 inches, roughly 2 inches below the normal
level for this time period.
Based on this information and factors listed above, we estimate that the typical wet season high
groundwater levels at the boring locations will be approximately 1'/2 feet above the existing
measured levels. Please note, however, that peak stage elevations immediately following
various intense storm events, may be somewhat higher than the estimated typical wet season
levels.
Due to the variable silt and clay content within the near surface soils at this site, we suspect that
there may be occasional isolated pockets of "perched" groundwater throughout the project area,
particularly during periods of prolonged wet weather. These temporary perched water table
levels may be higher than the estimated wet season high groundwater levels indicated above.
7
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
Proposed Burger King' aurant Uni' V Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kittennan Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
10.3 SOUTH FLORIDA EXFILTRATION TESTS RESULTS
The results obtained from the SFWMD exfiltration test, where K is the coefficient of hydraulic
conductivity are as follows:
Boring Location 138:
K = 2.4 x 10-5 cfs/ft2 - ft
Depth of Test, Surface to 4 feet
Depth to Groundwater Table: 1.3 feet bls
Soil types encountered:
0 to 4 feet bls Fine sands, trace of silt [SP]
4 to 5 feet bls Clayey fine sands [SC]
5 to 7 feet bls Fine sands with silt [SP-SM]
7 to 15 feet bls Clayey fine sand [SC]
11.0 LABORATORY RESULTS
11.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
The soil samples submitted for analysis were classified as fine sands [SP], fine sands with silt
[SP-SM] and clayey fine sands with silt [SC]. The percentage of soil sizes passing the #200
sieve size are shown on the boring logs at the approximate depth sampled.
11.2 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 ISM], clayey sands [SC], silts [ML] and clays [CL] are
typically within the extremely slow to slow class.
8
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King , _?aurant Unt . r31 Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
The results obtained from our laboratory permeability test, where K is the coefficient of
permeability, are displayed in Table III below:
TABLE III
PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS
Boring Location
Soil Type
Sample Depth (feet)
Permeability
Rate K (in/hr)
Permeability
Class
B8
Fine sand with silt
[SP-SM]
3.0
2.3
Moderately 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, water level in the pond, the elevation of the wet
season water table, and the confining layer.
12.0 PROPOSED RESTAURANT BUILDING
12.1 ANALYSIS
Based upon the results of the soil borings, the existing fill and native soils within the proposed
building area have a generally medium dense consistency reflecting apparent significant
compactive efforts during the original mass grading operations at this site. Therefore, the
primary concern would be the densification of any remaining loose pockets within the existing
soil mass and the overlying fill materials. This will help create a soil mat capable of dissipating
the building loads over any remaining loose strata at depth. We believe that this can be
effectively accomplished by compacting the fill soils with a large static roller or medium sized
vibratory rollers by filling to grade in compacted lifts as recommended in section 12.3 (Site
Preparation Procedures) of this report.
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. If the structural loadings, building locations or grading plans change from
those discussed previously, we request the opportunity to review and possibly amend our
recommendations with respect to those changes.
12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Provided our suggested site preparation procedures are followed, we recommend designing
conventional, shallow spread footings foundations for a maximum allowable soil -contact
pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Even though computed soil -contact pressures
may not warrant it, strip and square footings should have minimum widths of at least 18 and 24
inches, respectively to prevent "shear punch" deformations. The base of all footings should be
at least 18 inches below finished grade elevation, with the exception of a thickened -edge slab
foundation system for which a minimum depth of 14 inches is acceptable.
Assuming existing soils and added structural fill soils are prepared and footings are designed
according to our recommendations, we estimate maximum total vertical settlements of the
proposed residence will be less than % inch and maximum differential settlements will be less
than '/z inch. Almost all of the expected settlement will take place as soon as the soil fill and
9
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King. ilaurant LIM V Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
structural loads have been applied to the densified existing sandy soil (and overlying sandy soil
fill).
We recommend using a sheet vapor barrier, such as visqueen, beneath the building slab -on -
grades to help control moisture migration through the slabs. Floor slabs can be supported upon
the compacted fill and should be structurally isolated from other foundations elements or
adequately reinforced to prevent distress due to differential movements. We recommend that
the ground floor slabs be designed using an assumed modulus of subgrade reaction of k = 150
pounds per cubic inch (pci). 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.
12.3 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES
Listed below are Universal's recommended procedures to prepare the site for the proposed
restaurant construction.
Strip the footprint of the proposed building, plus a minimum margin of at least 5 feet beyond
foundation lines, of existing vegetation, roots, pavements, slabs, foundations, debris, rubble,
organic topsoils, etc. Any collapsible or leak prone utilities should be completely removed
from within the location of the proposed building.
It has been our experience that the subsoils within previously developed areas sometimes
contain pockets of buried rubble, muck, debris or other deleterious materials. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that the stripped surface be observed and Drobed by representatives of
Universal. Any deleterious matter remaining should be removed and replaced with clean fine
sands [SP] as recommended below.
2. The subsurface soils beneath the proposed building footprint, including the 5 feet margin,
should be densified to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density
(ASTM D 1557, Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000
ft-Ibf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3))) to at least 12 inches below the stripped surface. Please note that
the existing fill soils at this site contain varying quantities of silt & clay rSP, SP-SM, SCI.
Such soils tend to readily hold moisture and therefore, depending upon the variations in
moisture contents, may require more stringent comDactive efforts than clean fine sands
U:
3. If vibratory equipment is used for proof rolling and to compact fill, then we recommend using
vibratory rollers weighing less than 1 ton within 20 feet of existing structures, less than 2
tons between 20 to 40 feet, up to 6 tons between 40 to 100 feet, and less than 10 tons
beyond 100 feet. The use of heavier equipment may damage existing neighboring
structures. Otherwise static rollers weighing more than 5 tons should be used.
4. Proof -roll the exposed subsurface soils under the observation of Universal, to locate any
unforeseen soft areas of unsuitable soils, and to increase the density of the shallow loose
fine sand soils. Each pass should overlap the proceeding pass by roughly 30 percent to
insure complete coverage. If deemed necessary by Universal, in areas that continue to
"yield", remove any deleterious materials and replace with a clean, compacted sand backfill.
10
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
Proposed Burger King faurant Uni 31 Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
5. Depending on weather conditions or other factors, the addition or removal (dewatering) of
water may be necessary to aid compactive efforts. Additional passes with compaction
equipment or over excavation and replacement in compacted layers may be necessary if the
minimum density requirements are not achieved by the recommended proof -rolling.
6. Within the building area, fill to floor slab grade as necessary with select structural fill, placed
in maximum 10 inch loose lifts. We recommend using fill soils consisting of sands with less
than 10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP-SM, or SP-SC]. Each lift of structural fill
should be densified to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density
of the soil (ASTM D 1557) and tested for compaction and approved before the placement of
subsequent lifts.
7. Footing and utility excavations and other construction activities frequently disturb compacted
subsoils to various depths; therefore, compaction beneath all floor slabs and footings should
be verified to a depth of 1 foot immediately prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and
concrete, and should meet at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry
density of the soil (ASTM D 1557).
8. Field density tests should be performed by Universal at appropriate times during earthwork
operations in order to verify that the compaction requirements have been satisfied. These
tests should be performed after compaction in the existing fill soils, after placement of each
lift of new structural fill, within all footing excavations, and beneath all concrete slab -on -
grade locations. Compaction tests should be performed at a frequency of not less than three
tests per each foot of compacted increment as specified herein. In addition, we recommend
that at least every -other column footing be tested with at least one test per every 50 linear
feet of wall footing.
13.0 PAVEMENTS
We recommend using either a rigid concrete pavement or a flexible asphaltic pavement section
on this project. Flexible pavements combine the strength and durability of several layer
components to produce an appropriate and cost-effective combination of locally available
construction materials. Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel
loads to the subgrade soils than a flexible asphalt pavement; therefore, requiring less subgrade
preparation than a comparable flexible pavement section.
13.1 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES
Densification of any loose pockets within the existing fill soils, together with the new fill layers,
will be required in all parking and drive areas, in order to both help ensure an adequate
subgrade capacity and to limit subsequent settlements due to traffic vibrations. Within the
parking/drive areas we recommend that the existing surficial soils be proof rolled with a heavy
piece of equipment, such as a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck, under the observation of
Universal personnel. Any areas which exhibit instability under rolling should be examined by
Universal for possible removal and replacement with compacted select backfill.
All parking lot subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor
test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) to a depth of at least 2 feet below bottom of base
course levels, or the full depth of new fill and the top 12 inches of existing subgrade soils,
whichever is greater.
11
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King jaurant Uni' 31 Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
Soil density testing to verify the uniformity of compactive efforts should be performed at a
frequency of one test per 10,000 square feet, one per each foot of compacted increment, as
specified herein, or at a minimum of three test locations, whichever is greater.
All sufcial root mats, vegetation, deleterious soils, pavements, foundations, slabs, rubble and
debris should be completely removed from the proposed new pavement areas. Any collapsible
or leak prone utility lines remaining within the new pavement areas should either be completely
removed or grouted closed.
All pavement area fill should consist of clean select fill, consisting of sandy soils with less than
10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP-SM, or SP-SC], placed in 12 inch lifts with each lift
compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D
1557).
If vibratory equipment is used to compact fill, subgrade and base courses, then we recommend
using vibratory rollers weighing less than 1 ton within 20 feet of existing structures, less than 2
tons within distances of 20 to 40 feet, less than 6 tons from 40 feet to 100 feet and up to 10 tons
beyond 100 feet. The use of heavier equipment may damage existing neighboring structures.
Depending on weather conditions and other factors, the addition or removal (dewatering) of
water may be necessary to aid compactive efforts.
13.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
13.2.1 Asphaltic (Flexible) Pavements
Standard duty pavement areas are defined as having car and pickup truck loading conditions.
Heavy duty areas are defined as having delivery, storage, and garbage truck loading conditions
along with service drives. Assuming a) the subgrade soils are compacted to 95 percent of
Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) with a design LBR value of 40 (after
stabilization), b) a 20 year design life, c) terminal serviceability index (Pt) of 2, d) reliability of 90
percent, and e) total equivalent 18 kip single axle loads (E18SAL) of 50,000, we recommend the
minimum design shown in the following Table IV, for a standard duty asphalt pavement.
12
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King aurant Unh _sllProject No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
TABLE IV
MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTILIMEROCK PAVEMENT
Pavement Layer
Thickness
Minimum Requirements
Asphalt Wearing Surface
95% Laboratory Marshall Density, Mix to be
FDOT Type S-1 (SP-12.5)
1.5 Inch Minimum
approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it
or S-III (SP-9.5)
should be compacted to at least 92% of the
maximum theoretical density.
Limerock, Cemented Coquina,
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
or Recycled Concrete Base
6 Inch Minimum
density, Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at
least 100 (150 for recycled concrete).
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
Stabilized Subbase Course
8 Inch Minimum
density, stabilized to a Limerock Bearing Ratio
(LBR) of at least 40.
Assuming the above factors for standard duty pavements apply to heavy duty pavements where
heavy trucks such as delivery & refuse collection vehicles would traverse (i.e. loadings of up to
150,000 E18SALs), we recommend using the following design in Table V for minimum heavy
duty pavement areas.
TABLE V
MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT/LIMEROCK PAVEMENT
Pavement Layer
Thickness
Minimum Requirements
Asphalt Wearing Surface
95% Laboratory Marshall Density, Mix to be
FDOT Type S-1 (SP-12.5)
2 Inch Minimum
approved by Universal. If an SP mix is used, it
or S-III (SP-9.5)
should be compacted to at least 92% of the
maximum theoretical density.
Limerock, Cemented Coquina,
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
or Recycled Concrete Base
8 Inch Minimum
density, Limerock Bearing Ratio (LBR) of at
least 100 (150 for recycled concrete).
98% Modified Proctor test maximum dry
Stabilized Subbase Course
12 Inch Minimum
density, stabilized to a Limerock Bearing Ratio
(LBR) of at least 40.
We recommend designing asphaltic pavements with at least 18 inches of clearance between
the bottom of the pavement base course and the estimated typical wet season groundwater
level. A thorough testing and inspection program should be incorporated during the pavement
construction.
Stabilized subgrade can be imported materials or a blend of on -site and imported materials. If a
blend is proposed, we recommend that the contractor perform a mix design to find the optimum
mix proportions. Compaction testing of the stabilized subgrade, and the subsequent limerock
base course material should be performed to full depth at a minimum of at least four test
locations. After placement and field compaction, the wearing surface should be cored to
evaluate material thickness and to perform laboratory densities of the asphaltic surfacing.
In parking lots, for extended life expectancy of the surface course, we recommend applying a
coal tar emulsion sealer at least six months after placement of the surface course. The seal coat
13
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King rlaurant Uni: el Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
will help patch cracks and voids, and protect the surface from damaging ultraviolet light and
automobile liquid spillage. Please note that applying the seal coat prior to six months after
placement may hinder the "curing" of the surface course, leading to its early deterioration.
We recommend that all materials used in pavement construction comply with the latest edition
of the Florida Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications For Road and Bridge
Construction. Universal should be allowed to review and comment on the final asphalt
pavement design.
13.2.2 Concrete (Rigid) Pavements
Concrete pavement is a rigid pavement that transfers much lighter wheel loads to the subgrade
soils than a flexible asphalt pavement. We recommend using the existing surficial sands or fine
sand fill [SP, SP-SM, or SP-SC], densified to at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor test
maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) without additional stabilization, with the following
stipulations.
1. Subgrade soils must be densified to at least 95 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum
dry density (ASTM D 1557) for a depth of at least 2 feet, or the full depth of new fill,
whichever is greater, prior to placement of concrete.
2. The surface of the subgrade soils must be smooth, and any disturbances or wheel rutting
corrected prior to placement of concrete.
3. The subgrade soils must be moistened prior to placement of concrete.
4. Concrete pavement thickness should be uniform throughout, with exception to the thickened
edges (curb or footing).
5. The bottom of the pavement should be separated from the estimated typical wet season
groundwater level by at least 1 foot.
Based on slab thickness for standard duty concrete pavements are based on the subgrade soils
densified to 95 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density we recommend using the
design shown in the following Table VI for standard duty (loadings of up to 50,000 E18SALs)
concrete pavements.
TABLE VI
MINIMUM STANDARD DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Minimum Pavement
Thickness
Maximum Control
Joint Spacing
Minimum Saw Cut Depth
6 Inches
10 Feet x 10 Feet
1-1/4 Inches
Our recommendations on slab thickness for heavy duty concrete pavements (loadings of up to
150,000 E18SALs) are based on the same factors as above. Our recommended minimum
design for heavy duty concrete pavement is shown in Table VII below.
14
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King'' ifaurant Uni- 3/ Project No. 0330.1700067. 0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
TABLE VII
MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY (UNREINFORCED) CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Minimum Pavement
Thickness
Maximum Control
Joint Spacing
Minimum Saw Cut Depth
7 Inches
14 Feet x 14 Feet
1-3/4 Inches -d
We recommend using concrete with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of at least 4000
pounds per square inch. Layout of the Saw cut control joints should form square panels, and the
depth of Saw cut joints should be at least''% of the concrete slab thickness.
We recommend allowing Universal to review and comment on the final concrete pavement
design, including section and joint details (type of joints, joint spacing, etc.), prior to the start of
construction.
For further details on concrete pavement construction, please reference the "Guide to Jointing
of Non -Reinforced Concrete Pavements" published by the Florida Concrete and Products
Association, Inc., and "Building Quality Concrete Parking Areas", published by the Portland
Cement Association.
Compaction testing of the subgrade soils should be performed to the full depths recommended
herein at a minimum of at least four locations. Cylinder specimens to verify the compressive
strength of the pavement concrete should be obtained for at least every 50 cubic yards, or at
least one set for each day's placement, whichever is greater.
14.0 PROPOSED DETENTION BASIN
We understand that the stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected
within a proposed detention basin to be located within the northeastern portions of the project
site.
The hydraulic capacity of stormwater retention/detention areas is principally a function of the
ability of the surface soil to receive and percolate the storm water runoff. Upon reaching the
groundwater table or a restrictive layer, the stormwater runoff begins to mound. The amount and
rate of rise in the recharge mound depends on several factors, including the thickness and
permeability of the receiving stratum, the elevation of the groundwater table, and the geometry
of the loaded area.
The majority of the near surface soils within the detention basin area (boring location B8)
appear to be to mostly fill soils consisting of fine sands with silt and gravel [SP-SM] to a depth of
approximately 2 feet bls, underlain by fine sands with silt [SP-SM] to a depth of approximately 4
feet bls, and further underlain by interbedded fine sands with silt [SP-SM] and clayey fine sands
[SC], which should be considered aquicludes in retention pond design.
We estimate that the site surficial sands (above the groundwater table) would exhibit a fillable
porosity of approximately N = 25%. For dry retention systems to be used at this project, we
recommend that the site be filled/contoured to allow pond bottom levels of at least 1 foot above
the estimated wet seasonal high groundwater level.
15
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa[Engineering.com
Proposed Burger King aurant Unit- it Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
Please note that the action of earthmoving equipment tends to densify the subsoils at the
bottom of pond level during retention pond construction/modification; somewhat reducing their
permeability rate. Therefore, we recommend that the permeability rates listed in Table III and
Section 10.3 be reduced by 25% for retention basin design.
The actual infiltration rate of retention pond subsoils is influenced by the coefficient of
permeability as well as several factors, including the elevation of the pond bottom, water level in
the pond, the elevation of the wet season water table, and the confining layer. These factors
must be accounted for in an appropriate groundwater model to determine the infiltration rate of a
given soil stratum. We recommend the designer use a commercial software program such as
"Ponds" or "Modret" in order to evaluate this pond. Universal would be pleased to perform a
storm water infiltration study at your request.
After the configuration of the proposed site detention basin is 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 SEWER AND UTILITY LINES
15.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
We assume that proposed sewer and other utility lines at the site may have invert elevations
roughly 2 to 4 feet below existing grades. Based on the results of the soil borings and our
general knowledge of the area, we suspect there may be occasional soft/deleterious pockets at
this invert level. If encountered, such deleterious lavers should be over excavated and replaced
with approved backfill or open graded gravel.
15.2 SITE PREPARATION PROCEDURES
The following is our recommended procedures to prepare the site soils for construction of the
proposed utility lines.
1. Install a dewatering system capable of maintaining a groundwater level at least 2 feet below
bottom of pipe level.
2. Excavate and install the proposed utility lines. Any deleterious soils encountered at pipe
bedding level should be examined by representatives of Universal for possible removal and
replacement with clean fine sands [SP] as previously discussed. All replacement soils
should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor test maximum dry
density (ASTM D1557) with small vibratory plates or rollers.
3. Backfill to grade with sandy soils with less than 10% passing the #200 sieve size [SP, SP-
SM, or SP-SC], placed in 12 inch loose lifts with each lift compacted, with vibratory rollers or
plates weighing less than 4 tons, to at least 98 percent of the Modified Proctor test
maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557).
Backfill above and around thrust blocks should consist of clean fine sands [SP] compacted at
least 98 percent of Modified Proctor test maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). For a design
criteria, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure coefficient of KP 3.0.
16
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
Proposed Burger King aurant Uni^ al Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
16.0 DEWATERING
Based on the water level conditions encountered, control of the groundwater will probably be
required to achieve the necessary excavation, construction, backfilling and compaction
requirements presented in the preceding sections. If dewatering becomes necessary and
regardless of the method(s) used, we suggest drawing down the water level at least 2 feet
below the bottom of the excavations to preclude "pumping" and/or compaction -related problems
with the foundation and/or subgrade soils. The actual method(s) of dewatering should be
determined by the contractor.
Dewatering should be accomplished with the knowledge that the permeability of soils decreases
with increasing silt [M] and/or clay [C] content. Therefore, a clayey fine sand [C] is less
permeable than a fine sand [SP]. The fine sand, fine sand with clay and clayey fine sand [SP,
SP-SC and SC] soil types can usually be dewatered by well pointing.
It should be noted that the typical wet season groundwater levels previously listed may be
temporarily exceeded during any given year in the future. Should impediments to surface water
drainage exist on the site, or should rainfall intensity and duration, or total rainfall quantities
exceed the normally anticipated rainfall quantities, groundwater levels may exceed our seasonal
high estimates. We recommend positive drainage be established and maintained on the site
during construction. We further recommend permanent measures be constructed to maintain
positive drainage from the site throughout the life of the project. We recommend that the
contract documents provide for determining the depth to the groundwater table just prior to
construction, and for any required remedial dewatering.
17.0 EXCAVATIONS
Excavations should be sloped as necessary to prevent slope failure and to allow backfilling. As
a minimum, temporary excavations below 4-foot depth should be sloped in accordance with
OSHA regulations (29 CFR Par 1926) dated October 31, 1989. Where lateral confinement will
not permit slopes to be laid back, the excavation should be shored in accordance with OSHA
requirements. During excavation, excavated material should not be stockpiled at the top of the
slope within a horizontal distance equal to the excavation depth. Provisions for maintaining
workman safety within excavations is the sole responsibility of the contractor.
18.0 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Vibrations produced during vibratory compaction operations at the site may be significantly
noticeable within 100 feet and may cause settlement distress of adjacent structures if not
properly regulated. Therefore, provisions should be made to monitor these vibrations by
Universal so that any necessary modifications in the compaction operations can be made in the
field before potential damages occur. In addition, the conditions of the existing adjacent
structures should be ascertained and documented prior to vibratory operations. Slight cosmetic
damage (e.g. hairline cracks in stucco, plaster, or masonry) may occur in conjunction with
compaction operations.
19.0 CLOSURE
The soil and groundwater conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration of the
property and the results of the laboratory analysis identified no geotechnical issues that will
significantly hinder development of the proposed project, as we currently understand it, using
17
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.Universa]Engineering.com
Proposed Burger King aurant Unix, d Project No. 0330.1700067.0000
NEC U.S. Hwy. 1 & Kitterman Rd., Port Saint Lucie, Florida Subsurface Exploration
conventional construction practices. Standard methods of surficial stripping, excavation, proof
rolling, compaction and backfilling should adequately prepare the site.
The geotechnical engineering design does not end with the advertisement of the construction
documents. The design is an on -going process throughout construction. Because of our
familiarity with the site conditions and the intent of the engineering design, we are most qualified
to address site problems or construction changes, which may arise during construction, in a
timely and cost-effective manner.
We recommend the owner retain the Universal Fort Pierce office to provide inspection services
during the site preparation procedures for confirmation of the adequacy of the earthwork
operations. Field tests and observations include verification of foundation subgrades by
monitoring proof -rolling operations and performing quality assurance tests of the placement of
compacted structural fill and pavement courses.
18
820 Brevard Avenue, Rockledge, Florida 32955 (321) 638-0808 Fax (321) 638-0978
www.UniversalEngineering.com
FIGURES
48
1 a
Source: USDA Soil Survey of Saint
Lucie County Area, Florida (1980)
UNIVERSAL
ENGINEMNGSCIENCES
0 Approximate Project Location
PROPOSED BURGER KING RESTAURANT
NEC U.S. HIGHWAY 1 & KITTERMAN ROAD
PORT ST. LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
r.O LE: " IREPORT NO: JPAGENO:
-
9 [.fo�� • :.^+A��1�.:-•r+r n u, c:• I = 4v .il4 a;D� _._I',_ —.
1 L• - '4Pp r.e )'a U.S. "r ,i tl'• -.4 ••0•0 ,a �Ir
7d.• :.• •=u t r r:. ••).1: CP fAt
eaY:. ,off• -.sr=:-T r aler. HIGHWAYI
. ••• r •. Joan: <g,ya,, .. _l • _._ - _. ---• j 3
t r :• ,, s :� s _
f _�... _ _� uae :'�n r i a> a<.: •. :, Pave • • _ - - - -" .�_. __
i r
^ a — SUBJECT r— —
e.,ece•ply a: 1., raffia.. � .: :.., d.e a.l v,. •.,-.-, I
PROPERTY
P O G^ tl•�, p^ ,1 O A S _' h - 3 fv S O p l P e=! a y i (;
t.1otl`e>on; oP. qo .. ga�ea �nD:a,aaB' LOCATION
4 :•'vr iy !•5 V@ i 1._0. •aa 4_4 as �.
Fri �..-1:-1.,P � ✓ � ^ _ _ _ _ _ • _ .t ! ? 1 f�i q Z'
6011, _ r 71.5,14. iia GDq
KIX
TTERMAN
O L u! tl U Y v C , •'6 a P t tl 5 0 4 ��
ROAD _� .•_ea +�_!• �- 1\�\ 11
\\"
5�!' ;'�[va a•a � Har D9; _ "- � IN `\
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Ankona, FL
Topographic Quadrangle Map
(1948; Photorevised 1983) jv
PROPOSED BURGER KING RESTAURANT
NEC U.S. HIGHWAY 1 & KITTERMAN ROAD
PORT ST. LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
ENGINEERING SCIENES
DRmBY: CB
DAre. June 9. 2017
CHECKED BY: BF
DATE June 9. 2017
CAL: NTS PROJECT NO 0330.1700067.0000
REPORTNO:
PAGENO. FIGURE 2
V H N Y I
m�
ti i
r '
d =, n. m
.. / I AT
i / P•n�m yq :a � � ,
pppp FR,�fa,�p
i
'T1
rr
PROPOSED BURGER KING RESTAURANT
ran Z
NEC U.S. HIGHWAY 7 & KITTERMAN ROAD
C
�C
PORT ST. LUCIE, SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
W
z
BORING LOCATION PLAN
Drawn By:
Cactus Bush
Date:
June 9, 2017
Checked By:
Brad Faucett, P.E.
I Date:
June 9, 2017
Project No:
0330.1700067.0000
1 Scale:
1" = 40'
APPENDIX A
u
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECTNO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX A
PROJECT:
Burger King Store 96698
-
NEC US 1 a Kittennan Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION:
SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B1
SHEET:
1 of I
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (it):
DATE STARTED:
619117
WATER TABLE (it): 2.0
DATE FINISHED:
619117
DATE OF READING: 61912017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
i
BLOWS
J
F
m
40.
K
ORG.
g
PER "
Q
f
w u
DESCRIPTION
-200
MC
I NJ
conr.
m
INCREMENT
i
3 0
(%)
I°�)
HR.)
VA)
0-1
b1:a:,
CONCRETE pavement
clayey fine SAND with traces of gravel and broken shell (Fill),
brown, [SC]
3-8-8
a•
14-R
R-
s-R
R•
3.9
21.3
fine SAND with silt and traces of roots (Topsoil), dark brown,
[SP-SM]
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
5
..... ..... ............
.... ..:.:.........
... ............................................
43-5
8
7-9-10
19
BORING TERMINATED AT 7'
` DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R- DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
10
.............................................
............................................
15
.............................................
............................................
20
.............................................
...
...........
......... I
....................
u
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX A
PROJECT: Burger King Store #6598
NEC US 1 S Kittenean Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B2
SHEET:
1 Of I
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
6/9117
WATER TABLE (it): 1.3
DATE FINISHED:
619117
DATE OF READING: 61912017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
w
i
BLOWS
w
ti
m
f
4¢
K
ORG.
[y
PER 6'
<
DESCRIPTION
-200
Mc
(INJ
CONT.
c
q
INCREMENT
z
n
3
o
(Y)
(Y)
HR.)
(%)
0
00NCRETE pavement
clayey fine SAND with traces of gravel and broken shell (Fill),
brown, [SC]
10-12-12
12*
..
8-18-25
1a•
fine SAND with silt, brown, [SP-SM]
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
5
..............................
.............
1-49
13
8-10-10
20
BORING TERMINATED AT 7'
• DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
10
.............................................
............................................
15
.............................................
....
..........
..........
....... I..
........ ..
20
.............................................
............................................
I
u
PROJECT NO.: 0330.1788867.0088
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: Burger King Store 96598
NEC US 1 & Kitterman Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B.3
SHEET:
I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH
RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (it):
DATE STARTED:
618117
WATER TABLE lift):
DATE FINISHED:
618M7
DATE OF READING:
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
om
Q
w
BLOWS
PER 6'
INCREMENT
W
z
3
2
3
o
DESCRIPTION
-�%�
!%�
(INJ
NR.)
CONT.
(°6)
D
?4•
CONCRETE pavement
clayey fine SAND with traces of gravel (Fill), grey, [SC]
2-6-6
6+
3-19-25
19+
_
fine SAND, brown, [SP]
2.9
22.7
11-15-22
15+
:i::•.:i
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
5
X
...............
.......
.....
.... ..
..........
............................................
3-6-B
14
8 72-t3
25
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
9-B-B
16
1D.....¢
....
..±....
.....
... `........
...
fine SAND with silt, gray, [SPSM]
clayey fine SAND with broken shell, grey, [SC]
15
..... ......
.......
'
........
.........................................
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
' DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
20
.............................................
....
...... .:............
..........
.........
u
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX A
PROJECT: Burger King Store#6598
NEC US 1 & Kitterman Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B4
SHEET:
1 Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
619117
WATER TABLE (ft): 2.7
DATE FINISHED:
619117
DATE OF READING: 6/9/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (ft):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
c
a
a
y
BLOWS
PER 6'
INCREMENT
J
Z
F
3
-�
5
❑
DESCRIPTION
-2,�°�
MA°
(wJ
HR)
ORG.
CONT.
M)
CONCRETE pavement
-
fine SAND with silt and traces of gravel, broken shell, and clay
6-22-R
22'
-
lumps (Fill), brown, [SP-SM]
18-R
R'.+°
3-16-24
16•
fine SAND with silt, brown, [SP-SM]
5
...........................
6.6-7
13
::.
..
............................
.............
clayey One SAND, brown, [SC]
5-7-7
14
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
5-6-6
12
10
.....?.:......:1?.......
:.. ':........... ...
............................................
fine SAND with silt, gray, [SP-SM]
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
15
.....'?.......
e........
........
.........................................
BORING TERMINATED AT 15-
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
20
... .......... .:............
.......
....... ....
............................................
u
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: Burger King Store #6698
NEC US 1 & Kittens an Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B5
SHEET:
1 Of I
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (it):
DATE STARTED:
619117
WATER TABLE (it): 2.8
DATE FINISHED:
619M7
DATE OF READING: 619/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
r _
i
BLOWS
j0
K
ORG.
c '
H
z
3
3
DESCRIPTION
-�°�
IINJ
CONT.
INCREMENT
p
)
HR.)
(%)
0
CONCRETE pavement
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell (Fill), brown, [SC]
4-19-25
19•
9-22-R
22•
fine SAND with silt antl traces of broken shell and clay lumps
(Fill), brown, [SP-SM]
3.7
24.7
fine SAND with silt, brown, [SPSM]
14-R
R•
5
X'"
"
clayey fine SAND, brawn, [SC]
9-9-10
19
clayey fine SAND with traces of broken shell, grey, [SC]
8-8-7
15
10
..... S-6:6......
12 .......:.............
fine SAND with silt, gray, [SPSM]
15
.................
�3.......
r.::...
""
'
.....................
....................
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
• DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
R- DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION WITH DYNAMIC
CONE PENETROMETER.
20
...........................
..................
...........................................
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: Burger King Store#6598
NEC US 1 & Kinsman Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: BB
SHEET:
9 Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
618117
WATER TABLE (ft): 0.9
DATE FINISHED:
618117
DATE OF READING: 6/9/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (11):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
2..
a H
J
u
BLOWS
j
-+
f
J
K
ORG.
G LL
cc
PER Sr
3
m
f
w O
3
DESCRIPTION
-200
(°hl
MC
I%)
(INJ
ON T.
y
INCREMENT
2
y
0
Hs.)CAN
fine SAND with silt, broken shell and traces of gravel (Fill),
.'.'..'
brown, [SP-SM]
4-13-16
13•
3-16-22
is-
fine SAND with silt, brown, [SP-SM]
3-3-3
3-
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
17.4
25.3
5
X
.... .-_....................
..i............
.:......
_....
.. _......
... .....,:._......
24-8
72
.
7-9-10
19
BORING TERMINATED AT 7'
`DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER(DCP) VALUES
10
.........:............
... .....
... .....
:......
......,............._:........_...:.
_....
15
...:...........................:.............
............................................
20
.....:................
.....
...... _...........
..............
..........
............_._...
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX A
PROJECT: Burger King Store N6598
NEC US 1 & Kitterman Rd.
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: B7
SHEET:
1 Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (ft):
DATE STARTED:
618117
WATER TABLE (it): 2.9
DATE FINISHED:
618117
DATE OF READING: 6/9/2017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
w
Rfi
w
O
J a
K
ORG.
w
PE
¢
w w
DESCRIPTION
-200
MG
(INJ
CONT.
m
INCREMENT
i
m
3¢
0
m
Hit)
(%)
0
fine SAND with silt and gravel (Fill), brown, ]SP-SM]
5-e-7
e'
xk
7-S-B
8'
ay
3-7-7
7'
5
6-17-..
17•
r.
'
..
BORING TERMINATED AT 5'
`DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUES
10
..:...........:..............................
...
.... .......
....... ...
..... .....
.......... .
15
........._....
._.....
..:....................
.............
_........
..........
..........
20
.............................................
............................................
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0330.1700067.0000
BORING LOG REPORT NO.:
APPENDIX: A
PROJECT: Burger King Store 06698
NEC US 1 & Kitterman Rd.
Pon Saint Lucie, Florida
CLIENT:
LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN
REMARKS:
BORING DESIGNATION: BS
SHEET:
I Of 1
SECTION: TOWNSHIP:
SOUTH RANGE:
EAST
G.S. ELEVATION (it):
DATE STARTED:
618117
WATER TABLE (it): 1.3
DATE FINISHED:
618117
DATE OF READING: 61912017
DRILLED BY:
PM, PG
EST. W.S.W.T. (it):
TYPE OF SAMPLING:
u
BLOWS
j
o
K
ORE.
w
¢
PER 6'
>
3
;
DESCRIPTION
_
20
he
(INJ
CONT.
o
H
INCREMENT
z
W
S
HR.)
(%)
O
fine SAND with silt and gravel (Fill), brown, [SPSM]
Z
fine SAND with traces of silt, grey, ISP]
3.2
20.9
18.9
20.0
clayey fine SAND, brown, [SC]
5
.....................
.....
.........
......... ................................
.:t ; :
fine SAND with silt, gray, [SP-SM]
3-4-10
is
8-9-12
21
clayey fine SAND, grey, [SC]
8-9-8
17
10
8-6-5
...............
11
...............
.'.
.......
... ............................................
15
..... 3-3-3.......6........
.
........
.........................................
BORING TERMINATED AT 15'
20
......................
. ......................
............................................
KEY TO BORING LOGS
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART*
o.......................................................
g
Sand or Gravel [SP,SW,GP,GWJ
.........Grav...............P,GV........
UNIVERSAL
Sand or Gravel With Silt
,z
oClay ..SP.
...............................
................ ..
ENGINEERING
SCIENCES, INC.
w
W
SiIN or Clayyeyy Sand
or Gravel [SM,SC,GM,GC]
N
60
0
0
N
50
i 5o.......................................................
o
H/0H
OZ
LD
zvi
Sandyy or Gravellyy Silt or Clayy
z
J0
to
[ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH]
w
LID
a
70 e
a
20
WO
Silt or Clayy with Sand or Gravel
10
[ML,CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,CL,OH]
uo
0
85.......................................................
a 10 20 30 M 50 60 70 sa eo 100
Slltor Clayy
LIQUID LIMIT
[M4CL-ML,CL,MH,CH,OL,OH]
PLASTICITY CHART
GROUP NAME AND SYMBOL
COARSE GRAINED SOILS
FINE GRAINED SOILS
WELL -GRADED
SANDSISWI
.'°
-'
WELL -GRADED
GRAVELS IGW[
INORGANIC SILTS
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
POORLY -GRADED
SANDS ISP]
ri
G O
POORLY -GRADED
GRAVELS [GPI
INORGANIC SILTY CLAY
[C W PLASTICITY
POORLY -GRADED
SANDS WITH SILT
[SPSMI
°
o
POORLY -GRADED
GRAVELS WITH SILT
[GP -GM]
®
INORGANIC CLAYS
LOW TO MEDIUM
PLASTIGTYICL]
.-
POORLY -GRADED
SANDS WITH CLAY
[SPSC]
°
p
POORLY -GRADED
GRAVELSWITHCLAY
[GPGCI
®
INORGANIC SILTS HIGH
PLASn PLASTICITY IMHf
SILTYSANDS
ISM]
°
G O
SILTYGRAVELS
IGM]
®
INORGANIC CLAYS HIGH
PLASTIGTYICH]
CLAYEYSANDS
ISDI
CLAYEY GRAVELS
[GCI
SILTY CLAYEY SANDS
(SCSMI
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 748T- UNIFIED SOIL
• CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.
'• LOCALLY MAY BE KNOWN AS MUCK
NOTES:
0• - DENOTES DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER (DCP) VALUE
R - DENOTES REFUSAL TO PENETRATION
P - DENOTES PENETRATION WITH ONLY WEIGHT OF DRIVE HAMMER
NIE- DENOTES GROUNDWATER TABLE NOT ENCOUNTERED
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NIC LAYS
LAYS
ORGEl
LOW
LOW PLASTICITY
PLASTICITY
AYS
®MEDIUM
MEDIUM TO HIGH
TO HIGH
PLASTICITY [OH]••
77771
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS
1 „ ,
E]
WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS IPTI••
RELATIVE DENSITY
(SAND AND GRAVEL(
VERYLOOSE-0to Glilf N.
LOOSE - 5 to 10 BlowsAt
MEDIUM DENSE -11 to 30 Blowslft
DENSE - 31 to 60 BlowslR
VERY DENSE- more than 50 BlowsAt
CONSISTENCY
(SILT AND CLAY)
VERY SOFT-0 to 2 Blowslit.
SOFT-3 to 6 BlowsRt
FIRM - 5 to 0 SlowsHL
STIFF-e W IS BlowslR.
VERY STIFF -1T to 30 Blowslit.
HARD -more than W Bloweln.
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A.,
EXHIBIT 1
,t
Geolechnical-Enuineepino Report �
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you — assumedly
a client representative — interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems
that, for decades, have been a principal cause of
construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and
disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a
wide array of risk -confrontation techniques that can
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a
construction project.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil -
works constructor or even different civil engineer. Because each
geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-
engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client Those who
rely on ageotechnical-engineering report prepared far a different client
can be seriously misled. No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except
the one originally contemplated.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read it in its entirety. Do not rely on an
executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. Read. this report
in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
about Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project -specific factors
when designing the study behind this report and developing the
confirmation -dependent recommendations the report conveys. A few
typical factors include:
• the clients goals, objectives, budget, schedule, and
risk -management preferences;
• the general nature of the structure involved, its size,
configuration, and performance criteria;
• the structures location and orientation on the site; and
• other planned or existing site improvements, such as
retaining walls, access roads, parking lots, and
underground utilities.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the sites size or shape;
• the function of the proposed structure, as when its
changed from a parking garage to an office building, or
from a light -industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes — even minor ones — and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liabilityfor problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a
portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or
environmental remediation, or natural events like floods,
droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified
codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. (f your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an "apply -by" date on the report,
ask what it should be, and, in general, if you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying it. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis — if any is required at all — could prevent major problems.
Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are
Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a sites
subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed. The
data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgment to
form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual
sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ— maybe significantly— from
those indicated in this report Confront that risk by retaining your
geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
project finish; so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
whenever needed.
This Report's Recommendations Are
Confirmation -Dependent
The recommendations included in this report - including any options
or alternatives - are confirmation -dependent. In other words, they are
not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. If through observation your
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist
actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming
no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared
this report cannot assume responsibility or liabilityfor confirmation -
dependent recommendations ifyou fail to retain that engineer to perform
construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve w a full-time member of the
design team, to:
• confer with other design -team members,
• help develop specifications,
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals
plans and specifications, and
• be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering
guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction
observation.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated -subsurface -conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational
purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note
that "informational purposes" means constructors have no right to rely
on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in
the report, but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific
times, locations, and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements,
including options selected from the report, only from the design
drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may
perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough
time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position
to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring
them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction
conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. That lack of understanding has nurtured
unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays,
cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical
engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled "limitations," many of these provisions indicate
where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end, to help
others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these
provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study- e.g., a "phase -one" or "phase -two" environmental
site assessment- differ significantly from those used to perform
a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-
engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of
encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk -management
guidance. As a general rule, do not rely on an environmental report
prepared far a different client, site, orproject, or that is more than six
months old.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, none of the engineer's
services were designed, conducted, or intended to prevent uncontrolled
migration of moisture - including water vapor - from the soil through
building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can
cause mold growth and material -performance deficiencies. Accordingly,
proper implementation of thegeotechnical engineer's recommendations
will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront
the risk of moisture infiltration by including building -envelope or mold
specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building -
envelope or mold specialists.
GE/� GEOPROFESSIONAL
�® BUSINESS
® ASSOCIATION
Telephone: 301 /565-2733
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction. or copying ofthis document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly
prohibited, except with GBds specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording fi am this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or hook review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording m a complement to or as an element cis report of any
kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent